It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: bastion
Can the bollocks about MSM hating Trump finally stop yet seeing as it's all lies?
Coverage has hovered around 90% negative for the past couple years. I guess that means they love Trump.
originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Care to explain to me how collusion is supposed to help Putin, if the American economy and military are getting stronger?
Trump’s coverage during his first 100 days set a new standard for negativity. Of news reports with a clear tone, negative reports outpaced positive ones by 80 percent to 20 percent. Trump’s coverage was unsparing. In no week did the coverage drop below 70 percent negative and it reached 90 percent negative at its peak (see Figure 5).
originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
I think I said it already, it's possibly to be a traitor without committing the crime of treason as defined by a particular nation's code. Stop hiding behind this pedantry.
originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: JBurns
So you're saying to me, treason did not exist before the Constitution was written? Was Brutus not a traitor to Caesar? And Judas? Did he not betray the Christ? I'm sure you can think of other examples, if you don't believe in those particular stories.
No, according to you treason was invented by the founding fathers, or by lawyers? For God's sake, just stop this.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: bastion
Disputing something because of where it comes from and not it’s merit is called a genetic fallacy.
“Sigh”
Trump’s coverage during his first 100 days set a new standard for negativity. Of news reports with a clear tone, negative reports outpaced positive ones by 80 percent to 20 percent. Trump’s coverage was unsparing. In no week did the coverage drop below 70 percent negative and it reached 90 percent negative at its peak (see Figure 5).
Try this one: research.hks.harvard.edu...
Let’s see how long you can push your nonsense without evidence.
Did you read the Harvard study, or piece you quoted? It's based on his first 100 days and says 90% negative at its peak - quite bad on the face of it (depends on the story content) - but in no way supports your claim it's been 90% avg over the last two years.
originally posted by: Lumenari
originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
originally posted by: Lumenari
originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Only hard core trump supporters believe his nonsense..
This is the result.
Oddly enough, there appears to have been enough of them to vote him into office.
There will be more of them in 2020.
I highly doubt it... In fact, I predict he'll be a full blown lame duck president from November this year.
No need to wait till 2020 to witness how badly he fails!
Quoted for hilarity!!!
I'm cutting this post and pasting it on a word document I've started called "Quotes to post from ATS libs after the midterm results".
I am also assuming in your world that Hillary is still ahead by 7 points?
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: bastion
Then surely you could say how it was flawed.
Did you read the Harvard study, or piece you quoted? It's based on his first 100 days and says 90% negative at its peak - quite bad on the face of it (depends on the story content) - but in no way supports your claim it's been 90% avg over the last two years.
And it completely refutes your non sequitur that because Donald Trump knows Murdoch, the press don't hate him.