Harvard Study Reveals HUGE Extent of Anti-Trump Media Bias

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: Kryties

Oh, you'd be perpetrating all right. You just wouldn't see it as such.

Good to see you're in the business up making stuff up with no proof.

As far as holding someone accountable for their actions, you lost that one when Hillary skated out of the classified email fiasco.

I didn't support Hillary either.

It's at this point that most Trump Supporters heads explode when they simply cannot comprehend that someone who didn't support Trump ALSO didn't support Hillary.....

At any rate, you'll need the support of the moderate population to achieve your goal. Right now you've got them running in the other direction.

My goal? I'm Australian, I'm just looking in from an outside perspective and watching the carnage. Fail again.

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: underpass61

What are they supposed to do? Sit back and let hard-Right nutters take over the country and force everyone else to live by their narrow and limited standards? Is everyone supposed to sit back while Trump systematically destroys the country?

By "narrow and limited standards" do you mean our existing laws?

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.

We expect civility and decorum within all topics.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

originally posted by: bluesjr

By "narrow and limited standards" do you mean our existing laws?

Obviously not. Obviously I mean all the things Trump said he would do that played to the likes of the hard-Right (none of which have occurred because of his incompetence and the checks and balances that exist but that's another story...)

Seems like a bit of a silly question really.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If a news network like CNN, is in fact not biased, and it is all Trump's fault, why would they report 2 scoops of ice cream?

Ever heard of the term "slow news day" before? But no it's gotta be the most melodramatic bs you can think of instead. Lol. Like I said earlier, you are just proving yourself to be disingenuous.

lol lets use that logic your claiming. why if on a slow news day do they turn to melodramatic BS like the 2 scoops story?

"Because CNN was TROLLING you! And you can't see it! Haha! It was just a story to trigger conservative snowflakes! And you're falling for it! Look at you!"

Whoops, sorry. My brain got infected by Trumpthink for a second..

that has nothing to do with the question but go ahead and run with that assumption.

Just seeing what it's like to look at a news story through a Trump supporter's eyes.

and you know that how? cause im asking him to explain a hypocritical statement where his logic is flawed? fyi didnt vote for the man. i am a proponent of making good arguments though.

Because that's the thinking a lot of times. Need a link to the front page?

sorry but u need to go inform yourself on the post i questioned. im not the one who brought up the 2 scoops story. till then try not to assume something u have no idea about. this is the problem many find with democrats and republicans. they are so blinded and their minds so closed off they have lost the ability to reason and instead prescribe labels to anyone who has a different opinion then they do rather then to have an intelligent conversation.

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If a news network like CNN, is in fact not biased, and it is all Trump's fault, why would they report 2 scoops of ice cream?

Ever heard of the term "slow news day" before? But no it's gotta be the most melodramatic bs you can think of instead. Lol. Like I said earlier, you are just proving yourself to be disingenuous.

lol lets use that logic your claiming. why if on a slow news day do they turn to melodramatic BS like the 2 scoops story?

"Because CNN was TROLLING you! And you can't see it! Haha! It was just a story to trigger conservative snowflakes! And you're falling for it! Look at you!"

Whoops, sorry. My brain got infected by Trumpthink for a second..

that has nothing to do with the question but go ahead and run with that assumption.

Just seeing what it's like to look at a news story through a Trump supporter's eyes.

and you know that how? cause im asking him to explain a hypocritical statement where his logic is flawed? fyi didnt vote for the man. i am a proponent of making good arguments though.

Because that's the thinking a lot of times. Need a link to the front page?

sorry but u need to go inform yourself on the post i questioned. im not the one who brought up the 2 scoops story. till then try not to assume something u have no idea about. this is the problem many find with democrats and republicans. they are so blinded and their minds so closed off they have lost the ability to reason and instead prescribe labels to anyone who has a different opinion then they do rather then to have an intelligent conversation.

I was just making a joke regarding the two scoops story everyone keeps harping on.

Apologies if it was off topic.

originally posted by: Kryties

My goal? I'm Australian, I'm just looking in from an outside perspective and watching the carnage. Fail again.

Well then I'm glad you're enjoying your seat in the peanut gallery

a reply to: Gargamel

That's been my problem with all of this media bashing...There is no evidence to go with the sources just conjecture. The way it used to work was a source told a journalist something and they went and investigated it...If they found something to it they presented the story and protect the source...But if there was nothing found they didn't go ahead with the story cause it could open them up to a libel suit. These days though the breakdown comes as we protect the journalist who passes these baseless reports which damage the reputation of people while not presenting any evidence except this anonymous source which is not anything but hearsay at that point.

There is a reason hearsay isn't allowed as evidence in a court room.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: bluesjr

By "narrow and limited standards" do you mean our existing laws?

Obviously not. Obviously I mean all the things Trump said he would do that played to the likes of the hard-Right (none of which have occurred because of his incompetence and the checks and balances that exist but that's another story...)

Seems like a bit of a silly question really.

Just trying to understand what is narrow and limited. Most of the things he said during his campaign were all related to enforcing our existing laws, like securing the border and getting back to legal immigration. Or by being tough on gangs to clean up inner cities, or using our tax money for our country and not for others. Or making sure that all refugees and immigrants come here because they love our culture, values, and freedom of religion.

He is doing much of that already despite the full on assault by the media. Just read that they arrested 83 members on the "Bloods" gang in Charlotte and they have been going hard after MS-13. The illegal border crossing attempts have fallen off of the pace they have been at for decades. So its working and its all just enforcing existing laws like we should have been all along.

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Kryties

My goal? I'm Australian, I'm just looking in from an outside perspective and watching the carnage. Fail again.

Well then I'm glad you're enjoying your seat in the peanut gallery

Not so much enjoying it as sitting back aghast at the calamity unfolding over there - one as foreseeable, yet apparently unavoidable, as a train crash in slow motion.

a reply to: TheScale
I don't know. Ask CNN. Why did Fox and conservative media pursue a non-story for 8 years about the President's birth?

originally posted by: Gargamel

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Gargamel

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gargamel

I don't recall ever making that point or even insinuating it.

Do you agree that an anonymous source should be backed up with facts? Did you not say that Trump's followers blindly listened without vetting the information? It seems to me you are fine with anonymous sources not being vetted but require Trump followers to vett information that they read. Am I misunderstanding what you have said?

I think I understand the breakdown here. You are making an assumption that these sources aren't vetted just because they are anonymous. Furthermore, there are times when Trump comes out and confirms a leak after the fact, which gives credence to the credibility of these leakers. I've yet to see a Trump supporter change their mind on a leak even when Trump confirms it. They usually attempt to spin it so he is saying something else.

I am not assuming that the sources are not vetted. I do not see any corroborating evidence other than the anonymous source. If in fact these sources where vetted there should be evidence that backs up the narrative.

Well that's because the sources are protecting themselves. Trump has declared that he is looking to prosecute the leakers. So they have to protect their skin.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheScale
I don't know. Ask CNN. Why did Fox and conservative media pursue a non-story for 8 years about the President's birth?

well if youve ever played around with photoshop or gump or any other editing software of that nature youd know that the birth certificate put out by the govt was in no way a scan of an actual birth certificate. u cant pull apart the layers in a scan. so there was some smoke there. ive only used gump for maybe 12 hours but know all about how the layering system works. someone forget to do the final pass and compile the layers into a single image.

a reply to: TheScale

Lol. You just proved that you are a hypocrite by defending that non-story. Pointing out the ice cream story by the liberals but defending the birther conspiracy. You aren't looking for honesty in news. Just to whine the liberal media is being mean to Trump.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheScale

Lol. You just proved that you are a hypocrite by defending that non-story. Pointing out the ice cream story by the liberals but defending the birther conspiracy. You aren't looking for honesty in news. Just to whine the liberal media is being mean to Trump.

i didnt bring up the 2 scoops story it was in reply to a post you made over another person talking about it. i just used that as an example for melodramatic bs that for some reason you called out a poster for but gave the press a free pass over cause of a slow news day.

a reply to: TheScale

It's called GIMP not "Gump"

One has to wonder how good you were with the program when you are unsure of its name.

I have spent years in Photoshop and know all about layering and compiling and I saw no evidence of that in the scan. What I did see evidence of was the automatic character recognition placing white outlines around the text which is normal - but people erroneously thought it was proof of it being faked.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So if they vetted the sources then they found some evidence to back up the sources stories right? So where is that evidence?

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: TheScale

It's called GIMP not "Gump"

One has to wonder how good you were with the program when you are unsure of its name.

I have spent years in Photoshop and know all about layering and compiling and I saw no evidence of that in the scan. What I did see evidence of was the automatic character recognition placing white outlines around the text which is normal - but people erroneously thought it was proof of it being faked.

like i said ive used it for maybe 12 hours. it was years ago. i didnt say the story was legitimate just that there was some smoke there even by your own admission. fyi i meant gimp just hit the wrong key. it is right next 2 "I"

a reply to: TheScale

I'm not giving CNN (seriously stop pretending like that story was written by all the press, it only appeared on CNN) a free pass. That's why I used the term "slow news day". I'm explaining why CNN wrote a ridiculous story because they didn't have anything better to write about. I'm not defending it or agreeing with it. I'm just stating why it happened.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So if they vetted the sources then they found some evidence to back up the sources stories right? So where is that evidence?

That depends on which story you are looking for evidence for. I'm not a mind reader and I'm not about to dump a bunch of evidence to a slew of different leaks into the thread that I'm already pretty sure you won't read and will ignore all to disprove a vague point you made.