Soon, Republicasns will stop Trump

[bripat9643]

View attachment 183360

You may want to look up the term journalism. Though I am sure you will not get it. Much easier to just believe what you are told. And what you WANT to believe. Dipshit.

Nope, all you have to do is read this so-called journalism yourself. 91% negative reporting on the POTUS in an economy like we have? Nah, no bias reporting there. Of course if Hillary were President and had half of Trump's accomplishments, it would be more like 75% positive reporting.

That is the problem. You say what you want to believe and what you are told to believe. And you are told that the "mainstream Media" produces "fake news". So, lets see a piece of fake news, me boy, from some mainstream media outlet.
Or would you rather just keep saying what you are told to believe, and what to say?

No, I don't "say" what I want to believe. I point out FACTS!

Opinion | Study: 91 percent of recent network Trump coverage has been negative

So you see, it's much more than just an opinion; it's a study.

.
So, let me help you a bit, me poor ignorant con troll. It is not your fault entirely that you are ignorant. Or that you are stupid. Let me give you some facts.
: 1. Journalistic proceedures will alway require that you use impartial sources. As I did with FactCheck.org. Because the source is known to be impartial, that makes it a likely source for TRUTH. This study was printed in the Washington Post. So, on the face of it, that is a good source.
However, STRIKE !:
The study was conducted by the conservative Media Research Center, a right wing web site with a history of being far from impartial. Or, put another way, they are a nut case right wing web site.

Then, It is important to determine what a study proves. And that you are honest with what that is.
Strike 2: The study does not suggest, as you do, that the publications were untrue in saying what they did about Trump. What they said, as far as can be understood, is absolutely true.

Then, you need to be honest about the intent of a study's.
Strike 3. You suggested the articles looked at by the study were slanted toward making Trump look bad. There was no indication that any intent was there to slant the news. It appears that the articles simply stated what the truth was and what happened.

So, there you go. Your mistake in using a very slanted source and making it appear that the studies were unfair to poor Donald Trump and therefor their findings are unfounded. They simply looked at very unpopular actions, outright lies, and actions that actual citizens did not support. Sorry you did not like the fact that those doing articles about Trump told the truth. Now, if you have found areas where they lied, then let us know. Otherwise, you have again just agreed with a nut case right wing source of info.

Only brainwashed snowflake morons believe factcheck.org is impartial. In reality it's just another fake news outlet.

 

[sealybobo]

The trumpster is already rated by historians as the worst president in history. He is rated by fact check organizations as the biggest liar of all politicians. But, his followers are dumber than posts. So they like him just fine.

Republicans insisted obama sucked when he didn’t so so surprise they are now saying things are going great..

They can take that tax break and shove it.

Lol
Obama was/is a shit stain, there would be no trump if there was no obama... karma is a bitch.

I kind of like this shake up of our government. I hope the politicians got the message. Never again. The social experiment changes in november

Anything that damages the federal government is a good thing for the country

That is what is normal with Rustic. He always posts unproven and partial con talking points. Always.

I’m sure if he could he’d do away with the departments energy, education environment and do away with social security and Medicare

Republicans keep telling us social security is going to collapse. It will if we vote for them and people need to realize it.

 

[sealybobo]

You may want to look up the term journalism. Though I am sure you will not get it. Much easier to just believe what you are told. And what you WANT to believe. Dipshit.

Nope, all you have to do is read this so-called journalism yourself. 91% negative reporting on the POTUS in an economy like we have? Nah, no bias reporting there. Of course if Hillary were President and had half of Trump's accomplishments, it would be more like 75% positive reporting.

That is the problem. You say what you want to believe and what you are told to believe. And you are told that the "mainstream Media" produces "fake news". So, lets see a piece of fake news, me boy, from some mainstream media outlet.
Or would you rather just keep saying what you are told to believe, and what to say?

No, I don't "say" what I want to believe. I point out FACTS!

Opinion | Study: 91 percent of recent network Trump coverage has been negative

So you see, it's much more than just an opinion; it's a study.

.
So, let me help you a bit, me poor ignorant con troll. It is not your fault entirely that you are ignorant. Or that you are stupid. Let me give you some facts.
: 1. Journalistic proceedures will alway require that you use impartial sources. As I did with FactCheck.org. Because the source is known to be impartial, that makes it a likely source for TRUTH. This study was printed in the Washington Post. So, on the face of it, that is a good source.
However, STRIKE !:
The study was conducted by the conservative Media Research Center, a right wing web site with a history of being far from impartial. Or, put another way, they are a nut case right wing web site.

Then, It is important to determine what a study proves. And that you are honest with what that is.
Strike 2: The study does not suggest, as you do, that the publications were untrue in saying what they did about Trump. What they said, as far as can be understood, is absolutely true.

Then, you need to be honest about the intent of a study's.
Strike 3. You suggested the articles looked at by the study were slanted toward making Trump look bad. There was no indication that any intent was there to slant the news. It appears that the articles simply stated what the truth was and what happened.

So, there you go. Your mistake in using a very slanted source and making it appear that the studies were unfair to poor Donald Trump and therefor their findings are unfounded. They simply looked at very unpopular actions, outright lies, and actions that actual citizens did not support. Sorry you did not like the fact that those doing articles about Trump told the truth. Now, if you have found areas where they lied, then let us know. Otherwise, you have again just agreed with a nut case right wing source of info.

Only brainwashed snowflake morons believe factcheck.org is impartial. In reality it's just another fake news outlet.

Best thing out there. Covers all the details.

And you are encouraged to find and give us an example of something the said that wasn’t true. All the facts are laid out for you moron

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

View attachment 183360

You may want to look up the term journalism. Though I am sure you will not get it. Much easier to just believe what you are told. And what you WANT to believe. Dipshit.

Nope, all you have to do is read this so-called journalism yourself. 91% negative reporting on the POTUS in an economy like we have? Nah, no bias reporting there. Of course if Hillary were President and had half of Trump's accomplishments, it would be more like 75% positive reporting.

That is the problem. You say what you want to believe and what you are told to believe. And you are told that the "mainstream Media" produces "fake news". So, lets see a piece of fake news, me boy, from some mainstream media outlet.
Or would you rather just keep saying what you are told to believe, and what to say?

No, I don't "say" what I want to believe. I point out FACTS!

Opinion | Study: 91 percent of recent network Trump coverage has been negative

So you see, it's much more than just an opinion; it's a study.

.
So, let me help you a bit, me poor ignorant con troll. It is not your fault entirely that you are ignorant. Or that you are stupid. Let me give you some facts.
: 1. Journalistic proceedures will alway require that you use impartial sources. As I did with FactCheck.org. Because the source is known to be impartial, that makes it a likely source for TRUTH. This study was printed in the Washington Post. So, on the face of it, that is a good source.
However, STRIKE !:
The study was conducted by the conservative Media Research Center, a right wing web site with a history of being far from impartial. Or, put another way, they are a nut case right wing web site.

Then, It is important to determine what a study proves. And that you are honest with what that is.
Strike 2: The study does not suggest, as you do, that the publications were untrue in saying what they did about Trump. What they said, as far as can be understood, is absolutely true.

Then, you need to be honest about the intent of a study's.
Strike 3. You suggested the articles looked at by the study were slanted toward making Trump look bad. There was no indication that any intent was there to slant the news. It appears that the articles simply stated what the truth was and what happened.

So, there you go. Your mistake in using a very slanted source and making it appear that the studies were unfair to poor Donald Trump and therefor their findings are unfounded. They simply looked at very unpopular actions, outright lies, and actions that actual citizens did not support. Sorry you did not like the fact that those doing articles about Trump told the truth. Now, if you have found areas where they lied, then let us know. Otherwise, you have again just agreed with a nut case right wing source of info.

Great. So why don't you post a left-wing source that challenges that?

The truth of the matter is only right sources will inform people of the truth. The left-wing is not going to do a study on what they are getting away with. And you really don't need a study to prove anything. Just turn on any other outlet outside of Fox and tell us how much positive reporting they did on Trump.

The MSM tells the truth. Okay, but how much time do they dedicate their so-called truth about Trump??? As much time as they do with Hillary, Comey, the FISA warrants and applications?

Let me ask, is a Harvard study up to your expectations?

Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative

How about NPR and Pew? Too right-wing for you?

Study: News Coverage Of Trump More Negative Than For Other Presidents

 

[jc456]

It has to be just a matter of time before Republicans in Congress act to stop Trump.

If they don't, the voters will this Fall.

Trump is making a joke of the Executive branch of our country. He is destroying relationships with other countries. He is starting trace warts that will plunge us into a recession. He is afraid to take on Putin. He is using his office for personal gains.

His personal life can no longer be ignored. Porn Stars, Ex Bunnies, accusations of sexual abuse. His constant lying. His stupid floods of tweets.

they must start to counter Trump. Reverse the Tariffs. DACA, Refuse to fund the wall. Act on school shootings with REAL action. And, if necessary, condemn the tweets, lies coming out of the White House. Demand the ouster of Kusher & Ivanka. Rework the tax cuts. On & On.

It’s what the swamp creatures do

 

[jc456]

You may want to look up the term journalism. Though I am sure you will not get it. Much easier to just believe what you are told. And what you WANT to believe. Dipshit.

Nope, all you have to do is read this so-called journalism yourself. 91% negative reporting on the POTUS in an economy like we have? Nah, no bias reporting there. Of course if Hillary were President and had half of Trump's accomplishments, it would be more like 75% positive reporting.

That is the problem. You say what you want to believe and what you are told to believe. And you are told that the "mainstream Media" produces "fake news". So, lets see a piece of fake news, me boy, from some mainstream media outlet.
Or would you rather just keep saying what you are told to believe, and what to say?

No, I don't "say" what I want to believe. I point out FACTS!

Opinion | Study: 91 percent of recent network Trump coverage has been negative

So you see, it's much more than just an opinion; it's a study.

.
So, let me help you a bit, me poor ignorant con troll. It is not your fault entirely that you are ignorant. Or that you are stupid. Let me give you some facts.
: 1. Journalistic proceedures will alway require that you use impartial sources. As I did with FactCheck.org. Because the source is known to be impartial, that makes it a likely source for TRUTH. This study was printed in the Washington Post. So, on the face of it, that is a good source.
However, STRIKE !:
The study was conducted by the conservative Media Research Center, a right wing web site with a history of being far from impartial. Or, put another way, they are a nut case right wing web site.

Then, It is important to determine what a study proves. And that you are honest with what that is.
Strike 2: The study does not suggest, as you do, that the publications were untrue in saying what they did about Trump. What they said, as far as can be understood, is absolutely true.

Then, you need to be honest about the intent of a study's.
Strike 3. You suggested the articles looked at by the study were slanted toward making Trump look bad. There was no indication that any intent was there to slant the news. It appears that the articles simply stated what the truth was and what happened.

So, there you go. Your mistake in using a very slanted source and making it appear that the studies were unfair to poor Donald Trump and therefor their findings are unfounded. They simply looked at very unpopular actions, outright lies, and actions that actual citizens did not support. Sorry you did not like the fact that those doing articles about Trump told the truth. Now, if you have found areas where they lied, then let us know. Otherwise, you have again just agreed with a nut case right wing source of info.

Great. So why don't you post a left-wing source that challenges that?

The truth of the matter is only right sources will inform people of the truth. The left-wing is not going to do a study on what they are getting away with. And you really don't need a study to prove anything. Just turn on any other outlet outside of Fox and tell us how much positive reporting they did on Trump.

The MSM tells the truth. Okay, but how much time do they dedicate their so-called truth about Trump??? As much time as they do with Hillary, Comey, the FISA warrants and applications?

Let me ask, is a Harvard study up to your expectations?

Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative

How about NPR and Pew? Too right-wing for you?

Study: News Coverage Of Trump More Negative Than For Other Presidents

They all have trump coming out their ears. I love it! They must all beat off to photos of trump!

 

[bripat9643]

Nope, all you have to do is read this so-called journalism yourself. 91% negative reporting on the POTUS in an economy like we have? Nah, no bias reporting there. Of course if Hillary were President and had half of Trump's accomplishments, it would be more like 75% positive reporting.

That is the problem. You say what you want to believe and what you are told to believe. And you are told that the "mainstream Media" produces "fake news". So, lets see a piece of fake news, me boy, from some mainstream media outlet.
Or would you rather just keep saying what you are told to believe, and what to say?

No, I don't "say" what I want to believe. I point out FACTS!

Opinion | Study: 91 percent of recent network Trump coverage has been negative

So you see, it's much more than just an opinion; it's a study.

.
So, let me help you a bit, me poor ignorant con troll. It is not your fault entirely that you are ignorant. Or that you are stupid. Let me give you some facts.
: 1. Journalistic proceedures will alway require that you use impartial sources. As I did with FactCheck.org. Because the source is known to be impartial, that makes it a likely source for TRUTH. This study was printed in the Washington Post. So, on the face of it, that is a good source.
However, STRIKE !:
The study was conducted by the conservative Media Research Center, a right wing web site with a history of being far from impartial. Or, put another way, they are a nut case right wing web site.

Then, It is important to determine what a study proves. And that you are honest with what that is.
Strike 2: The study does not suggest, as you do, that the publications were untrue in saying what they did about Trump. What they said, as far as can be understood, is absolutely true.

Then, you need to be honest about the intent of a study's.
Strike 3. You suggested the articles looked at by the study were slanted toward making Trump look bad. There was no indication that any intent was there to slant the news. It appears that the articles simply stated what the truth was and what happened.

So, there you go. Your mistake in using a very slanted source and making it appear that the studies were unfair to poor Donald Trump and therefor their findings are unfounded. They simply looked at very unpopular actions, outright lies, and actions that actual citizens did not support. Sorry you did not like the fact that those doing articles about Trump told the truth. Now, if you have found areas where they lied, then let us know. Otherwise, you have again just agreed with a nut case right wing source of info.

Only brainwashed snowflake morons believe factcheck.org is impartial. In reality it's just another fake news outlet.

Best thing out there. Covers all the details.

And you are encouraged to find and give us an example of something the said that wasn’t true. All the facts are laid out for you moron

It's owned by Google. It might as well be owned by The Daily Worker.

 

[bripat9643]

Nope, all you have to do is read this so-called journalism yourself. 91% negative reporting on the POTUS in an economy like we have? Nah, no bias reporting there. Of course if Hillary were President and had half of Trump's accomplishments, it would be more like 75% positive reporting.

That is the problem. You say what you want to believe and what you are told to believe. And you are told that the "mainstream Media" produces "fake news". So, lets see a piece of fake news, me boy, from some mainstream media outlet.
Or would you rather just keep saying what you are told to believe, and what to say?

No, I don't "say" what I want to believe. I point out FACTS!

Opinion | Study: 91 percent of recent network Trump coverage has been negative

So you see, it's much more than just an opinion; it's a study.

.
So, let me help you a bit, me poor ignorant con troll. It is not your fault entirely that you are ignorant. Or that you are stupid. Let me give you some facts.
: 1. Journalistic proceedures will alway require that you use impartial sources. As I did with FactCheck.org. Because the source is known to be impartial, that makes it a likely source for TRUTH. This study was printed in the Washington Post. So, on the face of it, that is a good source.
However, STRIKE !:
The study was conducted by the conservative Media Research Center, a right wing web site with a history of being far from impartial. Or, put another way, they are a nut case right wing web site.

Then, It is important to determine what a study proves. And that you are honest with what that is.
Strike 2: The study does not suggest, as you do, that the publications were untrue in saying what they did about Trump. What they said, as far as can be understood, is absolutely true.

Then, you need to be honest about the intent of a study's.
Strike 3. You suggested the articles looked at by the study were slanted toward making Trump look bad. There was no indication that any intent was there to slant the news. It appears that the articles simply stated what the truth was and what happened.

So, there you go. Your mistake in using a very slanted source and making it appear that the studies were unfair to poor Donald Trump and therefor their findings are unfounded. They simply looked at very unpopular actions, outright lies, and actions that actual citizens did not support. Sorry you did not like the fact that those doing articles about Trump told the truth. Now, if you have found areas where they lied, then let us know. Otherwise, you have again just agreed with a nut case right wing source of info.

Only brainwashed snowflake morons believe factcheck.org is impartial. In reality it's just another fake news outlet.

Best thing out there. Covers all the details.

And you are encouraged to find and give us an example of something the said that wasn’t true. All the facts are laid out for you moron

You might as well have The Daily Worker check your facts. The Annenberg Foundation Funds factcheck.org. It has ties to radical left individuals such as Bill Ayers and his friend and fellow left wing radical collegue Barack Obama. It's a leftwing propaganda organ with even less credibility than CNN.

Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group

http://theswash.com/RmNXZ/liberty/who-fact-checks-factcheck-org

 

[bripat9643]

You may want to look up the term journalism. Though I am sure you will not get it. Much easier to just believe what you are told. And what you WANT to believe. Dipshit.

Nope, all you have to do is read this so-called journalism yourself. 91% negative reporting on the POTUS in an economy like we have? Nah, no bias reporting there. Of course if Hillary were President and had half of Trump's accomplishments, it would be more like 75% positive reporting.

That is the problem. You say what you want to believe and what you are told to believe. And you are told that the "mainstream Media" produces "fake news". So, lets see a piece of fake news, me boy, from some mainstream media outlet.
Or would you rather just keep saying what you are told to believe, and what to say?

No, I don't "say" what I want to believe. I point out FACTS!

Opinion | Study: 91 percent of recent network Trump coverage has been negative

So you see, it's much more than just an opinion; it's a study.

.
So, let me help you a bit, me poor ignorant con troll. It is not your fault entirely that you are ignorant. Or that you are stupid. Let me give you some facts.
: 1. Journalistic proceedures will alway require that you use impartial sources. As I did with FactCheck.org. Because the source is known to be impartial, that makes it a likely source for TRUTH. This study was printed in the Washington Post. So, on the face of it, that is a good source.
However, STRIKE !:
The study was conducted by the conservative Media Research Center, a right wing web site with a history of being far from impartial. Or, put another way, they are a nut case right wing web site.

Then, It is important to determine what a study proves. And that you are honest with what that is.
Strike 2: The study does not suggest, as you do, that the publications were untrue in saying what they did about Trump. What they said, as far as can be understood, is absolutely true.

Then, you need to be honest about the intent of a study's.
Strike 3. You suggested the articles looked at by the study were slanted toward making Trump look bad. There was no indication that any intent was there to slant the news. It appears that the articles simply stated what the truth was and what happened.

So, there you go. Your mistake in using a very slanted source and making it appear that the studies were unfair to poor Donald Trump and therefor their findings are unfounded. They simply looked at very unpopular actions, outright lies, and actions that actual citizens did not support. Sorry you did not like the fact that those doing articles about Trump told the truth. Now, if you have found areas where they lied, then let us know. Otherwise, you have again just agreed with a nut case right wing source of info.

Great. So why don't you post a left-wing source that challenges that?

The truth of the matter is only right sources will inform people of the truth. The left-wing is not going to do a study on what they are getting away with. And you really don't need a study to prove anything. Just turn on any other outlet outside of Fox and tell us how much positive reporting they did on Trump.

The MSM tells the truth. Okay, but how much time do they dedicate their so-called truth about Trump??? As much time as they do with Hillary, Comey, the FISA warrants and applications?

Let me ask, is a Harvard study up to your expectations?

Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative

How about NPR and Pew? Too right-wing for you?

Study: News Coverage Of Trump More Negative Than For Other Presidents

The MSM just plain lies. They don't even bother any longer trying to convince anyone they are honest or impartial

 

[Rustic]

He was one hell of a gun salesman though

You freaks sure are quick to give Obama credit for your hard work! You obstruct him, then give him credit for not getting much done. You freakishly create gun grabbing paranoia, then give obama the credit for gun sales. I don't get it! Take credit for your slimy little efforts, freak!

 

[RealDave]

Nope, all you have to do is read this so-called journalism yourself. 91% negative reporting on the POTUS in an economy like we have? Nah, no bias reporting there. Of course if Hillary were President and had half of Trump's accomplishments, it would be more like 75% positive reporting.

That is the problem. You say what you want to believe and what you are told to believe. And you are told that the "mainstream Media" produces "fake news". So, lets see a piece of fake news, me boy, from some mainstream media outlet.
Or would you rather just keep saying what you are told to believe, and what to say?

No, I don't "say" what I want to believe. I point out FACTS!

Opinion | Study: 91 percent of recent network Trump coverage has been negative

So you see, it's much more than just an opinion; it's a study.

.
So, let me help you a bit, me poor ignorant con troll. It is not your fault entirely that you are ignorant. Or that you are stupid. Let me give you some facts.
: 1. Journalistic proceedures will alway require that you use impartial sources. As I did with FactCheck.org. Because the source is known to be impartial, that makes it a likely source for TRUTH. This study was printed in the Washington Post. So, on the face of it, that is a good source.
However, STRIKE !:
The study was conducted by the conservative Media Research Center, a right wing web site with a history of being far from impartial. Or, put another way, they are a nut case right wing web site.

Then, It is important to determine what a study proves. And that you are honest with what that is.
Strike 2: The study does not suggest, as you do, that the publications were untrue in saying what they did about Trump. What they said, as far as can be understood, is absolutely true.

Then, you need to be honest about the intent of a study's.
Strike 3. You suggested the articles looked at by the study were slanted toward making Trump look bad. There was no indication that any intent was there to slant the news. It appears that the articles simply stated what the truth was and what happened.

So, there you go. Your mistake in using a very slanted source and making it appear that the studies were unfair to poor Donald Trump and therefor their findings are unfounded. They simply looked at very unpopular actions, outright lies, and actions that actual citizens did not support. Sorry you did not like the fact that those doing articles about Trump told the truth. Now, if you have found areas where they lied, then let us know. Otherwise, you have again just agreed with a nut case right wing source of info.

Great. So why don't you post a left-wing source that challenges that?

The truth of the matter is only right sources will inform people of the truth. The left-wing is not going to do a study on what they are getting away with. And you really don't need a study to prove anything. Just turn on any other outlet outside of Fox and tell us how much positive reporting they did on Trump.

The MSM tells the truth. Okay, but how much time do they dedicate their so-called truth about Trump??? As much time as they do with Hillary, Comey, the FISA warrants and applications?

Let me ask, is a Harvard study up to your expectations?

Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative

How about NPR and Pew? Too right-wing for you?

Study: News Coverage Of Trump More Negative Than For Other Presidents

The MSM just plain lies. They don't even bother any longer trying to convince anyone they are honest or impartial

I am sorry, but a Trump supporter has no ground to complain about anyone else lying.

You voted for the liar-in-chief.

So STFU asshole.

 

[RealDave]

That is the problem. You say what you want to believe and what you are told to believe. And you are told that the "mainstream Media" produces "fake news". So, lets see a piece of fake news, me boy, from some mainstream media outlet.
Or would you rather just keep saying what you are told to believe, and what to say?

No, I don't "say" what I want to believe. I point out FACTS!

Opinion | Study: 91 percent of recent network Trump coverage has been negative

So you see, it's much more than just an opinion; it's a study.

.
So, let me help you a bit, me poor ignorant con troll. It is not your fault entirely that you are ignorant. Or that you are stupid. Let me give you some facts.
: 1. Journalistic proceedures will alway require that you use impartial sources. As I did with FactCheck.org. Because the source is known to be impartial, that makes it a likely source for TRUTH. This study was printed in the Washington Post. So, on the face of it, that is a good source.
However, STRIKE !:
The study was conducted by the conservative Media Research Center, a right wing web site with a history of being far from impartial. Or, put another way, they are a nut case right wing web site.

Then, It is important to determine what a study proves. And that you are honest with what that is.
Strike 2: The study does not suggest, as you do, that the publications were untrue in saying what they did about Trump. What they said, as far as can be understood, is absolutely true.

Then, you need to be honest about the intent of a study's.
Strike 3. You suggested the articles looked at by the study were slanted toward making Trump look bad. There was no indication that any intent was there to slant the news. It appears that the articles simply stated what the truth was and what happened.

So, there you go. Your mistake in using a very slanted source and making it appear that the studies were unfair to poor Donald Trump and therefor their findings are unfounded. They simply looked at very unpopular actions, outright lies, and actions that actual citizens did not support. Sorry you did not like the fact that those doing articles about Trump told the truth. Now, if you have found areas where they lied, then let us know. Otherwise, you have again just agreed with a nut case right wing source of info.

Only brainwashed snowflake morons believe factcheck.org is impartial. In reality it's just another fake news outlet.

Best thing out there. Covers all the details.

And you are encouraged to find and give us an example of something the said that wasn’t true. All the facts are laid out for you moron

You might as well have The Daily Worker check your facts. The Annenberg Foundation Funds factcheck.org. It has ties to radical left individuals such as Bill Ayers and his friend and fellow left wing radical collegue Barack Obama. It's a leftwing propaganda organ with even less credibility than CNN.

Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group

http://theswash.com/RmNXZ/liberty/who-fact-checks-factcheck-org

The Annenbergs are Republicans.

I klnow how much you hate Bill Ayers but he is a well renowned education professor with a university whose standards you wouldn't pass.

You assholes have moved so far right that George HW Bush is a left wing radical.

 

[RealDave]

You may want to look up the term journalism. Though I am sure you will not get it. Much easier to just believe what you are told. And what you WANT to believe. Dipshit.

Nope, all you have to do is read this so-called journalism yourself. 91% negative reporting on the POTUS in an economy like we have? Nah, no bias reporting there. Of course if Hillary were President and had half of Trump's accomplishments, it would be more like 75% positive reporting.

That is the problem. You say what you want to believe and what you are told to believe. And you are told that the "mainstream Media" produces "fake news". So, lets see a piece of fake news, me boy, from some mainstream media outlet.
Or would you rather just keep saying what you are told to believe, and what to say?

No, I don't "say" what I want to believe. I point out FACTS!

Opinion | Study: 91 percent of recent network Trump coverage has been negative

So you see, it's much more than just an opinion; it's a study.

.
So, let me help you a bit, me poor ignorant con troll. It is not your fault entirely that you are ignorant. Or that you are stupid. Let me give you some facts.
: 1. Journalistic proceedures will alway require that you use impartial sources. As I did with FactCheck.org. Because the source is known to be impartial, that makes it a likely source for TRUTH. This study was printed in the Washington Post. So, on the face of it, that is a good source.
However, STRIKE !:
The study was conducted by the conservative Media Research Center, a right wing web site with a history of being far from impartial. Or, put another way, they are a nut case right wing web site.

Then, It is important to determine what a study proves. And that you are honest with what that is.
Strike 2: The study does not suggest, as you do, that the publications were untrue in saying what they did about Trump. What they said, as far as can be understood, is absolutely true.

Then, you need to be honest about the intent of a study's.
Strike 3. You suggested the articles looked at by the study were slanted toward making Trump look bad. There was no indication that any intent was there to slant the news. It appears that the articles simply stated what the truth was and what happened.

So, there you go. Your mistake in using a very slanted source and making it appear that the studies were unfair to poor Donald Trump and therefor their findings are unfounded. They simply looked at very unpopular actions, outright lies, and actions that actual citizens did not support. Sorry you did not like the fact that those doing articles about Trump told the truth. Now, if you have found areas where they lied, then let us know. Otherwise, you have again just agreed with a nut case right wing source of info.

Great. So why don't you post a left-wing source that challenges that?

The truth of the matter is only right sources will inform people of the truth. The left-wing is not going to do a study on what they are getting away with. And you really don't need a study to prove anything. Just turn on any other outlet outside of Fox and tell us how much positive reporting they did on Trump.

The MSM tells the truth. Okay, but how much time do they dedicate their so-called truth about Trump??? As much time as they do with Hillary, Comey, the FISA warrants and applications?

Let me ask, is a Harvard study up to your expectations?

Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative

How about NPR and Pew? Too right-wing for you?

Study: News Coverage Of Trump More Negative Than For Other Presidents

Why Trumpettes are as stupid as they are.

QED

 

[RealDave]

Me too. But I was young once, and unlike you, not to stupid to attend then.

I grew up on the Indian reservation, going to politically correct college was not in my best interest. Lol

Since you did not go to a college, you will only believe what you want to believe. But colleges are never politically correct. They go for logic, and truth. Though you will prefer to not believe it.

Most Colleges are all about being politically correct

Says the con troll who did not go to college. I did, couple degrees. And never, ever heard a politically correct statement. Really, me boy. You need some proof of your statement. Otherwise you are just wasting my time, making you a dipshit.

most colleges are the incubators of political correctness...

Poor baby, you can't use your racial slurs without feedback.

 

[RealDave]

You see, there is no media spoon feeding anyone anything. They do their best to follow journalistic processes, which you do not understand.

View attachment 183360

You may want to look up the term journalism. Though I am sure you will not get it. Much easier to just believe what you are told. And what you WANT to believe. Dipshit.

Nope, all you have to do is read this so-called journalism yourself. 91% negative reporting on the POTUS in an economy like we have? Nah, no bias reporting there. Of course if Hillary were President and had half of Trump's accomplishments, it would be more like 75% positive reporting.

That is the problem. You say what you want to believe and what you are told to believe. And you are told that the "mainstream Media" produces "fake news". So, lets see a piece of fake news, me boy, from some mainstream media outlet.
Or would you rather just keep saying what you are told to believe, and what to say?

No, I don't "say" what I want to believe. I point out FACTS!

Opinion | Study: 91 percent of recent network Trump coverage has been negative

So you see, it's much more than just an opinion; it's a study.

1% od the shit Trump does & says is negative.

 

[RealDave]

As Trump prepares to fire Mueller, Republicans are lining up to impeach his fat ass if he does.

Will; Trump chicken out or will he challenge the Republicans in Congress?

When depends on when Trump has decided he has profited enough from his Presidency.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Nope. Soon the New Democratic led house and senate will do something. And voters

Trump needs to take a tip from Reagan. When he campaigns for the Republicans, he should ask Americans if they are doing better today than they were two years ago?

If the Democrats gain any seats yet alone leadership, we are in real trouble. It would show how ignorant the American voter actually is. The country is doing fantastic. More people bringing home more net pay, taxes for this year going way down (according to my tax specialist). Hundreds of thousands receiving raises, bonuses or both, and we no longer have the highest corporation taxes in the world.

The stock market is doing fine, consumer confidence never been better, and the same goes for corporate confidence. Kim Dong shaking in his little pants, and ISIS is out of Iraq.

If Americans think we need a change from this, our country is doomed.

I have to admit republicans should be winning but people don’t like what they are seeing. I’d take obama back in a heartbeat. The crumbs people got aren’t worth it.

I like my crumbs. I'd rather get a few crumbs than have a few taken away from me which is what happened with DumBama. He cost me thousands and thousands of dollars..

It's difficult for Republicans to win until things get bad enough that Americans try to do something a little better. If you don't like Trump personally, that's understandable. But who in the world would elect a leader based on that? That's why I said we could be in real trouble in this country if we elect people based on personal opinion instead of the job they are doing.

Brainwashing is a huge problem in our country. Along with freedom of the press, they use that power to control the minds of people unfortunately.

Opinion | Study: 91 percent of recent network Trump coverage has been negative

We were doing fine before trump. I told you I got a raise based on my 2015 and 2016 success. Unemployment was low. You guys said those were phony numbers.

Are those crumbs worth what trumps doing to our government? Maybe if you like nazis

So what's he doing to our government? That's right, he got rid of a bunch of regulations on business. We have the lowest unemployment rate in 49 years.

DumBama's numbers were phony because when unemployment decreased, the labor participation rate decreased as well. The real numbers didn't start happening until the end of his second term when the labor participation rate froze and then started to increase. That was mostly due to lower fuel prices which nearly everybody in the country took advantage of.

DumBama's numbers were phony because when unemployment decreased, the labor participation rate decreased as well.

That's not true at all. Show us where the adjustment was made when Trump came in.
The numbers are exactly the same now, dope.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[regent]

Even Republicans have to start thinking that Trump and policies are not good for the Republican party. We have lost a couple of conservative parties so far while the party of Jefferson just keep rolling along. Wonder what would be a good name for the new conservative party that would replace the Republican party, Federalist, Whig, what?

 

[jc456]

That is the problem. You say what you want to believe and what you are told to believe. And you are told that the "mainstream Media" produces "fake news". So, lets see a piece of fake news, me boy, from some mainstream media outlet.
Or would you rather just keep saying what you are told to believe, and what to say?

No, I don't "say" what I want to believe. I point out FACTS!

Opinion | Study: 91 percent of recent network Trump coverage has been negative

So you see, it's much more than just an opinion; it's a study.

.
So, let me help you a bit, me poor ignorant con troll. It is not your fault entirely that you are ignorant. Or that you are stupid. Let me give you some facts.
: 1. Journalistic proceedures will alway require that you use impartial sources. As I did with FactCheck.org. Because the source is known to be impartial, that makes it a likely source for TRUTH. This study was printed in the Washington Post. So, on the face of it, that is a good source.
However, STRIKE !:
The study was conducted by the conservative Media Research Center, a right wing web site with a history of being far from impartial. Or, put another way, they are a nut case right wing web site.

Then, It is important to determine what a study proves. And that you are honest with what that is.
Strike 2: The study does not suggest, as you do, that the publications were untrue in saying what they did about Trump. What they said, as far as can be understood, is absolutely true.

Then, you need to be honest about the intent of a study's.
Strike 3. You suggested the articles looked at by the study were slanted toward making Trump look bad. There was no indication that any intent was there to slant the news. It appears that the articles simply stated what the truth was and what happened.

So, there you go. Your mistake in using a very slanted source and making it appear that the studies were unfair to poor Donald Trump and therefor their findings are unfounded. They simply looked at very unpopular actions, outright lies, and actions that actual citizens did not support. Sorry you did not like the fact that those doing articles about Trump told the truth. Now, if you have found areas where they lied, then let us know. Otherwise, you have again just agreed with a nut case right wing source of info.

Great. So why don't you post a left-wing source that challenges that?

The truth of the matter is only right sources will inform people of the truth. The left-wing is not going to do a study on what they are getting away with. And you really don't need a study to prove anything. Just turn on any other outlet outside of Fox and tell us how much positive reporting they did on Trump.

The MSM tells the truth. Okay, but how much time do they dedicate their so-called truth about Trump??? As much time as they do with Hillary, Comey, the FISA warrants and applications?

Let me ask, is a Harvard study up to your expectations?

Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative

How about NPR and Pew? Too right-wing for you?

Study: News Coverage Of Trump More Negative Than For Other Presidents

The MSM just plain lies. They don't even bother any longer trying to convince anyone they are honest or impartial

I am sorry, but a Trump supporter has no ground to complain about anyone else lying.

You voted for the liar-in-chief.

So STFU asshole.

we did? what lie?

 

[jc456]

Even Republicans have to start thinking that Trump and policies are not good for the Republican party. We have lost a couple of conservative parties so far while the party of Jefferson just keep rolling along. Wonder what would be a good name for the new conservative party that would replace the Republican party, Federalist, Whig, what?

I don't know but the one that contains Flake, McCain Graham and McConnell ain't mine.