Yikes! Don't go another day without watching this video!

[protectionist]

So Democrats are wondering why their disapproval rate has soared to 58%. Approval rate somewhere in the low 30s. Really ? Well, if they watch this video, they won't be wondering anymore.

50 Billion US TAXPAYER $$$ (bigger than CIA & State Dept) going to promote Transexuality perverted lunacy in countries all over the world. That is enough money to give every homeless person in America $77,000/year. That's just one example. There are many more things that this massive amount of money could have been spent on to help AMERICANS.

Problem is Democrats, have been controlling this AID funding for years, and they aren't really Americans. They are Globalists.

So now Trump and Elon Musk (DOGE) have uncovered this tightly kept secret, which even Congressmen could not get answers from AID (Agency for International Development), and are pulling the purse strings. Hopefully these tax $$ will go to much better uses now.
Don't miss this video >>>

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

So Democrats are wondering why their disapproval rate has soared to 58%. Approval rate somewhere in the low 30s. Really ? Well, if they watch this video, they won't be wondering anymore.

50 Billion US TAXPAYER $$$ (bigger than CIA & State Dept) going to promote Transexuality perverted lunacy in countries all over the world. That is enough money to give every homeless person in America $77,000/year. That's just one example. There are many more things that this massive amount of money could have been spent on to help AMERICANS.

Problem is Democrats, have been controlling this AID funding for years, and they aren't really Americans. They are Globalists.

So now Trump and Elon Musk (DOGE) have uncovered this tightly kept secret, which even Congressmen could not get answers from AID (Agency for International Development), and are pulling the purse strings. Hopefully these tax $$ will go to much better uses now.
Don't miss this video >>>

.


Amazing!

Worth watching again and again! Likely to subscribe to this channel.


.

 

[TimFitz]

So Democrats are wondering why their disapproval rate has soared to 58%. Approval rate somewhere in the low 30s. Really ? Well, if they watch this video, they won't be wondering anymore.

50 Billion US TAXPAYER $$$ (bigger than CIA & State Dept) going to promote Transexuality perverted lunacy in countries all over the world. That is enough money to give every homeless person in America $77,000/year. That's just one example. There are many more things that this massive amount of money could have been spent on to help AMERICANS.

Problem is Democrats, have been controlling this AID funding for years, and they aren't really Americans. They are Globalists.

So now Trump and Elon Musk (DOGE) have uncovered this tightly kept secret, which even Congressmen could not get answers from AID (Agency for International Development), and are pulling the purse strings. Hopefully these tax $$ will go to much better uses now.
Don't miss this video >>>

I don’t get my news from televangelists.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

I don’t get my news from televangelists.

.




Says the guy who believes that MSM is "journalism".











.

 

[TimFitz]

.




Says the guy who believes that MSM is "journalism".











.

That’s right!

I get my news from people whose track record is reliable. From people who present verifiable facts.

People who have both the courage and integrity to sign their names to their work.

I read thevNew York Times, the Post, the WSJ. VI do not rely much on television, and never on social media, which is full of propogandists, Russian trolls and extremist evangelicals entertaining you with made up news so they can raise money off of you.

BTW, I stick to these sources because over the last 50 years, their reporting has been the most accurate, trustworthy and reliable.

You don’t really care if any of his claims are accurate.. And you’re not going to check, either.

you heard what you had already decided to believe. All that is left is to send the preacher your money. He has three private jets he needs to pay for.

 

[TimFitz]

.


Amazing!

Worth watching again and again! Likely to subscribe to this channel.


.

Be sure and give the TV preacher your money! That's what the "The Victory Channel" is there for!

 

[protectionist]

I don’t get my news from televangelists.

That's funny. I watched the whole video and never once had any thought about evangelism. In any case, no matter who the reporters are, the facts are the facts. They don't change.

 

[protectionist]

That’s right!

I get my news from people whose track record is reliable. From people who present verifiable facts.

People who have both the courage and integrity to sign their names to their work.

Like this classic piece of lying, leftist balderdash >>

"The president has repeatedly disparaged the intelligence of service members, and asked that wounded veterans be kept out of military parades, multiple sources tell The Atlantic."
By Jeffrey Goldberg

 

[TimFitz]

That's funny. I watched the whole video and never once had any thought about evangelism. In any case, no matter who the reporters are the facts are the facts. They don't change.

You have no idea whether any of the content of a televangelical You Tube video contains a single fact. And there is a very very high probability that it does not. Typically, this is not a reliable place for news.

Reporter? What makes you think that the presenter is any kind of reporter at all, or that they did any kind of reporting or investigation?

"I watched the whole video and never once had any thought about evangelism."

Trump followers tend to prefer validation and triggers to their right wing prejudices and take them at face value.

As you just announced that you did.

You didn't "think" about evangelism. Not surprising.

You didn't care where it came from and had no idea who was feeding it to you. Nore did you even think to ask, preferring instead to believe it because it told you what you wanted to hear.

It's what you wanted to believe. So you bought it and promoted it without questioning where it came from or who is talking to you.

You made my points about the way Trumpsters prefer being led by validating and triggering propoganda far better than I ever could.

 

[TimFitz]

Like this classic piece of lying, leftist balderdash >>

"The president has repeatedly disparaged the intelligence of service members, and asked that wounded veterans be kept out of military parades, multiple sources tell The Atlantic."
By Jeffrey Goldberg

Can't comment. Don't know the facts.

No link. So nothing to investigate.

But you have already decided that these are lies,,,,,,,,based on nothing.

 

[Stryder50]

That’s right!

I get my news from people whose track record is reliable. From people who present verifiable facts.

People who have both the courage and integrity to sign their names to their work.

I read thevNew York Times, the Post, the WSJ. VI do not rely much on television, and never on social media, which is full of propogandists, Russian trolls and extremist evangelicals entertaining you with made up news so they can raise money off of you.

BTW, I stick to these sources because over the last 50 years, their reporting has been the most accurate, trustworthy and reliable.

You don’t really care if any of his claims are accurate.. And you’re not going to check, either.

you heard what you had already decided to believe. All that is left is to send the preacher your money. He has three private jets he needs to pay for.

Your sources lean far more Left than to the Right. I'd hardly consider then objective.
Source bias is offset by examining the content, and their sources.

 

[TimFitz]

Your sources lean far more Left than to the Right. I'd hardly consider then objective.
Source bias is offset by examining the content, and their sources.

You're right.

"Source bias is offset by examining the content, and their sources."

That is something the OP, and most of the Trump supporters here never do.

I do not busy myself with the political persuasions of journalists, unless they're writing editorials. If I was worried about ideology, I wouldn't look at the WSJ at all. I don't bother with Fox Noise or the cheap tabloids in the Murdoch empire. But the WSJ does keep the facts straight in its news reporting.

I worry about the accuracy of their reporting, which I frequently fact check.

Since the garbage the OP is peddling was an evangelical using a fake news YouTube channel to raise money for his gold plated ministry, I have no reason to credit it, or anything else from an obviously dubious and self serving source.

 

[IDIOCRACY]

So Democrats are wondering why their disapproval rate has soared to 58%. Approval rate somewhere in the low 30s. Really ? Well, if they watch this video, they won't be wondering anymore.

50 Billion US TAXPAYER $$$ (bigger than CIA & State Dept) going to promote Transexuality perverted lunacy in countries all over the world. That is enough money to give every homeless person in America $77,000/year. That's just one example. There are many more things that this massive amount of money could have been spent on to help AMERICANS.

Problem is Democrats, have been controlling this AID funding for years, and they aren't really Americans. They are Globalists.

So now Trump and Elon Musk (DOGE) have uncovered this tightly kept secret, which even Congressmen could not get answers from AID (Agency for International Development), and are pulling the purse strings. Hopefully these tax $$ will go to much better uses now.
Don't miss this video >>>

Consistent with the left's propaganda machine, in July I spent three weeks in Europe, Italy, Germany, France, Netherlands, and Switzerland. Anytime I turned on the TV, the only cable stations that spoke English was left news.

Speaking English is highly desirable for Europeans, and the most popular method for accomplishing that in Europe is the TV.

 

[Stryder50]

You're right.

"Source bias is offset by examining the content, and their sources."

That is something the OP, and most of the Trump supporters here never do.

I do not busy myself with the political persuasions of journalists, unless they're writing editorials. If I was worried about ideology, I wouldn't look at the WSJ at all. I don't bother with Fox Noise or the cheap tabloids in the Murdoch empire. But the WSJ does keep the facts straight in its news reporting.

I worry about the accuracy of their reporting, which I frequently fact check.

Since the garbage the OP is peddling was an evangelical using a fake news YouTube channel to raise money for his gold plated ministry, I have no reason to credit it, or anything else from an obviously dubious and self serving source.

When one is experienced/studied in S2/G2, that part of a military staff that deals with Intelligence; various sources and content of information about one's enemy/opponent, "source bias" means while the quality of the source may be questionable, if the information provided matches with other sources, then it may be true.

One example is that often a lower rank isn't viewed as reliable or knowledgeable enough to believe, in the minds of some interrogators. They'd rather accept the word/information of an officer~higher rank. Yet sometimes the higher rank being interrogated is more intelligent and able to obscure, misinform, or distract from the real factual information being sought.

Often clues can be found in how something is said as much as what is said.

In our case of media sources, understandable that the editorial/opinions pages will reflect the bias of the media source, but often overlooked is that those same "editors" will leave there fingerprints in form of what is omitted, as well as how it is said~presented.

Two examples here, basically the same message and common facts, but can you tell us what the key difference(s) are ?

1) "The suspect was arrested for killing the victim."
2) "The suspect was arrested for murdering the victim."

I'll give you some time to consider and reply, (before I return to post the answer) but if anyone else beats you to it, well ...

 

[Stryder50]

Consistent with the left's propaganda machine, in July I spent three weeks in Europe, Italy, Germany, France, Netherlands, and Switzerland. Anytime I turned on the TV, the only cable stations that spoke English was left news.

Speaking English is highly desirable for Europeans, and the most popular method for accomplishing that in Europe is the TV.

In the USA, for a few decades now, when polled on their political beliefs and leanings, about 70-80+% of journalism students display Leftist, quasi-liberal leanings and opinions.

Clearly they will taint what they report. Either via the phrasing and often the omission of some detail or fact. Aside from how their editor might "edit" what they present.

 

[imawhosure]

You're right.

"Source bias is offset by examining the content, and their sources."

That is something the OP, and most of the Trump supporters here never do.

I do not busy myself with the political persuasions of journalists, unless they're writing editorials. If I was worried about ideology, I wouldn't look at the WSJ at all. I don't bother with Fox Noise or the cheap tabloids in the Murdoch empire. But the WSJ does keep the facts straight in its news reporting.

I worry about the accuracy of their reporting, which I frequently fact check.

Since the garbage the OP is peddling was an evangelical using a fake news YouTube channel to raise money for his gold plated ministry, I have no reason to credit it, or anything else from an obviously dubious and self serving source.

Timmy, I am not going to tell you that your side is screwed, but they are kinda done!

Problem Lefties have, is that without money from the Feds, they can do NOTHING/NOTHING!

The question EVERYONE has to ask themselves is------------->If all funding was cut off from both sides, which side would be funded most!

Without the Left in power, their whole funding machine can be dismantled. And you want to know why they hated/hate Trump? You are going to find out, lol.

 

[protectionist]

You have no idea whether any of the content of a televangelical You Tube video contains a single fact. And there is a very very high probability that it does not. Typically, this is not a reliable place for news.

Reporter? What makes you think that the presenter is any kind of reporter at all, or that they did any kind of reporting or investigation?

"I watched the whole video and never once had any thought about evangelism."

Trump followers tend to prefer validation and triggers to their right wing prejudices and take them at face value.

As you just announced that you did.

You didn't "think" about evangelism. Not surprising.

You didn't care where it came from and had no idea who was feeding it to you. Nore did you even think to ask, preferring instead to believe it because it told you what you wanted to hear.

It's what you wanted to believe. So you bought it and promoted it without questioning where it came from or who is talking to you.

You made my points about the way Trumpsters prefer being led by validating and triggering propoganda far better than I ever could.

I know who was talking.
So you can go on your merry way funneling everything you see & hear into the Trump bash glass that your leftist masters provide you, and then "bottoms up". Drink it all, and swallow hard.

Not hard to see they've got YOU programmed.

BTW, the one who has "no idea" regarding facts is you. Maybe you didn't watch the whole video. The video has secondary videos within it, such as Sen. Rand Paul grilling Samantha Powell about official AID letters (official US documented evidence) refusing to tell Congress what they were doing with the money.

Go to 16:11 on the time bar, and don't forget that the official US government document was acquired during the Biden administration.

 

[protectionist]

In the USA, for a few decades now, when polled on their political beliefs and leanings, about 70-80+% of journalism students display Leftist, quasi-liberal leanings and opinions.

Clearly they will taint what they report. Either via the phrasing and often the omission of some detail or fact. Aside from how their editor might "edit" what they present.

It has long been the methodology of the left that when they cannot defeat the message, they attack the messenger - all with little or no discussion about the CONTENT.

 

[elektra]

That’s right!

I get my news from people whose track record is reliable. From people who present verifiable facts.

People who have both the courage and integrity to sign their names to their work.

I read thevNew York Times, the Post, the WSJ. VI do not rely much on television, and never on social media, which is full of propogandists, Russian trolls and extremist evangelicals entertaining you with made up news so they can raise money off of you.

BTW, I stick to these sources because over the last 50 years, their reporting has been the most accurate, trustworthy and reliable.

You don’t really care if any of his claims are accurate.. And you’re not going to check, either.

you heard what you had already decided to believe. All that is left is to send the preacher your money. He has three private jets he needs to pay for.

The New York Times which refused to report on communism and the NAXI's. That New York Times

 

[Stryder50]

When one is experienced/studied in S2/G2, that part of a military staff that deals with Intelligence; various sources and content of information about one's enemy/opponent, "source bias" means while the quality of the source may be questionable, if the information provided matches with other sources, then it may be true.

One example is that often a lower rank isn't viewed as reliable or knowledgeable enough to believe, in the minds of some interrogators. They'd rather accept the word/information of an officer~higher rank. Yet sometimes the higher rank being interrogated is more intelligent and able to obscure, misinform, or distract from the real factual information being sought.

Often clues can be found in how something is said as much as what is said.

In our case of media sources, understandable that the editorial/opinions pages will reflect the bias of the media source, but often overlooked is that those same "editors" will leave there fingerprints in form of what is omitted, as well as how it is said~presented.

Two examples here, basically the same message and common facts, but can you tell us what the key difference(s) are ?

1) "The suspect was arrested for killing the victim."
2) "The suspect was arrested for murdering the victim."

I'll give you some time to consider and reply, (before I return to post the answer) but if anyone else beats you to it, well ...

I'll put a wrap on this so I can move on to other things.

In this example;
2) "The suspect was arrested for murdering the victim."
Use of the word "murder" has already judged (prejudice, bias) the suspect, denying them the "innocent until proven guilty" since the term/word murder means a premeditated, intentional taking of a life.

In this example;
1) "The suspect was arrested for killing the victim."
Use of the word "killing" is more ambiguous since such may have been accidental, manslaughter, or done in self-defense as well as maybe pre-planned intention. No pre-judging involved here and the text reads as more objective than in "2)".

The facts presented in both are basically the same except for the implication presented in the change/use of one word.
Few people of "TimFitz" sort can notice the difference. Possibly not even understand the difference.