It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
Who else watches Tucker Carlson on Fox News? #Tucker
CaseyThere might be some low grade influence peddling there, borderline unethical possibly mildly corrupt. Still doesn’t really hold a candle to the nepotism and corruption in the Trump administration. I think that is why it’s not a bigger deal.
People who think it's a big deal are also conveniently ignoring several damning problems with it:
Bear with me for the first major inconsistency.
In the NY Post piece, the shop owner claims he was never able to ID the customer as Hunter Biden nor gain any contact information, only believing it was him because of a sticker on the computer. Apparently whomever dropped it off never paid for the service or retrieved it. However, the Post piece then includes a receipt issued to Hunter Biden and includes an email and phone number.
So either the shop owner is lying or the receipt, email, and phone number are fraudulent.
Here's the second:
The piece, once again, delves into how the shop owner alerted the FBI and it was later subpoenaed by a grand jury. If he alerted the FBI, why would they need to subpoena it?
Here's the third:
The shop owners story is pretty inconsistent. First he claimed he reached out to law enforcement, then he said the FBI reached out to him, then he said he was emailing with an FBI agent, before finally saying an agent from the Baltimore Office reached out to him.
Which is it?
Finally, the fourth:
To make matters even weirder, before giving it to the FBI, the shop owner made a copy and gave it to Giuliani's lawyer. Why? What was the purpose? The Post was then notified of it by Stephen Bannon who isn't exactly Mr. Reliable either.
So once again, this raises the issue of credibility.
We can get into the technical details about the timeline related to Guliani receiving the disk, the images being compiled, the metadata, etc. but that's all beyond my understanding.
So the fact of the matter is, this story has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. Could it be true? Certainly. But the fact that Guliani is unwilling to give the data to ANY party but the NY Post, even after it was published, makes it quite suspect.
Could a TV station give a report on all this? Sure, but who wants to hear a story about why a story isn't plausible?
Monsieur_Patate
Foxnews in the red propaganda box, ouch.
AFP gang where you at
This chart is a steaming pile of horse shit.
cnn is a whore for the ultra left and antifa/deep state/cancerous government. They never have a right wing guest on any of their shows.
fox on the other hand has left wing ppl on their shows every day. Fucking shit, juan williams, a solid left winger, is on “the five” every fucking day.
fox is about 10 times closer to being unbiased than cnn is.
CaseyThere might be some low grade influence peddling there, borderline unethical possibly mildly corrupt. Still doesn’t really hold a candle to the nepotism and corruption in the Trump administration. I think that is why it’s not a bigger deal.
Do you care to elaborate on the "nepotism and corruption" in the Trump administration? Also, I don't see how that point makes sense. Doesn't it make sense to hold people accountable for their actions? Just because Trump did something you don't like doesn't mean that Joe and Hunter Biden should get away with selling foreign policy.
.MASSHOLE.People who think it's a big deal are also conveniently ignoring several damning problems with it:
Bear with me for the first major inconsistency.
In the NY Post piece, the shop owner claims he was never able to ID the customer as Hunter Biden nor gain any contact information, only believing it was him because of a sticker on the computer. Apparently whomever dropped it off never paid for the service or retrieved it. However, the Post piece then includes a receipt issued to Hunter Biden and includes an email and phone number.
So either the shop owner is lying or the receipt, email, and phone number are fraudulent.
Here's the second:
The piece, once again, delves into how the shop owner alerted the FBI and it was later subpoenaed by a grand jury. If he alerted the FBI, why would they need to subpoena it?
Here's the third:
The shop owners story is pretty inconsistent. First he claimed he reached out to law enforcement, then he said the FBI reached out to him, then he said he was emailing with an FBI agent, before finally saying an agent from the Baltimore Office reached out to him.
Which is it?
Finally, the fourth:
To make matters even weirder, before giving it to the FBI, the shop owner made a copy and gave it to Giuliani's lawyer. Why? What was the purpose? The Post was then notified of it by Stephen Bannon who isn't exactly Mr. Reliable either.
So once again, this raises the issue of credibility.
We can get into the technical details about the timeline related to Guliani receiving the disk, the images being compiled, the metadata, etc. but that's all beyond my understanding.
So the fact of the matter is, this story has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. Could it be true? Certainly. But the fact that Guliani is unwilling to give the data to ANY party but the NY Post, even after it was published, makes it quite suspect.
Could a TV station give a report on all this? Sure, but who wants to hear a story about why a story isn't plausible?
The first major inconsistency is solved by the fact that law enforcement has confirmed that is indeed Hunter Biden's laptop. On your second point, I'm honestly unsure. I say this because I don't have a good understanding of the legal system. I'm guessing that they subpoenaed him because they needed to for the trial. Not really sure. Third point, I'm not sure what news source you are finding this story from, but I haven't found much information on the shop owner's story. Fourth point, why not? This dude was probably a republican and he probably knew that this was going to get headlines so he wanted to get some drama going.
Anyways, the FBI has confirmed that it is Hunter Biden's laptop, the Chief of Intelligence has stated that there is no evidence that the emails are of Russian origin, and nobody from the Biden campaign has said a word about the emails. Joe Biden has been out of the public eye trying to avoid this story. Even though he called it a "smear campaign" he won't discuss why. Major news corporations are not running the real details of this story, they are only talking about either "Russian dis-information" or Facebook and Twitter censorship.
To me its pretty obvious who's side big tech and the media is on and it's definitely not Trump's . . . They are doing everything they can to not let this story reach the American people.
yungonaAnyways, the FBI has confirmed that it is Hunter Biden's laptop, the Chief of Intelligence has stated that there is no evidence that the emails are of Russian origin
No they didn't and no he didn't.
Good fucking lord you Trumpers are living in a different reality.
yungonaThe first major inconsistency is solved by the fact that law enforcement has confirmed that is indeed Hunter Biden's laptop. On your second point, I'm honestly unsure. I say this because I don't have a good understanding of the legal system. I'm guessing that they subpoenaed him because they needed to for the trial. Not really sure. Third point, I'm not sure what news source you are finding this story from, but I haven't found much information on the shop owner's story. Fourth point, why not? This dude was probably a republican and he probably knew that this was going to get headlines so he wanted to get some drama going.
Anyways, the FBI has confirmed that it is Hunter Biden's laptop, the Chief of Intelligence has stated that there is no evidence that the emails are of Russian origin, and nobody from the Biden campaign has said a word about the emails. Joe Biden has been out of the public eye trying to avoid this story. Even though he called it a "smear campaign" he won't discuss why. Major news corporations are not running the real details of this story, they are only talking about either "Russian dis-information" or Facebook and Twitter censorship.
To me its pretty obvious who's side big tech and the media is on and it's definitely not Trump's . . . They are doing everything they can to not let this story reach the American people.
No, law enforcement has NOT confirmed that it is his laptop. Fox News is claiming that the anonymous law enforcement officials say the FBI is in possession of the laptop.
That's a MASSIVE difference than saying it IS H. Biden's laptop.
I mean, here's the headline from the Fox piece: "FBI in possession of Hunter Biden's purported laptop, sources say". Purported=alleged. And is this new information? I'm not so sure, I think we've known this, there was the subpoena...
Given that they are claiming the FBI has the laptop, who has not responded which is standard procedure for OPEN investigations, then they probably have an ongoing investigation. That means it's not possible to have concluded anything.
If we want to go off anonymous sources, then we can throw this one in there: Federal authorities are investigating whether a Russian influence operation was behind the disclosure of emails purporting to document the Ukrainian and Chinese business dealings of Hunter Biden, the son of Democratic nominee Joe Biden, a person briefed on the matter said Friday. (USA Today). That was Friday, Ratcliffes comments were Monday. That's either a super fast investigation if it's over, or it's still ongoing.
But then also Ratcliffe said this: "Without commenting on any investigation that they (the FBI) may or may not have, their investigation is not centered around Russian disinformation and the intelligence community is not playing any role with respect to that." So can the DNI accurately say there is no disinformation when there hasn't even been an investigation?
So DNI Ratcliffe, the guy with ZERO intelligence background, is then either lying with the US public in saying there's no chance it's disinformation because the investigation has not been concluded/isn't examining it for potential disinformation, or there's no investigation into disinformation/the origin which means the Fox News and USA Today piece are lying. So who is credible here? DNI Ratcliffe or Fox and USA Today? I've got zero clue but there are WAY too many inconsistencies here alone.
The shop owner was interviewed by several bigger organizations, including NYT, WaPo, Fox, which conflicted with the NY Post story.
As to why not? Well, if he gave a copy to the FBI, who later took the computer itself, why would he then give a copy of it to Giuliani? What's the point? Maybe because he knew it was bullshit but wanted to create waves. We don't know.
But these are ALL questions that have been raised with a scant look at all the reporting done by me, a fucking poster on NS. A real organization would tear this report apart. I'm sure there are things I am missing.
As to why no organizations are running with it, I think we've answered that. There are WAY too many holes in this story. That's pretty easy to solve too. Giuliani could turn over copies of the drive to bigger organizations. He hasn't. If he did, and the organizations DIDN'T run stories, then perhaps people upset would have a leg to stand on. But you, and others, are expecting organizations to run this story without vetting the information on their own.
Given what we know of Giuliani and Russian intelligence, that'd be unwise.
What do we know? Well, National Counterintelligence and Security Center Director Bill Evanina said in August that Russia has been trying to denigrate Biden’s campaign, specifically through a Ukrainian lawmaker named Andriy Derkach who has met with Giuliani at least twice to discuss corruption accusations against Biden.
Who got the emails? Well, Mr. Giuliani. Huh. Coincidence right?
Furthermore, former intelligence officials said Derkach’s relationship with Giuliani and fixation on the Bidens, along with Russia's reported hack on Burisma “is consistent with” a Russian operation.
Hell, the Senate Republicans just last month concluded an investigation into Biden and his son with an 87-page report summing up the findings, contained no evidence that the elder Mr. Biden improperly manipulated American policy toward Ukraine or committed any other misdeed. In fact, investigators heard witness testimony that rebutted those charges.
**This post was edited on Oct 21st 2020 at 7:26:14am
Charlie_KellyDemocrats on Trump/Russia connection...
Democrats on Biden/Ukraine connection...
Trump supporters on mysterious laptop that magically appeared at a blind Trump supporter's repair shop with screenshots of emails, not the actual emails...
Trump supporters on Trump's secret meetings with Putin, refusal to denounce Putin and Trump's willingness to side with Putin over the U.S.
DERP I MADE RESPONSE WITH MEMES. DOES THIS MEAN I REPUBLICAN NOW?
Charlie_KellyDemocrats on Trump/Russia connection...
Democrats on Biden/Ukraine connection...
What a stupid fucking meme.
Come on dude. The fucking Senate, led by the GOP, found no malfeasance by Joe Biden in connection to his son's positions.
There was a lot of conjecture but nothing even remotely close to direct evidence. Almost all of it was circumstantial at best.
If we're going to crucify Joe for Hunter, what about Eric, Ivanka, and Donald Jr.? You mean to tell me Ivanka's trademark approvals in China post-Trump election were just coincidence?
**This post was edited on Oct 21st 2020 at 9:58:31am
.MASSHOLE.If we're going to crucify Joe for Hunter, what about Eric, Ivanka, and Donald Jr.? You mean to tell me Ivanka's trademark approvals in China post-Trump election were just coincidence?
**This post was edited on Oct 21st 2020 at 9:58:31am
UH YEAH MAN, IT WAS BECUASE IVANKA IS SO SMART SHE GOT IT HERSELF! TRUMP IS THE MEANEST TO CHINA SO IT WAS HARDER FOR IVANKA TO GET THAT!!!
JUST LIKE JARED AND IVANKA'S POSITIONS IN THE WHITE HOUSE. THEY GOT THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE THE SMARTEST! IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR FATHER BEING PRESIDUNT!
Come on dude. The fucking Senate, led by the GOP, found no malfeasance by Joe Biden in connection to his son's positions.
There was a lot of conjecture but nothing even remotely close to direct evidence. Almost all of it was circumstantial at best.
If we're going to crucify Joe for Hunter, what about Eric, Ivanka, and Donald Jr.? You mean to tell me Ivanka's trademark approvals in China post-Trump election were just coincidence?
**This post was edited on Oct 21st 2020 at 9:58:31am
Crucify them all and try not to get so butthurt :)
Charlie_KellyCrucify them all and try not to get so butthurt :)
I'm just saying, the Senate found no malfeasance by Joe, which should say a lot given they're the ones who pushed for the investigation. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
.MASSHOLE.I'm just saying, the Senate found no malfeasance by Joe, which should say a lot given they're the ones who pushed for the investigation. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
So you think Biden and Trump are being held to the same standard?
Charlie_KellySo you think Biden and Trump are being held to the same standard?
No, because the situations are VERY different, at least in my eyes.
The argument against Biden is that his son got him involved with the removal for the Ukrainian prosecutor/foreign government. Almost every single party, be it Ukrainian, American, or International (NGO, Foreign Gov't, etc.) has said Burisma had zero relation to desire to remove the Ukrainian prosecutor. Furthermore, the Senate GOP investigation showed this Ukrainian claim and foreign government relation accusations to be false.
The argument against Trump was that Trump, and his campaign, were involved with the Russians. The evidence surrounding this accusation was bad given the Flynn and Manafort optics, Trump's history with Russians, and his public statements. There wasn't a lot of evidence to the contrary either.
I'm sure you and other right-leaning individuals will disagree though.
**This post was edited on Oct 21st 2020 at 10:37:33am
.MASSHOLE.No, because the situations are VERY different, at least in my eyes.
The argument against Biden is that his son got him involved with the removal for the Ukrainian prosecutor/foreign government. Almost every single party, be it Ukrainian, American, or International (NGO, Foreign Gov't, etc.) has said Burisma had zero relation to desire to remove the Ukrainian prosecutor. Furthermore, the Senate GOP investigation showed this Ukrainian claim and foreign government relation accusations to be false.
The argument against Trump was that Trump, and his campaign, were involved with the Russians. The evidence surrounding this accusation was bad given the Flynn and Manafort optics, Trump's history with Russians, and his public statements. There wasn't a lot of evidence to the contrary either.
I'm sure you and other right-leaning individuals will disagree though.
**This post was edited on Oct 21st 2020 at 10:37:33am
It’s not that I totally disagree, it just seems the left is blatantly turning a blind eye (hence the meme) the same way Trump supporters did when the SIC report came out. And the fact that the FBI is still investigating claims made about what was found on the laptop should make it clear that Biden isn’t completely out of the woods yet.
The investigations over the Trump campaign and Russia collusion have lasted over 3 years. The investigation into Hunter Biden last, what, one?
The Mueller report stated there was no collusion. The SIC report is hinting there was. Obviously something was going down. But when the shoes on the other foot people just write it off. It’s happening with Biden, it happened with Hillary.
Charlie_KellyIt’s not that I totally disagree, it just seems the left is blatantly turning a blind eye (hence the meme) the same way Trump supporters did when the SIC report came out. And the fact that the FBI is still investigating claims made about what was found on the laptop should make it clear that Biden isn’t completely out of the woods yet.
The investigations over the Trump campaign and Russia collusion have lasted over 3 years. The investigation into Hunter Biden last, what, one?
The Mueller report stated there was no collusion. The SIC report is hinting there was. Obviously something was going down. But when the shoes on the other foot people just write it off. It’s happening with Biden, it happened with Hillary.
They're not turning a blind eye, they're just not focusing on something that's ultimately pure conjecture with minimal circumstantial evidence, at best, at this time.
I mean what is there to say?
This effectively is what we know:
The was a laptop found a year ago and it's alleged to have authentic emails from Hunter Biden on it. The story of how it came to be is filled with holes, but we do know the FBI has had it for a year (December 2019). We've got no idea what their investigation is focused on or what it includes. We've had DNI Ratcliffe deny that it has to do with any intelligence investigations but also say he hasn't been briefed on it. We've had unnamed officials say it has to do with Russian interference. Fact of the matter is, we just don't know anything.
Recently, in August, it was given to Giuliani by the shop owner. The same Rudy Giuliani, in attempts to find dirt on Joe and Hunter, has been linked to several Ukrainian individuals whom have their own ties to Russian disinformation campaigns. Now, 2 weeks from the election, in a time where Trump is seen to be struggling, Giuliani decides to give some of the info to the NY Post. The NY Post, in turn, publishes but had authors whom were afraid to put their name on the report as they didn't see the evidence as credible.
The claims of the emails run contrary to the Senate-led investigation as well as reports by numerous public officials from different governments and NGOs about Joe's role in Ukraine.
What else is there to say? Is this even close to the same as what there was to talk about with Trump and Russia?
There we had:
1. Manafort
2. Flynn
3. Trump's comments
4. Emails from DNC hack
5. Russian-Trump business connections
and probably a host of others I've forgotten. That's a lot of things to investigate. The ties are potentially MUCH wider than what is present with Hunter and Joe.
Charlie_KellyIt’s not that I totally disagree, it just seems the left is blatantly turning a blind eye (hence the meme) the same way Trump supporters did when the SIC report came out. And the fact that the FBI is still investigating claims made about what was found on the laptop should make it clear that Biden isn’t completely out of the woods yet.
The investigations over the Trump campaign and Russia collusion have lasted over 3 years. The investigation into Hunter Biden last, what, one?
The Mueller report stated there was no collusion. The SIC report is hinting there was. Obviously something was going down. But when the shoes on the other foot people just write it off. It’s happening with Biden, it happened with Hillary.
" And the fact that the FBI is still investigating claims made about what was found on the laptop should make it clear that Biden isn’t completely out of the woods yet."
They're investigating to see if its part of a militarized disinformation campaign by Russia our intelligence agencies warned the White House about months ago, specifically pointing out that Giuliani was being targeted to provide disinformation directly to Trump. The Mueller report didn't state there was no collusion, there were over 100 instances of Trump's campaign working with Russians. The report stated due to incompetence, it didn't rise to the level of criminal prosecution. Prove me wrong. The Mueller report clearly stated Trump obstructed justice on multiple occasions.
Good lord. Talk about turning a blind eye, you fucking turd.
**This post was edited on Oct 21st 2020 at 11:24:54am
skierman" And the fact that the FBI is still investigating claims made about what was found on the laptop should make it clear that Biden isn’t completely out of the woods yet."
They're investigating to see if its part of a militarized disinformation campaign by Russia our intelligence agencies warned the White House about months ago, specifically pointing out that Giuliani was being targeted to provide disinformation directly to Trump. The Mueller report didn't state there was no collusion, there were over 100 instances of Trump's campaign working with Russians. The report stated due to incompetence, it didn't rise to the level of criminal prosecution. Prove me wrong. The Mueller report clearly stated Trump obstructed justice on multiple occasions.
Good lord. Talk about turning a blind eye, you fucking turd.
**This post was edited on Oct 21st 2020 at 11:24:54am
skierman" And the fact that the FBI is still investigating claims made about what was found on the laptop should make it clear that Biden isn’t completely out of the woods yet."
They're investigating to see if its part of a militarized disinformation campaign by Russia our intelligence agencies warned the White House about months ago, specifically pointing out that Giuliani was being targeted to provide disinformation directly to Trump. The Mueller report didn't state there was no collusion, there were over 100 instances of Trump's campaign working with Russians. The report stated due to incompetence, it didn't rise to the level of criminal prosecution. Prove me wrong. The Mueller report clearly stated Trump obstructed justice on multiple occasions.
Good lord. Talk about turning a blind eye, you fucking turd.
**This post was edited on Oct 21st 2020 at 11:24:54am
DolanReloadedThis chart is a steaming pile of horse shit.
cnn is a whore for the ultra left and antifa/deep state/cancerous government. They never have a right wing guest on any of their shows.
fox on the other hand has left wing ppl on their shows every day. Fucking shit, juan williams, a solid left winger, is on “the five” every fucking day.
fox is about 10 times closer to being unbiased than cnn is.
and msnbc is a gibs fuckshow.
I love how nobody even tried to counter my argument. Fox is way less biased than cnn or manbc. Obviously fox is biased to the right, but is much much closer to being unbiased and factual than cucknn or msnbcuck
DolanReloadedI love how nobody even tried to counter my argument. Fox is way less biased than cnn or manbc. Obviously fox is biased to the right, but is much much closer to being unbiased and factual than cucknn or msnbcuck
Yes, I watch #Tucker and Hannity... Great shows.... #Tucker #HANNITY
yungonaDo you care to elaborate on the "nepotism and corruption" in the Trump administration? Also, I don't see how that point makes sense. Doesn't it make sense to hold people accountable for their actions? Just because Trump did something you don't like doesn't mean that Joe and Hunter Biden should get away with selling foreign policy.
I could elaborate for days, but at this point it’s all out there as common knowledge and I feel like I shouldn’t have to. In no particular order of importance: he never divested from his business, his children, who also work in the White House, are managing that trust still. So every time the president travels to maralago or any one of his golf courses or hotels it’s a just public money funneled into his pocket. not saying the president can’t travel or play golf, we get it it’s expensive to travel with the secret service, that’s not the point. The point is you aren’t supposed to use the office for personal enrichment.
As far as nepotism, Don Jr., Ivanka, Jared Kushner... I mean come on you can’t just hire your kids as policy advisors that is insane.
On the Hunter Biden thing- I said it was possibly low level corruption, but to accept that you would have to ignore the fact that Joe Biden, dispatched on official business of the government, had the Ukrainian prosecutor fired that Burisma/Russia/Trump were backing because he wasn’t prosecuting corruption in Ukraine! The whole conspiracy makes no effing sense unless you just don’t know your head from your own ass about the situation- which fair enough most people don’t study Ukrainian prosecutors in their spare time. But don’t pretend like this isn’t just a right wing hit job based on nothing, because it is.
I mean the left is literally king of this shit. They tried to impeach a president for him threatening to withhold free money to a foreign country that we aren't even that close with. Why the fuck are we handing out money to a foreign country in the first place.... that's the issue i see with this.
CaseyBut don’t pretend like this isn’t just a right wing hit job based on nothing, because it is.
If you're really befuddled by the president using tax dollars for personal travel benefit, but you're not upset at government waste / spending in all then you're honestly worried about a very tiny fraction of the real issue. You're looking micro when you should be looking macro.
It's funny how Trumps children are so much more professional than he is, not sure why hiring upstanding adults is an issue, but I guess that's like my opinion of them.
zuesI mean the left is literally king of this shit. They tried to impeach a president for him threatening to withhold free money to a foreign country that we aren't even that close with. Why the fuck are we handing out money to a foreign country in the first place.... that's the issue i see with this.
If you're really befuddled by the president using tax dollars for personal travel benefit, but you're not upset at government waste / spending in all then you're honestly worried about a very tiny fraction of the real issue. You're looking micro when you should be looking macro.
It's funny how Trumps children are so much more professional than he is, not sure why hiring upstanding adults is an issue, but I guess that's like my opinion of them.
A) We are “handing out money” because the Congress passed a law that said to do that. A Republican Congress at that. So I mean if you’ve got a problem with the way Mitch McConnell is running shit take it up with him.
Its not that I have a problem with the President using tax dollars to travel. I specifically said it’s expensive for Presidents to travel, they all do it, that’s not the point. I am saying if Obama owned hotels, and racked up a 60 million dollar tab at Obama Country Club having the entire secret service stay there (and nowhere else), and all that money makes it indirectly back to Obama’s personal bank account, the Republicans would rightly be throwing a shit fit about it because it is blatantly corrupt.
The Trump kids should be disqualified from holding cabinet positions or national security clearances by virtue of just being Trump kids. It’s a bad look, even if they are qualified, which I guess we can agree to disagree on. Let’s say for arguments sake they are all great at their jobs, that’s not the point the only reason they are there is the family connection and that is not right.
DolanReloadedI love how nobody even tried to counter my argument. Fox is way less biased than cnn or manbc. Obviously fox is biased to the right, but is much much closer to being unbiased and factual than cucknn or msnbcuck
The problem when you spend your time trolling and spewing nonsense is that no one really takes anything you say seriously and/or bother to respond seriously.
But if you want a half serious answer: While CNN is obviously biased in their opinions and interpretations of the news, the basis for their discussion is still mostly facts. Fox, while also biased in their opinions and interpretations, apparently doesn't relay on facts as much, so one would argue that Fox is actually less factual than the other outlets you mentioned.
That being said, my personal opinion is that all these are trash, and that's why I don't watch any of those networks. And due to confirmation bias, right leaning viewers like you will keep thinking Fox is a good source for news and left leaning viewers will continue to think CNN is, because people like you (right or left) are dumb and not interested in actual news reporting but simply want to hear people agree with their dumb takes, that's why those networks thrive, because of dumbfucks like you and the OP jerking off to Tucker Carlson, congrats!
For those too lazy to click the link, it's a politiFact fact check report comparing CNN, MSNBC/NBC and Fox/FoxNews and it has found that 60% of Fox's claims have been rated Mostly False or worse, vs 44% for NBC and 21% for CNN.
So yeah, per usual your argument is shit and doesn't hold any water under scrutiny, what else is new.
Yea bro straight up facts. Guess it depends how you see "facts" because lighting your town on fire doesn't seem peaceful to me..
Monsieur_PatateThe problem when you spend your time trolling and spewing nonsense is that no one really takes anything you say seriously and/or bother to respond seriously.
But if you want a half serious answer: While CNN is obviously biased in their opinions and interpretations of the news, the basis for their discussion is still mostly facts. Fox, while also biased in their opinions and interpretations, apparently doesn't relay on facts as much, so one would argue that Fox is actually less factual than the other outlets you mentioned.
That being said, my personal opinion is that all these are trash, and that's why I don't watch any of those networks. And due to confirmation bias, right leaning viewers like you will keep thinking Fox is a good source for news and left leaning viewers will continue to think CNN is, because people like you (right or left) are dumb and not interested in actual news reporting but simply want to hear people agree with their dumb takes, that's why those networks thrive, because of dumbfucks like you and the OP jerking off to Tucker Carlson, congrats!
For those too lazy to click the link, it's a politiFact fact check report comparing CNN, MSNBC/NBC and Fox/FoxNews and it has found that 60% of Fox's claims have been rated Mostly False or worse, vs 44% for NBC and 21% for CNN.
So yeah, per usual your argument is shit and doesn't hold any water under scrutiny, what else is new.
zuesYea bro straight up facts. Guess it depends how you see "facts" because lighting your town on fire doesn't seem peaceful to me..
Read my post again, and if you still have comprehension issues then I'm sorry I can't help you, find a tutor to help you learn how to read or something.
I'm just wondering, does this picture fall in the 21% of CNN false info, or are they passing this as a fact?
Monsieur_PatateRead my post again, and if you still have comprehension issues then I'm sorry I can't help you, find a tutor to help you learn how to read or something.
**This post was edited on Oct 22nd 2020 at 1:49:52pm
Sorry I'm questioning Politifact with a specific example... how the fuck do they gauged truth versus untruth? Seems like an opinionated take to me.
Monsieur_PatateRead my post again, and if you still have comprehension issues then I'm sorry I can't help you, find a tutor to help you learn how to read or something.
To CNN, lighting your city on fire for the sake of social justice really is peaceful as long as people don't get murdered. To fox, lighting a city on fire for the sake of social justice is NOT peaceful.
So how the fuck does someone gauge who is right in this regard, if they both truly believe their views on the matter.
zuesTo CNN, lighting your city on fire for the sake of social justice really is peaceful as long as people don't get murdered. To fox, lighting a city on fire for the sake of social justice is NOT peaceful.
So how the fuck does someone gauge who is right in this regard, if they both truly believe their views on the matter.
Do you see my issue with your post now?
You're mad because the conclusions of an independent fact checker don't match your personal bias. You're using one headline that triggered you (anecdotal to say the least) to try and make a case that CNN is less factual than Fox? You don't have a leg to stand on here.
And by the way, 21% of false claims for what is supposedly a "news outlet" (CNN) might be better than the 60% Fox has, but it's still fucking trash! And no one should watch that shit, don't believe for a second I'm defending any of these shitty channels, they're all trash! It just so happens CNN is slightly less trash than Fox, based on a report from an independent fact-checker that I happen to take more seriously than your personal biased opinion, sorry if it hurts your feelings.
But as I've said, none of that matters, you don't care about facts, you only care about reinforcing your personal bias, which is why people like you watch CNN and Fox, if you watch them you're part of the problem.
Lol I'm simply questioning how you fact check something. I'm not mad, I don't watch any news besides Atlas news on Instagram.
I gave you a specific example of something that can't be fact checked because it's literally an opinion. I'm just questioning if something like that is fact checked, or if it's kept as strictly an opinion. You telling me you're hurting my feelings without answering my question make it look like you're mad for me asking why an independent source without examples should be trusted.
"I don't care about facts" but i'm literally questioning your source of facts and how they're able to call something Fact vs. Fiction.. and I'm the bad guy right? LOL RRRRrrrright.
Monsieur_PatateYou're mad because the conclusions of an independent fact checker don't match your personal bias. You're using one headline that triggered you (anecdotal to say the least) to try and make a case that CNN is less factual than Fox? You don't have a leg to stand on here.
And by the way, 21% of false claims for what is supposedly a "news outlet" (CNN) might be better than the 60% Fox has, but it's still fucking trash! And no one should watch that shit, don't believe for a second I'm defending any of these shitty channels, they're all trash! It just so happens CNN is slightly less trash than Fox, based on a report from an independent fact-checker that I happen to take more seriously than your personal biased opinion, sorry if it hurts your feelings.
But as I've said, none of that matters, you don't care about facts, you only care about reinforcing your personal bias, which is why people like you watch CNN and Fox, if you watch them you're part of the problem.
zuesSorry that I don't trust a 5 year old article without a single example of a fact check in it.
But i'm sure it's 100% accurate right?
Feel free to read up on their network scorecard methodology, they explain how it works. But at the end of the day, if you decide not to trust the non-partisan, non-profit, well-established fact-checker that PolitiFact is and instead trust your personal biased opinion, I'd refer you to my previous points about you being part of the problem.
Keep ignoring facts, I honestly don't give a fuck, you do you.
Pompous assholes telling others to "keep ignoring facts" because they're questioning a two paragraph article without a single example in it are the problem.
Monsieur_PatateFeel free to read up on their network scorecard methodology, they explain how it works. But at the end of the day, if you decide not to trust the non-partisan, non-profit, well-established fact-checker that PolitiFact is and instead trust your personal biased opinion, I'd refer you to my previous points about you being part of the problem.
Keep ignoring facts, I honestly don't give a fuck, you do you.
zuesI mean the left is literally king of this shit. They tried to impeach a president for him threatening to withhold free money to a foreign country that we aren't even that close with. Why the fuck are we handing out money to a foreign country in the first place.... that's the issue i see with this.
I believe the actual problem was that he was withholding aid under the premise that they would receive the aid upon investigating, claiming, or charging one of Trump's political opponents, wasn't it? I feel like saying that he just withheld free money is a misrepresentation of what actually happened.
But I also am not a huge fan of sending free money to countries.
zuesSorry I'm questioning Politifact with a specific example... how the fuck do they gauged truth versus untruth? Seems like an opinionated take to me.
See this question is why we are having issues in our country. People choose to not believe objective truths simply because the objective truth is from the other side or does not sit well with their world view. Like what do you mean how do they gauge truth vs untruth. Things are literally true or not true. It's a binary system. If cnn says all trump supporters are the cause of 90% of crime that is untrue. If fox news says that Trump has no involvement in other countries that is also untrue. It happens on boths sides and I feel like people have lost the ability to both find the truth, and believe the truth even if it doesn't fit their world view.
Alright that makes more sense, I try not to follow this shit, and literally depending on where you get the news from, the story is entirely different.
LonelyI believe the actual problem was that he was withholding aid under the premise that they would receive the aid upon investigating, claiming, or charging one of Trump's political opponents, wasn't it? I feel like saying that he just withheld free money is a misrepresentation of what actually happened.
But I also am not a huge fan of sending free money to countries.
So did you read my example about the CNN peaceful, but fiery protests. I'm questioning how you gauge that, because it can literally go either way depending on what side you're on. The article isn't very long and has no examples. I'm just trying to figure out how you gauged something that one side sees as truth, and the other sees as fallacy.
We're not talking about 2+2 =4 here where I agree there is black and white evidence of it. We're talking about news stations giving opinions out stated as fact, but in actuality they're just opinions
A peaceful but fiery protest is peaceful to one side, but not peaceful to the other. I'm looking for examples in the article, and there are none.
So your last sentence sounds like where I'm at right now.
LonelySee this question is why we are having issues in our country. People choose to not believe objective truths simply because the objective truth is from the other side or does not sit well with their world view. Like what do you mean how do they gauge truth vs untruth. Things are literally true or not true. It's a binary system. If cnn says all trump supporters are the cause of 90% of crime that is untrue. If fox news says that Trump has no involvement in other countries that is also untrue. It happens on boths sides and I feel like people have lost the ability to both find the truth, and believe the truth even if it doesn't fit their world view.
zuesSo did you read my example about the CNN peaceful, but fiery protests. I'm questioning how you gauge that, because it can literally go either way depending on what side you're on. The article isn't very long and has no examples. I'm just trying to figure out how you gauged something that one side sees as truth, and the other sees as fallacy.
We're not talking about 2+2 =4 here where I agree there is black and white evidence of it. We're talking about news stations giving opinions out stated as fact, but in actuality they're just opinions
A peaceful but fiery protest is peaceful to one side, but not peaceful to the other. I'm looking for examples in the article, and there are none.
So your last sentence sounds like where I'm at right now.
I think that title is more falls into slightly misleading than actually lying. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of protestors were peaceful, with a minority of looters and rioters. I watched it live from about 20 different livestreams from complete randos. So were the protests peaceful? Yes. Was there looting and rioting? Yes. So the statement "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests after police shooting" is inherently true even though it may tred the line between being truthful and being misleading and it didn't really mention the looting and rioting. All though if I remember that segment correctly they didn't take long to mention the looting and rioting. Even if there were 1000 peaceful protesters and 900 looters and rioters it would still be factual that the protests were peaceful. Because rioting and looting is not protesting.
The segment title could be much better, but it is still factual. This is coming from someone that has no love for cnn or most other liberal news networks. CNN has done some disgusting stuff.
**This post was edited on Oct 22nd 2020 at 4:47:50pm
LonelyI think that title is more falls into slightly misleading than actually lying. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of protestors were peaceful, with a minority of looters and rioters. I watched it live from about 20 different livestreams from complete randos. So were the protests peaceful? Yes. Was there looting and rioting? Yes. So the statement "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests after police shooting" is inherently true even though it may tred the line between being truthful and being misleading and it didn't really mention the looting and rioting. All though if I remember that segment correctly they didn't take long to mention the looting and rioting. Even if there were 1000 peaceful protesters and 900 looters and rioters it would still be factual that the protests were peaceful. Because rioting and looting is not protesting.
The segment title could be much better, but it is still factual. This is coming from someone that has no love for cnn or most other liberal news networks. CNN has done some disgusting stuff.
**This post was edited on Oct 22nd 2020 at 4:47:50pm
Well there is that and we watched night after night in Seattle of police just basically deciding at random times that it was time to let a bunch of teargass off into crowds of people that were basically just standing there. At that point everyone is just running for their lives to GTFO and you can’t tell peaceful from not it’s just chaos.
I just have to go out on the unpopular limb here and call these "protests" over brutality bullshit.
When 99.99999% of arrests don't end in murder it's not an issue.
When more white people are killed by police than black people, racial justice isn't an issue.
I'm sick of this media narrative dividing the country. The truth is that only 8 unarmed black men were killed last year in total. Compared to 19 white unarmed men.
It's sad if it's unjustified, but I'd rather protest poverty or starvation... something that's actually a real problem.
I may be wrong here, but I think it extends beyond the killing aspect of African-American and police relations. It has to do with the actual policing itself. African-Americans feel as if they're treated differently than Caucasians when dealing with the police. They may very well be right, I know there's data that supports this but there may be data that goes against it.
The killing of black men is just the straw that broke/continues to break the camels back for many.
