Fake News

[PartyOf5]

Why is it not an issue for you that Trump seems to rely solely on Fox news for information?
Bias is clear on both sides of the divide but if you want to compare outright lies and distortions Trump leads the field leaving the media far behind. Isn't that more of an issue when it comes to misleading the public?

Yeah, Trump relies on Fox for his info. I'm sure he's making all his decisions based on what The Five have to say. He mentions them because more often than any other media source they are on his side. Oh, and Fox News has a number of shows that are not politically based and deliver straight news. CNN and MSNBC spend literally 24/7 bashing Trump.

So drawing on a map with a sharpie is worse than 24/7 propaganda about Russia collusion that has all been proven to be a lie?

You are hopeless. Lucky for us you don't have a vote in the US.

[Speaker to Animals]

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/3403 ... efing-room



From 2 years ago, there may be even more now...

Let's just leave it at this: your definition of "right wing" and mine do not align (at all). What you call "right wing", to me, are just a bunch of conservative sites, which is to say liberalism at the speed limit. In another ten years, those conservative sites will be defending gay marriage from whatever new sexual deviancy the far left promotes by then. Hell, Breitbart is already taking on that mantle.

Actual right wing sites are systematically driven off the Internet. They have their domains stolen. They get booted from the Internet DNS servers. Search engine sites don't index them or they don't put them in the search results. Of the ones that are up at any given time, you can't share them on social media.

Meanwhile all the corporate media is pretty far left and globalist.

You really have no case and your own list proves it. All of those sites you listed as "right wing" hold 1980s democrat positions.

I'm not going down the rabbit hole of what mine or your definition of right and left are. I don't think that's going to get us anywhere except into a poorly illuminated space.

Dude, all those ridiculous sites are the enemies of the right. They stab the right in the back every chance they get. They support mass immigration, for example, that guarantees a one-party democrat state within a decade (might even start in 2020, actually).

They are all liberals. A 2019 conservative is to the left of a Clinton democrat in the early 90s, man. Your assertion is simply not legitimate and anybody can see it.

You just paint actual right wing opinions as so far beyond legitimate discourse that it should be censored and the people expressing it should be punished economically, socially, or even criminally.

[Montegriffo]

Let's just leave it at this: your definition of "right wing" and mine do not align (at all). What you call "right wing", to me, are just a bunch of conservative sites, which is to say liberalism at the speed limit. In another ten years, those conservative sites will be defending gay marriage from whatever new sexual deviancy the far left promotes by then. Hell, Breitbart is already taking on that mantle.

Actual right wing sites are systematically driven off the Internet. They have their domains stolen. They get booted from the Internet DNS servers. Search engine sites don't index them or they don't put them in the search results. Of the ones that are up at any given time, you can't share them on social media.

Meanwhile all the corporate media is pretty far left and globalist.

You really have no case and your own list proves it. All of those sites you listed as "right wing" hold 1980s democrat positions.

I'm not going down the rabbit hole of what mine or your definition of right and left are. I don't think that's going to get us anywhere except into a poorly illuminated space.

Dude, all those ridiculous sites are the enemies of the right. They stab the right in the back every chance they get. They support mass immigration, for example, that guarantees a one-party democrat state within a decade (might even start in 2020, actually).

They are all liberals. A 2019 conservative is to the left of a Clinton democrat in the early 90s, man. Your assertion is simply not legitimate and anybody can see it.

You just paint actual right wing opinions as so far beyond legitimate discourse that it should be censored and the people expressing it should be punished economically, socially, or even criminally.

I'm not coming in there with you. All you are going to find is a load of rabbit shit.

[Speaker to Animals]

That's ^^^ how you know I hit the mark.

[Montegriffo]

That's^^^^ where the squeals and funny smell is coming from.

[Speaker to Animals]

If I was wrong, you'd waste no time to refute it.

[pineapplemike]

Why is it not an issue for you that Trump seems to rely solely on Fox news for information?

it is, i agree totally, i don't like how cozy he is with his friendly press, i especially didn't like when he went on stage with hannity. by comparison i didn't like how cozy the last guy was with the overwhelmingly lefty press corp, i didn't like the insider deals revealed in the wikileaks emails and i didn't like the targeted spying on hostile press reporters. was that an issue for you?

[The Conservative]

i never insinuated that, i know fox news and breitbart have a spot. my beef (as with nick) was the volume of left wing press compared to right wing or even independent news outlets, why isnt this an issue for you?

Because, he has no issue getting the news he likes to hear.

No, you.

[sarcasam]Wow. Please no more, I don't think my heart can handle such a witty retort.[/sarcasm]

[Montegriffo]

Why is it not an issue for you that Trump seems to rely solely on Fox news for information?

it is, i agree totally, i don't like how cozy he is with his friendly press, i especially didn't like when he went on stage with hannity. by comparison i didn't like how cozy the last guy was with the overwhelmingly lefty press corp, i didn't like the insider deals revealed in the wikileaks emails and i didn't like the targeted spying on hostile press reporters. was that an issue for you?

It probably would've been. I didn't follow US politics so closely then though.
I just really object to accusations of partisanship from obvious partisans.
This is why I have mostly responded to your posts on this and ignored those of the worst offenders.

[pineapplemike]

back on topic, washington post is running cover for a lie from the leading democrat candidate for president of the united states

https://mobile.twitter.com/ComfortablyS ... 6783462401

what do you think monte? has democracy died in darkness?