[Cardfan1]

Like I said, you can try to ACT like you hold the high ground all you want. Your appearance nonetheless belies the fact that you are the loser in a pie throwing contest so, nobody's buying. Further, the terminal case of classic projection under which you are beset notwithstanding, there are normal people in this life who think for themselves. Only the self deluded believe they can control what those normal people think. But hey, if you're going to disregard that which is factual, preferring rather to fabricate our own reality, one might as well have everything the way he want's it. Right there Cardfan?


Democrats have lied their heads off for the past 4 years and since your retread resurgence, you have steadfastly defended them for it. BTW, you've lapsed into your old habit of repeating my work again.

There are a LOT of good men and women within the Republican Party that have had a lot to say about the left's shenanigans over the 4 years in question. Many of them committee chairs. To completely dismiss the evidentiary findings they have cited as the basis for those findings, is to say our own governmental records are lies. Those records BTW having been produced over the years by a Democrat led government. The chart your cited is less than laughable. It is part of an ongoing effort of the biased media to lend themselves the integrity they are so desperate to reclaim. In any case, the rabid left media can produce all the charts and polls and fake statistics they can and will dream up. They're never going to fool anyone but themselves with any of it. Well, there is you of course.

Only the left's willingness to roll the dice with the overall sted of this land, has tempered my delight in watching them writhe in anguish since Trump's victory. For the same reasons it has all come to head again this fall, and is being framed for the present, by the left's same short sightedness. :Clap: I can scarcely wait.

What does the bolded mean?

Sorry, but the media bias chart is extremely accurate. They keep it updated about once a month and are transparent about what goes into it. I think you have even cited one of its supporters, MarketWatch, on this thread.

Step back from the right side and read some of the stuff in the middle and get a better perspective or even better read something from the left. Your disgust seems like a lot of speculative projection. I promise your hair won't catch on fire.

[Cardfan1]

Act? What act?

:ref2iling on.

:yawn::yawn:

[jetpilot]

What does the bolded mean?

Sorry, but the media bias chart is extremely accurate. They keep it updated about once a month and are transparent about what goes into it. I think you have even cited one of its supporters, MarketWatch, on this thread.

Step back from the right side and read some of the stuff in the middle and get a better perspective or even better read something from the left. Your disgust seems like a lot of speculative projection. I promise your hair won't catch on fire.

You are literally out of your mind, but the good news is you are in for a horrible 5 years (at least).



Charlie Kirk
@charliekirk11
·
Feb 24
Barack Obama:

95% favorable coverage

A Nobel Prize

Gushing praise from Hollywood

49% approval rating at this point in his presidency

Donald Trump:

3 years of investigations

95% negative coverage

Impeached

Also 49% approval

The American people stand with
@realDonaldTrump

[Cardfan1]

You are literally out of your mind, but the good news is you are in for a horrible 5 years (at least).



Charlie Kirk
@charliekirk11
·
Feb 24
Barack Obama:

95% favorable coverage

A Nobel Prize

Gushing praise from Hollywood

49% approval rating at this point in his presidency

Donald Trump:

3 years of investigations

95% negative coverage

Impeached

Also 49% approval

The American people stand with
@realDonaldTrump

Seeing who that comes from explains a lot, but leave that out.

The numbers are too round for it to even be true.

Who judges the 95% negative and positive coverage? What news outlets?

And the 49% approval? What was the source on that?


You never know. This is the USA. I won't have 5 horrible years. I may not approve of the President's actions, but my life isn't ruined.

[jetpilot]

Seeing who that comes from explains a lot, but leave that out.

The numbers are too round for it to even be true.

Who judges the 95% negative and positive coverage? What news outlets?

And the 49% approval? What was the source on that?


You never know. This is the USA. I won't have 5 horrible years. I may not approve of the President's actions, but my life isn't ruined.

Everything is false in your post except your life isn't ruined. Actually it will continue to improve with conservatives in charge.

[TheRealThing]

What does the bolded mean?

Sorry, but the media bias chart is extremely accurate. They keep it updated about once a month and are transparent about what goes into it. I think you have even cited one of its supporters, MarketWatch, on this thread.

Step back from the right side and read some of the stuff in the middle and get a better perspective or even better read something from the left. Your disgust seems like a lot of speculative projection. I promise your hair won't catch on fire.

'They,' is the problem.

I'll readily own my own conservative view. But let's at least agree that any assertion you may make in which you claim to occupy the middle, is absurd on it's face. I mean I know your bent for revision and repackaging and relabeling. And I know how much faith you've got in that reset button, and how this is a new day and all. But your posts speak for themselves so this latest self delusion whereby you suppose you can create new and more lofty ground to inhabit, or that we have somehow misinterpreted your blazing liberalism for raw intellect is ludicrous. In any case following you into La-La Land, no matter how briefly, is just not an option. Therefore. You keep pitchin and I am content to wait for the coming election or the next report from AG Barr, or possibly John Durham.

[TheRealThing]

Seeing who that comes from explains a lot, but leave that out.

The numbers are too round for it to even be true.

Who judges the 95% negative and positive coverage? What news outlets?

And the 49% approval? What was the source on that?


You never know. This is the USA. I won't have 5 horrible years. I may not approve of the President's actions, but my life isn't ruined.

What does the bolded mean?

Your life would have been in the toilet and flushed by now, had Hillary won. But you continue on singing Dem praises anyway. Jet's numbers are spot-on. With regard to the negative reporting attributable to President Trump at 95% (I heard an even higher number, 97%); as is the 49% approval rating for the President; as is the 95% favorable reporting number for Obama.

Rasmussen (no slouch poll) actually has Trump's approval at 51%.

[Cardfan1]

What does the bolded mean?

Your life would have been in the toilet and flushed by now, had Hillary won. But you continue on singing Dem praises anyway. Jet's numbers are spot-on. With regard to the negative reporting attributable to President Trump at 95% (I heard an even higher number, 97%); as is the 49% approval rating for the President; as is the 95% favorable reporting number for Obama.

Rasmussen (no slouch poll) actually has Trump's approval at 51%.

Exactly what is says. Numbers aren't rational and scream falsity.

All of whose coverage is 95% negative/positive? Are we talking one network or all news outlets?

Rasmussen tends to lean to Trump just like some others lean away, but I'm not disputing their numbers. Polls in this nation could be anywhere. The same day you get a 51% you could get a 41% these days.

What?! So you're telling me you would have been crying in the streets if HRC would have won, because you thought the nation would be ruined. nicker:

[TheRealThing]

Exactly what is says. Numbers aren't rational and scream falsity.

All of whose coverage is 95% negative/positive? Are we talking one network or all news outlets?

Rasmussen tends to lean to Trump just like some others lean away, but I'm not disputing their numbers. Polls in this nation could be anywhere. The same day you get a 51% you could get a 41% these days.

What?! So you're telling me you would have been crying in the streets if HRC would have won, because you thought the nation would be ruined. nicker:

Well I don't know how to break this to you diplomatically so I'll just try it dispassionately. Other than for a few stray moments, nothing of what you post seems rational to me. And as far as falsity is concerned, my friend you hold all of that stock.

We've come to the time in our society where people no longer know what to believe. Some feel like a ping-pong ball, in listening they think the left are correct. But when conservatives speak they can see their point too so they're confused. Then you have the die hard lefties, who actually deny empirical evidence in favor of their party political views and talking points. And then you have those happy few who just go with what lay before their eyes and let the chips fall. Strong delusion will befall men who reject the truth because, all that's left is to believe a lie. Pretty straightforward if you ask me. We see the end times example of that very situation in the following;

2 Thessalonians 2:11 (KJV)
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Isaiah spoke of these times too, as follows;

Isaiah 5:20-21 (KJV)
20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;

I don't take my cues from any man. I saw the left in this land grow in courage and influence from the days when Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley through suggestion and inflection, seeded doubt between the lines in order to instill a distrust in the minds of their listeners for any elected officials of the US government with whom they disagreed.

I saw suggestion and inflection among the media grow to become more overt and obvious in the persons of Dan Rather and Ted Koppel. I saw CNN start off under Ted Turner to become greatly respected among their peers, only to fall off a liberal cliff at some point to feature shallow and rabid activists such as Jim Acosta. In short, media personalities morphed from being greatly concerned with their own credibility to caring less and catering to factions of like political belief.

I saw those of this nation's political parties take a similar tack. I saw Dwight D Eisenhower, and John F Kennedy, and Lyndon Baines Johnson, and Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan, up to DJT. I saw the Ayatollah capitulate to Reagan, and the fall of the Berlin Wall and the USSR. I saw Trickle-Down economics work, so well in fact that Reagan was able to turn the miserable tide of doubt and insurmountable debt on the part of working consumers, to boom times in less than 5 years. Now we see that same sort of incredible economic success happening all over again under MR Trump. Unfortunately we also see Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, Jerrold Nadler, Al Green, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.

I could write a book about all this but suffice it to say that when I juxtaposition what the Cardfan says against history, things just did not happen the way he says. The liberals have revised history to their liking or at least their benefit. Case in point; As I said Trickle-Down economics worked. So well healed were we that when Bill Clinton came to office the slide was so greasy all he had to do was hang on and enjoy the ride. I was there to see that. Guess what he, the rest of the Dems and the media did next? Bill with the same straight face in which he said that he did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky; With the bobble headed Dems in dutiful attendance behind him and the complicitous news corps backing him up, Bill Clinton proceeded to take credit for all the prosperity of his day.

In short the truth is conservative fiscal policy does work. It worked in the 80's which carried through to 2007. And it is working again in even more remarkable terms under MR Trump. But Bill took credit for the accomplishments of his predecessor. And not to be outdone as we have seen only this past week, Obama has tried to take credit for his successor. The fight now is whether voters are going to be goofy enough to allow the Dems to redefine under their very noses, that which they already know to be correct.


So thank you very much there Cardfan. But I will continue to balance what I know thanks to what I have seen, with God's inerrant and perfectly prophetic revelation of the history of man, and come to my own conclusions as back dropped against what I hear current event-wise. Unlike so many, I do know what to believe. But feel free to get your opinion handed to you from your buddy Jim Acosta et-al.

Now let's deal with your plagiarism and clinical level projection infection. YOUR side, were the ones out in the streets on their knees howling nooooo repeatedly like werewolves on election eve 2016.

[Cardfan1]

Well I don't know how to break this to you diplomatically so I'll just try it dispassionately. Other than for a few stray moments, nothing of what you post seems rational to me. And as far as falsity is concerned, my friend you hold all of that stock.

We've come to the time in our society where people no longer know what to believe. Some feel like a ping-pong ball, in listening they think the left are correct. But when conservatives speak they can see their point too so they're confused. Then you have the die hard lefties, who actually deny empirical evidence in favor of their party political views and talking points. And then you have those happy few who just go with what lay before their eyes and let the chips fall. Strong delusion will befall men who reject the truth because, all that's left is to believe a lie. Pretty straightforward if you ask me. We see the end times example of that very situation in the following;

2 Thessalonians 2:11 (KJV)
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Isaiah spoke of these times too, as follows;

Isaiah 5:20-21 (KJV)
20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;

I don't take my cues from any man. I saw the left in this land grow in courage and influence from the days when Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley through suggestion and inflection, seeded doubt between the lines in order to instill a distrust in the minds of their listeners for elected officials of the US government with whom they disagreed.

I saw suggestion and inflection among the media grow to become more overt and obvious in the persons of Dan Rather and Ted Koppel. I saw CNN start off under Ted Turner to become greatly respected among their peers, only to fall off a liberal cliff at some point to feature shallow and rabid activists such as Jim Acosta. In short, media personalities morphed from being greatly concerned with their own credibility to caring less and catering to factions of like political belief.

I saw those of this nation's political parties take a similar tack. I saw Dwight D Eisenhower, and John F Kennedy, and Lyndon Baines Johnson, and Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan, up to DJT. I saw the Ayatollah capitulate to Reagan, and the fall of the Berlin Wall and the USSR. I saw Trickle-Down economics work, so well in fact that Reagan was able to turn the miserable tide of doubt and insurmountable debt on the part of working consumers, to boom times in less than 5 years. Now we see that same sort of incredible economic success happening all over again under MR Trump. Unfortunately we also see Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, Jerrold Nadler, Al Green, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.

I could write a book about all this but suffice it to say that when I juxtaposition what the Cardfan says against history, things just did not happen the way he says. The liberals have revised history to their liking or at least their benefit. Case in point; As I said Trickle-Down economics worked. So well healed were we that when Bill Clinton came to office the slide was so greasy all he had to do was hang on and enjoy the ride. I was there to see that. Guess what he, the rest of the Dems and the media did next? Bill with the same straight face in which he said that he did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky; With the bobble headed Dems in dutiful attendance behind him and the complicitous news corps backing him up, Bill Clinton proceeded to take credit for all the prosperity of his day.

In short the truth is conservative fiscal policy does work. It worked in the 80's which carried through to 2007. And it is working again in even more remarkable terms under MR Trump. But Bill took credit for the accomplishments of his predecessor. And not to be outdone as we have seen only this past week, Obama has tried to take credit for his successor. The fight now is whether voters are going to be goofy enough to allow the Dems to redefine under their very noses, that which they already know to be correct.


So thank you very much there Cardfan. But I will continue to balance what I know thanks to what I have seen, with God's inerrant and perfectly prophetic revelation of the history of man, and come to my own conclusions as back dropped against what I hear current event-wise. Unlike so many, I do know what to believe. But feel free to get your opinion handed to you from your buddy Jim Acosta et-al.

Now let's deal with your plagiarism and clinical level projection infection. YOUR side, were the ones out in the streets on their knees howling nooooo repeatedly like werewolves on election eve 2016.

You wrote all that to not answer where the 95% coverage number came from? Just admit that the tweet was garbage. There is no way on this planet anyone can support that 95% of all the stories written or produced were positive/negative about either politician. It was hyperbole to create a false outrage.

This is a prime example of what I said earlier in the thread and goes back to the OP. Someone says, tweets, or writes it and therefore it must be true:
especially if you believe in the speaker. This is not exclusive to the right. The left is just is guilty of believing an Instagram post is the gospel.

You have so much in this post I think you have driven off the cliff of the thread topic, so I'll just leave it alone.

It was more of an "homage" than plagiarism. I thought the crying in the streets was ridiculous too. You know you shouldn't really get to make fun if you would have been "howling" had HRC won.
Is that what we should expect if Sanders or Warren were to win this fall? :Sad04:

[TheRealThing]

You wrote all that to not answer where the 95% coverage number came from? Just admit that the tweet was garbage. There is no way on this planet anyone can support that 95% of all the stories written or produced were positive/negative about either politician. It was hyperbole to create a false outrage.

This is a prime example of what I said earlier in the thread and goes back to the OP. Someone says, tweets, or writes it and therefore it must be true:
especially if you believe in the speaker. This is not exclusive to the right. The left is just is guilty of believing an Instagram post is the gospel.

You have so much in this post I think you have driven off the cliff of the thread topic, so I'll just leave it alone.

It was more of an "homage" than plagiarism. I thought the crying in the streets was ridiculous too. You know you shouldn't really get to make fun if you would have been "howling" had HRC won.
Is that what we should expect if Sanders or Warren were to win this fall? :Sad04:

Nope, I wrote all of that to lay the foundation for the reality upon which I have based my life and you have inexplicably forsaken for political pettiness. The numbers are correct.

It's your own howling, and willful ignorance, and allegiance to the Dems and their false outrage that I have been addressing there Cardfan. To wit, you're the one coming on here making the unsupported charge over and over that the President constantly lies. But where there is no hope to make right your own misconceptions regarding the record and all of the revisionist silliness, others may yet benefit.

[Cardfan1]

Nope, I wrote all of that to lay the foundation for the reality upon which I have based my life and you have inexplicably forsaken for political pettiness. The numbers are correct.

It's your own howling, and willful ignorance, and allegiance to the Dems and their false outrage that I have been addressing there Cardfan. To wit, you're the one coming on here making the unsupported charge over and over that the President constantly lies. But where there is no hope to make right your own misconceptions regarding the record and all of the revisionist silliness, others may yet benefit.

So you're telling me even if I watched Fox News, listened to Rush Limbaugh, and read NewsMax that 95% of the stories would be negative about Trump and positive about Obama from 2008-present.

Dude, I am friends with a lot of Trump supporters, and even they admit he tells lots of doozies. That 16k number that I have posted can be disputed and some...maybe even pled down to misleading statements, but, dang, that's a whole lot of fibs. All politicians are fast and loose with the truth, but President Trump is a real gunslinger. irateSho

I get it. It's entertaining and follows the narrative that supporters like to hear. Gonna be really entertaining if VP Biden makes a big comeback in the Dem primary. I wonder which can tell the biggest whopper.

[TheRealThing]

So you're telling me even if I watched Fox News, listened to Rush Limbaugh, and read NewsMax that 95% of the stories would be negative about Trump and positive about Obama from 2008-present.

Dude, I am friends with a lot of Trump supporters, and even they admit he tells lots of doozies. That 16k number that I have posted can be disputed and some...maybe even pled down to misleading statements, but, dang, that's a whole lot of fibs. All politicians are fast and loose with the truth, but President Trump is a real gunslinger. irateSho

I get it. It's entertaining and follows the narrative that supporters like to hear. Gonna be really entertaining if VP Biden makes a big comeback in the Dem primary. I wonder which can tell the biggest whopper.

LOL, I don't think 'you get' what side of the bed you got up on. And I would appreciate some help on this one, but on the day that I start tailoring my posts to address only that which you sanction, hopefully one of my friends will point it out so I can go and seek professional guidance.

As to what I tell you, I always make myself clear. Past what is to follow, I will likely not by acknowledgment lend any further credibility to your real time distortions on this matter. Other than FOX, (which percentage wise is still nonetheless mostly negative) the news outlets that were tracked and who were guilty of the 95% plus negative reporting rate where it came to the President, that being ABC, NBC and the like, all appear on your bias chart. At some point when somebody like you is engrossed in making some unfounded or otherwise ridiculous statement, those involved in the debate just have to ask themselves if they want to continue to lend credibility your absurdities by even answering.


Since the Impeachment---
Broadcast news has been “more hostile than normal” toward President Trump since the impeachment inquiry began, according to a new study.

The Media Research Center (MRC) analyzed all coverage of President Trump and his administration on ABC’s “World News Tonight,” CBS’ “Evening News” and NBC’s “Nightly News” since Trump took office in 2017. MRC editor Rich Noyes noted that coverage of Trump has been “more hostile than normal” since Sept. 24 when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced the start of the impeachment inquiry.

“Out of 684 evaluative comments included in these broadcasts, a whopping 96 percent have been negative, vs. a meager four percent that have been positive,” Noyes wrote.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/broadcast-...e-coverage


FOX coverage is not a lot better---
https://www.mediaite.com/online/majority...dia-study/


News report in general on the same subject mid Presidency---
October 10, 2018
"For its report, the Media Research Center did a lot of visual spadework. It viewed some 1,007 evening news stories about the Trump White House on ABC, CBS and NBC from June 1 to Sept. 30. That's the equivalent of about 32.7 hours of coverage, by TV standards an eternity of news time.

What they found was, as Trump himself might say, sad: "Over the summer, the broadcast networks have continued to pound Donald Trump and his team with the most hostile coverage of a president in TV news history — 92% negative, vs. just 8% positive."
https://www.investors.com/politics/edito...-coverage/


I don't know about the coming Presidential debates, but I know who has told the biggest whoppers so far there--- Cardfan. nicker:

[Cardfan1]

1. The original tweet was extremely misleading. It’s taken you days of work to explicate the meaning. My guess it was purposefully vague.
2. Math still doesn’t work out from the articles you posted. Not to mention heavily manipulated studies especially the one on Fox News that only counted the “Special Reports.” The extremely conservative biased MRC nitpicked the “evaluative” comments as positive or negative. I call misleading.
3. Of course if 96% were saying these things maybe it’s time to look in the mirror.

[TheRealThing]

1. The original tweet was extremely misleading. It’s taken you days of work to explicate the meaning. My guess it was purposefully vague.
2. Math still doesn’t work out from the articles you posted. Not to mention heavily manipulated studies especially the one on Fox News that only counted the “Special Reports.” The extremely conservative biased MRC nitpicked the “evaluative” comments as positive or negative. I call misleading.
3. Of course if 96% were saying these things maybe it’s time to look in the mirror.

Like so may things you post on here, the only tweet involved here is the one which is evidently bouncing around in your head. There was NO tweet on which the percentage was based. It was just to prove the number came from the news media community. You posted a chart generated by the very lying media you always defend on here, in which they give themselves, top billing for honesty. :please:

Jet's point was simply and plainly enough put; the negative media coverage of this President has been north of 95%. And there are tons of corroborative souces out there. But then along comes the Cardfan who thinks he is clever enough to in real time, revise the conversation as hinging somehow on a tweet. Wrong. But keep lying to yourself, it is a clinic in projection, bias, denial and revisionist blather.

[Cardfan1]

Like so may things you post on here, the only tweet involved here is the one which is evidently bouncing around in your head. There was NO tweet on which the percentage was based. It was just to prove the number came from the news media community. You posted a chart generated by the very lying media you always defend on here, in which they give themselves, top billing for honesty. :please:

Jet's point was simply and plainly enough put; the negative media coverage of this President has been north of 95%. And there are tons of corroborative souces out there. But then along comes the Cardfan who thinks he is clever enough to in real time, revise the conversation as hinging somehow on a tweet. Wrong. But keep lying to yourself, it is a clinic in projection, bias, denial and revisionist blather.

Some of the sources you posted didn’t support the 95% and then were extremely deniable.
I want to apologize for holding you guys to standard of some truth.
Sorry that you guys use questionable sources that make up facts. You said it “fiction is fact.”

[TheRealThing]

Some of the sources you posted didn’t support the 95% and then were extremely deniable.
I want to apologize for holding you guys to standard of some truth.
Sorry that you guys use questionable sources that make up facts. You said it “fiction is fact.”

Right, but is there anything that exists that you couldn't deny? That chart you posted is right up there with the original tablets. Argument over. :biglmao: