Americans agree on some things...

[Albion]

And host of other right-wing sources, WND, Brietbart, Blaze, Free Republic, Drudge Report, etc. The beauty of media today, is that you can easily find all sorts of viewpoints, which is what you denied.

I did NOT deny that. However, the availability somewhere or other of a contrary opinion or slant is not at all what I was referring to.

It's nonsense to argue that WND is on a par with, say, NBC when it comes to influence! And the same would hold in the other direction if someone were to argue that the Daily Kos and Fox News are equals.

 

[The Barbarian]

I did NOT deny that. However, the availability somewhere or other of a contrary opinion or slant is not at all what I was referring to.

It's nonsense to argue that WND is on a par with, say, NBC when it comes to influence!

Or to say, for example, that NBC has the same influence as Fox.

And the same would hold in the other direction if someone were to argue that the Daily Kos and Fox News are equals.

But of course, you ignore that Fox is one of the largest outlets in terms of viewers. So you've undermined your own argument here.

 

[Albion]

Or to say, for example, that NBC has the same influence as Fox.

Agreed, but what I said wasn't that. My point was that Fox--which of course you almost had to refer to in order to make any point about a conservative-leading news source--stands as the opposite of NBC and ABC, CBS, PBS, CNN, NPR, MSNBC, most major newspapers and magazines etc. The influential news media are heavily slanted towards the same political side of the spectrum.

 

[The Barbarian]

Agreed, but what I said wasn't that.

I know. NBC and Fox is an apples-to-apples comparison. Or close to it, Fox has a huge share of MSM viewership.

My point was that Fox--which of course you almost had to refer to in order to make any point about a conservative-leading news source

Pretty much have to mention a right-wing source to document right-wing sources.

stands as the opposite of NBC and ABC, CBS, PBS, CNN, NPR, MSNBC,

Well, let's look again...

Doesn't seem to fit your take on it.

 

[Yarddog]

View attachment 278469

I believe just about everyone has some racist tendencies. Sometimes Trump's are shown like most others are.

 

[Fantine]

If only 43% of white Americans believe that Trump is a racist, America has a lot more work to do.
I am embarrassed for my Caucasian brothers and sisters.

 

[The Barbarian]

If only 43% of white Americans believe that Trump is a racist, America has a lot more work to do.
I am embarrassed for my Caucasian brothers and sisters.

It's 52%, which is still pretty low. About 11% aren't sure.

 

[disciple Clint]

Americans are smarter than you seem to think they are.

Since 93.4% of all internet statistics are just made up, I'd like to see your data.

I notice news sites like Fox try to put a positive slant on his behavior, and Fox is one of the largest sources. C'mon.



MSM challenged you to provide data? Or are you upset about MSM supposing Americans are more intelligent than you seem to think they are? Or are you denying that Fox is a major network?

Or are you denying Trump did all those things? I can show you, if you'd like. Would you like me to show you?

But I'd still like to see your data on that 95%. What do you have?

Evening News Spin: 100% Negative on Trump Defense, 95% Positive Dems

 

[disciple Clint]

More importantly, Trump said it. Or in the case of the pandemic, wasted several weeks insisting it was a "hoax", which killed tens of thousands of people needlessly. He publicly suggested that people should inject disinfectant to "clean lungs." He didn't know he was on a live microphone when he boasted about getting away with sexual assault. The attack on peaceful demonstrators was caught on camera.

Would you like me to show you all of that, again?

Show me exactly what evidence you can provide to back up what you are saying that "the case of the pandemic, wasted several weeks insisting it was a "hoax", which killed tens of thousands of people needlessly." Once again that is what the msm twisted his words to say, it is important to separate fact from propaganda designed to make people believe they know what happened when in fact all they know is what they were programed to know. I will even make it easy to find the truth on this Democratic Ad Twists Trump's 'Hoax' Comment

 

[The Barbarian]

Here he says the coronavirus is the new hoax.

Notice the initial denial before he finally admits, weeks too late, that it's a serious problem.

The U.S. could have prevented roughly 36,000 deaths from COVID-19 if broad social distancing measures had been put in place just one week earlier in March, according to an analysis from Columbia University.


Underlining the importance of aggressively responding to the coronavirus, the study found the U.S. could have avoided at least 700,000 fewer infections if actions that began on March 15 had actually started on March 8.


The U.S. currently has more than 1.5 million confirmed COVID-19 cases, and more than 93,000 people have died from the disease, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University.


In the analysis, researchers applied transmission models to data drawn from the pandemic's actual course county by county in the U.S. — the worst-hit nation in the world. The main focus of the study was the period from March 15 to May 3, when U.S. states and counties implemented "measures enforcing social distancing and restricting individual contact."


And if restrictions had gone into effect in the U.S. two weeks earlier, researchers found, nearly 54,000 people would still be alive and nearly a million COVID-19 cases would have been avoided.
U.S. Could Have Saved 36,000 Lives If Social Distancing Started 1 Week Earlier: Study

And yes, I know:
"They are lying, all of them are lying!"

 

[The Barbarian]

Later, some damage control...

For his part, Trump later defended his comments by stating he was indeed calling out the Democrats’ efforts to blame him and his administration for what they have characterized as an inadequate response “because we’ve done such a good job.”


Trump did however downplay the scale of the virus and the danger it posed to the public. At the time he made his remarks, the U.S. had 57 confirmed coronavirus cases, 40 of which came from the Diamond Princess cruise ship, which experienced an outbreak of the virus. And health officials were warning that the spread of the virus domestically was “inevitable.”
Did President Trump Refer to the Coronavirus as a 'Hoax'?

Trump often mangles language and may indeed mean something other than his words indicate. But his own excuse indicts him; Americans were indeed right to be concerned about the disaster that he was dismissing. It wasn't "completely controlled" as he claimed, and his own scientists were telling him that at the same time he was denying it to us.

His bungling killed tens of thousands of Americans.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evening News Spin: 100% Negative on Trump Defense, 95% Positive Dems

Your own source (you tell me not to trust the media, and then you present the media to make your point) offers no evidence that confirms their claim. On one issue, they cherry-picked three networks that showed more democrat guests than republicans (not nearly 95%, as you said), ignoring any news outlets with conservative leanings.

So you've pretty much destroyed your own argument.

 

[disciple Clint]

Here he says the coronavirus is the new hoax.

Notice the initial denial before he finally admits, weeks too late, that it's a serious problem.

The U.S. could have prevented roughly 36,000 deaths from COVID-19 if broad social distancing measures had been put in place just one week earlier in March, according to an analysis from Columbia University.


Underlining the importance of aggressively responding to the coronavirus, the study found the U.S. could have avoided at least 700,000 fewer infections if actions that began on March 15 had actually started on March 8.


The U.S. currently has more than 1.5 million confirmed COVID-19 cases, and more than 93,000 people have died from the disease, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University.


In the analysis, researchers applied transmission models to data drawn from the pandemic's actual course county by county in the U.S. — the worst-hit nation in the world. The main focus of the study was the period from March 15 to May 3, when U.S. states and counties implemented "measures enforcing social distancing and restricting individual contact."


And if restrictions had gone into effect in the U.S. two weeks earlier, researchers found, nearly 54,000 people would still be alive and nearly a million COVID-19 cases would have been avoided.
U.S. Could Have Saved 36,000 Lives If Social Distancing Started 1 Week Earlier: Study

And yes, I know:
"They are lying, all of them are lying!"

so I guess you think you are more accurate than fact check? Democratic Ad Twists Trump's 'Hoax' Comment
By the way Trump followed the recommendations of Dr Fauci and the other experts, Blame him if fulfills your political desires.

 

[disciple Clint]

Your own source (you tell me not to trust the media, and then you present the media to make your point) offers no evidence that confirms their claim. On one issue, they cherry-picked three networks that showed more democrat guests than republicans (not nearly 95%, as you said), ignoring any news outlets with conservative leanings.

So you've pretty much destroyed your own argument.

That logic is ridiculous, if they do not agree with you "they must be lying"

 

[The Barbarian]

That logic is ridiculous, if they do not agree with you "they must be lying"

Yes, and that was your story. First you tell me not to trust the media. Then you used a media article to convince me. Then you cherry-pick sources to get the result you want, ignoring any right-wing sources. As I pointed out, that pretty much destroyed your own argument.

And you still haven't shown me that data for:

Evening News Spin: 100% Negative on Trump Defense, 95% Positive Dems

I'm starting to think you don't have any data to support that claim. Do you?

 

[disciple Clint]

Yes, and that was your story. First you tell me not to trust the media. Then you used a media article to convince me. Then you cherry-pick sources to get the result you want, ignoring any right-wing sources. As I pointed out, that pretty much destroyed your own argument.

And you still haven't shown me that data for:



I'm starting to think you don't have any data to support that claim. Do you?

I provided the data, I cannot force you to accept the facts and that is not my responsibility

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes, and that was your story. First you tell me not to trust the media. Then you used a media article to convince me. Then you cherry-pick sources to get the result you want, ignoring any right-wing sources. As I pointed out, that pretty much destroyed your own argument.

And you still haven't shown me that data for:

Evening News Spin: 100% Negative on Trump Defense, 95% Positive Dems

I'm starting to think you don't have any data to support that claim. Do you?

I provided the data,

Nope. No numbers at all. You just made the claim, without support, and expect us to just believe it. And as mentioned before, you didn't include any sites with an right-wing bias.

I cannot force you to accept the facts

You cannot even find any facts. That's a big part of your failure here. You make the claim, it's up to you to provide the numbers to support it.

and that is not my responsibility

Turns out, it is. That's how it works. You make the claim, up to you to show us the data.

 

[disciple Clint]

Yes, and that was your story. First you tell me not to trust the media. Then you used a media article to convince me. Then you cherry-pick sources to get the result you want, ignoring any right-wing sources. As I pointed out, that pretty much destroyed your own argument.

And you still haven't shown me that data for:


I'm starting to think you don't have any data to support that claim. Do you?



Nope. No numbers at all. You just made the claim, without support, and expect us to just believe it. And as mentioned before, you didn't include any sites with an right-wing bias.



You cannot even find any facts. That's a big part of your failure here. You make the claim, it's up to you to provide the numbers to support it.



Turns out, it is. That's how it works. You make the claim, up to you to show us the data.

I see the problem....you have to READ the article to see the facts and the statistics. I am still waiting for you to supply evidence for some of your claims, I cannot help it if you ignore facts that you dont like

 

[The Barbarian]

I see the problem....you have to READ the article to see the facts and the statistics.

They don't show what you claim they do. It would be easy for you to establish that they do. Just show us here. Do you think anyone doesn't know why you won't support your claimed numbers?

I am still waiting for you to supply evidence for some of your claims

If I missed your request to support any of my numbers, now's the time to bring it forward. I'll be glad to clear it up for you. What do you have? That's not a rhetorical question; since you made the accusation, I'm going to ask you to support it, now.

 

[disciple Clint]

They don't show what you claim they do. It would be easy for you to establish that they do. Just show us here. Do you think anyone doesn't know why you won't support your claimed numbers?



If I missed your request to support any of my numbers, now's the time to bring it forward. I'll be glad to clear it up for you. What do you have? That's not a rhetorical question; since you made the accusation, I'm going to ask you to support it, now.

Why would I supply more facts that will just be ignored or dismissed with illogical excuses?