I've posted this frequently but NO ONE seems to refute it!

Yup, the news business is a for profit industry and they follow the buzz and the money, right wing media is just as guilty as the left. Its not a new game. Trump knew exactly what he was doing with the media. Provoke them, call them fake news, attack the institution so his supports turn them out and don't believe anything they hear. Saddly it worked and now we have a ton of braindead trumptard drones running around this country. pathetic.
You know you can edit your errors including "saddly" "Sadly"! But that's what you and your ilk's problems. You
make erroneous statements "Trump said good people on both sides" which was totally wrong! Here is exactly what Trump said but you and the biased MSM didn't quote the entire statement:
"There were very fine people on both sides, (This is what the majority of MSM reported as Trump's comment) & I'm not talking about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists because they should be condemned totally."
But dummies like you that can't even pay attention to the little red dotted line intended to help your spelling are so intent like little kids crying "I want it my way!!!"" WAH,WAH,WAH!!!
 
You know you can edit your errors including "saddly" "Sadly"! But that's what you and your ilk's problems. You
make erroneous statements "Trump said good people on both sides" which was totally wrong! Here is exactly what Trump said but you and the biased MSM didn't quote the entire statement:
"There were very fine people on both sides, (This is what the majority of MSM reported as Trump's comment) & I'm not talking about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists because they should be condemned totally."
But dummies like you that can't even pay attention to the little red dotted line intended to help your spelling are so intent like little kids crying "I want it my way!!!"" WAH,WAH,WAH!!!
You don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve said several times on this site that Trump was talking about protestors. You’re just clumping me in with what other people say. This conversation isn’t even about that. Scram you’re being obnoxious now.
 
I thought you would bring up that BS. You know you really should dig in and question extraordinary claims like that when you hear them instead of simply repeating them because they are links that will support your agenda.





Here's a great expert that emphasis my point for how much of a blowhard Trump is:

On the other hand, Donald Trump's claim that the "true" unemployment rate is more like 42% because more than 90 million Americans don't have jobs is nonsensical. Why? He's including high school students, people with disabilities, stay-at-home parents, retirees in nursing homes, and millions of others who would not be working in any economic climate.


Perhaps you should read the ACTUAL STUDY and not a quick careless article trying to tell you what it means.


To monitor trends in alternative work arrangements, we conducted a version of the Contingent Worker Survey as part of the RAND American Life Panel in late 2015. The findings point to a significant rise in the incidence of alternative work arrangements in the U.S. economy from 2005 to 2015. The percentage of workers engaged in alternative work arrangements – defined as temporary help agency workers, on-call workers, contract workers, and independent contractors or freelancers – rose from 10.7 percent in February 2005 to 15.8 percent in late 2015. The percentage of workers hired out through contract companies showed the largest rise, increasing from 1.4 percent in 2005 to 3.1 percent in 2015. Workers who provide services through online intermediaries, such as Uber or Task Rabbit, accounted for 0.5 percent of all workers in 2015. About twice as many workers selling goods or services directly to customers reported finding customers through offline intermediaries than through online intermediaries.
AND???? So with most idiots who repeat Obama's employment figure just don't seem to comprehend as the above stated: "on-call workers, contract workers, and independent contractors or freelancers – rose from 10.7 percent in February 2005 to 15.8 percent in late 2015." Nearly 50% increase in just 8 months of people working part-time, etc. but NOT full time workers with FICA deductions! Again FACTS are from Harvard that 94% of the jobs were part time!
 
AND???? So with most idiots who repeat Obama's employment figure just don't seem to comprehend as the above stated: "on-call workers, contract workers, and independent contractors or freelancers – rose from 10.7 percent in February 2005 to 15.8 percent in late 2015." Nearly 50% increase in just 8 months of people working part-time, etc. but NOT full time workers with FICA deductions! Again FACTS are from Harvard that 94% of the jobs were part time!
Hahaha, I don't think I can explain it any clearer or support it with more links. You either get it or you don't. And you obviously didn't read the report you are highlighting, you are repeating a one paragraph article that points to it. I don't have patience for you today. I'll deal with you another time, maybe
 
I watched more fox than anything up until a couple months ago when I decided to tune it all out. I really only enjoyed shows that would get debates going between reps on both sides of an issue. But it’s clear that network news is entertainment based, local news is just fine and I’ll watch that to see what’s going on in my community. The network stuff is pure entertainment on both sides. Don’t take it too seriously
Fox is owned by a couple libs now. I watch the local news but try to avoid the national news.
 
Hahaha, I don't think I can explain it any clearer or support it with more links. You either get it or you don't. And you obviously didn't read the report you are highlighting, you are repeating a one paragraph article that points to it. I don't have patience for you today. I'll deal with you another time, maybe
YUP... that's the way with people like you! Instead of being honest and saying hey those facts make me change my mind... you'd rather give up! I understand.
 
You don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve said several times on this site that Trump was talking about protestors. You’re just clumping me in with what other people say. This conversation isn’t even about that. Scram you’re being obnoxious now.
Of course that's what people like you do! Take no responsibility much less effort to correct something. That attitude was evident when you didn't even pay attention to the little red dotted line under "saddly" . You just make something up like "saddly" and lazily let it go! That's the attitude of people like you..."oh I can't be bothered with little details"!
 
YUP... that's the way with people like you! Instead of being honest and saying hey those facts make me change my mind... you'd rather give up! I understand.
I posted 4 links to give context and explanation to your referenced study. You ignored it all to push a distorted narrative. Then you bring up lies about things ive never said about charolettesville. You’re not capable of honest debate
 
Of course that's what people like you do! Take no responsibility much less effort to correct something. That attitude was evident when you didn't even pay attention to the little red dotted line under "saddly" . You just make something up like "saddly" and lazily let it go! That's the attitude of people like you..."oh I can't be bothered with little details"!
I misspell shit all the tome, since your tryin to Mike the debate about that it just shows that you can’t handle the substance. That’s week! Grow a Brian
 
I misspell shit all the tome, since your tryin to Mike the debate about that it just shows that you can’t handle the substance. That’s week! Grow a Brian
Right. It just shows how f...king lazy you are that a little red dotted line tells..TELLS you you've misspelled a word and you choose to ignore it! Just plain stupid! But that little red dotted line tells me also how f...king lazy you are which is so typical of people like you! You jump to conclusions. Voice your personal, subjective observation as a FACT. Both of which shows your intellectual level... probably more than your above response which doesn't surprise me one bit, i.e. that you are lazy, ignorant, brainless anti-American democrat! Someone should have aborted you as you want abortions of babies that would have probably been more successful than you!
 
The attached two files I've posted very frequently because I wanted someone to refute them!
But no one has! This first file explains this fact:
Barack Obama, 41 percent negative, 59 percent positive;
George W. Bush, 57 percent negative, 43 percent positive; and
Bill Clinton, 60 percent negative, 40 percent positive.
June to September of 2018 found that 92 percent of the coverage related to the president Trump during that period was negative in tone, as compared to a mere 8 percent that was positive.
Subsequent media studies have found continued overwhelmingly negative coverage of the president.
A previous Media Research Center (MRC) study in which researchers viewed more than 1,000 hours of network news coverage ” ABC, CBS and NBC”
A subsequent Harvard University study produced similar results. The Washington Examiner noted:
The Harvard scholars analyzed the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and the main newscasts (not talk shows) of CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC during Trump’s initial time in office. They found, to no one’s surprise, that Trump absolutely dominated news coverage in the first 100 days. And then they found that news coverage was solidly negative 80 percent negative among those outlets studied, versus 20 percent positive.
So would those of you who think the MSM was NOT influential in the 2020 election of Biden... please refute this!View attachment 538247View attachment 538246
Good luck getting an answer.
 
Right. It just shows how f...king lazy you are that a little red dotted line tells..TELLS you you've misspelled a word and you choose to ignore it! Just plain stupid! But that little red dotted line tells me also how f...king lazy you are which is so typical of people like you! You jump to conclusions. Voice your personal, subjective observation as a FACT. Both of which shows your intellectual level... probably more than your above response which doesn't surprise me one bit, i.e. that you are lazy, ignorant, brainless anti-American democrat! Someone should have aborted you as you want abortions of babies that would have probably been more successful than you!
Yup I am lazy. I type on my phone and have fat thumbs and I hit send before I proofread. Sue me. I’m not here to win a spelling bee. If you can’t understand what I’m talking about then don’t engage but right now it just sounds like you are trying to change the debate to something stupid cause you can’t handle the actual topic. Weeeeeeeaaaaaakkkkk!
 
Someone should have aborted you as you want abortions of babies that would have probably been more successful than you!

healthmyths
Read that last paragraph of yours again and remember that I am somebodies son and brother and uncle and coach and best friend. You should be ashamed of yourself
 
First of all you haven't refuted anything I put up! Why not provide LINKS like I do that substantiate my statements? That's because you are LIKE the MSM... deal with emotion, subjectivity... personal stupidities!
But the simple fact the MSM donated 96% to Hillary... BEFORE Trump was President... and she lost so THEY spent the next 4 years suffering like you from TDS and then put 90% in Biden PLUS totally negative news...

Explain to me how anyone could accuse the MSM being objective, journalists? They are suppose to report the facts...not opinions regardless of the subject's attitude. Why was THAT acceptable for the MSM after donating to Hillary to then put THEIR opinions in their news... For example you and your other Trump haters use this statement repeated endless by the MSM..."There were very fine people on both sides,
But this is what Trump actually said but the biased MSM left off the last part!!!
The post the states that Trump really said,
"There were very fine people on both sides, (This is what the majority of MSM reported as Trump's comment) & I'm noTrut talking about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists because they should be condemned totally."

No one is responding to your posts in the way you want them to, because your entire premise is whack.

You blame bad press for Trump's low approval ratings, and we blame low public approval of Trump's policies and the outcomes of same for his bad press.

ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. IT'S DOESN'T MATTER WHAT HE SAID AFTER "GOOD PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES", BECAUSE HE DIDN'T REALLY CONDEMN THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS.

TRUMP HAS NEVER CONDEMNED OR DISAVOWED THE KKK, OR THE WHITE TERRORISTS WHO COMMITTED THE MASS SHOOTINGS IN THE WALMART IN TEXAS, OR THE TREE OF LIFE SYNAGOGUE.

Trump got bad press because he lied to the people, and attacked the press for calling him on his lies. Trump could not stand or abide any questioning of anything he did, and became angry and lashed out at the slightest criticism.

But Trump went beyond that, he used doctored video in attacking his perceived "enemies", and Trump perceived anyone who didn't kiss his ass as his enemy. He woke up every day wanting someone to beat up on and bully, and the press was an easy target.

Trump generated his own bad press. His policies and the results of those policies generated his poor approval ratings.

STOP BLAMING THE MEDIA BECAUSE TRUMP WAS A MASSIVE FAILURE AT EVERYTHING HE DID.
 
The attached two files I've posted very frequently because I wanted someone to refute them!
But no one has! This first file explains this fact:
Barack Obama, 41 percent negative, 59 percent positive;
George W. Bush, 57 percent negative, 43 percent positive; and
Bill Clinton, 60 percent negative, 40 percent positive.
June to September of 2018 found that 92 percent of the coverage related to the president Trump during that period was negative in tone, as compared to a mere 8 percent that was positive.
Subsequent media studies have found continued overwhelmingly negative coverage of the president.
A previous Media Research Center (MRC) study in which researchers viewed more than 1,000 hours of network news coverage ” ABC, CBS and NBC”
A subsequent Harvard University study produced similar results. The Washington Examiner noted:
The Harvard scholars analyzed the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and the main newscasts (not talk shows) of CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC during Trump’s initial time in office. They found, to no one’s surprise, that Trump absolutely dominated news coverage in the first 100 days. And then they found that news coverage was solidly negative 80 percent negative among those outlets studied, versus 20 percent positive.
So would those of you who think the MSM was NOT influential in the 2020 election of Biden... please refute this!View attachment 538247View attachment 538246
/-----/ Nothing to refute. Sorry, I can't help you.
 

Forum List

Back
Top