Something funny for you guys with the sense of humor of a five year old.
It's like Heathme discovered the internet yesterday. It must be a very exciting time of new discovery for him.
It's like Heathme discovered the internet yesterday. It must be a very exciting time of new discovery for him.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
Something funny for you guys with a sense of humor.
That was pretty funny.Another funny one.
The audience on worlds funniest (and pretty much every other comedy tv show with a live audience) is encouraged to laugh at everything and even told when to do so. Helps the show seem funnier.I saw this on World's Funniest Home Videos, but it was a white father doing it to his son. The audience thought it was hilarious.
Don't tell Al Gore. He invented it you know.
The truth does not always win out. The candidate that lied more than any modern candidate ever, won the last election. That is not an opinion either, it has been well proven with facts.
"The Media" does not attack conservatism. The media is wayyyyyyy too broad to make any kind of claim about it. But I am guessing you dont know what that is. Or maybe you meant main stream media. Which is still a pretty silly broad thing to make claims about and that would still be incorrect.
So many factually incorrect statements crammed in here that are all easily proven wrong. But I think you were just hoping to make a statement that sounded cool and powerful, lol. Love the ALWAYS statements though, they gave me a good chuckle.
Lol, please define that more. Fox news is very mainstream. Are they the study? Who is and who isn't.Independent outlets have made studies of the mainstream media and found they are 90% against Trump with their coverage. Thanks for the chuckle.
Independent studies have shown that every persistent who has won in recent years received more stories from media in general. They have also received more positive stories overall. Except Trump. But he didn't win the popular vote so that makes sense. Generally the media favors who the people favor because they chase viewers and numbers. At least in the large scale. That's why it's important to pursue good sources of news that don't cater to that or mix opinions and facts. That's why CNN and fox news are a complete waste of time.Independent outlets have made studies of the mainstream media and found they are 90% against Trump with their coverage. Thanks for the chuckle.
Lol, please define that more. Fox news is very mainstream. Are they the study? Who is and who isn't.
Please post your source for that claim.
I don't have time right now to go through all of those. But the first one simple used 3 news sources for their info and only used the latest election. That's a terrible study. Is there reason to keep going? Or did you just use confirmation bias again as usual? Do you know what that is?Will do old buddy: https://gellerreport.com/2019/01/2018-enedmia-coverage-trump-negative.html/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ent-network-trump-coverage-has-been-negative/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/6/trump-coverage-still-90-negative-says-new-study/
https://www.lifezette.com/2017/12/study-finds-90-percent-of-abc-cbs-nbc-trump-coverage-is-negative/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/12/media-bias-continues-90-of-trump-coverage-in-last-/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...dy-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative
https://www.ibtimes.com/media-out-d...nds-91-percent-news-coverage-negative-2437262
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-trump-hatred-coverage/
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timot...-media-coverage-negative-study-shows-n2504929 Are those enough old buddy, if not there is more.
Will do old buddy: https://gellerreport.com/2019/01/2018-enedmia-coverage-trump-negative.html/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ent-network-trump-coverage-has-been-negative/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/6/trump-coverage-still-90-negative-says-new-study/
https://www.lifezette.com/2017/12/study-finds-90-percent-of-abc-cbs-nbc-trump-coverage-is-negative/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/12/media-bias-continues-90-of-trump-coverage-in-last-/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...dy-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative
https://www.ibtimes.com/media-out-d...nds-91-percent-news-coverage-negative-2437262
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-trump-hatred-coverage/
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timot...-media-coverage-negative-study-shows-n2504929 Are those enough old buddy, if not there is more.
I don't have time right now to go through all of those. But the first one simple used 3 news sources for their info and only used the latest election. That's a terrible study. Is there reason to keep going? Or did you just use confirmation bias again as usual? Do you know what that is?
You didn't read his post right after the one you quoted?Nice try Ron but one study had it at 93% bias against Trump, and it was made by liberal Harvard University. See you guys simply refuse to except facts. Show me show me and then I don't have time. Pitiful That is why I did not continue I knew I was wasting my time.