Media Bias

[MTK]

Yeah don’t get that comparison at all


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Naw. Not close

Yeah you're right , Stewart is 100 times better.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

I like Joe Rogan's interviews for the same reasons mentioned here. He interviews everybody, treats them with respect, but will ask the tough questions. He certainly doesn't just throw easy softball questions like most Dems would get on CNN and most Republicans would get on FoxNews. All major news outlets in the US are clearly biased one way or the other (although some much more than most). I work out at the gym and will compare what i see on different TVs at the same time - it never ceases to amaze me how Fox News and CNN will have completely different spins on the same story. I enjoy checking out BBC to get an outside perspective. Not saying it wont have some bias, but at least its from a source that doesn't have a dog in the fight.

Personally, I'm missing Last Week Tonight With John Oliver. He calls bullshit everywhere (in American politics and abroad) in the most hilarious manner imaginable.

[Giantone]

Pretty decent!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo

[CRedskinsRule]

Watching CSpan coverage, the reporters asking questions of senators kept over talking the republican senators and house republicans, yet gave awe filled silence when Adam Schiff spoke. If you want to see a serious example of media bias sinply look at the feeding frenzy around republican senators, versus their awesome reverance of Mr Schiff.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Watching CSpan coverage, the reporters asking questions of senators kept over talking the republican senators and house republicans, yet gave awe filled silence when Adam Schiff spoke. If you want to see a serious example of media bias sinply look at the feeding frenzy around republican senators, versus their awesome reverance of Mr Schiff.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Ted fuckin Cruz crushed that piece of shit liberal hack journalist when he did...it was glorious

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Watching CSpan coverage, the reporters asking questions of senators kept over talking the republican senators and house republicans, yet gave awe filled silence when Adam Schiff spoke. If you want to see a serious example of media bias sinply look at the feeding frenzy around republican senators, versus their awesome reverance of Mr Schiff.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Maybe it is because the horse shit coming out of their mouths is more interesting than the truth?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Maybe it is because the horse shit coming out of their mouths is more interesting than the truth?

Whatever. Watch it, and then think about it in role reversal terms. It was blatant but obviously you can't be objective about it. Thats fine, it is where we are. C'est la guerre.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Whatever. Watch it, and then think about it in role reversal terms. It was blatant but obviously you can't be objective about it. Thats fine, it is where we are. C'est la guerre.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Sorry but when ken starr and that dipshit from harvard are completely contradicting themselves in a mind numbing manner what is there to be objective about? Let’s not over complicate this shit. If you want to say you think asking for dirt on the bidens in exchange for military aid is ok than have at it. But that is EXACTLY what happened. And no Obama didn’t do it first.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Sorry but when ken starr and that dipshit from harvard are completely contradicting themselves in a mind numbing manner what is there to be objective about? Let’s not over complicate this shit. If you want to say you think asking for dirt on the bidens in exchange for military aid is ok than have at it. But that is EXACTLY what happened. And no Obama didn’t do it first.

How about if someone doesn't think it is ok, but they also don't think it warrants removal?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Sorry but when ken starr and that dipshit from harvard are completely contradicting themselves in a mind numbing manner what is there to be objective about? Let’s not over complicate this shit. If you want to say you think asking for dirt on the bidens in exchange for military aid is ok than have at it. But that is EXACTLY what happened. And no Obama didn’t do it first.

Yes Biden threaten the Ukraine PM to remove an Ukraine Prosecutor and threaten him with 1 billion Loan Guarantees in aid. He specifically said, if its not done by the time I get back on his plane, then no aid.

Biden and I quote: What you know, son of a bitch, the prosecutor was fired.

Look up the video as Biden explains this on a campaign stop.

Yes, Biden and the Obama Administration participated in a quid pro quo.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Yes Biden threaten the Ukraine PM to remove an Ukraine Prosecutor and threaten him with 1 billion Loan Guarantees in aid. He specifically said, if its not done by the time I get back on his plane, then no aid.

Biden and I quote: What you know, son of a bitch, the prosecutor was fired.

Look up the video as Biden explains this on a campaign stop.

Yes, Biden and the Obama Administration participated in a quid pro quo.

Biden was acting on behalf of the official policy of the united states government at the time.

This is not about threatening to cut off a country's aid. There is nothing wrong with that. Its done all the time. I would hope that Trump regularly uses his power as POTUS to exert pressure on other world leaders to support America's interests.

The difference here is that, in this case, if the allegations are true, Trump would not have been acting on behalf of the United states official policy towards Ukraine. He would have been using his power for PERSONAL political gain.

This is the difference. Whether you agree with it or not, do you understand that part?

[Chico23231]

[QUOTE=BigHairedAristocrat;1243662]Biden was acting on behalf of the official policy of the united states government at the time.

This is not about threatening to cut off a country's aid. There is nothing wrong with that. Its done all the time. I would hope that Trump regularly uses his power as POTUS to exert pressure on other world leaders to support America's interests.

The difference here is that, in this case, if the allegations are true, Trump would not have been acting on behalf of the United states official policy towards Ukraine. He would have been using his power for PERSONAL political gain.

The president investing corruption is doing the same.

Bolded. You are jumping

Read the transcripts… and put down the "opinion" articles. The facts don't connect these things. Bribery, Treason, and Extortion are high crimes and misdemeanors, if these things were true and proven the Impeachment article would have included these along with the witness testimony/documentation within the House process. They didn't.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

[quote=Chico23231;1243664]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Biden was acting on behalf of the official policy of the united states government at the time.

This is not about threatening to cut off a country's aid. There is nothing wrong with that. Its done all the time. I would hope that Trump regularly uses his power as POTUS to exert pressure on other world leaders to support America's interests.

The difference here is that, in this case, if the allegations are true, Trump would not have been acting on behalf of the United states official policy towards Ukraine. He would have been using his power for PERSONAL political gain.

The president investing corruption is doing the same.

Bolded. You are jumping

Read the transcripts… and put down the "opinion" articles. The facts don't connect these things. Bribery, Treason, and Extortion are high crimes and misdemeanors, if these things were true and proven the Impeachment article would have included these along with the witness testimony/documentation within the House process. They didn't.

Contrary to the last impeachment involving Clinton, Trump has done everything in his power to prevent evidence from being produced and witnesses from testifying. So far, we have very limited information, and the only official evidence is all "second-hand." Trump even gloated last week on TV that he had the evidence and the Democrats didn't.

The best way to quash this is to produce EVERYTHING, order EVERYONE to testify, and let republicans and democrats determine what actually happened. Sadly, the President is making a concerted effort to cover things up, so lawmakers are limited in one they are able to do. Trumps also threatened republican senators, which essentially amounts to jury intimidation.

It is truly sad that our democracy has come to this. The president is incredibly corrupt and politicians on both sides are more concerned with appeasing their constituents than behaving like adults and doing their jobs.

I cannot wait for this nightmare to be over in November.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Biden was acting on behalf of the official policy of the united states government at the time.



This is not about threatening to cut off a country's aid. There is nothing wrong with that. Its done all the time. I would hope that Trump regularly uses his power as POTUS to exert pressure on other world leaders to support America's interests.



The difference here is that, in this case, if the allegations are true, Trump would not have been acting on behalf of the United states official policy towards Ukraine. He would have been using his power for PERSONAL political gain.



This is the difference. Whether you agree with it or not, do you understand that part?

Facts psssh.....