Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CNN Caught Planting An Anti-Trumper As A Trump Supporter Regret Voting For Him

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
    Why doesn't anyone apply the same level of skepticism to random people "reporting" on youtube as they do with mainstream news? I have no issue with fact checking the MSM and not automatically buying into everything they report, that's perfectly fine. But, it seems odd to me that youtubers aren't held to the same level of scrutiny or standards. Why is that?

    This reminds me of a huge conspiracy theorist I listen to every so often because he's a frequent guest on the JRE podcast, Eddie Bravo. He never places any burden of proof on these youtubers. He won't believe anything put out by the MSM, but any independent video on youtube is automatically irrefutable fact. I don't understand this logic. There is no concrete evidence to the claim being made in that video, yet because youtube is somehow more trustworthy people will buy into it despite the lack evidence, or is it simply confirmation bias? Do you guys think the only people who can benefit from lying are on CNN?

    A lot of youtubers have made a great living off of portraying their selves as victims fighting against the MSM and establishment. It works.
    Bold mine

    It will not be so puzzling if you think of the different agendas that posters have.

    Some are willing to use this forum to have a discussion or even learn something from the "other side" that they perhaps missed because it was under-reported in the kind of media they follow.

    Others come here just to provoke and to score points. This kind of posters will use anything to attack the other side, including fake news.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kurt Knispel
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    I do. I accept nothing posted on YT is considered "news" or "fact". Youtube is highly biased and censors any opposing views. You point out one of the biggest problems in the world of today - unreliable news sources.
    I have never used YT as a reliable news source either. However some of the videos on YT makes you stop and think. The following is a real eye opener:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKd2QVrQVIM

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    I do. I accept nothing posted on YT is considered "news" or "fact". Youtube is highly biased and censors any opposing views. You point out one of the biggest problems in the world of today - unreliable news sources.
    YT channels lead you to believe they're censored because controversy sells. All of the "Watch this Video before youtube deletes it" titles are just click bait.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Who is Vince James?

    He has provided opinion and supposition and he is a youtube 'personality' is he not? He has not proven anything. It looks to me as if the Trumpites on this forum are getting desperate as Trump's position as president degenerates.

    Did anyone see the entire broadcast of that panel 'discussion' on CNN? I did and there were three of those there who had changed their minds on Trump since the election, not just one. By not showing that, James misrepresented the panel.

    And with the president's abhorrent record of distancing himself from the truth in the last 18 months, the attempts to discredit others' veracity amounts to nothing more than distraction and not facing the situation with the president and his lack of veracity.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
    Why doesn't anyone apply the same level of skepticism to random people "reporting" on youtube as they do with mainstream news? I have no issue with fact checking the MSM and not automatically buying into everything they report, that's perfectly fine. But, it seems odd to me that youtubers aren't held to the same level of scrutiny or standards. Why is that?

    This reminds me of a huge conspiracy theorist I listen to every so often because he's a frequent guest on the JRE podcast, Eddie Bravo. He never places any burden of proof on these youtubers. He won't believe anything put out by the MSM, but any independent video on youtube is automatically irrefutable fact. I don't understand this logic. There is no concrete evidence to the claim being made in that video, yet because youtube is somehow more trustworthy people will buy into it despite the lack evidence, or is it simply confirmation bias? Do you guys think the only people who can benefit from lying are on CNN?

    A lot of youtubers have made a great living off of portraying their selves as victims fighting against the MSM and establishment. It works.
    I do. I accept nothing posted on YT is considered "news" or "fact". Youtube is highly biased and censors any opposing views. You point out one of the biggest problems in the world of today - unreliable news sources.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hida Akechi
    replied
    Ah CNN. So desperate to be relevant that no stooping is too low for them. As well as their supporters. TDS as usual.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Contrived Nonsense News...

    Leave a comment:


  • Kurt Knispel
    replied
    Why do you think Lou Dobbs left CNN many years ago? Dobbs was the one of the best constant whistle blowers and truth tellers they had. Dobbs stated he was leaving the network after 30 years of his own choice but received an 8 million severance check by CNN.

    CNN = COMMUNIST NEWS NETWORK

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Two years ago the Clinton News Network was preparing an interview with Trump;as they were to lazy to search for questions to ask to Trump, they asked the Hillary gang if these could not give them some questions .
    But there are still people here to use CNN as a serious source.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Salinator View Post
    CNN does it again:




    Where did you go?

    Since you created this thread, make it clear of you want us to continue discuss what you posted here or if you just want us to talk about anything other than the topic of the current thread. It seems the usual suspects try desperate to derail the thread while you remain silent.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post

    Of course, he will not, for obvious reasons
    The usual trolling....

    Of course you omit the thread to which I challenged any of you to go and try to refute my comments there, for obvious reasons.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post


    I am not going to report the numerous different posts I posted in the other thread to show the lies of the Judicial Watch.
    Of course, he will not, for obvious reasons

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    By the way, based on the latest responses, it seems nobody is willing to step-up to defend the title of this thread. Am I right?

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Judicial watch didn't lie in that case. Lies in a legal sense have to be admissible or sustainable. Judicial Watch's statements did not rise to that level. What they stated was technically correct in one sense, and incorrect in another. So, you Pamak, on that are wrong.
    I noticed you did not refute my points in that thread... What they posted was sooo distorted that they inflated Chomsky's salary from the actual amount of 62,500 he gets annually to the amount of 250,000 . They did this by deceitfully omitting information to cover the truth that he was not a full time employee since he only taught one course. But this was not enough! Their title mentioned the amount of $750,000 because they thought that it made sense to multiply the misleading annual salary of $250,000 by the three years of Chomsky's employment contract with the university. Every time someone distorts the truth so much , he is a damn liar! So, it is you who is wrong once more and find cheap excuses to support fake news.
    Last edited by pamak; 12 Aug 18, 01:22.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Judicial watch didn't lie in that case. Lies in a legal sense have to be admissible or sustainable. Judicial Watch's statements did not rise to that level. What they stated was technically correct in one sense, and incorrect in another. So, you Pamak, on that are wrong.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X