XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.misc
From: recscuba_google@huntzinger.com
On 1/5/26 18:42, pothead wrote:
> On 2026-01-05, -hh wrote:
>> pothead wrote:
>>> On 2026-01-03, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 22:27:35 -0000 (UTC), pothead
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2026-01-02, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 19:06:52 -0500, Governor Swill
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 16:30:20 -0500, Governor Swill
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2025 16:46:42 -0000 (UTC), pothead
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Give up because you simply will never convince anyone but a fellow
>>>>>>>>> TDS sufferer that the media is fair to Trump.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I never said it was. I only disagreed that it was "almost 100% anti
>>>>>>>> Trump, 24x7."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you can't get your facts straight, stfu.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Btw, what happened to the $20T in investments he claims he brought to
>>>>>>>> the US this year?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still waiting, pothead. Where is the $17-$20 trillion Trump says he
>>>>>> brought to the US as investment capital?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe I said that.
>>>>
>>>> No, you didn't and I never claimed you did. My point is your opinion
>>>> of negative coverage of Trump. Well here's one. He said had brought
>>>> in $17-$20 trillion in new investment into our economy.
>>>
>>> I've presented various studies from different outlets clearly demonstrating
>>> the massive percentage of negative vs positive coverage of Trump and it's
not
>>> even close.
>>>
>>> You simply cannot deny this.
>>
>> The fallacy here is in trying to claim that accuracy reporting news is
>> “positive” or “negative” based on what the news is.
>>
>> For example, the Storm Channel reports on hurricanes, tornadoes, floods,
>> etc, so by your metric definition, that’s 100% “negative” because they
>> never report those places with clear blue skies, pleasant temperatures &
>> gentle breezes.
>>
>>
>>>> The press pointed at laughed at the idiocy of such a claim. Does that
>>>> count as negative press?
>>>
>>> You are moving the goal posts again.
>>
>> Not at all, for the news being reported was of a false fiscal claim by a
>> newsworthy figure: the responsibility for it being a false claim lies with
>> the claimant, not the messenger.
>>
>>
>>>> The fact remains, Trump said it and was *accurately* reported as being
>>>> a liar. Do you consider that "negative press"?
>>>
>>> I consider not reporting on his successes or lying by omission unfair.
>>> And the various studies prove that beyond a doubt.
>>
>> Not possible by the choice of method.
>>
>>
>>>> The international press has reported that drug makers in both the US
>>>> and Europe have agreed to raise prices on a list of common drugs
>>>> despite pressure from the Trump administration. That is fact and has
>>>> been reported everywhere except, as far as I can find, Fox. I
>>>> included "fox news" in my search terms for this story and still found
>>>> no Fox report on it. Nor was I able to find it searching at Fox.com.
>>>
>>>
>>> You're all over the place here.
>>> A single incident != 90 plus percent negative coverage of Trump by the MSM.
>>
>> If you’re going to try to use percentages, you need to first baseline &
>> normalize by what % of actions by the subject are themselves negative.
>> Otherwise, you’re back to complaining that the Storm Channel doesn’t
devote
>> 50% of its time to non-stormy weather.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> So tell us, whose reporting is more accurate and complete on these
>>>> stories?
>>>
>>> Goal post move.
>>>
>>> I've presented various studies from different outlets clearly demonstrating
>>> the massive percentage of negative vs positive coverage of Trump and it's
not
>>> even close.
>>>
>>> You simply cannot deny this.
>>
>> Considering that 95% of the news that Trump is making is negative, if the
>> MSM’s reports thereof are only 90%, it means that they’re biasing in
favor
>> of making Trump look less bad.
>>
>>
>> -hh
>
> Give me a break.
No.
> Why not research how much negative news the press tried to cover up for
Biden.
I haven't made such a claim, so I have no reason to substantiate it.
Meantime, *you* have made a claim, but avoiding substantiation.
> The wind caused him to stumble 3x on the airplane staircase.
Jerry Ford snow skiing. Next!
> The list is endless.
>
> Your dodge fails because numerous outlets have surveyed the Trump coverage
and
> it's rare that he gets a positive spin just like it was rare that Biden got
a negative
> spin.
No, not a dodge at all: you're living on the rainiest spot on Earth and
complaining that the weatherman's tells you its going to rain again.
> I could go on for pages.
With only deflection attempts, not actually testing your claim by
normalizing the data.
> Your argument is flaccid and with all the earmarks of a left wing dodge.
Translation: you know ... but can't admit ... that the news on Trump
has a 200 ton garbage scow of crap for every pretty flower.
In the meantime, all of your "Soooo Dangerous NYC" narrative has been
countered by how 2025 had the lowest number of murders/shootings since
they've been recording that metric:
-hh
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
