Nice reliable links not worth clicking on.
|
|
|
|
|
Nice reliable links not worth clicking on.
So many Trump hating fools expect logical people to accept the leftist grift even though they really don’t
My link was to a tweet by a Pennsylvania election official at 2 am saying they were still counting and they wouldn’t stop with a live video link.Originally Posted by PawDawg
Literally proved everything that DonW was saying was false.
I rarely click on your links but was not replying to you
Sourced reporting
Interesting that CNBC is slightly right of center. Of all the options on the list, that is the one I watch and read the most.
Funny!
You obviously don’t watch CNBC. If they would get rid of Joe Kernen they probably would be dead center. He is the only clown that wants to keep providing political opinions. Otherwise, CNBC is one of the few refreshing places that reports actual news without making every issue about politics.
Dang! you almost got something right. In this case, you are so close to the actual truth I hate to rain on your parade, since you so rarely operate in reality. For now, okay, I'll let it slide, except to say Joe Kernen IS the balance that keeps CNBC in the center. He is just "louder" and more rooted in principle (or is it "principal"?) while the lefties, especially Andrew, can't summon credible counter-points and he, Andrew, is left stammering searching his little mind for some canned reply he was taught in libtard school. Yes, sometimes Kernen goes too far and should just let matters drop after he has made his point. But that is only a minor flaw.
Overall, I watch CNBC for the financial and stock market news. Rick Santelli and Steve Leason (butchered their names) get into heated discussions sometimes. Santelli leans slightly right, and Leason slightly left, although they both generally reside in the middle. Becky Quick is....well, just there to tell us the latest news on Warren Buffet.
I easily spend the most time reading/listening to CT, The Dispatch, NPR. So pretty high up the reliability scale and 2 slightly right, one slightly left. I probably occasionally interact with a mix of the pure reporting stuff on a rotation. You get links to Reuters or AP from everywhere.
I would rather get a root canal than watch any version of cable news. I can't remember the last time I chose to watch one.
Back to CNBC...how can anyone not like Jim Cramer!? He's the Dick Vitale or Lee Corso of the network, loud and often wrong, but just fun to listen to.
During the day CNBC offers sound programming with high quality guests, CEOs and financial analysts, and is 99.8% rooted in factual news reporting.
Please tell me you are not calling NPR "slightly" left. They are 100% partisan and slant everything in that direction. Even Juan Williams wasn't liberal enough for them!
I do agree about cable news, though.
Dick Vitale is an EXCELLENT comparison. Never thought of that one.
I would have expected them to be a little farther to the left than they are on that chart (I don't know all the methodology there and I'm much more concerned with the north-south "reality" axis anyway). I wonder if they're distinguishing between the literal "NPR" news and the syndicated shows that vary from market to market for NPR? Like "Fresh Air" is certainly liberal, but it's also not technically "NPR" right? It's WHYY produced and just happens to be carried by a lot of NPR stations? The actual national NPR productions like Morning Edition and All Things Considered I'd still consider left leaning, but not to the extent that the syndicated shows tend to be.
In any case, I try to get most of my news from organizations towards the top of that scale. I guess there are probably liberals who would say CT isn't far enough right (and many on the right who would place it clear over to the left). Same for The Dispatch. At the very least, assuming there is a consistent methodology for this thing, it'd still show a relative relationship between the various sources of information.
QUOTE=inudesu;1803538]Why do you think that happened? There doesn't seem to be a record of that being the case?
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-f...-idUSKBN27Q307
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/09/this...-election.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fact-ch...poll-watchers/
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/penn...ry?id=73993649[/QUOTE]Why do you think they counted the votes with nobody watching them? They had also locked out
the observers earlier in the day. All of this was reported on FNC. No other news media reported it except Newsmax. All of the other media were supporting Biden, so, Anybody who thinks this was a fair election is either crazy or just too stupid to understand what went on.
Trump got 11 million votes more than he did in 2020. Biden got 14 million more than Hillary and he wasn't as good of a candidate as she was. Why would more voters come out to vote for Biden? I could see more voters coming out because nobody wanted out country turning into a marxist government under Biden. There was a lot to lose if Biden won and we are now seeing that come true. Biden campaigned in parking lots with about 25 cars while Trump drew thousands. Biden had no platform and Trump had brought the economy back from Obama's and Biden's failures to be one of the best ever. People normally vote their pocketbook. There was no reason for anybody to vote for Biden unless they favor Marxism. The critical race theory is right out of the marxist handbook for overthrowing existing governments. Biden had already compromised himself with the CCP and the CCP now has the largest military in the world. They'll be taking over Taiwan real soon.
Tim Scott has a great ad on FNC now. Everyone who loves this country needs to see it. Our country is in real danger right now with Biden as president.
Just watching FNC right now and they are talking about Omar praising the Taliban and Hamas. Could this have even happened 10 years ago?
Pray for Joe Manchin. He could be the one that saves our country.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote