The election is a poor example of wrongness given that no one was able to predict that Trump would take the white house due to a fluke of he electoral college system, after all, she did win the popular vote.
I find it amusing that when disagreeing with right wingers, their common retort is "bias".
I remember saying to someone who had a British accent, I said to her " I love your accent ".
She told me, "That's funny, if you came to England, I would be saying the same thing to you".
Meditate on that, maybe it will sink in, but I won't be holding my breath.
actually, I do listen to Fox news, I find it a good thing to listen to the opposition. I find persons like Maddow far more compelling in her research, though. I listen to Alan Dershowitz who is one of the least biased pundits on TV, but I don't always agree with him. Hannity, people like him make me want to vomit, he's like a scab oozing with misleading information, blatant falsehoods and lies
There are many viewpoints floating about, and I go with those that appeal to my sensibilities.
That's what every one does. So, to call someone 'biased" as an argument against that person, is like saying the sky is blue as an argument.
in other words, it's a non-argument, and meaningless.
Everyone is biased and those that are not are wishy washy and unable to take a stand.
One thing is certain, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, etc. would never propagate the bogus conspiracy theories that were all over fox news prime time, like the seth richards story, like the uranium one story. I listen to fox, and I'm amazed at how often they get it wrong, from Hannity, to Pirro, etc.
Now they are impugning the integrity of Mueller, and there is nothing correct about it, but I'm sure you're lapping it up like the good right winger you are.
Right?
right.
This is quite amusing to me. I was able to predict that Trump would win. The LA Times polled for months that Trump was ahead. I know of others that predicted a Trump victory. This is the problem when you live in your little echo chamber and consider everyone who disagrees with you to lack credibility. Then when your echo chamber is all wrong, you don't blame them, because you think that literally everybody credible was wrong. Well, sorry, but no, not everybody was wrong. I'm a perfect example of someone credible that was correct, so is the LA Times, and so are many others.
You say that when disagreeing with Right Wingers, their common retort is bias. I am not a Right Winger. See, again, anybody who disagrees with you gets painted as not credible or a Right Winger or whatever. Your reality must be quite strange indeed.
You say Hannity is like a scab oozing with misleading information. The same could be said for the NYT, CNN, etc. These outlets don't even try to hide that they are anti-Trump. If Trump does something good, you can bet your butt they are going to have a problem with it, and many of these outlets can be found to have previously backed the position they disagree with, many times even the same exact writer. You don't seem to have a problem with that, though, and you don't want to explain it with bias, so what's your excuse?
Everybody is biased, but some more than others. I could easily turn this around and say everybody is wrong sometimes, so it's meaningless to talk about when Hannity is wrong. See how stupid that sounds? Furthermore, anti-Trump media isn't just biased, it's been objectively wrong many, many times. Bias just explains why they were wrong. If bias doesn't matter to you, the fact that they were wrong still should.
You say MSNBC, CNN, NPR, etc. would never propagate a bogus conspiracy like Seth Rich. How do you know that is a bogus story? You say you listen to Fox and you are amazed at how often they get it wrong, but do you realize how many Conservatives and Right Wingers would say the same thing about MSNBC, CNN, NPR, etc.? Because you interpreting facts a certain way, and you can be wrong on your interpretation. So when you say you view them as wrong on something, that doesn't mean they actually were. Now when we have something like MSNBC predicting Trump is going to lose by like 200+ Electoral Votes and then he wins, we know they were objectively wrong because that's not really open to much interpretation, but most topics aren't that clear.
You complain that Mueller's credibility is being attacked. What did you know about Mueller's credibility before he was assigned to investigate the Russia stuff? If nothing, how can you determine Mueller actually is credible? That is something that is very subjective, but you speak as if it's objective, and that shows exactly my point about why you hate Fox News. Even when they get it right, you're going to view them as getting it wrong.
You have a habit of asking me a question and then answering it yourself. That speaks volumes. It's extremely pretentious. Stop thinking you are better than me.
