Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by BLING, Jan 9, 2019.
You talking about the "Fact Checking" ... you mad at facts?
Because our government doesn't work that way and it isn't a realistic option. But in a world where that was plausible I would have no problem with it.
If a bunch of people sent money to the government to fund abortion clinics (or some other issue you disagree with) you'd be okay I assume?
I'm sure it feels that way. The major networks like reporting facts. Right now, many conservatives have a hate-hate relationship with facts. I can see why they think all the major media sources outside of Fox News are liberal.
He can send money to the OFFICIAL Secure the Border Fund as instructed by (Trump) himself. No doubt would be money well spent on border security, not even $1 would be used on campaign spending or oil portraits of Trump.
Facts are what I say they are. Don't you know who I am?
Did you forget CNN was exposed with the brazile lady? They had to fire her....because they got caught. Oh yeah! ! Facts. Clinton and CNN, primary was in the bag.
Not to mention "building the wall" is more than just paying for it. It involves things like appropriating land, which a bunch of rubes with a go fund me can't really do.
The difference is that at Fox when that happens, they promote them.
Brazile was an opinion commentator. She is hired to be biased. They also have hired multiple Pro-Trump folks for the same purpose (e.g., Santorum, Lewandowski, etc.).
How about we start with the list of Fox personalities that don't have a conflict of interest with the president or don't have a direct line to the guy.
Actually …. people do it now …. they just send the money to Planned Parenthood, to supplement the money the federal gov sends to PP. I have no problem with a person getting an abortion (although I may consider it an abhorrent act) and a private citizen funding their own or another's abortion. So be it.
Not a dem but if “paying for the wall” includes the maintenance, sure. I’m game.
I guess if rebutting Trump's lies is a bias then the networks are biased. I guess by your standards to be considered unbiased they would have had to have given the Dear Leader free reign when he disseminated his fabricated narrative.
Some of Trump's lies include but are no limited to the narrative that illegals are flooding across the southern border when, in fact, the trend in illegal immigration across the border has been trending down since 2000; illegal drugs are flowing in large quantities across unsecured portions of the southern border when, in fact the majority of the illegal drug trade from Mexico is via smuggling through ports of entry by concealing contraband with legal cargoes; citing very infrequent albeit horrific criminal acts to push the false narrative that illegals are responsible for massive numbers of crimes when the data indicates the immigrants both legal and illegal are less likely to commit crimes; and implying there is a danger of terrorists coming across the southern border when there has been an extremely small number of individuals meeting the profile of potential terrorists have been identified and they came across at designated ports of entry.
No problem with trumpsters paying for a wall, but its going to cost a lot more than 5 billion. That's just year 1.
Kind of a pointless question, since we know it will never happen, not even close.
FOX is to the left of Gateway Pundit
Chris Wallace. Shepard Smith. Have to watch in the afternoon when everyone is at work
As opposed to "alternative facts" or maybe "truth isn't truth".
I have it on good authority that the individual one would never pull a scam.