Why do border crossings exsist?
- Thread starter Delmar
- Start date
I don't know.
But if Breitbart told me that the grass is green and the sky is blue, I'd have to look outside and check for myself. Ditto for Fox News.
Sound's like someone needs a reality check...
I agree. Right wing idiots need a reality check.
They would get this reality check if they stopped relying on fake news sources.
Now, now, be nice... or you'll get the boot from Sherman.
Pretty sure it's the right wingers who have a better grasp on reality than the lefties...
"They" being the lefties...
So what source would you consider to be a "non-fake" news source?
Sources that don't consistently get ripped to shreds by independent fact checkers.
Which is why stupid right wingers don't like fact checkers.
Because delusional, stupid right wingers only consult fake news sources.
So you don't know how many they apprehended but you know it wasn't 600?
That's a very peculiar type of knowledge you have there.
Let's start small, Did they apprehend any body in the last two days?
Spin doctors spin that's for sure.
But we're not talking about spin, we're talking about how many people were apprehended at the border in the last two days. That should be a number. A number we can agree upon as being the number of people apprehended.
Spin would be "what that number means". We haven't got there yet. You and I need to first establish how many people were apprehended at the border.
What do your sources say were the number of people apprehended at the border in the last two days?
glorydaz
Well-known member
Investigations are underway......cannot be disclosed at this time.
So how many got apprehended?
I love fact checkers when they check facts.
Where's the best source you have for how many people were apprehended at the border?
Corporate television news is universally terrible, though some worse than others. Fox News is outright Republican propaganda. MSNBC is propaganda for the Hillary Clinton wing of the Democratic party, but usually much more factually accurate than Fox News. CNN is, again, factually more accurate than Fox News, but suffers from a bias towards sensationalism. All of these corporate television news outlets are massively biased towards corporate, establishment interests.
When you look at online/print outlets, it gets much better, but you still have to be wary of right wing propaganda funded by and serving the interests of rich right wing donors.
The Hill, Washington Post, Huffington Post, NPR, etc. tend to be fine.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I have news reports....same as you have.
Provide said news reports.
Another trick that right wing propagandists like to use is having right-wing funded (often funded by the Koch brothers) paid shills writing "opinion" articles in otherwise reputable news outlets. This is the trick that they consistently pull when spreading lies/conspiracy theories about climate change.
Duh...
I agree with that statement.
The comment sections are where I take the pulse.
Foxnews comment section are a right wing circlejerk. CNN doesn't have comments anymore except for maybe some opinion pieces. But when they do it's a leftwing circle jerk. I check those two sites and then head to abc where the article might have a slant but there's a good mix in the comments on both sides.
Or rich left wing donors.
Nobody is "Fine". They all have an agenda.