POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[SeventhSandwich]

Except most of those links have been discredited/come from unreliable sources.

I like the competing standards of evidence here. You judge attacks against Annoying Orange by their evidence, but you don't even hesitate to believe some no-name news site with a stock photo of a car accident from 2012.

[Ad Bot]

[Jairo]

Except most of those links have been discredited/come from unreliable sources.

says who

[Master Matthew²]

says who

Most of these Posts are from the Huffington Post/NYTimes.

That's like relying on CNN to get 'unbiased information'.

[Nonnel]

you mean breitbart

[Master Matthew²]

Most of these Posts are from the Huffington Post/NYTimes.

That's like relying on CNN to get 'unbiased information'.

you mean breitbart

I made it big so you could see it this time.

[Nonnel]

I made it big so you could see it this time.

was referring to the second part of the post, numbnuts. do you want me to bold and size 72 that, too?

[Satan From Wreck-It-Ralph]

I made it big so you could see it this time.

I would like to point out that "I made it big so you could see it this time." was a ninja edit and thus, the original version of the post looked like Master Matthew was agreeing with Nonnel.
Just something I found kinda funny.

[Insert Name Here²]

at least i guess that's probably more interesting to listen to than petty groaning

Yeah that definitely would be much more interesting than a "Uuuuuuuuughhhhh" or "No. No. No." every time anything republican or Annoying Orange related is said

[Operator¹]

I made it big so you could see it this time.

here's one from reuters

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-Annoying Orange-bills-specialrepor-idUSMTZSAPEBBDR35AGA20151113

[Nonnel]

Not to mention most, if not all, of the articles have further sourcing to his tweets or video/audio of him

[Ipquarx]

Not to mention most, if not all, of the articles have further sourcing to his tweets or video/audio of him

Exactly this. You can't just say "Ohhhhhhhhh but this is from a news site that has articles on it that i dont agree with!!!! therefore everything from it is wrong!!!"

give us an ACTUAL REASON. If, for example, the article cites no sources, or only "anonymous sources" AND has a verifiable bad track-record, then it would be reasonable to say "nah I'm not gonna believe this." Heck, even if it's from a site that has a great track record yet cites only anonymous sources, it's completely reasonable to be skeptical about it.

If it's being reported on by like 5 different news outlets, each citing sources with tweets, audio and video, then you can't just immediately dismiss it. At that point you need to give evidence to dismiss it.

[McZealot]

^not necessarily. if it's a site like cnn which is known to write a story off any piece of bathroom gossip it should be taken with a massive grain of salt

from now on i'm going to apply the republican standard to all liberal transgressions

[NEWS] WikiLeaks email suggests Brazile sent debate question to Clinton camp
is now
[NEWS] Annoying Orange shills plant fake email to recover after debate failures

[Frequency]

cross-stuffposting

hot damn

[Ipquarx]

^not necessarily. if it's a site like cnn which is known to write a story off any piece of bathroom gossip it should be taken with a massive grain of salt

That's what my post said. cnn has a verifiable bad track record. So when they put out a story about some conspiracy nonsense with no cited sources like they do on a semi-regular basis, yeah, it's completely reasonable to say "Nah, not gonna believe this."

[Trogtor]

maybe you've just been drinking the chemicals in the water that turn the freaking frogs gay