POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[Punished Toxicology]

literally fake news

tumbler hypocrite

[Ad Bot]

[Red Spy]

Of course we won't hear a damn word about this from Donald because it doesn't fit the narrative.

Woah dude this is the first time in American history where the president doesn't talk about something they don't like

We're breaking new ground!!!!

[otto-san]

if Annoying Orange is grandstanding against 'fake news' and bias, you'd hope he would call it bullstuff no matter where it comes from. then again, he favored brietbart over CNN, the new york times, and politico under this whole fake news deal so who knows what's up with this goofy bro

[Red Spy]

I'd take a bag of dogstuff over the NYT

[Insert Name Here²]

he favored brietbart over CNN

perfectly reasonable, knowing CNN lmfao

the new york times

the new york times has a huge bias against him and iirc over exaggerated / reported stories only fueled by bias about him / his party so thats understandable

politico

Weren't they proven to be way over-exaggerating their fact checkers, essentially lying about Annoying Orange just so he'd have a forget ton of "pants on fire!" ratings???

[Ipquarx]

perfectly reasonable, knowing CNN lmfao

Considering he only favors them because they shed him in a positive light, no. That's not an okay thing to be doing. That sets a horrible, horrible precedent because everything he's been doing seems to be pointing towards him trying to control what the media reports on and what they say about him and his policies.

the new york times has a huge bias against him and iirc over exaggerated / reported stories only fueled by bias about him / his party so thats understandable

If what you mean by this is editorialized titles, literally every news organization ever has done this. They report on things he does as they see it, and just like every other news organization does they often put in accompanying opinions that they expect people to be able to tell apart from the actual facts of the story.

Weren't they proven to be way over-exaggerating their fact checkers, essentially lying about Annoying Orange just so he'd have a forget ton of "pants on fire!" ratings???

No, they haven't.

[Insert Name Here²]

No, they havent.

[otto-san]

perfectly reasonable, knowing CNN lmfao
the new york times has a huge bias against him and iirc over exaggerated / reported stories only fueled by bias about him / his party so thats understandable

i don't think bias is a very compelling argument when you have fox news, brietbart, and one america amongst the allowed parties here

Weren't they proven to be way over-exaggerating their fact checkers, essentially lying about Annoying Orange just so he'd have a forget ton of "pants on fire!" ratings???

that was politifact, not politico


i don't think it's a super good idea to defend the administration selectively cutting off mainstream media outlets. it's unprecedented and potentially dangerous and irresponsible and it's certainly not something that we want to become normal, hopefully this doesn't continue to more serious press meetings

[Ipquarx]

Have you actually read any of these? At least half of them turn out to be completely factual and that's without digging any deeper than the infographic itself.

[Darryl McKoy]

that was politifact, not politico

well that's embarrassing

[Insert Name Here²]

that was politifact, not politico

I always thought Politico ran Politifact as a fact checking website due to how damn similar their names are

Sorry my bad lmao

Have you actually read any of these? At least half of them turn out to be completely factual and that's without digging any deeper than the infographic itself.

Yes I read all of them, and it looks like Politifact is biased against him. I've even done the bit of research myself and found it out too.

[Ipquarx]

Yes I read all of them

Then you'd immediately see that the infographic is bullcrap and you'd not want to spread it around. Do you legitimately believe that 42% of americans are unemployed? And that bernie wants to tax you at 99%? I hope to god you don't, and that's not even getting into the ridiculousness of all the other ones. If you've found a few here and there that legitimately don't check out, well congratulations, you've shown that journalism and fact checking isn't perfect. Every site of that nature has mistakes that you can find.

[Insert Name Here²]

Then you'd immediately see that the infographic is bullcrap and you'd not want to spread it around. Do you legitimately believe that 42% of americans are unemployed? And that bernie wants to tax you at 99%? I hope to god you don't

The unemployment rate, yes I believe it (not the 42% though). I don't deny facts and statistics. Bernie taxing us at 90%** ? No, I don't.

If you've found a few here and there that legitimately don't check out, well congratulations, you've shown that journalism and fact checking isn't perfect. Every site of that nature has mistakes that you can find.

If it were a few then yes it would just be simple mistakes. When there's a LARGE amount like this along with other pictures and articles talking about Politifact's bias? It's not just "simple mistakes."

[Darryl McKoy]

The unemployment rate, yes I believe it. I don't deny facts and statistics.

Evidently you do if you think the unemployment rate is 42% lol. Economics 101 covers labour market participation.

[devildogelite]

The unemployment rate, yes I believe it. I don't deny facts and statistics.

What facts and statistics point to a 42% unemployment rate? You do understand how crazy that is right? The great depression was at most 25% and that was pretty loving rough.