15 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Thank you for confirming that Trump supporters do get violent and Trump supports the violence.

you're comparing this to Trump supporters???

5 minutes ago, gr8fldanielle said:

that was exactly my freaking point! There are not in the US, they have an extremely low subscription rate and that's recent. After WWII less than 100,000. 57% of their subscribers are in the Canada and the US.

Who are they to report fairly about the US when the UK is a mess.

Didn't you guys vote on Brexit?? how's that working out for you?

PM May, is that the best you can do? Does she live in a "no go zone"?

Who's the mayor of London? great job, no free speech there is there? When are you going to take away the right to own a knife? Knives kill!!!!

And you're going to quote The Economist as if they were even remotely relevant?

America right now is kicking ass and you guys just can't stand it can you?

It is clear you are in need of a more balanced source of news on U.K. current affairs.

3 minutes ago, gr8fldanielle said:

that was exactly my freaking point! There are not in the US, they have an extremely low subscription rate and that's recent. After WWII less than 100,000. 57% of their subscribers are in the Canada and the US.

Who are they to report fairly about the US when the UK is a mess.

Didn't you guys vote on Brexit?? how's that working out for you?

PM May, is that the best you can do? Does she live in a "no go zone"?

Who's the mayor of London? great job, no free speech there is there? When are you going to take away the right to own a knife? Knives kill!!!!

And you're going to quote The Economist as if they were even remotely relevant?

America right now is kicking ass and you guys just can't stand it can you?

First, I'm American. 

 

A comparatively low subscription rate does not preclude quality journalism.  Neither does being based in the UK.  Big media companies frequently reference the Economist in their own reporting.  Government leaders get concerned when the Economist reports accurately on their incompetence and misdeeds.

 

You have nothing that discredits the reporting of the Economist and your rant about them being "not in the US" is far from convincing.

4 minutes ago, gr8fldanielle said:

you're comparing this to Trump supporters???

I could put up a pictures of the Charleston fascist protesters, but what would that prove?

 

What does your unsourced picture prove? 

1 hour ago, gr8fldanielle said:

and this is a source for what??? You got to be kidding me! LOL!!!!

https://www.economist.com/about-the-economist

The Economist is an English-language weekly news magazine owned by the Economist Group and edited in offices in London. The Economist presents news with centrist views and straightforward non-biased reporting.  They carefully label opinion pieces which earns them a least biased rating. (7/10/2016) Updated (7/4/2017)

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economist/

 

Now tell us which are the media you trust so that we can have  a good laugh!

 

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

First, I'm American. 

 

A comparatively low subscription rate does not preclude quality journalism.  Neither does being based in the UK.  Big media companies frequently reference the Economist in their own reporting.  Government leaders get concerned when the Economist reports accurately on their incompetence and misdeeds.

 

You have nothing that discredits the reporting of the Economist and your rant about them being "not in the US" is far from convincing.

we need examples, otherwise in today's age it's hearsay.  Back this up please.

"Big media companies frequently reference the Economist in their own reporting."

Trump and Co. attacking the mainstream news media is the same as criminals attacking the police for making arrests and enforcing the law.

 

The media are doing their constitutionally protected job in monitoring and reporting on the actions and wrongdoing of elected officials and the U.S. government.  Trump and Co. are working their hardest to hide and obscure their potentially illegal wrongdoing, and attacking anyone who tries to expose it.

 

The Washingston Post has an apt slogan regarding this -- "Democracy Dies in Darkness."  Although their motto predated Trump, the Post's motto is exactly the kind of darkness that Trump and Co. would impose in the U.S. if they had their way, and Trump would become a de facto dictator, like those he so much admires in other countries where they don't have to be questioned or bothered by a free news media.

 

It's not a matter of if, but when.  Democracy is collapsing everywhere.  Trump wants a civil war~read Bannon's ideas~to cleans the country.  Interesting times.  Will there be a backlash?

1 minute ago, gr8fldanielle said:

we need examples, otherwise in today's age it's hearsay.  Back this up please.

"Big media companies frequently reference the Economist in their own reporting."

Oh, you can put up unsourced BS, but I post something that anyone who stays informed knows about and you need sources?  OK.  You will find a reference to "The Economist" in the firstor second paragraph, often the first sentence, of the following:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democracy-is-decaying-worldwide-america-isnt-immune/2018/02/22/ff670f88-1813-11e8-92c9-376b4fe57ff7_story.html?utm_term=.d3934d4b709f

 

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/category/gps-show/page/26/

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/business/media/09economist.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=the economist tends its sophisticate garden&st=cse

 

 

7 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You are recirculating fascist propaganda and absurd, discredited fake news.  Thank you for identifying what kind of poster you are.

what has been discredited as fake news and what fascist propaganda are you referring to? Is there not a similarity between Hitler's anti fascist logo and the democrat antifascist logo? We're observation here. What fake news.

Don't be vague, being vague has that appearance of not being intelligent. Nobody wants that.

 

16 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I could put up a pictures of the Charleston fascist protesters, but what would that prove?

 

What does your unsourced picture prove? 

"unsourced"??? Seriously

once again--- you're comparing this to Trump supporters???

who's paying for this? We know, there are no secrets.

A post in violation of fair use policy has been removed. 

1 hour ago, gr8fldanielle said:

and this is a source for what??? You got to be kidding me! LOL!!!!

https://www.economist.com/about-the-economist

We are not against Russian people, so don't get too rile

 

1 hour ago, FitnessHealthTravel said:

Acosta isn't a Journalist. He is a disrespectful clown. He is planted there to deliberately cause trouble. You have an opinion,Trump has an opinion then there's the TRUTH. The truth is what really happened and needs to be proven.  He's what happening in the US. Even proof is ignored now.  People HATE who is delivering the truth so much they dismiss it.  I think it all has to go a full circle and if it keeps going there may well be real problems then so be it. 

Ummmmmm, next topic deep state?  I hate to break it too you, but DT is the one planted.  So, you think DT tells the truth?  You go girl!

8 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Why would we trust a YouTube video over the Washington Post?  I have greater trust in people who will put their words in print. 

 

Also, what does your YouTube video have to do with my post about "The Economist"?

You said the Washington Post quotes or quoted The Economist. Try to keep up.

you have a greater trust in people who put their words in print??? Why is that? Is it because it's one sided and no room for conversation or debate? I think I see what the problem is. You don't want both sides of an issue for fear of being wrong? What is it, this greater trust in people who will put their words in print? Did you really mean to say that???

2 minutes ago, gr8fldanielle said:

because it's real and you can check it yourself. If you can't read, you can watch a video. If you can't watch a short video, you probably don't read.  Next!

I could waste endless time watching YouTube videos made by people with no expertise or credibility, or I can read news printed by reputable sources. 

 

You clearly prefer the first approach, I prefer the second.

1 minute ago, gr8fldanielle said:

You said the Washington Post quotes or quoted The Economist. Try to keep up.

you have a greater trust in people who put their words in print??? Why is that? Is it because it's one sided and no room for conversation or debate? I think I see what the problem is. You don't want both sides of an issue for fear of being wrong? What is it, this greater trust in people who will put their words in print? Did you really mean to say that???

Yes, I very much place greater trust in people who will put their words in print.  I also prefer written contracts to verbal agreements.  I like the commitment that print presents.

 

I find using a variety of print news sources to be much more balanced than alt-right and fascists websites and YouTube videos.

21 minutes ago, gr8fldanielle said:

"unsourced"??? Seriously

once again--- you're comparing this to Trump supporters???

who's paying for this? We know, there are no secrets.

Yes, unsourced.  Pictures such as the one you posted are frequently photo-shopped frauds.

 

And yes, if you insist that Antifa protesters are representative of Trump critics, I am well within my rights to suggest fascists and KKK protesters are representative of Trump supporters.

is this photoshopped?

This is true "within my rights to suggest fascists and KKK protesters are representative of Trump supporters" no matter how ridiculous. Carry on!

2 minutes ago, gr8fldanielle said:

is this photoshopped?

This is true "within my rights to suggest fascists and KKK protesters are representative of Trump supporters" no matter how ridiculous. Carry on!

Could be.  You still haven't given your source for the photo.  Why is that?

2 minutes ago, gr8fldanielle said:

However referenced articles in Wikipedia are generally very reliable now.

says who?

Millions of people who rely on them.  Why don't you provide evidence the Wikipedia articles that are referenced are wrong?

1 hour ago, gr8fldanielle said:

Where are they located, do you know?

How many subscribers and where and just how many in the USA? Do you know?

hardly a source for anything.

At least find out who they are first before crediting them for telling the truth.

A Swamp King supporter that has never heard of The Economist. What a surprise!

Some more off topic posts and baiting posts and the replies have been removed. 

9 minutes ago, Becker said:

A Swamp King supporter that has never heard of The Economist. What a surprise!

scroll up Becker, you missed the part where it was clear I know well about The Economist which was my point. Why use them for a source here.

You're a bit late to the show. now you have heybruce loving something and cheering for something you said that wasn't even true. But then again how would you know?

You have a lot of reading to do before you throw your peanuts from the gallery.

Just now, heybruce said:

Another YouTube video?  NO!  Give us a real source.  Prove your claim that Soros was a Nazi collaborator or go away.

Why even bother feeding such an obviously unhinged alt-right member?

He just posts conspiracy theory GARBAGE.

3 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

 

 

 

Some more off topic posts have been removed, the topic is not about George Soros.  Posts containing unattributed or unapproved content have been removed.  

2 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

You are quoting 2016 figures, but if you check the current ratings, FOX are well ahead of everyone. I did read that CNN was even beaten by the Food Channel, but I do not have a source for that.

Just read the post again, and realise your answer makes no sense.

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Just read the post again, and realise your answer makes no sense.

I did misread it and have deleted it. I am always happy to acknowledge my mistakes.

58 minutes ago, gr8fldanielle said:

scroll up Becker, you missed the part where it was clear I know well about The Economist which was my point. Why use them for a source here.

Why not? They're infinitively more credible than the alt right cuckoo land sources you refer to.

6 hours ago, lovelomsak said:

Oh I got it the president of the USA is now not allowed free speech it interferes with the media trying to bash him all the time. 

 Everyday they want to hang her boss by the short hairs! She's addressing  the Activist,  that are pretending to be Reporters! 

minute 42:00 - 43:00