2020


If the Resisters, Never-Trumpers, Trump-Haters or whatever you think you are, want to know why Trump got elected & will be re-elected, take 3 minutes to read this

https://spectator.org/the-greatness-of-donald-trump/
Replies

You mean speculation from your yahoo link?Originally posted by Fred67


Yeah I like my fact checking with sources so I don’t have to accept a partisan opinion

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/02/05/fact-checking-11-of-trumps-claims-in-state-of-the-union/Originally posted by Bayrider7365


Except yours is extreme partisan opinion, and not always factual...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-signal/



RBF
If the Resisters, Never-Trumpers, Trump-Haters or whatever you think you are, want to know why Trump got elected & will be re-elected, take 3 minutes to read this

https://spectator.org/the-greatness-of-donald-trump/Originally posted by Bayrider7365



https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-spectator/


RBF
The problem before us is that the DEM s can’t field a winning candidate. I don’t care if Trump refuses to expose his returns. Things may have changed from the campaign and if trump changed his mind that is what it is. I care about the quality of his service to our country and the kept promises. Can’t the dems get away from the loser questions and try to produce a decent candidate? The party of losers is responsible for the failed muller report and the failed impeachment and all the failed “gotcha” moments that turned out to be bull crap. Trump was by far the best choice we had and it’s looking like he will be again.
Hey, NachoBoi is back....

Alfredo and Nacho the cheesy brothers ride again...

Yippee!!!!

This is gonna be fun!!!


RBF
Last edited by Richard Beer Froth
This will be my last response to you unless you can lose the insults and address me by my chosen screen name.
This will be my last response to you unless you can lose the insults and address me by my chosen screen name.Originally posted by natureboy


Don't threaten me with happiness, NachoBoi...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiEk1zew0UE


RBF
Last edited by Richard Beer Froth
You mean speculation from your yahoo link?Originally posted by Fred67


Yeah I like my fact checking with sources so I don’t have to accept a partisan opinion

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/02/05/fact-checking-11-of-trumps-claims-in-state-of-the-union/Originally posted by Bayrider7365


Except yours is extreme partisan opinion, and not always factual...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-signal/



RBFOriginally posted by Richard Beer Froth


Need sourced information not someone’s subjective judgment

c/p- 2. Media Bias Fact Check
MediaBIasFactCheck.com describes itself as “the most comprehensive media bias resource in the Internet.” The site is owned by Dave Van Zandt from North Carolina, who offers no biographical information about himself aside from the following: “Dave has been freelancing for 25+ years for a variety of print and web mediums (sic), with a focus on media bias and the role of media in politics. Dave is a registered Non-Affiliated voter who values evidence based reporting” and, “Dave Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences. Dave currently works full time in the health care industry. Dave has spent more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.”

WND was unable to locate a single article with Van Zandt’s byline. Ironically, the “fact checker” fails to establish his own credibility by disclosing his qualifications and training in evaluating news sources.

Asked for information concerning his expertise in the field of journalism and evaluating news sources, Van Zandt told WND: “I am not a journalist and just a person who is interested in how media bias impacts politics. You will find zero claims of expertise on the website.”

Concerning his purported “25+ years” of experience writing for print and web media, he said: “I am not sure why the 25+ years is still on the website. That was removed a year ago when I first started the website. All of the writing I did was small print news zines from the ’90s. I felt that what I wrote in the ’90s is not related to what I am doing today so I removed it. Again, I am not a journalist. I simply have a background in communications and more importantly science where I learned to value evidence over all else. Through this I also became interested in research of all kinds, especially media bias, which is difficult to measure and is subjective to a degree.”

WND asked: Were your evaluations reviewed by any experts in the industry?

“I can’t say they have,” Van Zandt replied. “Though the right-of-center Atlantic Council is using our data for a project they are working on.”

Van Zandt says he uses “three volunteers” to “research and assist in fact checking.” However, he adds that he doesn’t pay them for their services.

Van Zandt lists WND on his “Right Bias” page, alongside news organizations such as Fox News, the Drudge Report, the Washington Free Beacon, the Daily Wire, the Blaze, Breitbart, Red State, Project Veritas, PJ Media, National Review, Daily Caller and others.

“These media sources are highly biased toward conservative causes,” Van Zandt writes. “They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Sources in this category may be untrustworthy.”

His special notes concerning WND link to Snopes.com and PolitiFact.com, websites that have their own questionable reputations and formulas as so-called “fact checkers.” (See the “Snopes” and “PolitiFact” entries below.)

Van Zandt says he uses a “strict methodology” in determining which news sources are credible, but his website offers vague and typo-ridden explanations of his criteria, such as the following:

Asked if his own political leanings influence his evaluations, Van Zandt said: “Sure it is possible. However, our methodology is designed to eliminate most of that. We also have a team of 4 researchers with different political leanings so that we can further reduce researcher bias.”

Bill Palmer of the website Daily News Bin accused Van Zandt of retaliating when the Daily News Bin contacted him about his rating. Palmer wrote:

“[I]t turns out Van Zandt has a vindictive streak. After one hapless social media user tried to use his phony ‘Media Bias Fact Check’ site to dispute a thoroughly sourced article from this site, Daily News Bin, we made the mistake of contacting Van Zandt and asking him to take down his ridiculous ‘rating’ – which consisted of nothing more than hearsay such as ‘has been accused of being satire.’ Really? When? By whom? None of those facts seem to matter to the guy running this ‘Media Bias Fact Check’ scam.



“But instead of acknowledging that he’d been caught in the act, Van Zandt retaliated against Daily News Bin by changing his rating to something more sinister. He also added a link to a similar phony security company called World of Trust, which generates its ratings by allowing random anonymous individuals to post whatever bizarre conspiracy theories they want, and then letting these loons vote on whether that news site is ‘real’ or not. These scam sites are now trying to use each other for cover, in order to back up the false and unsubstantiated ‘ratings’ they semi-randomly assign respected news outlets. …



“‘Media Bias Fact Check’ is truly just one guy making misleading claims about news outlets while failing to back them up with anything, while maliciously changing the ratings to punish any news outlets that try to expose the invalidity of what he’s doing.”

But Van Zandt accused Palmer of threatening him, and he said MediaBiasFactCheck welcomes criticism. If evidence is provided, he said, the site will correct its errors.

“Bottom line is, we are not trying to be something we are not,” he said. “We have disclaimers on every page of the website indicating that our method is not scientifically proven and that there is [sic] subjective judgments being used as it is unavoidable with determining bias.”

AllSides matches medias bias on this one as well as all the ones I posted in the past:

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/daily-signal

Reality is you post junk, from junk sources, and nobody but me verifies it and calls you out on your Drumpf disinformation campaign... Should be a crime to RePete / disseminate this garbage...


RBF
A dang good read if you don’t consider yourself what the author calls a played plebeian

https://thetollonline.com/2020/02/08/in-the-bubble-trumps-presidency-reveals-7-undeniable-facts-about-the-swamp/

A dang good read if you don’t consider yourself what the author calls a played plebeian

https://thetollonline.com/2020/02/08/in-the-bubble-trumps-presidency-reveals-7-undeniable-facts-about-the-swamp/

Originally posted by Bayrider7365


You are the one getting played.... Now you are sourcing a semiretired dude that's make a little drinking money off the ads on his blog....

DESPERATE!!!!

Here is this site's "ABOUT" page:

"Hello!

You can call me Douglas Lynn, or Doug for short, but I prefer my effervescing online moniker of “Uncola”. Welcome to The Toll Online where I hope you will enjoy my sweet and bubbly personality.

As a once successful businessman who is now a semi-retired quinquagenarian: I consider myself as one who has found the Road Less Traveled, while remaining a whiskered, whispering witness to the world. I enjoy long walks, lively talks, surfing the interwebs and writing down my thoughts. My favorite drink used to be a 14, also known as a Seven and Seven, but now I just take it as a Seven."


Your source is delusional and so triggered by the Dems he is now drinking straight up Seagrams 7...


RBF