General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWe all understand that no matter how many times you call an apple a banana, it will not
change its color, shape or flavor.
Why can't we understand that no matter how many times you call Republican bullshit merely "another opinion" or a "different viewpoint", the smell never changes and we should never swallow it?
There is no need to "discuss" Ronnie Jackson's claim that Democrats " invented" the omicron variant---that's bullshit!
There is no need to "discuss" whether or not Boebert's implication that Rep. Omar might be a suicide bomber was a ignorant racism. Any suggestion that it is not is bullshit!
There is no need to "discuss" the whiny claims that the last election was "stolen". Those are BULLSHIT!
Could the TV commentators who hear their "conservative" guests try to conflate bullshit with a "reasonable difference of opinion" PLEASE call them on it even if it gives them a sad?
(Yes, I know "some" do. But, I've heard two who did not so far today.)
gab13by13
(20,864 posts)all of it because they all push the far right narratives. The #1 narrative right now being pushed on all networks is that president Biden has fallen in the polls, that he has lost his popularity, that he is in trouble, I choose to believe none of it.
Fauci was asked a bs question today and I loved his answer, he said something to the effect that you would have to be a clown to believe that. Perfect response and not falling into the trap of answering a bs question and the reporter who asked the bs question had no come back.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,788 posts)Indulging in the fallacy of binary thinking does you no favors.
gab13by13
(20,864 posts)I used this example quite a while back;
1. Fox News says that Obama beats his wife.
2. CNN says it needs more information.
3. MSNBC says no he doesn't.
All 3 networks are discussing Obama beating his wife, msnbc merely puts a left wing, accurate, slant to the narrative.
Has Rachel talked about president Biden's falling poll numbers? Are you sure those falling numbers aren't just a far right narrative?
I can keep giving many more examples.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,788 posts)Atticus
(15,124 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(48,788 posts)Atticus
(15,124 posts)refuted it.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,788 posts)gab13by13
(20,864 posts)I just got done watching Rachel right now. She had on Dr. Kessler who is top brass on president Biden's Covid response team. She started out by questioning the latest CDC recommendations, questioning the need to shut down air travel, questioning the need to get a booster shot before we know more about the new mutation. Yeah sure she just asked the questions but her introduction was quite skeptical of the new recommendations.
A right wing talking point doesn't have to be a Qanon nutzo theory. I'm sure that Fox is questioning president Biden's response to the new mutation also but doing so with a negative slant.
It's just fine for her to ask questions of the expert, but her initial attitude was quite skeptical. You may say I am making a mountain out of a mole hill but it didn't take me long to make a small point.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,788 posts)... the current lack of information.
Neither the question or the point about lack is Right Wing. Pro-vax, pro-mask, pro-science, pro-Fauci doctors are asking the same question.
The variant has already escaped southern Africa.
In two weeks time we will have a lot more information on transmissibility, potency, and to the point, info on reaction of vaccinated immune systems.
gab13by13
(20,864 posts)I said far right wing, I guess I could have said right wing but all of the GQP today is far right. The example I used was about president Biden falling in the polls and being unpopular which is not a crazy Qanon talking point but IMO a right wing talking point.
My point is that msnbc airs far right talking points and I stand by that. Propaganda works. MSNBC calls Trump's border fence a wall which is right wing propaganda. It is a lot easier to get people to spend billions of dollars on a wall than on a fence.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,788 posts)all of it because they all push the far right narratives.
gab13by13
(20,864 posts)Look how many progressive anchors that msnbc fired when their ratings were high; Martin Brashear, Melissa harris Perry, Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz, Dylan Ratigan.
Rachel, Nicolle Wallace, and Chris Hayes are the closest msnbc comes to those people who got fired.
How many anchors on msnbc call the seditionists seditionists? How many msnbc anchors push the belief that DOJ should be investigating the seditionists? How many msnbc anchors talk about Barr appointed special counsel John Durham still getting paid to dig up dirt on the Bidens?
The narrative is extremely important and just putting a left or accurate slant on a right wing narrative is still talking about the narrative.
Trump gets talked about a lot, mainly about whether he will run for president again and not on whether he will go to jail or should go to jail.
What would Keith Olbermann be talking about or Dylan Ratigan?
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,788 posts)Softening your stance?
Walking back the "all", I see. Okay. Well, that is a bit of progress toward discarding binary thinking.
And now you've softened the degree too. You no longer keep repeating it is "hard right". By lunch-time tomorrow you'll have walked it back to "one chair to the right of center"?
questionseverything
(9,631 posts)The person debating you is working hard to pretend not to get your point
Dont get me wrong, I think rachel is liberal as the network allows her to be
treestar
(82,383 posts)the narrative." The right wing seems to always set the narrative and even Rachel, etc., will stick to that a lot of the time. Not that Rachel does not often go into other territory.
But some of the issues are right wing creations. The rest of the media feels like they have to talk about it. Then you will get posts on DU "where are the Democrats?" as if the Democrats get to decide whether to go on those shows where the pundits talk about the issues created by Republicans.
They all used phrases about "overturning the election" as if that was a possible thing, not a crazy thing. They made up the standard for a successful leaving of Afghanistan. That is a one time action, not really subject to whether there is a standard for it or not. But they all agreed, even the left said they had to agree that "it could have been done better." In reality, there is no way to judge that as it doesn't happen repeatedly so you can judge a good leaving vs. a bad one.
Further they feel they have to cut down both sides, even if one side is outrageously wrong. That's where the criticism of Biden comes from. Not that Dump deserved it, but that he got it, so Biden must, too.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,788 posts)Not looking objectively?
Now you will tell us that 538 is in thick with Bannon? That they are either fools or dupes or RepubliQon plants?
I am sure those numbers are NOT just a far right narrative.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/
gab13by13
(20,864 posts)on November 8, 2016; Chances of Hillary Clinton winning - 71.4% - Chances of Donald Trump winning - 28.6%
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,788 posts)of the graph.
And at the very least you didn't follow the link which kind of makes a fool out of your statement.
The graph is from 2021, not 2016.
You have no facts. Post a counter-example showing that Biden's approvals are climbing and disapproval dropping. Go ahead. Since you are so convinced of your thesis you will have no trouble proving, PROVING, that 538's numbers are bogus and all the rest saying Biden's approval is declining are also bogus. You can do it, if you have a leg to stand on. You can even do it sitting down.
And then you post some figure from 2016 that aligns with all the other polls at the time, in your attempt to prove that 538 is a RW shill. Is it your theory that 538 fudged Hillary's numbers versus tRump in a Machiavellian attempt to lull Democratic voters on the day of the vote? What the hell is your theory? How does saying Hillary was going to win have anything to do with the RW bias you suppose they have.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,788 posts)I'm sure you can make up many more fantasies.
You haven't posted any facts. Just assertions and fantasy "examples".
I posted facts (the 538 graph). You? Nothing.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,788 posts)You did it six times in this thread. You are consistent.
Why are you pushing the hard RW narrative that Biden's Presidency is illegitimate? (Rhetorical question. It is the same kind of ploy you pressed against Madow and "all" the mainstream media.)
Harker
(13,880 posts)I could wear one out.
Mustellus
(328 posts).. . with over 18 successful missions to her credit.
lame54
(35,138 posts)It will shrink, darken and taste horrible