what name has Harris or Waltz called the other side that couldn’t more reasonably be called accurately descriptive as opposed to simply the “juvenile name-calling” we get from Trump and his sycophants?
Fox was the one with the “Fair and Balanced” tag line and also the one that lost in court, forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in damages and had to admit they are not news that anyone would take seriously, but entertainment. Given that, your comment makes as much sense as those from your friend chaosed2, which is none.
except the opposite is true, as you said: “The reality is the left has a near monopoly on the MSM and has leveraged this to effectively brainwash people, some to such an extent that they will willingly reject the evidence of their own eyes and ears in favor of what Big Brother….errr, Cable and Network news tells them is true.”
I’m tired of your lies. I won’t read anymore from you because it is a waste of time.
you offer nothing to support your assertions—or viewpoint as you call it. No evidence. No logic. Just tired talking points that we’ve been hearing on Fox News for years.
I realize you believe the opposite, even though you have zero evidence or logic to support your position. You probably also believe that back in the day Fox News was “fair and balanced” because they told you to believe that.
If you believe corporate media has a liberal bias instead of a corporate one that happens to align perfectly with Republicans (i.e., fewer taxes, less regulation, and weaker worker protections), there’s not much use talking to you.
Also, we’ve been exposed to enough “alternative facts” from the GOP and their sycophants, as well as observing your devotion to a known pathological liar and a likely fascist, to identify which side cannot be trusted on anything at all.
You mean to tell me that people did not believe, based on the strength of their word, those who are the embodiment of the little boy who cried wolf? It’s interesting that you imply that situation says something negative about the left as opposed to the right… interesting given the right’s history of employing “alternative facts”
at this point in our history, the “both sides argument” is obviously and wildly inaccurate