so what youre really saying is that its only good news if it fits your narrative

Yes, that is my whole point. You hit the nail right on the head there Qwert.

it was directed at chula my man

I want to hear from people who have worked on both sides of the aisle. Who don't come across as blind shills. Who will call a spade a spade independant of party.

Lame retort Q.

Oh, my bad. I was the last to post and you didn't quote so I assumed.

I shouldn't assume....

nah i was genuinely just saying that's what it sounds like to me. if somebody posted a HuffPost link you wouldnt bat an eye, but if it was Fox, you'd dismiss immediately. same probably goes for Ant but as an opposite. no big deal, but calling them shills just because they disagree with you is obv biased.

and nbd TIM, i would quote if i wasnt on mobile and trolling Chula.

Well, to be fair, and while it's unfortunate, this is how most of the world works. Same goes with debating though. If it doesn't fit your narrative, of course you're going to push your point toward them. BUT, the main issue isn't what fits your narrative, it's finding what actually holds factual basis AND fits your narrative. Nothing wrong with using articles to prove your own point as long as it's accurate. Unfortunately most people at this forum don't know the single thing about using articles as factual evidence. Myself included.

agreed but if youre dismissing a source simply because of your own biases... well, obviously there's a bit of an issue. there needs to be some give and take with these kinds of things. an understanding that no person or company will ever be entirely accurate all the time and just because it alligns with what you think does not mean it is inherently more valid.

there's so many reasons why trump is a bad person and an even worse president, so why have things like "he's creepy around his daughter" become hot button responses for why he's unfit for his position.

doubt he's done anything near what ol bill clinton did in his hayday

Whether it is true or not doesn't dismiss the criteria of using a source that is more often than not, accurate. It's like finding one piece of gold in a pile of ****. It's still a pile of **** after the fact.

Well that's the main problem with finding sources in general. You get too many sides of the same problem and it just becomes a bigger problem. That's why if you choose to use a source for your argument, it's best to have backup in order to backup your choice of sources. We're both on the same page obviously but of course people are going to look at HuffPost and instantly remember "man, remember when they made all those articles that simply made no sense? Yeah, who's going to take them seriously." Like I mentionted to elph, just because HuffPost posts once in a while a good article with factual evidence, doesn't dispute the fact that they are still indeed a ****ty source to choose.