3 ms·
Credibility isn't a thing that opinions have, is it? We each choose how to define "disaster" for ourselves. But you seem to be ignoring the (alleged) facts sup
by vba616 5y ago
Credibility isn't a thing that opinions have, is it? We each choose how to define "disaster" for ourselves.
But you seem to be ignoring the (alleged) facts supporting the opinion.
It's being reported that Trump never sent another "truth" after a short introductory one quite a while ago.
Either that's true or it isn't. If it's false, then how hard can it be to find proof?
The reporting gives them credibility, which of course could be rebutted by showing they falsified it.
- IAmWorried 5y agoI mean yeah, that's certainly a bad fact, but my whole point is that facts can be cherry picked. I would guess that there are other facts out there which would support the opinion that it is a success - for example, the other commenter said 1.4 million people were on the waitlist, which certainly indicates some marketing success in attracting millions of users. This is my issue with the media is that they selectively report facts in order to push their agendas. This is why it seems like Fox and MSNBC are in alternate realities. Obviously, they're not just blatantly making shit up (although some outlets certainly do).
- vba616 5y ago>1.4 million people were on the waitlist This is not only cherry-picked, but fails to be sufficiently out of context to support the opposing opinion. The key word is "were". Even if that word weren't there, the number is necessarily at a point in time. Not to mention, what independent source verified the number?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]