What a surprise, it's all good of course.

lul, bbc.

I didn't realise BBC was biased in right wing and to Trump?

Shocker that is.

I don't give a shit about the BBC

> oh, the one-sided analysis from whatever biased source didn't cover that?

Didn't you call it biased a second ago?

I can repeat that it's biased again if you'd like

Bias towards right wing?

biased towards fiction.

I don't care about narratives

These are the trade deal provisions.

Reminder this is only phase 1, phase 2 is yet to come.

lul why do I even bother.

BBC being a right wing bias according to you is a hilarious hot take, but it's not worse than this:
> > Going to the brink of war with NK and Iran
> Randomly assassinating the second most powerful man in their country.

Reminder we killed a terrorist and they couldn't do anything about it.

Under Obama we had sailors arrested by Iran and drone's shot down.

funny, 3 times now you mentioning something having a right wing anything when I don't give a shit about narratives.

Also, nice whataboutism

It isn't whataboutism, it's an example to the previous admin. Now we have a strong admin who takes Iran to the wall

> 3 times now you mentioning something having a right wing anything when I don't give a shit about narratives.
You called the BBC bias, I assume it's to the right wing(lol).

I told you what kind of bias they have.

What bias?

scroll up

don't care about you.

you think I give a shit to educate you anything whatsoever?

I declared 20 minutes ago you weren't a serious person

If you can't defend your points there's a serious problem

The best you did was call something bias without anything whatsoever.

not about defending my fucking points

this shit is obvious to everyone, including you.

"Trump is bad because of trade war, even though it helps the US later on"

you're just denying reality

it doesn't help the US, and everyone knows it

"god damn orange man and his **shuffles cards** terrorist killing abilities"

It boosted exports by 200 billion pre trade war

How does that **not** help us?

because it is a one-sided analysis.

How is it "one side"?

It's literally the trade deal's provisions.

And this is from BBC, a left leaning source.

you really aren't good with numbers, are you