Perfectly aware. However, the onus is on the readers to keep comments relevant.
While I do agree - speaking frankly, this has been excellent Sunday morning reading w/ coffee material.
Perfectly aware. However, the onus is on the readers to keep comments relevant.
The control power of deep state is higher than words in capital letters on twitter.
Lots of conspiracies surround voting this time: lots of people got task to destroy millions of mail-in vote papers with Trump selected, electronic voting software designed to "glitch" to vote for Biden instead, 110+ year olds (actually dead long ago) voting for Biden, media paid to "gaslight" people, to make people think that majority truly voted for Biden, to make people give up with voting for Trump, etc.
And then there's the fact that Trump is also a paid actor, and not JFK. America's show business is truly one of a kind.
No matter the comedy, life will never get better, unless you stop watching the circus on TV and actually start with fortifying your future.
You know what's relevant? Hunter Biden's corrupt deals with China. Stealing an election insures that the Republicans will do nothing but seek revenge for the next four years. That's assuming that the massive voter fraud doesn't overturn Biden's "victory" first, of course.
Shouldn't the onus be on the editors to keep the articles relevant? The article's author himself included the rather snide political statement, "Donald Trump was the, uh… inspiration… for this policy. ", and, in a rampant abuse of journalistic ethics, doesn't even attempt to address the other side of the issue. It's political commentary, not technical news.
Accusations of fraud aside, if you get your "facts" from the Annennburg Policy Center (aka "Factcheck.org") you'll continually be misinformed. They rarely outright lie, but their omissions and distortions are unparalleled. For instance, they note that, during a court hearing on poll watcher access in Philly, the GOP attorney "admitted that poll watchers were in fact in the building" at the time of the hearing. However, they fail to mention that access was initially denied and, even after watchers were allowed inside, they were kept 30 feet away from those doing the counting, a distance that makes any meaningful observation impossible.factcheck.org: trumps-wild-baseless-claims-of-illegal-voting
Biden and Kamala Harris have a better record on crime than Trump does.
In fact, under Trump's presidency, I've seen horrific failures of the government to protect and defend citizen's rights.
Sure Pedo Joe and Cameltoe Harrie have great records, liberals are soft on crime, they want to let illegals roam our streets and rape and murder our children
Nobody is really being called out here. It was a reminder to discuss the news topic at hand - yes, it is clearly political in nature, but that's not the problem; nor is it a problem when people are expressing biased views on the matter.I do mind being called out on a response to an obviously biased opinion.
Sure Pedo Joe and Cameltoe Harrie have great records, liberals are soft on crime, they want to let illegals roam our streets and rape and murder our children
Imagine not locking down the country until march and then having the stock market go tumbling.The US voted for a career politician that has been in office for 47 YEARS! and has the worst track record ever. That doesn't say much for the level of intelligence, or lack there of. watch the stock market TANK in one year from now.
Err, Biden has no record whatsoever on crime -- other than his vote for the 1994 Crime Bill, of which he is now ashamed, and continually apologizes for.
As for Kamala Harris's rampant prosecutorial abuses, those are well-documented.
This doesn't even touch on her record of dropping cases for political reasons/favors.
You know what's relevant? Hunter Biden's corrupt deals with China. Stealing an election insures that the Republicans will do nothing but seek revenge for the next four years. That's assuming that the massive voter fraud doesn't overturn Biden's "victory" first, of course.
I think you should familiarize yourself with this site. I understand that 70,000,000 people have been indoctrinated over the last 4 years and believe that Fox News is the only honest source, but they are, sadly, mistaken.Accusations of fraud aside, if you get your "facts" from the Annennburg Policy Center (aka "Factcheck.org") you'll continually be misinformed. They rarely outright lie, but their omissions and distortions are unparalleled. For instance, they note that, during a court hearing on poll watcher access in Philly, the GOP attorney "admitted that poll watchers were in fact in the building" at the time of the hearing. However, they fail to mention that access was initially denied and, even after watchers were allowed inside, they were kept 30 feet away from those doing the counting, a distance that makes any meaningful observation impossible.
They also omit any mention of the "software glitch" that in one small Michigan county alone, allowed all the votes for Trump to be counted instead for Biden. The issue was found only after a local Sheriff became suspicious and investigated, and although election officials say it was simply a software problem, the fact remains that many other counties in the state use the same software.
An excellent example of the logical fallacy known as "attacking the messenger". Nothing in that NY Post link is even in dispute -- Harris's actions as a prosecutor are a matter of public record and not open to debate. Screaming "fake news" might fly in your normal snowflake habitat, but not here.The fact that you're linking to a Murdoch company [says] enough.
President Biden and VICE President Harris will be good for the country!
I believe them when they're truthful. Not when they lie by omission. Excluding the fact that the AP simply ignored outright the most serious issues (such as Michigans "software glitch"), let's take a few examples from your link:Also, perhaps you will believe the Associated press:
They are clarifying them. They provide references to explain why a lie is a lie.Twitter should clarify their approach to tweets with disputed, unverified, and false claims which support their political agenda -- which is protect and even promote them, whether or not they come from public officials.