Trump Shreds Kamala In Rigged 3 v 1 Debate

This is not a site I would choose for intellectual flexing.
I respectfully disagree. I actually think that it is quite challenging to pen an engaging erotic tale. I don’t know but I want to believe that the forum and PB are offshoots of folks either writing or reading stories. If we’re talking a newly created member immediately posting here then I would agree.
 

Biden Donned Trump Hat in Shanksville as Show of 9/11 Unity, White House Says​

Story by Jesus Mesa
• 17h

President Joe Biden briefly donned a red "Trump 2024" hat during a visit to a Shanksville, Pennsylvania fire station, in what the White House described as a gesture of unity on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

"At the Shanksville Fire Station, @POTUS spoke about the country's bipartisan unity after 9/11 and said we needed to get back to that," White House senior deputy press secretary Andrew Bates posted on social media.


https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1qpHJh.img?w=768&h=512&m=6&x=1243&y=434&s=359&d=359

Bates said Biden gave a hat to a Trump supporter in the crowd as a friendly gesture. The supporter then asked Biden to put on a Trump cap in the name of bipartisanship, and the president went along, briefly wearing the red hat.

"As a gesture, he gave a hat to a Trump supporter, who then suggested that, in the same spirit, POTUS should wear the Trump cap. He briefly put it on," Bates added.

More here: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/othe...ow-of-9-11-unity-white-house-says/ar-AA1qpF3V

Trump said Joe was pissed at Kamala for running him out of office. He did this right after the debate. Democrats everywhere are howling at the imagery. Originally I thought it was AI but it actually happened.
 
He also said Haitians are eating pets in Springfield, Jack.
The angry Biden scenario is far more plausible...wouldn't you be angry if someone forced your hand and humiliated you in that fashion? I would be, no doubt. It's a very natural human emotion. I'm not one for validating emotions, I think that's been overdone, but I could see the validity of that kind of rage.
 
I barely notice Twitter. My browser blocks tweets. Unblocking them is mostly not worth the clicks.
Huh? You recognizing if Twitter exists or not has nothing to do with the question. The story wasn’t about interactive tweets between members.
 
They're one of the few unbiased news sites that actually reports news these days.
The media bias chart strongly disagrees with you. "Strong Right" and "Opinion or wide variation in reliability"

It won't change your mind, but there, I said it anyway.
 
The media bias chart strongly disagrees with you. "Strong Right" and "Opinion or wide variation in reliability"

It won't change your mind, but there, I said it anyway.
Who owns or operates this chart? I have to wonder....
 
Who owns or operates this chart? I have to wonder....
Jesus, take off your tinfoil hat. They are respected for their work and are fully transparent in their operations and development of the chart. It also passes the smell test just by looking at it, if anyone ever bothered.
 
Jesus, take off your tinfoil hat. They are respected for their work and are fully transparent in their operations and development of the chart. It also passes the smell test just by looking at it, if anyone ever bothered.
Frankly, I don't trust anyone right now. People are going to have to earn my trust. I don't know these guys. That's a long road to hoe these days.
 
They rated Newsweek as "center." That doesn't help their credibility with me.
The question was who owns and operates it.

If you're concerned about credibility, perhaps take a look at their methodology for criticism, which is also mentioned on the page.
 
The question was who owns and operates it.

If you're concerned about credibility, perhaps take a look at their methodology for criticism, which is also mentioned on the page.
I know what the question was. I asked it. I asked that question with a view toward determining their reliability. If they are owned and operated by lackeys of the elite, that doesn't help them with me.
 
I know what the question was. I asked it. I asked that question with a view toward determining their reliability. If they are owned and operated by lackeys of the elite, that doesn't help them with me.
If ownership is more important than methodology, then you're not discussing credibility and instead are discussing your own bias.
 
Frankly, I don't trust anyone right now. People are going to have to earn my trust. I don't know these guys. That's a long road to hoe these days.
If you don't trust anyone then you shouldn't be posting anything that you can't back up with your own, personal, independent PRIMARY research that you conducted.
 
If you don't trust anyone then you shouldn't be posting anything that you can't back up with your own, personal, independent PRIMARY research that you conducted.
Whatever, dude. If I can verify a source, that's one thing. Sadly, most of the "fact checkers" are unreliable themselves and need to be fact-checked, too. I was using hyperbole, but you would know that if you paid any attention or used your brain for something other than filling up with simple-minded dogma. My point is simply that the ownership of the site has a great relevance as to its reliability and bias. Methodology is important, but so are the bias and the management of the site.
 
All anti-Trump propaganda sources. They don't do journalism anymore.

They're not "anti-Trump propaganda sources". They're editorial commentary (just like yours!). They simply represent that your position is not the last word on David Muir. No "journalism" here, just opinion.
 
Whatever, dude. If I can verify a source, that's one thing. Sadly, most of the "fact checkers" are unreliable themselves and need to be fact-checked, too. I was using hyperbole, but you would know that if you paid any attention or used your brain for something other than filling up with simple-minded dogma. My point is simply that the ownership of the site has a great relevance as to its reliability and bias.
Cute. So who are YOUR verified, reliable sources? You dismissed two independent bias charts without "fact checking" either of them. In 5 minutes, you could have easily looked up both of the sources and made your own judgement, but you questioned their motives for no real reason in order to dismiss a statement that breitbart (of all fucking places) has multiple reliable data sources that say they lean heavily right and basically publish bull shit.

Maybe you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion. At 1:05am today, you stated multiple "facts":

"The sad thing about statistics these days is that they just aren't as reliable as they used to be because of the inherent conflict of interest between academia, government, business, etc. Government involvement and corporate interference will corrupt the findings, among other things. If a person abandons their principles to serve the State, well, it raises real questions, because the government is very prone to lie to us, as is Wall Street. Just look at Big Tobacco, for instance. They lied to us for decades. Sad to say, people are regularly doctoring stats, cooking the books, fudging the numbers, because money and power are motives to academics and scientists, too."

What sources did you use to determine that statics aren't as reliable as they used to be? I'm certain you didn't do the primary research. Why is there inherent conflict of interest in statistics? If it's not ALL statistics, because you know, hyperbole, then why not just refer to some statistics? The government is prone to lie to us? What is your source for this? Have they lied directly to you so many times that you can now characterize the government (that's a really broad group by the way) as prone to lie? Do you have documentation of all the times the government has lied to you, thus creating your own primary research study? How about Wall Street. How has Wall Street lied to you? What evidence do you possess that academia is cooking the books and doctoring statistics? Perhaps you should go public with your findings so we can root out the bad actors.

I stand by my previous statement. You, and specifically you, shouldn't be stating anything as factual because you don't have any source for your "facts" that is reliable and you're paranoid. You have developed opinions based on whatever you read in the news or on the internet or what you heard at the water cooler from someone who heard whatever on the internet, however you're not the least bit willing to admit it nor apply any critical thinking to the data and the sources that you're consuming before regurgitating completely unoriginal thought on the internet. At least have the balls to admit that you're just saying bullshit on the internet that that isn't the least bit defensible.
 
Back
Top