![e45ca000-4a98-4a72-89d7-56ac9a4056aa_text.gif](/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fy.yarn.co%2Fe45ca000-4a98-4a72-89d7-56ac9a4056aa_text.gif&hash=11916f4326178b59b167070053c3b1ca)
Yet, Trump is the "threat to democracy" (nevermind the fact that we aren't a democracy, nor were we ever intended to be one).
fifyTheir hatred and the media behind them has stirred up hatred and disdain for one man and half the nation.
If we never get to see a manifesto then it’s a tranny who just hated white privilege. They are giving the “can’t get in the phone”excuse but also saying “acted alone”. How can you say acted alone if you haven’t reviewed calls, texts, etc?We will know the motive of the shooter based on how long, if ever, the fbi releases it. If it's a right wing nut job we will know by the end of today.
I find it hard to believe someone so mad about a politician …enough he may shoot him….had no social media account. With that said, it is possible he was such a loner he didn’t have one.If we never get to see a manifesto then it’s a tranny who just hated white privilege. They are giving the “can’t get in the phone”excuse but also saying “acted alone”. How can you say acted alone if you haven’t reviewed calls, texts, etc?
No, I don't remember that. Can you or anybody else on here post links to reputable sources/news outlets showing the FBI made that claim?...and remember when the FBI said the hunter laptop was fake/Russia too?
No, I don't remember that. Can you or anybody else on here post links to reputable sources/news outlets showing the FBI made that claim?
CIA/FBI/intelligence....birds of a feather.
So the answer is "no," you absolutely cannot back up your claim.
Not only did the FBI not make the claim you said, but the support you provided says that not even former FBI officials made that claim. Further, the support you provided for your claim was a letter by former non-FBI employees (again, no FBI involvement either current or former made the claim you stated) that stated "We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement."
1) Not current (at the time) FBI
2) Not even former (at the time) FBI
3) Regardless of who said it, none of those people said that the Hunter laptop was fake like you claimed
4) In fact, they went out of their way to state that they "do not know if the emails . . . are genuine or not and that we have no evidence of Russian involvement."
Jesus, Doc. You're not a moron like the others. But over the last couple of years, you've gone down the path to what the morons do by believing random tweets and listening to moronic podcasts from uneducated blowhards. As a result, it ends up with you making completely bogus claims and believing fake news.
The FBI knew it was real and were all too happy to not inform anyone of that - including social media companies that were censoring content based on the premise it was fake. I believe Congressional testimony suggests that, no? In addition testimony in the Biden gun trial showed the FBI had the laptop in 2019. They knew it was real in 2019. They were all too happy to let candidate Biden tell the world it was fake and he emphasized that letter in the debate.
Traditional outlets - those outlets that have stood the test of time - stand by an ethical commitment to reporting accurate information. When they mess up, they retract and/or issue an apology. Even Fox News has had to do that even if a result of being under oath.I don't know why you have such an issue with twitter and podcasts, they are a far better way to get news than traditional outlets.
That's great if you have the ability to identify bogus reporting, but recently, I've had to call you out for multiple bogus claims/shared stories that common sense should have told you otherwise. So in other words, you're falling into the same trap that the typical deplorable does by perpetuating bogus reports from untrained, unprofessional, bogus sources.I'll take my ability to filter through twitter (where i can follow both sides and make an effort to) over the gated institutional narrative of the media and ethics of journalists. I can include journalists in twitter analysis as well. I can get a feed that is thorough and tailored to my interests..i'd rather have more info than less if I want it.
Bullshit. Facebook and Twitter have both been big for 15-20 years. It hasn't been tech limitations - it's because legitimate, educated, professionally trained, ethical media sources have been a major part of what separates the U.S. from many other countries for a long time. Only when trump started crying about "fake news," while being the biggest bullshit/con artist in history, did deplorables start listening to blowhards on twitter over those traditional sources.The "traditional outlets" have "stood the test of time" due to tech limitations. THe internet and podcasts are the new printing press. Their standing the test of time was because they were the only way. They aren't now.
People were starting to see through it. Trump exposed it even more. The difference now is the media can't hide it. There are too many other outlets and sources outside of the mainstream. The mainstream lost its way and really much of it became an arm of the federal govt, in turn the federal govt favors Democrats.That's great if you have the ability to identify bogus reporting, but recently, I've had to call you out for multiple bogus claims/shared stories that common sense should have told you otherwise. So in other words, you're falling into the same trap that the typical deplorable does by perpetuating bogus reports from untrained, unprofessional, bogus sources.
Bullshit. Facebook and Twitter have both been big for 15-20 years. It hasn't been tech limitations - it's because legitimate, educated, professionally trained, ethical media sources have been a major part of what separates the U.S. from many other countries for a long time. Only when trump started crying about "fake news," while being the biggest bullshit/con artist in history, did deplorables start listening to blowhards on twitter over those traditional sources.
Trump wasn't he first to identify issues in the media with bias. I'd say it was more a 90's Rush Limbaugh thing as far as I remember. that's been going on for years and years. I think now the tech and algorithms (assuming you are an active user) can do a fantastic job.
His problem is, it's not the narrative mainstream media has told him to believe.I don't know why you'd think getting a W-2 from NBC is going to be more reliable than a journalist with a substack like Matt Taibbi?