I don’t need proof, because I believe him. And I have a feeling, even if he did provide proof, you’d be quick to say stuff like, “Well of course that’s easy to fake…” :)
No, if he had a record of the call/meeting. If there is an uninvested third party witness, etc. then I will take the claims seriously. Like I said, I do not doubt that the Biden admin, or any other presidential administration, has exercised undue influence over the media. It is indisputable that there is a history of it. However, I still want evidence before I go any further than “given the history, it could be true”.
I do not operate on faith, and you should not either, even though you will continue to do so. You also should probably drop the shit tier rags you post all the time, like the daily mail. If something is out there, a better outlet will have it.
This is that. And it’s delicious.
We know he is saying things you believe, and so you like it, and agree with it. Without proof though, it isn’t uncovering anything, just rage bait.
I don’t need proof, because I believe him. And I have a feeling, even if he did provide proof, you’d be quick to say stuff like, “Well of course that’s easy to fake…” :)
No, if he had a record of the call/meeting. If there is an uninvested third party witness, etc. then I will take the claims seriously. Like I said, I do not doubt that the Biden admin, or any other presidential administration, has exercised undue influence over the media. It is indisputable that there is a history of it. However, I still want evidence before I go any further than “given the history, it could be true”.
I do not operate on faith, and you should not either, even though you will continue to do so. You also should probably drop the shit tier rags you post all the time, like the daily mail. If something is out there, a better outlet will have it.
I like the Daily Mail. Thanks! :)
I mean, that is obvious, you post them frequently. Garbage in, garbage out.
I don’t think they’re garbage. Thanks!
You are free to be wrong
As are you. Thanks!