Sounds weird using the words fact and it's possible in the same sentence.

The fact is it's possible that Biden sacrificed kids to Baal but there's not enough evidence to prove it existed. Like okay. You don't publish incendiary garbage like that on 'it's possible'. A lot of things are possible but when you make this a headline it's extremely damaging to the accused party and if Trump would of been baited into somehow retaliating there could have been actual real damage based on little more than rumors.

Maybe this alone didn't change the outcome of the election but it's sure as hell was one of many bullshit stories that were spammed to contribute to the narrative that Trump was somehow compromised or friendly to Russia. To me, this is a much more dangerous precedent to set for a democracy. You can spam lies, unverified 'it's possibles', half-truths about someone and while the damage is being done there's no accountability for the people who basically put this out there for no other reason that to just damage someone politically.

You pair this story with the nonstop Russia-gate stuff and i think all of that did have a significant impact on the election.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on May 1 2021 08:10pm

biden was screaming about it during the debates as if it were fact. invoking his dead son as part of it. of course it did

indeed. its also quite possible harris and biden both wielded political power to destroy minority families. several senior sources with familiarity with the matter confirm this possibility

of course harris/biden supporters would reject any evidence of this.

This post was edited by excellence on May 1 2021 08:28pm

I mean, life is full of uncertainty and intelligence is always subject to probabilistic measures so I don't think it's strange at all. Do I think the general population is capable of understanding that? No, I don't. Having said that, I think it's important for the press to inform the population (even if partisans will run away with it and distort the story). If someone like the Wall Street Journal obtains the intelligence briefings, talks to multiple members in the intelligence community, etc. I think they are obligated to publish it.

I think there needs to be accountability on both sides. Your reputation should suffer if you continuously fuck up stories because you employ bad journalists. Likewise, the population at large needs to put on their thinking caps and read past headlines.

Russia-gate is a complicated story and I think that most people couldn't give you a very good summary of what happened. Either way, I don't think that had an impact on the election because there were just so many other important stories. Can you imagine Trump-Russia relations being the deciding factor for even .1% of the population?

*doubt*

The GOP was united in booing Mitt Romney

I'm not going to rehash the bounties story... we did that a week or two ago. I acknowledged Biden and others taking the story as an undeniable fact was wrong, but it's never been established that Trump wasn't briefed on it, and there's good reason to think the story had credibility.

the mainstream media, establishment swamp demon politicians, and swamp ‘intelligence’ agencies push a narrative based on “evidence” that is at best faulty, much more likely outright blatant lies, in order to convince the public of an outcome they want.

now where has this happened before in American history? and some swamp supporters here claim to have not supported it

That's really not the case though. Most outlets have become echo chambers for their target viewer audiences on both sides really. Whatever mistake was made, the publisher can just go radio silent about it and their mistake blows over for the most part. What CNN and some of the other outlets did to the Covington kid was something that just blew up and got a lot of attention but for every one of those, there are 50 other similar types of spin pieces that don't reach that level of unethical ness that die in the darkness. Do you think CNN lost viewers because of it? Doubt it. Because most people are simply not detail-oriented enough to keep track of who said what and weigh what was said months or years later when facts come out.

It also doesn't suffer because unlike your view that journalism happens from the bottom up, in recent reality, we clearly see it's from top-down. The network already has a narrative that it's trying to push and journalists for the most part sell and do work to support that narrative. Rarely if ever do we see outlets flip flop from negative to positive when covering the same person. Like I'm trying to think but have you ever seen any CNN headlines that praised Trump for anything? Because I've only seen one-sided, almost entirely negative stories.

You're significantly underweighting the Russia gate damage. Most people don't vote on one single issue but rather a basket of what's important to them. I think Trump's crudeness and Covid response were big issues for the voter but I bet at least some people already formulated their negative opinion on him based on the Russia gate stuff. Naive to think 3 full years of daily headlines implicating his guilt by some of the most-watched outlets had no effect.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on May 2 2021 07:55am

You too far ahead for these people. May i remind you that most here still watch animes and never made love. Go easy lol.

There's a reason i slowed down on the trolling. Noticed i'm bashing people who never had a chance to start in life. Pretty much why you see so many people defend an old senile man here.

When you go out, you actually see that most people hate the system/hate Biden and all that shit. Only on your Television/Internet they make you believe otherwise.