this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2025
-5 points (30.8% liked)
Politics Unfiltered
71 readers
59 users here now
A fresh perspective on political news, spotlighting voices and viewpoints beyond the mainstream.
We dive into third-party movements, alternative policies, and underrepresented ideas, offering a space for independent thinking.
Here, diverse political opinions are encouraged, making room for honest discussions about the full spectrum of political possibilities.
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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!
Posting garbage simply because it shits on the party they have a deep bias against, doesn't mean you are actually countering some narrative, garbage is garbage, be it pro democrat, pro gop, whatever.
The daily mail, NY Post, The militant. This makes up most of what you have been posting. daily, and post, are barely outside of being tabloids. While I have some respect for the SWP, and generally support them because there is so little actual leftist stuff in the US, the militant has a history of posting unsourced claims, straight up stuff that is wrong, and, while I can understand the desire for anonymity for the owners of a leftist circulation in the US, the lack of transparency is always suspect. While you can't really just trust news, you can at least not primarily post the bottom feeders.
Also, your profile just screams martyr complex
I like those. :)
Not at all, it's showing how I'm still here in spite of all who have tried to silence me. See, the beauty of the fediverse, is multiple instances, usernames, etc. No one person, or group of people, can silence anyone.
You are totally free to block me and/or this community if you don't like what I post. Thanks, friend!
i have no interest in blocking you. It's not like you are a nazi, or something. I also lurk at least one of your fora, solarpunk strength. However, I will voice myself over the bad sources you frequently post.
Fair enough. I'm not a huge fan of NY Post, but I do honestly love Daily Mail. Even tho I am aware everyone hates them! lol
But I do also post from Reason.com and TheHill.com which are slightly more reputable. :)