YouTube Will Stop Removing False Presidential Election Fraud Claims (theverge.com) 160
In a blog post today, YouTube said it will stop removing content that "advances false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches occurred in the 2020 and other past US Presidential elections." The online video platform says that the "ability to openly debate political ideas, even those that are controversial or based on disproven assumptions, is core to a functioning democratic society -- especially in the midst of election season." The Verge reports: YouTube first introduced its election misinformation policy in December 2020, which barred users from posting content that spread false claims about the integrity of US elections. The platform says it has removed "thousands" of videos since implementing the policy. "In the current environment, we find that while removing this content does curb some misinformation, it could also have the unintended effect of curtailing political speech without meaningfully reducing the risk of violence or other real-world harm," YouTube states. "As with any update to our policies, we carefully deliberated this change."
Despite the policy reversal, YouTube says it will continue to enforce rules that prevent users from discouraging others from participating in an election. It will also take action against content that aims to mislead users about the time, place, or requirements for voting as well as content that disputes the validity of mail-in voting. Additionally, YouTube says it still prominently surfaces content from "authoritative sources" in search results and recommendations.
Despite the policy reversal, YouTube says it will continue to enforce rules that prevent users from discouraging others from participating in an election. It will also take action against content that aims to mislead users about the time, place, or requirements for voting as well as content that disputes the validity of mail-in voting. Additionally, YouTube says it still prominently surfaces content from "authoritative sources" in search results and recommendations.
Very cool (Score:5, Insightful)
Just in time to get ready for the second round!
Re:Very cool (Score:5, Insightful)
Would this be the Hillary Clinton who conceded the very next day? Or the one who pissed and moaned endlessly, grifted millions of dollars, put Four Seasons Total Landscaping on the political map, and incited a riot?
Re: (Score:3)
A lot more than one riot.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This would be the Hilary Clinton who was anti-gay marriage well into her 60s, who most Democrats voted for, even while simultaneously boycotting the poorest, blackest state in the union for being anti-gay marriage.
Not my President! Trump was only elected because of a vast Russian conspiracy even though according to Democrats, all conspiracy theories are wrong. We DO NOT want foreigners having a say in our elections, unless they are fashionable foreigners! Eeeesh, what do we need to do, spell it out for
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess, the solution is... Trump? Ron maybe? Mike Pence, I heard he's running now.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is stop voting for people you know are liars and hypocrites from both parties.
And stop the what aboutism, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then it's really slim pickins. I invited a suggestion, and haven't received one yet.
Usually when someone writes the kind of dog vomit of the grandparent post, it's not because they have any conception of what the real problems facing people are, much less how to solve them. They just want to vomit on the ground and lick it back up again. The problem is not one of reason, but of goals, attitude, and method.
I invited an opportunity to surprise me. Maybe there's something meaningful behind the upchuck. S
Re:Very cool (Score:4, Insightful)
Disclaimer: this post deals with the problems with the Democrats. It does in no way want to diminish or deny the problems with the Republicans. But the latter are well understood here, and it does not add anything to the conversation to rant about them here. I am interested to analyze the much less scrutinized problems of the former, because as we kinda want to forget these days, constructive critique is the only way to improvement. So try to imagine this: are the Democrats perfect? No, they are not. So allow me to entertain the idea that they might have some particular imperfections, and these might be uttered, pointed out and analyzed, and found to be the causes of some unwanted effects. And all of this could be done not for the purpose of promoting Republicans, but for the purpose of improving Democrats.
In any case. The bitching, moaning and grifting are on point for both candidates. How did Hillary get to be the Democratic candidate? Obama's second campaign left the Democratic party on the verge of bankruptcy. So Hillary washed a landslide of dirty money into the Democratic Party through the Clinton Foundation, saving it. With this move she bought the candidacy for herself, when it should have been Sanders' by every criteria. How do we know this? Because of her fsckin emails, the authenticity of which you can go and verify on your own via the DKIM signatures.
And when she had the candidacy, she went on and lost to fsckin Trump... How do you pull off such a thing? Well by calling half of the country deplorables. By not acknowledging even for a second that millions and millions of people in the country had very real problems with lack of employment and resulting opioid crisis, homelessness, and destruction of communities. By telling everyone that if you have any doubts about her being the right choice, you are the enemy. I mean a even lot of Sanders people went to Trump just to spite her because of that.
All the while he who shall not be named spent all his rallies acknowledging said problems, talking about jobs and the economy and promising to fix them. And to the dismay of every blueish voter, sprinkling in stinking controversy to get the press attention, which is the part he will go down in history for.
But consider this. You are a "flyover country" voter that has lost his job, and you are seeing the same happen to everyone around you. Your kids are doing drugs and dying because they have no future. Your neighbors are homeless and you fear the same is going to happen to your family. And now you have two candidates. One of them does not acknowledge your problems, calls you names and actually does go out of her way to be proud of this perfect spotless America she built, which means proud of her part in destroying your life. And the other candidate acknowledges your problems, promises to fix them and appears to be completely different from the people who caused your problems.
Even if the second one only has a 0.01% chance of actually fixing anything, he is still the correct choice over the first one that has a 0% chance to fix anything. It's a no-brainer, and the Orange Guy pulls it off. But since the blue side cannot admit to any problems of their own making, they have to pretend what happened was some sort of an anomaly, the work of Putin, of aliens, of enemy brainwashing on industrial scale.
But consider this. The cost of the 2016 presidentials was $2.6B. Russia spent a few hundred K. One of these efforts is the actual industrial brainwashing. The other one is a drop in the ocean, and there is no way in hell it had any meaningful effect. So Hillary went and spent the next two years running around blaming everyone else but herself, blaming Zuck, the media, the voters, the party... Complaining to everyone that would listen. Until everyone had had enough of her and she finally read the room and went away. But her party is still playing dumb and pretending the problems in the society that led to Trump either do not exist, or have nothing to do with people voting for Trump.
Re: Very cool (Score:2)
Quick question:
What did you hope to accomplish with that? To change the op's mind? To change the minds of the other folks reading it?
I'd wager you accomplished neither just based on the sheer volume of your reply. Folks that pop off 10 paragraphs rarely get taken seriously. Even if it would have been me.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's interesting because Republicans think drugs cause homelessness and never the other way around! [apa.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? First of all, you link to a paper written about Australia, from which I fail to make your jump to what Republicans think. I mean I would still argue that the dynamics are probably exactly the same in the US, but it is still an argument that is not given and has to be made.
But did you actually read anything but the headline of it, though? Because right there in the abstract: of all of the questioned people that had substance problems in Melbourne, one third had drug problems before homelessness, and two
Re:Very cool (Score:4, Insightful)
More right-wing lies. This is trivial to check.
The 2016 election was held on November 8th, Clinton conceded on November 9th [washingtonpost.com]
You'll believe anything but the truth, won't you?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Learn to read. The AC claimed that she didn't concede the next day.
Re: Very cool (Score:3)
Re: Very cool (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you provide a quote of her linking those two things?
Except if you're right, that that was what she was saying, it's not questioning, it's textbook election denialism.
Like it or not, there are a series of rules which govern how elections run
Re: (Score:3)
With a pure democracy, you would only need to convince the top 5 most populated cities to determine the outcome for the rest of the country.
Uh, no. Even if you could miraculously get 100% of the *ten* largest cities in the U.S. to vote for a single candidate, that would still be fewer than 27 million people, of which only about 20.7 million are over 18. And the most liberal cities in the U.S. are only about 85% Democrat, so it would be miraculous to get more than 85% or so to vote for a single candidate. So that's only 17.6 million voters in the most skewed scenario plausible. The last presidential election had 154.6 million voters. So eve
Re: Very cool (Score:4, Interesting)
Except if you're right, that that was what she was saying, it's not questioning, it's textbook election denialism.
How is believing that the popular vote should be what counts, rather than a distorted metric that artificially inflates the vote of low-population states by almost a factor of four?
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that's what she was saying at the time of the election. I think she later threw additional shade based on election meddling by Russia, which IMO doesn't per se make the election illegitimate in that people *did* vote the way they did, but does lead to legitimate questions about disinformation and how fragile democracy is when it can be so easily influenced by small numbers of people whose voices are amplified by bot armies on social media.
We get it, you don't like the electoral college, interesting how you skipped over the other reasons why it exists and will remain for quite some time.
You mean preventing free states from having more power than slave states? That was, after all, the main reason for its existence [time.com].
I can at least format my comments properly
So can I when I'm not posting on iOS. Slashdot's site is absolutely and completely useless for posting on iOS. No preview, mishandled punctuation... it is absolute garbage. I'll try not to make that mistake again.
Re: (Score:2)
Conceding is exactly accepting the legitimacy of the election.
Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
There's so much of it that we would have to spend actual money to hire people to police it, so we give up.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's much more likely (Score:5, Insightful)
Steven Crowder is still on YouTube despite repeatedly and consistently violating YouTube terms of service regarding the lgbtq+ community. He also buys around $250,000 to $300,000 of advertisement a year over on YouTube. And Dennis Prager spends millions promoting his fake University program.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That is half of it ...
The other half is : "There is so much of it, so might as well get views on it, and sell ads".
So it is all about money whether it is spending to curb it, or profiting from it ...
Re: (Score:2)
Or it could be "we couldn't decide if a video was for or against it anymore".
A lot of debunking videos got caught up in the bans because they used footage from the videos they were debunking, so it became hard to differentiate.
This was just like Thunderf00t's debunking the "masks cause oxygen starvation" myth where he was playing clips showing where the video was purposely faking the results and hoping no one catches it.
If it results in people posting videos of the riots and more people posting the identiti
Then, give them their share... (Score:5, Insightful)
...of fake (lies) information...
Quote: " stop removing content that "advances false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches occurred in the 2020 and other past US Presidential elections.""
How about a video saying that Alphabet CEO was paid to mislead the voters and slow other parties videos? Or that he got in shady business with some KKK candidate to some state to ban there oposition videos? Or...
I mean, those are "false claims that widespread fraud, ... occurred in ... past US Presidential elections."
Will then Alphabet remove those? If they don't, then it's OK they approach to "allow spread of false information to make voters ignorant of truth". If they do, then they're just a bunk of hypocrites.
Re: Then, give them their share... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the rediculous war
Is it already diculous again?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Then, give them their share... (Score:4, Informative)
>Im pretty sure the Russian government is pretty broke ass broke now.
Their agitprop campaigns in the West have been remarkably effective and inexpensive. Even though they're no longer as effective as they were, they're still probably a significant priority and they hardly take up a rounding error in the funds being burned in Ukraine.
Re: (Score:3)
I actually think it would have been (quietly) investigated, but probably ignored or held for future use.
The obvious point of Russian interference was to get Trump elected and continue to weaken and fracture the US and its global alliances... if that had failed, it's like investigating a break-in attempt. Sure, a crime happened, but there were no consequences so you don't throw a lot of resources at it.
Politically, the investigation would have looked a lot like trying to go after Trump and wouldn't have been
Re: (Score:3)
A Facebook campaign, while still effective, was probably not as good for them as the bribing and blackmail of politicians or funding the NRA, but it was something and it gave them a good ROI.
I assume you're minimizing this because you're hoping they're even better at it for the next federal election - I suspect that between having bogged themselves down in Ukraine and having much of their effectiveness in the US reduced from the last round that this won't be the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Then, give them their share... (Score:4, Informative)
Russia's debt is about 13.5% of their GDP. The USA is about 130%. If you're expecting Russian "debt up to their eyeballs" to end the war, you're not living in reality.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's a Rossyan joke for you:
A Rossyan home, Sunday morning. A boy's playing on the floor, his father sitting at the table with a bad hangover, drinking vodka..
Radio news: "From Monday a 10% Special Military Operation tax will be levied all alcoholic drinks to support our just war for the return of Rossyan lands taken over by Ukraine".
The boy looks up, says, "Dad, does that mean you'll be drinking less"?
Father stares at the half-empty vodka bottle and answers, "No, son, it means you'll eat less".
Misinformation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Misinformation (Score:4, Insightful)
"Jacob Blake was unarmed"
I think the actual quote most people used was "Jacob Blake didn't have a gun".
But I guess him having a knife was justification enough to shoot him seven times in the back? Or was it because he was a scumbag? Was that enough justification to shoot him in the back & leave him a paralyzed burden on his family & wider society for the rest of his life?
They Said It and Wanted It To Spread (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At a minimum, the Washington Post, ESPN, CNN said unarmed
Cites please?
Re: (Score:3)
WP said it themselves [washingtonpost.com]:
They eventually deleted a tweet [twitter.com] with the unarmed claim.
ESPN: https://twitter.com/ClayTravis... [twitter.com]
CNN still has the claim up to this day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: Misinformation (Score:2)
A man at the time with a warrant open for sexual assault, among other things.
Resisting arrest, then reaching into somebody else's car, with children in the back. He admitted he had the knife in his hand. This was after attempts at tasering him failed. What should they have done? Wait for him to emerge so they can go mano a mano? Shoot the blade out of his hand, like in the films? Let him get in the car then drive off with the kids?
If Blake were white, everybody acting the same way then this would have never
Re: (Score:2)
Right, so you're int the "being a scumbag & having a knife means you deserve to be shot seven times in the back" camp.
Re: Misinformation (Score:2)
>Right, so you're int the "being a scumbag & having a knife means you deserve to be shot seven times in the back" camp.
This is what's known as a straw man argument. It's easy to avoid. First, don't attempt to rephrase the other person's argument, particularly when it would help your argument.
My argument was logical and utilitarian in nature, not making any moral judgements. To simplify it further, what happened followed from actions Blake took. Blake put officers in a very difficult situation in whic
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly all these problems can and should be fixed by changing laws so that anyone fleeing from police can be subject to deadly force.
Authoritative sources (Score:2)
here we go again (Score:4, Interesting)
Let the Shameless Lying Begin!
it DOES raise an interesting problem though, how to balance freedom of speech with freedom to lie and deceive. We don't allow Fraud. These people lie to get elected to a (usually lucrative) position of power, and when they lie to get our vote, their decisions usually harm us. It certainly FEELS like Fraud to me. We're "spending" a VERY limited resource, our vote, in exchange for a promised "policy". If they don't deliver, surely that's Fraud?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The best cure is prussic acid.
Re:here we go again (Score:4)
False information on Facebook caused Brexshit. Britain is now the laughing stock of the world, has a flatlining economy, 11% inflation, an 8% deficit. a collapsing NHS, ihas lost half its car factories (with the others insisting they'll leave unless the deal is changed), is trying to ban protest, has endless shit in the rivers and an inability to buy salad every February.
Some false information is less important eg Kissinger is in the news at the moment. It doesn't matter that much if people are slightly wrong about him.
Social media can accompany misinfo with fact checks (Facebook does this for a small subsection of misinfo). Nobody is censored and the facts are promoted. If the factchecking is reliable and well-matched, this is ideal.
You'd think AI was at the level it could detect misinfo on Youtube fairly easily and that it could do the same.
It is very odd that Google is doing this. Hopefully, some whistleblower will tell the world why.
Re: (Score:2)
The truth is that democracy is simply an old system for old times.
Democracy is treated like the untouchable sacred cow when it was made by the greeks 3000 years ago. Everyone's hailing it like the ultimate goal, but it barely worked back then, when the people who vote sat and talked with each other about who gets the vote and why.
How is it supposed to work with the current state of society and the internet? People are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
Not exactly the best man to quote, but I think
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You want to arrest politicians for lying?
Interesting concept. I'd agree if you could come up with a way to make it happen.
In the meantime, free speech is free speech. As long as someone isn't inciting a riot or falsely smearing someone's reputation and other things already well covered by the law then anything else goes including lied and conspiracy theory and the rest. Anything less is not free speech. It's free speech "we" like.
Kewl (Score:2)
So someone will post that story about Ron DeSantis' wife having two abortions.
Or so I've heard.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Because she keeps getting knocked up at the trap house.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I'm just asking questions here.
YouTube we're here with all your false information (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Russian collusion was proven true [nbcnews.com]
The "don't say gay" bill was exactly that [nea.org]
Masking Works [nature.com]
Vaccines Work [cdc.gov]
You are a lying piece of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
You've spammed the "Russian collusion was proven true" link 3x in the comments here, but have yet to substantiate anything you claim, would you mind being specific as others have asked?
Your other links are hyper-partisan and seek not to engage in honest dialog, but push a narrative, a false one in some cases which you happily accept and are willing to do your part to push.
I'm so old, that I remember the current President assuring the American people that it was a pandemic of the unvaccinated, AND “You
Re: (Score:2)
I think you drank too much cool-aid ya Corky; quoting incredibly bias sites that are flat out misrepresenting the truth, or really old articles.
1. Almost laughable. You think that Russia wanting one candidate to win over another somehow equates to collusion. How about we just stick with the facts there buddy. Sounds like misinformation to me.
2. You quoted a fluff piece that misrepresents the opposition's claim to try and save face. More misinformation. I'm beginning to see how gullible you are.
3. Right....
Re: (Score:2)
A 2020 article to prove Russian collusion was true eh? You must have missed the Durham report.
Apparently John Durham missed this Durham report you think you read.
Welcome to a Post Truth World (Score:5, Interesting)
Some platforms take this to an extreme, making it ok for someone to post lies but a bannable offense for someone else to truthfully call them a liar because insulting people is uncivil. And so misinformation wins.
Would you rather be lied to politely or told the truth rudely?
Re: (Score:2)
In the modern world, with the information flood, everyone will find the truth that suits them best. There is no truth, anymore.
y'all have fun now (Score:2)
Be Evil. (Score:2)
How the worm has turned.
(but not by much really...)
Google's sacrifice for liberty (Score:2)
The online video platform says that the "ability to openly debate political ideas, even those that are controversial or based on disproven assumptions, is core to a functioning democratic society
Google is fiercely defending free speech, and this had nothing to do with the extra advertising revenue Google receives from facilitating and promoting extremist views and known falsehoods. It's a sacrifice that Google is willing to take in defense of the First Amendment.
There's Just One Small Thing ... (Score:2)
The "ability to openly debate political ideas, even those that are controversial or based on disproven assumptions, is core to a functioning democratic society
Yeah, right on, you tell them!
[unless those ideas] dispute the validity of mail-in voting
Oh hell yeah! Let them know what time it is in this biya ,,, wait, what?
A functioning democratic society is essential, unless it questions the validity of mail-in voting?
In which case fuck a functioning democracy with a sharp stick?
Being banned from questioning t
Lying is not debating. (Score:2)
Lying and malicious lies are not political debate they are what happens when people are scumbags and don't have any valid debate so they resort to underhand methods such as character assassination or lies about what an opponent would do. Which means this statement by Youtube is utterly disingenuous.
When Yout
Re: (Score:2)
Your post is terrible, but since it is here, I can confront it. Maybe in doing so I will change your mind or the mind of someone reading this comment.
Do you see how this works?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no, dissenting voices in comments can and will likely be buried. Confirmation bias and algorithms which show people what they want will hide opposing arguments in other videos from those that see the bad videos.
So it's better not to allow blatant lying, Youtube has that choice and I do not agree with their debate line at all, they simply want to show as many ads as possible, everything they do ids geared towards that goal including this action regardless of the negative consequences.
Sauce for the goose? (Score:2)
If they're no longer quashing what they consider to be false claims about the election, then will they also stop suppressing what they consider to be false claims about Covid treatments, origins, vaccine effects, etc? If not, then isn't this at least one hell of an inconsistency, if not downright hypocrisy?
YouTube says the “ability to openly debate political ideas, even those that are controversial or based on disproven assumptions, is core to a functioning democratic society - especially in the midst
Google's worried... (Score:2)
Irrelevant (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It worked; Clive Palmer got his senator here in Victoria.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
And yet hundreds of millions of us watched DumpsterFire ask Russia to help him win the election. And they tried to.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/p... [pbs.org]
Oh and Trump is a textbook fascist.
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine being so naive thinking that Putin and his lackeys are sitting around the Kremlin one day, wondering how they will spend the next few years, when suddenly they see that video and think "You know what? We now have permission to go hack the Americans and sow discord and confusion within their country!"... which they had never ever done before.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine being so naive thinking that Putin and his lackeys are sitting around the Kremlin one day, wondering how they will spend the next few years, when suddenly they see that video and think "You know what? We now have permission to go hack the Americans and sow discord and confusion within their country!"...
Both ideas can be concurrently true. Mordor could have had an existing influence campaign against the US and could have also responded to Trump's public request to find the emails. It is certainly an interesting correlation hours later attempts would be made to do just that.
"That very day, hackers working with Russiaâ(TM)s military intelligence tried to break into email accounts associated with Clintonâ(TM)s personal office."
https://apnews.com/article/don... [apnews.com]
which they had never ever done before.
I don't see anyone here saying that.
Re: (Score:2)
Can be is different than is, and there was a specific claim here I'm still waiting for evidence of.
Who? What?
Why is it interesting? Your article claims they attempted to do so that day... did they the day before? week? month? Did they on
Re: (Score:3)
Whilst WaffleMonster destroyed your counterargument, there's more.
Russia weren't on trial. And so their response isn't terribly relevant -- it just proves they were likely responding to DumpsterFire's instructions.
The point is more that the bald fat fascist asked US' #1 enemy for aid in perverting democracy. He also asked the Proud Boys for the same thing.
There's just more evidence on intent with the latter so that's what he'll be going to prison for.
Re: (Score:2)
[Citation Needed]
I do not believe "weren't" is the correct tense here. More so, what does a trial have to do with anything here? There is an outstanding question as to if the Russian's hacked Secretary Clinton's email on the express order or suggestion of then candidate Trump, or, as evidence actually points to, they'd been hacking emails for some time.
Which response?
Try again...you have no argument (Score:2)
When Trump said that "Hey Russia..." line, everybody already knew she had wiped and shut-down her illegal server, which had likely been hacked by every hostile government on the planet, which is why the line drew such laughter from the audience (who would otherwise have been confused about the reference). Hillary had done all her government work illegally on that private server - and all the damned work product was the property of the people of The United States. We the people had a RIGHT to the documents s
Re: (Score:2)
And you got triggered. Nor can you disprove anything I said. :D
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Russian collusion is a proven fact [nbcnews.com]
You are a liar.
ha ha ha (Score:3)
NBC lied about the whole damned thing, and yeah, that senate report is a joke. That senate report IMPLIES a lot, as its anti-Trump authors wanted, but you'll note (if you actually READ the thing AND watch the hearings) that there's no there there. Even the completely rigged and one-sided so-called January 6th hearings Pelosi's team ran in the House (which not only refused to allow any Trump defenders, broke House rules, and even got caught doctoring video) could not prove any Trump misdeeds... which is why
Re: (Score:2)
Discouraging people from voting is actually a very democratic thing to do.
It is very obviously anti-democratic.
not voting at all is technically less harmful than voting tactically.
That is absolute nonsense. Voting tactically is always better than not voting at all. 2016 should be proof enough of that.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like the Jill Stein voters who voted tactically and in numbers larger than the margin Hillary Clinton lost by in three states?
Had they simply not voted, a whole lot of people would have been less disappointed, but final election still been the same.
Re: (Score:2)
A tactical vote would have been a vote for Clinton, not for Stein. The people who stayed home are the reason we got TFG, and the massively increased national debt.
Re: (Score:2)
To you, a Clinton supporter. Stein voters would disagree, just as Perot voters disagreed back in 92.
Are you suggesting that if Clinton had won in 2016, COVID-19 wouldn't have reached the United States, thus there wouldn't have been massive inflationary spending (which also added massively to the national debt) to encourage people to stay home for m
Re: (Score:2)
You apparently don't know what the word "tactical" means.
Are you suggesting that if Clinton had won in 2016, COVID-19 wouldn't have reached the United States,
The debt ballooned before 2020, largely due to his massive tax cuts and out-of-control military spending. You know this, so why do you insist on lying about it?
Re: (Score:2)
Do I really need to post this [nbcnews.com] again? You are a person who tells lies.
Re: Opinion (Score:2)
Maybe provide the specific claims from the article that support the claim of collusion?
People are trying to talk to you, not NBC.
Re: Opinion (Score:4, Insightful)
People are trying to talk to you
No, they're not. Russian collusion is a well-established fact. That article was just the first one I found with a web search. You'll find quite a bit in the Muller Report as well, despite the lies Barr initially told about its content. The only people claiming otherwise today are people who are intentionally lying, like Barr did back in 2019.
Did you even WATCH Mueller's testimony? (Score:2)
Robert Mueller was an old FBI guy used as a figure head as the Democrats wrote "his" report.
When he went up to Capitol Hill to testify about his report, he shockingly did not even know what was in it, or anything about some of the most well-known facts of the subject he was supposedly investigating.
WATCH the testimony (and prepare to be embarrassed for him)
That "report" was clearly written by all the Democrat lawyers he had supposedly operating under him, and even THAT report [documentcloud.org] contains no proof of any Trump
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike you, I'm actually informed. You can't tell stupid lies and expect me to believe them. I'm not one of your brain-damaged MAGAt pals.
Russian collusion is a well-established fact. All the copy/paste bullshit you can manage isn't going to change reality.
Cry harder, troll. Your tears are delicious. :)
Re: (Score:3)
A tabloid? Really? Try harder. As I said, collusion is an established fact.
Re: Opinion (Score:2)
Okay. Do a search. Whichever credible article best supports my position is the one you should go with. No need to let me know who wins.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, there are no credible sources that support your nonsense.
Drop the DNC talking points crap (Score:2)
The staff and reporters and producers at NBC are all Democrats (yeah, they have a few anti-Trump Republican guests as window dressing) and their drivel is always aligned with the latest agitprop from the DNC. Try reading actual US Government documents in their entirety sometime, like The Durham Report [justice.gov] which is an official document of the Justice Department.
That's where you'll find out just how wrong that partisan political garbage NBC pumped out shortly before the 2020 election (which you, like a well-train
Re: (Score:2)
Make every video unable to be monetized. The root of this whole problem is the business model of being supported by advertising. He who pays the piper, calls the tune.
How newspapers were able to be halfway decent for so many decades and be supported by advertising is amazing. Or even CBS news in the old days.