Isn’t Harris the one that wants the mics live? Trump’s handlers want them cut to reduce his stupidity/self-incrimination
why do i feel like harris really doesnt give a shit, but knows orange turd wants the mics hot? a little reverse psychology on the manchild…
Orange turd says he doesn’t care, but cold is what he agreed to with a completely different candidate so Harris should be held to that.
Orange turd’s handlers do not want their manchild anywhere near a live mic.
I am positive that if trump pushes back, they will happily have closed mics, but then when he’s cut off, and complains, they will blame him.
I also thibinthey are just messing with him when she does not care.
As you said, that agreement was made with someone else, but they tried to hold Trump to the agreement of when and where, based on the same agreement. He just can’t call out double standards as its his only mode of action.
Does nobody remember her 2020 debate with Pence?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tXFqTGBty1w
She shut him down like the whining child he is.
“The Washington Examiner is an American conservative news outlet based in Washington, D.C., that consists principally of a website and a weekly printed magazine. It is owned by Philip Anschutz through MediaDC, a subsidiary of Clarity Media Group.”
Not sure what that has to do with the article.
Do you post the history of every news organization that lists pro-democrat articles as well?
You realize that this political news community is not only for posting pro-Democratic Party news, right? Were you under the impression that only pro-democratic party news was allowed?
This community celebrates diversity of thoughts and opinions.
If you feel that this news article, or that the news organization that it comes from, break the rules of this community, please contact the mods and let your thoughts be known.
Pointing out a source’s bias is completely reasonable. There’s literally a bot doing it using MBFC already. I already know that the Washington Examiner is a conservative rag, but others might not. It’s perfectly within bounds to include that in the discussion of the post.
If anything, it’s kind of weird how defensive you got when someone pointed it out.
Pointing out a source’s bias is completely reasonable. There’s literally a bot doing it using MBFC already. I already know that the Washington Examiner is a conservative rag, but others might not. It’s perfectly within bounds to include that in the discussion of the post.
Ok, and do you do that for the pro-democrat articles? I mean, since you are being so fair and all.
If anything, it’s kind of weird how defensive you got when someone pointed it out.
I’m not defensive, as I didn’t write the article, nor do I work for that news org.
It’s just that I noticed that you don’t do it for pro-democrat articles, but maybe i missed where you have.
So have you been doing it for the news orgs that skew pro-democrat bias? Because you do realize that media bias goes both directions, right? You know, since it’s “It’s perfectly within bounds to include that in the discussion” of posts and all.
And again, this is a political news community, not just a pro-democrat/pro-harris political community.
thought this was 196 for a second
Washington Examiner - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Washington Examiner:
MBFC: Right - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
