She was groomed. Its weird when she has anything to say.
Does she read his diaper shit like tea leaves to determine what is true?
Reading? No. Tasting? Yes.
Said the guy who produces fake news 24/7.
Didn’t Donny post an AI video of him flying a jet and dropping shit on protesters? Didn’t Donny post an AI video of himself playing guitar?
100 a fake human she is.
Just ask the botox injections
How is calling a news network fake not lible and opening up the government to be sued?
It’s spoken, so it would be slander. Libel is printed.
But they wouldn’t really have much to gain by suing. They’re not losing business because of this.
That’s rich coming from the white housse.
Whenever I see things like this it reminds me of Ben Shapiro accusing Andrew Niel of being on the left instead answering the question.
Ma’am, excuse me but, you’re a fucking idiot.
Ah yes, the notoriously left wing BBC… My eyes are rolling so hard they may fall out of my head.
As someone mentioned by american standards its certainly left.
Compared to American news, yeah. :P
That’s the thing though.
… um … not sure how to finish this
That’s the neat thing. You don’t. Omniman.jpg
BBC should report that.
You’re not measuring by what percentage of Trump stories are positive/negative, the only metric that matters to him.
This just begs the question of who “Newsguard” is and why anyone should trust them.
There’s dozens of conservative sites that do these ratings for right wing crap and give them high scores, too.
They have an About page that links to who they are and the criteria they use.
Just because conservatives have a shitty evil version doesn’t mean every rating is untrustworthy.
If the government vehemently denies it, it must be true.
The US government shouldn’t be relied on for credible or reliable information.
They can’t be relied on for anything.
Can’t even be relied on to feed it’s people.
The biggest fucking joke of an empire in human history.
We tried giving people boots with straps to pull themselves up, but that didn’t work either.
Nobody knew it would be so complicated.
Incredibly bleak, given how much they’ve historically invested in demographic, scientific, and economic data analysis.
But even when you look back on that data and information, the majority of it was skewed and manipulated to conform to and confirm a very specific set of values, politics and beliefs … much of whom didn’t have the best interests of people but rather in coddling corporate interests, the economy, money and power.
While that may be true, I think it’s also generally correct that the information was generally based on objective reality, even if the interpretation was skewed. Now, they are just making up information, and using it to support that narrative they wanted. It’s easier when you can skip objective reality to make up the story you want, and continue to repeat it as indisputable fact
