Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Elon Musk vows to file 'thermonuclear lawsuit' as major advertisers desert X/Twitter


pellinore

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Edumakated said:

If it weren't for double standards, the left would have none...

It's a pithy saying, however accurate when it comes to the media. Right wing media isn't exactly innocent, though. The left wing media conglomerate is just much bigger than the right wing media is. 

 

1 hour ago, Edumakated said:

It is funny.  Youtube is constantly suspending and demonetizing right leaning channels for alleged violations of TOS.  Supposedly to satisfy advertisers.  However, those same advertisers have no issue with their ads running before the most vile and dysfunctional rap videos with artist bragging about murdering their "opps".  Yet, say something against the political narrative and you must be censored.  Make it make sense....

That's "cultural", it makes it ok. Don't question it too hard. 

What I find interesting are the videos from news channels which are given the green light to be viewed by all ages often get age-restricted (and therefore demonetised)when conservatives discuss them on YouTube for extremely trivial reasons (eg, "the video depicts violence", even though it's the same footage as the nightly news and all footage of the actual violent incident was edited out, but the leadup was enough to restrict them). I guess it's up to you to decide whether YouTube's moderation is being fair to all commentators from all political views, do left wing commentators go through the same issue but simply whinge about it less often than conservative commentators? After all, I've also seen left wing commentators whinge and complain that their channel is being shadow banned by the algorithm or other such, so maybe it's just a thing everyone goes through.

You already know my opinion, of course. I'm just putting it out there for those who will say just that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

  

First up, let's get the obvious out of the way - the Dominion claims were clearly outrageous and Fox deserved everything they got for their dodginess. 

However, looking at the first link it's also worth pointing out that before Tucker Carlson went to court (September 2020), left wing commentators like Rachel Maddow and MSNBC were using defences like, "We can lie because we are commentators, not news reporters", in court cases. Judge dismisses One America News defamation lawsuit against Rachel Maddow.  

What's notably missing from this headline is the outrageous spin that is present in the Fox/Carlson headlines. No spin about "reasonable viewers" not turning to MSNBC for facts, despite the judge in their ruling using the exact same reasoning - "reasonable viewers" would know it was an opinion and not a fact. Several YouTube lawyers commenting on the case even described Tucker's chosen strategy as "The Maddow Defense". 

Those double standards clearly include the same standards you are ridiculing Fox for, except the left wing media (which is the vast majority of all media companies) runs cover for them so you get the sanitised left wing version of news filtered through their left wing progressive lens.

When it comes to lying, how is it double standards if both the left and right use it?

Your complaint of double standards is from the censoring from the left when the refused to print or deleted stuff that was obviously false (the stolen election claims and Covid being the two biggest that jump to mind) when it obviously could have caused them financial and reputational harm like what happened to FOX.  I won't say it's not a different standard.  I would go so far as to say it's a better standard.  Censor the lies and don't lose nearly a billion dollars in a lawsuit.

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

When it comes to lying, how is it double standards if both the left and right use it?

Your complaint of double standards is from the censoring from the left when the refused to print or deleted stuff that was obviously false (the stolen election claims and Covid being the two biggest that jump to mind) when it obviously could have caused them financial and reputational harm like what happened to FOX.  I won't say it's not a different standard.  I would go so far as to say it's a better standard.  Censor the lies and don't lose nearly a billion dollars in a lawsuit.

 

You totally dodged the point.  There clearly a double standard in reporting, your own article on Fox/Carlson demonstrated the double standard in which the media reports presents stories (Maddow/MSNBC).

Neither example your provided gave evidence to suggest censorship isn't happening. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

You totally dodged the point.  There clearly a double standard in reporting, your own article on Fox/Carlson demonstrated the double standard in which the media reports presents stories (Maddow/MSNBC).

Neither example your provided gave evidence to suggest censorship isn't happening. 

I'm going to use the election fraud that everyone was saying was censorship a few years back when many media sources refused to print what Powell and the Pillow guy was saying.

Fast forward to now and we have court cases that prove it was a lie and that it caused harm.

A purist would say that it was censorship for most media companies to not print that stuff- and from a purist view they would be correct.

But then again purists say that *** Blocked *** not being able to be spread freely is also censorship.  But it causes harm, so we as a society forbid it.

You are a similar purist.  You realize what is being said is a lie and can harm society, but you still argue that it has to be said because of Freedom of Speech.  You call that censorship, but it is media outlets that get held accountable for the content and not you.  

So your "Double standards" is my "Media companies not posting content that would harm others or incur liablity on to themselves."

You do have Freedom of Speech, but no person or company is obligated to help spread what you say and there is no double standard if they choose not to- especially if they believe what you are saying will just get them sued.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

I'm going to use the election fraud that everyone was saying was censorship a few years back when many media sources refused to print what Powell and the Pillow guy was saying.

Fast forward to now and we have court cases that prove it was a lie and that it caused harm.

A purist would say that it was censorship for most media companies to not print that stuff- and from a purist view they would be correct.

But then again purists say that *** Blocked *** not being able to be spread freely is also censorship.  But it causes harm, so we as a society forbid it.

You are a similar purist.  You realize what is being said is a lie and can harm society, but you still argue that it has to be said because of Freedom of Speech.  You call that censorship, but it is media outlets that get held accountable for the content and not you.  

So your "Double standards" is my "Media companies not posting content that would harm others or incur liablity on to themselves."

You do have Freedom of Speech, but no person or company is obligated to help spread what you say and there is no double standard if they choose not to- especially if they believe what you are saying will just get them sued.

And when it turns out not to be a lie? Like Hunter Biden's laptop? Like the lab leak theory? Or when the media amplifies one story (Tucker Carlson's "reasonable viewer") while diminishing another (Rachel Maddow's "reasonable viewer")?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

And when it turns out not to be a lie? Like Hunter Biden's laptop? Like the lab leak theory? Or when the media amplifies one story (Tucker Carlson's "reasonable viewer") while diminishing another (Rachel Maddow's "reasonable viewer")?

Hunter's laptop is also embroiled in a lawsuit right now.  I actually see him winning as it seems to be a classic case of "Revenge porn" by what was shown (his nudes) vs what wasn't (actual evidence of chargable crimes).  

The lab leak theory is still unproven, it is pausible but making negative claims without proof is how slander lawsuits happen.

As for the "Reasonable viewer" argument.  Both side have made that claim and use it.  How is that a double standard or censorship?

Censorship is someone prohibiting the right to free speech.  You arguing against that.  You are demanding others to say what they don't want to.

It would be like me demanding you say, "Trump is an idiot" and complaining about censorship when you choose not to. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

Hunter's laptop is also embroiled in a lawsuit right now.  I actually see him winning as it seems to be a classic case of "Revenge porn" by what was shown (his nudes) vs what wasn't (actual evidence of chargable crimes). 

That wasn't the reasoning used for limiting the story.  According to social media the material was "potentially hacked", and authorities literally released a statement saying the laptop had all the hallmarks of "Russian disinformation" even though it was known factually that the laptop 100% was Hunter's! Once it was proven that the laptop was not hacked,  every news channel reported it.  Though that was after the election so the media did their job of running cover for democrats, effectively limiting the damage the laptop could potentially have done (if it was Eric Trump's laptop, do you really think someone would have said "potentially hacked")?

 

1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

 

The lab leak theory is still unproven, it is pausible but making negative claims without proof is how slander lawsuits happen.

That's why I didn't say it was proven "true". But it was censored until it wasn't!

 

1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

As for the "Reasonable viewer" argument.  Both side have made that claim and use it.  How is that a double standard or censorship?

Censorship is someone prohibiting the right to free speech.  You arguing against that.  You are demanding others to say what they don't want to.

It would be like me demanding you say, "Trump is an idiot" and complaining about censorship when you choose not to. 

The method in which it is reported is still censorship if not fair across the board.  Reporting Maddow as "winning her case " while writing op-eds about Tucker Carlson's viewers being unreasonable seems a very clear message about right wing vs left wing views,  and it happens so often that most people aren't aware of it. 

Maybe that's not censorship in the most technical sense of the words,  but it's part of a pattern of behaviour that leads to censorship.  If the media is telling everyone that "reasonable viewers don't turn to Tucker Carlson for facts", it makes it much easier for social media to remove posts supporting Tucker Carlson because it's common knowledge that Carlson doesn't use facts, even if the exact same argument can be leveled at Maddow, that it is not common knowledge means that moderators will be looking for Carlson's misinformation and ignoring Maddow! That's how human nature works!

Prove me wrong,  find me a decent cross section of the media who made a big deal out of Maddow arguing that "reasonable viewers" don't turn to Maddow for facts.  I've looked! I found Glen Greenwald's substack make a similar argument.  That's it, and Greenwald isn't exactly known as a bastion of impartiality. Everyone else uses impartial language (or even pro-Maddow language) when referring to her case and most use highly charged emotional language for Carlson. The Hill is one of the few mainstream news sources that accurately reported both stories,  it's quite jarring to see them as one of the only news sources out there to avoid emotional language when discussing the Carlson case  the headlines actually mirror each other for once.  And it's not surprising that The Hill gets a very favourable bias rating and is seen as one of the more impartial sources out there by sites such as Media Bias. 

 

Edited by Paranoid Android
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

That wasn't the reasoning used for limiting the story.  According to social media the material was "potentially hacked", and authorities literally released a statement saying the laptop had all the hallmarks of "Russian disinformation" even though it was known factually that the laptop 100% was Hunter's! Once it was proven that the laptop was not hacked,  every news channel reported it.  Though that was after the election so the media did their job of running cover for democrats, effectively limiting the damage the laptop could potentially have done (if it was Eric Trump's laptop, do you really think someone would have said "potentially hacked")?

 

That's why I didn't say it was proven "true". But it was censored until it wasn't!

 

The method in which it is reported is still censorship if not fair across the board.  Reporting Maddow as "winning her case " while writing op-eds about Tucker Carlson's viewers being unreasonable seems a very clear message about right wing vs left wing views,  and it happens so often that most people aren't aware of it. 

Maybe that's not censorship in the most technical sense of the words,  but it's part of a pattern of behaviour that leads to censorship.  If the media is telling everyone that "reasonable viewers don't turn to Tucker Carlson for facts", it makes it much easier for social media to remove posts supporting Tucker Carlson because it's common knowledge that Carlson doesn't use facts, even if the exact same argument can be leveled at Maddow, that it is not common knowledge means that moderators will be looking for Carlson's misinformation and ignoring Maddow! That's how human nature works!

Prove me wrong,  find me a decent cross section of the media who made a big deal out of Maddow arguing that "reasonable viewers" don't turn to Maddow for facts.  I've looked! I found Glen Greenwald's substack make a similar argument.  That's it, and Greenwald isn't exactly known as a bastion of impartiality. Everyone else uses impartial language (or even pro-Maddow language) when referring to her case and most use highly charged emotional language for Carlson. The Hill is one of the few mainstream news sources that accurately reported both stories,  it's quite jarring to see them as one of the only news sources out there to avoid emotional language when discussing the Carlson case  the headlines actually mirror each other for once.  And it's not surprising that The Hill gets a very favourable bias rating and is seen as one of the more impartial sources out there by sites such as Media Bias. 

 

I guess to put it more simply.  I don't expect OAN or Fox news to ever release a story praising Obama or Biden. Similarly, the reverse is true.  I don't expect CNN or Rachael Maddow to ever say anything pro-Trump.  I don't consider either of those examples censorship. 

If a news outlet chooses not to release a story on the laptop, Wuhan, or Trump/Buden dementia, it is their perogative.  It's not censorship.  Free speech isn't forcing a commercial outlet to say things that they just want to.  There are lots of thing about Trump that the left would certainly want on OAN, Fox News, and Newmax, but it won't happen and neither is it censorship because it didn't happen.  It's just how it is. 

I personally would find it amusing if you were to post examples proving yourself wrong.  I know it won't happen, but I am not screaming censorship because you won't do it even though others can find numerous instances.  I understand that you have an inherent bias (that every person has) and choose to only speak about what you want to.  It wouldn't be Freedom of Speech if I force you to say what I want after all. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

The left wing media conglomerate is just much bigger than the right wing media is. 

That is absolutely not true.  The left wing doesn't consume mainstream media.  Younger people who tend to lean left don't watch cable news.  I have never watched a Rachel Maddow segment in my entire life.  The old right wing crowd loves cable news.

Edited by Agent0range
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

You totally dodged the point.  There clearly a double standard in reporting, your own article on Fox/Carlson demonstrated the double standard in which the media reports presents stories (Maddow/MSNBC).

Neither example your provided gave evidence to suggest censorship isn't happening. 

The censorship is based on misinformation. Misinformation is anything that contradicts the dishonest DNC MSM narrative of the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2023 at 11:43 AM, Gromdor said:

I guess to put it more simply.  I don't expect OAN or Fox news to ever release a story praising Obama or Biden. Similarly, the reverse is true.  I don't expect CNN or Rachael Maddow to ever say anything pro-Trump.  I don't consider either of those examples censorship. 

If a news outlet chooses not to release a story on the laptop, Wuhan, or Trump/Buden dementia, it is their perogative.  It's not censorship.  Free speech isn't forcing a commercial outlet to say things that they just want to.  There are lots of thing about Trump that the left would certainly want on OAN, Fox News, and Newmax, but it won't happen and neither is it censorship because it didn't happen.  It's just how it is. 

I personally would find it amusing if you were to post examples proving yourself wrong.  I know it won't happen, but I am not screaming censorship because you won't do it even though others can find numerous instances.  I understand that you have an inherent bias (that every person has) and choose to only speak about what you want to.  It wouldn't be Freedom of Speech if I force you to say what I want after all. 

 

I actually agree with you on a theoretical level. But on a practical level I see it playing out very different. The thing is that most people who watch the news don't make a distinction between news channels. Before I became interested in politics, I saw channels like Fox News and saw them as "the right wing news channel", and the rest of the news channels I looked at as "the real news". Not "the progressive news" or "left wing news", but the REAL news. Like it or not, but that is how people view the media. OAN and Newsmax don't even make it onto most people's news lists because those channels are so small most don't even have an opinion on them - just check out the "unsure" rating for those channels at this link on trustworthiness: 

media_10212021.jpg?w=1024

The statistics on this page roughly mirror my experience. When knowing very little about the media Fox News was the untrustworthy agenda news, the rest were "the real news". Like it or not, that's the views that people have. Which means in practice people aren't going to notice the propaganda. 

People who turn on the nightly news aren't going to generally know that they are getting the left-wing/progressive news and therefore not realise that all the anti-Tucker Carlson articles are just the same as the non-existent anti-Rachel Maddow articles. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2023 at 2:57 PM, Agent0range said:

That is absolutely not true.  The left wing doesn't consume mainstream media.  Younger people who tend to lean left don't watch cable news.  I have never watched a Rachel Maddow segment in my entire life.  The old right wing crowd loves cable news.

That absolutely is true! The right wing mainstream news is basically Fox News. Very occasionally either New York Post or Washington Post will put out something right wing, but other than that, in the US, that's basically it. And if it isn't then the rest aren't worth talking about (Newsmax or OAN, more people would get the news if you wrote it in chalk on the sidewalk than on those channels). 

The left wing mainstream news is basically everyone else. ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, CNBC.... all of them. Don't know what to say if you legitimately think there are more right wing news channels out there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

The left wing mainstream news is basically everyone else. ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, CNBC.... all of them. Don't know what to say if you legitimately think there are more right wing news channels out there. 

FOX news has nearly as many viewers as CNN and MSNBC combined.  They are the big guy in the room.  Add in there Sinclair Broadcasting for the Right.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

FOX news has nearly as many viewers as CNN and MSNBC combined.  They are the big guy in the room.  Add in there Sinclair Broadcasting for the Right.

A bit of a cultural blind spot, as well, since they don't seem realize the reach of right-wing radio channels. Out in the boonies, all you get is either God or a succession of very angry men on your airwaves. But it's everywhere, of course. Massive audience, vast majority right-wing. Cut my teeth on Rush. He had some interesting ideas, if one was a teenage boy. It palls a bit when one grows up.

Well, it's a teachable moment, as they say.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

FOX news has nearly as many viewers as CNN and MSNBC combined.  They are the big guy in the room.  Add in there Sinclair Broadcasting for the Right.

The reason they are "the big guy in the room" is because they are basically the only right wing channel out there (as noted, check the "unsure" rating in the image above for Newsmax and OAN). CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CNBC, and the rest have to share the liberal/left wing market, and they overwhelmingly make up the rest of the media (easily 90%, and almost certainly more unless you are actively going out searching for non-mainstream sources). 

The sheer size of the left wing/progressive mainstream networks vs Fox News is inarguable. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

That absolutely is true! The right wing mainstream news is basically Fox News. Very occasionally either New York Post or Washington Post will put out something right wing, but other than that, in the US, that's basically it. And if it isn't then the rest aren't worth talking about (Newsmax or OAN, more people would get the news if you wrote it in chalk on the sidewalk than on those channels). 

The left wing mainstream news is basically everyone else. ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, CNBC.... all of them. Don't know what to say if you legitimately think there are more right wing news channels out there. 

It's always been that way, of course. Fox News became the television version of Rush Limbaugh, and both cleaned their competitors' clocks, which likely was the main reason that their rivals tried to cancel and/or censor them. They really *don't* value diversity. "We have nine burger joints, so let's close that hotdog stand."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

FOX news has nearly as many viewers as CNN and MSNBC combined.  They are the big guy in the room.  Add in there Sinclair Broadcasting for the Right.

Tucker Carlson took many of those ratings with him when he left (was fired?). Their abysmal election night coverage was the first strike that led to declining viewership, so they're left with a possible "strike three" IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

The reason they are "the big guy in the room" is because they are basically the only right wing channel out there (as noted, check the "unsure" rating in the image above for Newsmax and OAN). CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CNBC, and the rest have to share the liberal/left wing market, and they overwhelmingly make up the rest of the media (easily 90%, and almost certainly more unless you are actively going out searching for non-mainstream sources). 

The sheer size of the left wing/progressive mainstream networks vs Fox News is inarguable. 

And why do you think that is?  Free market commercialism?  Well, they get an audience by attracting people to what they want to see.  They earn by selling their audience's views  to commercial enterprises. If many want to see similar things there may be room for several niche variations. I think popularity and profit drive that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2023 at 10:10 AM, Paranoid Android said:

That's why I didn't say it was proven "true". But it was censored until it wasn't!

Content moderation is not censorship.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRvfGr6vQudTv8rg_1KOBL

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

And why do you think that is?  Free market commercialism?  Well, they get an audience by attracting people to what they want to see.  They earn by selling their audience's views  to commercial enterprises. If many want to see similar things there may be room for several niche variations. I think popularity and profit drive that. 

A large part of the reason is that journalists are overwhelmingly products of the university system, and the university system is overwhelmingly progressive/left wing. It is not at all unsurprising that the majority of journalists end up having a progressive/left-wing slant for that reason. It's not the only reason, if you're interested in a history of media and how we may have arrived at the situation we have today, I suggest this video, it's worth the 20 minutes if you have time :tu: 

 

Whatever the reasons, though, the point is that the majority of news agencies are in fact left wing. When you factor in that everyone sees Fox News as "the right wing news", the impression this gives is that all the rest of these media companies are the "real news". That's how it's viewed by others, it may "just be the way it is", but it's still wrong. 

 

 

Edited by Paranoid Android
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2023 at 12:57 PM, Paranoid Android said:

Both articles you cited referenced "the algorithm". In fact, the first article is entirely about "the algorithm". That's a different type of censorship than mods removing posts. While both would technically come under the broad umbrella term of "censorship", the algorithm doesn't actually delete any content, it simply filters content so that some content appears more prominently in people's social media news feeds. That is a different kettle of fish to the type of censorship I'm referring to, in which moderators are taking a look at some topics and deciding that those topics are verboten and will be deleted on sight. Most of those topics are divided by political beliefs - take the lab leak theory, for example, which social media mercilessly deleted on sight if you even mentioned the possibility, and that lasted until Joe Biden became president, then it was ok to talk about it (and the FBI even suggested the lab leak theory was the most likely origin of covid-19). 

The second article is a bit more comprehensive, but even they acknowledge the lack of studies into the matter. Though the author gives away their own bias when they frame the statement as "no large-scale studies exist that demonstrate a conservative bias" when the truth is no large-scale studies exist that demonstrate there ISN'T one, either - no such studies exist, period! Such large-scale studies simply don't exist, and even if they did could not reliably determine the reasons for why the content is removed. 

So keeping in mind that there are no large-scale studies that support or deny how social media companies approach censorship based on ideology, I will continue to express what is clear and obvious to anyone who has ever used social media. You're living in a fantasy if you think censorship has been even-handed across the board. 

You're equivocating here.

How is a COVID-19 lab leak right or left?

How is demogoguery purporting a corrupt election left or right?

This is just cries of victimhood.

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2023 at 4:10 PM, Mister Mysterious said:

Greetings to all members of this fine forum. This is my first post, and I hope and pray that it won't be my last since I will first bring up the ADL, who have their anti-First Amendment sites set on X. The leftist pressure group claims to be against defamation, but they regularly defame people. They should be forced to remove "anti" from their name, as it's false advertising.

As for the lawsuit against MM, it couldn't happen to a "nicer" group of people. They engage in continuous campaigns to cancel and censor conservatives, and they twist the truth into propaganda pretzels to do so, so they must learn that false accusations have consequences, even in Clown World. It's funny that they never target leftists. It must be a coincidence. 

 

 

Criticism of the ADL is antisemitism.  Anyone who criticises the ADL is a Nazi; and, probably a Hamas supporting terrorist too.

... just in case you didn't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

You're equivocating here.

How is a COVID-19 lab leak right or left?

It ended up being exactly that, I don't know why! At least when Trump was in office.  When he was out and Biden talked about it,  it was acceptable again! Wonder what could have changed 😇  :whistle:

 

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

How is demogoguery purporting a corrupt election left or right?

I haven't mentioned corrupt elections!

 

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

This is just cries of victimhood.

It's the truth!

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

Criticism of the ADL is antisemitism.  Anyone who criticises the ADL is a Nazi; and, probably a Hamas supporting terrorist too.

... just in case you didn't know.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQauv8t9fVclnpXqA9bjI-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

It ended up being exactly that, I don't know why! At least when Trump was in office.  When he was out and Biden talked about it,  it was acceptable again! Wonder what could have changed 😇  :whistle:

 

I haven't mentioned corrupt elections!

 

It's the truth!

It's your opinion.

Again how does lab leak conspiracy fit ontobthe political spectrum.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.