By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ConservagameR on 09 November 2022
Edit Thread
RolStoppable said:
ConservagameR said:
the-pi-guy said:

Uh what? That actually happened, his daughter confirmed that he wrote those things.

Elon Musk replied with an article that claimed that the person was a gay prostitute that Pelosi just had an argument with. That's called spreading misinformation, it's not fighting it.

Pelosi attacker David DePape was psychotic addict estranged from pedophile lover & kids (nypost.com)

Accused Paul Pelosi attacker David DePape could be deported (cnbc.com)

Don't mind the NY Post headline, it talks much about his likely political views. Plenty more but no need to overdo it

BTW, those weren't my initial sources. My initial sources would very likely have been considered non credible, yet credible sources have covered it. That is of course, if my links are from credible sources. I guess we'll see. RolStoppable made sure to include the credibility factor, as that's typically the excuse given as to why certain sources findings of facts aren't useful. What's a credible source and what isn't seems to change sometimes and is difficult to pin down here.

It's pretty hard to counter the culprit's own blog when determining his political views.

Regarding credible sources, it isn't difficult to determine what's credible and what is not. The first thing that stuck out in the New York Post link was the headline tag "Opinion" which is generally used to separate proper journalism from a mere opinion piece that isn't obligated to stick to all the facts at hand. Said opinion published in the NYP has a clear direction of proving something while leaving out the most crucial piece of evidence, which is the culprit's own blog. If the NYP were convinced that the author's work is credible, then the publication wouldn't separate itself from the author, because that's the point of labeling something as an opinion: The written piece does not reflect the stance of the publication, but solely the author's.

The CNBC article is proper journalism, but it makes no mention of a possible left-leaning political affiliation of the culprit. I can only guess that you think that someone who could be deported must automatically be a supporter of the democrats.

Where in their blog does it state that what's being said is the truth about what they think and is completely in line with their thoughts and beliefs?

Are we to assume that a comedians blog is true and factual and that the dark jokes they're making are actually their real thoughts and beliefs? If they mention some of their real life issues and grievances, some being serious, are we to assume they're just jokes and to take them as such, so no big deal?

He's an illegal immigrant from Canada living in California. It's well known even conservative Canadians tend to line up better with American Democrats. It's well known that Democrats prefer to allow way more immigrants, legal or not, into the country than Republicans, along with the sanctuary cities they can stay and be safer in. It's well known that Democrats want to give everyone living in the US the right to vote, even if they're not an official citizen, or to simply make everyone an official citizen. If most of those immigrants were going to vote Republican, do we really think the Republicans would be more cautious, while the Democrats are trying to let as many in as possible and protect them by whatever extra means?

Since he's Candian, the automatic assumption would be he's liberal. He's also from province of British Columbia, which makes it far more likely he's liberal, or at least has a far more socialist viewpoint like our NDP Party that wins there. His neighbors say he seems very left. He's into weed and hemp, lgbt, BLM, agree's with Colbert against Bush, says things like "Jesus is the Anti Christ", and got married nude in a courthouse.

This screams MAGA conservative? It doesn't even whisper it.