4 ms·
it was washington post (https://x.com/surgicalcaps/status/1812274971244220609 https://x.com/surgicalcaps/status/1812274971244220609) and new york times were als
by localfirst 2y ago
it was washington post (https://x.com/surgicalcaps/status/1812274971244220609 https://x.com/surgicalcaps/status/1812274971244220609) and new york times were also one of the outlets to downplay Trump's assassination attempt you can find it on X
but if you keep flagging and making up lies about what i said i can't really offer any sort of nuanced debate
still waiting for Terr__ to condemn Trump's assassination attempt which he/she refuses to do. Just making a note of this going forward.
- dekhn 2y agoThe people you're arguing with are not required to do anything you're asking them to do. I didn't make up any lies about what you said- I was just asking for some links. I ended up searching about this and from what i can tell, there was no intent by NYTimes to downplay the severity of the incident during the early "fog of war" situation. Hoenstly, you're just wasting people's time on this site arguing the way you are.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dekhn 2y agoAt the time the WaPo showed that, nobody knew for certain what had happened. You're chasing after phantoms.
- JojoFatsani 2y agoOh no, he made “the list!”
- Terr_ 2y ago"That person's gonna be soooo embarrassed when they find out I've already condemned it over a week ago, long before a few dozen minutes where their comment-account and my comment-account passed like ships in the night in one niche comment thread on the internet!" Alas, that won't happen, because they don't actually care that way and didn't ask in good-faith, but... one can dream.