Not super aware of him besides the drop site stuff, what’s the issue with him?

Protect ya neck

Somali Pirates Ransom Emirati oil tanker for $10M

Lmao

He has more faith in the average American than I do if he thinks they’ll read all of that.

Can anyone that’s following the troop movements tell if it looks like they’ll be complete this weekend?

I’m assuming trumps lying about abandoning the strait and going to launch something after markets close one of these weekends.

I think that’s the most likely reason.

Europe is not positioned well for another energy spike given they are trying to stop using Russian energy and they also didn’t pivot to cheap Chinese renewables so they’re left with either oil from the gulf states or expensive American LNG.

Believe they’re also trying to make their own renewables but it’s going to be hard to produce those when your energy costs are high.

Yeah Biden literally did it when he sent weapons to Israel. Overruled a bunch of checks that were supposedly supposed to stop weapons from going to countries committing war crimes.

Now imagine if he had done something for student loans, might’ve saved the election for the democrats.

Makes me think of this

Source

I think having this post isn't a great idea because you are just assuming the websites bias are legit. At the very least there needs to be a lot of warnings in the bots post about the websites biases and the methodology they use so the reader can come to their own conclusion.

Just looking over the methodlogy it's clear that it has it's own biases:

American Bias

The website itself says it’s distinctions of left and right are US based which is very skewed from the rest of the world. There should be a disclaimer or it shouldn't be used in any world news communities.

Centrist Bias

The website follows the idea of “enlightened centrism” since if it determines a website has a left/right lean (again arbitrary) it affects the factual ratings of the sources.

Examples of this are: FAIR only getting the 2nd highest rating despite never having failed a fact check.

The Intercept getting only a “mostly factual” rating (3rd highest) despite their admittance it has never failed a fact check.

Despite my personal opinions on the pointlessness of using a US based left/right bias criteria I'd feel better if it was at least kept it it's own section but when you allow it to affect the factual rating of the source it's just outright wrong. The factual accuracy of the website should be the sole thing that affects this rating.

Questionable Fact Checking

Even just checking some of their ratings raises doubts on the websites credibility.

The ADL is rated as high (2nd highest) and wasn’t found to fail any fact checks.

The ADL was found to be so unreliable on it's reporting of the Israel-Palestine conflict it is considered an unreliable source by Wikipedia.

“Wikipedia’s editors declared that the Anti-Defamation League cannot be trusted to give reliable information on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and they overwhelmingly said the ADL is an unreliable source on antisemitism.”

Maybe Wikipedia editors are a good arbiter of truth and maybe they aren’t but as people can see there isn’t a consensus and so by choosing Media Bias/Fact Check you’re explicitly choosing to align your “truth” with this websites biases.

For anyone like myself that was interested in 2020:

Found it here (Although the data source is shown on the chart)

In one video, which has 30,000 views on TikTok, a young woman becomes increasingly exasperated as she attempts to convince the AI that she wants a caramel ice cream, only for it to add multiple stacks of butter to her order. 

Lmao didn’t even know you could add butter to something at McDonald’s. If you can’t then it’s even funnier it decided that’s a thing.

Just a heads up it’s only available for the following states:

Arizona California Florida Massachusetts Nevada New Hampshire New York South Dakota Tennessee Texas Washington state Wyoming