this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2023
622 points (86.1% liked)
Memes
45189 readers
1414 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The fact that the Tories are reporting on it doesn't make it a measure of if it's true or not- they're reporting on something from wikileaks which directly contradicts the entire western narrative. They're certainly not doing it because it's ideologically consistent with their goals.
Media and news reporting is going to be heavily filtered by what advertisers will tolerate- which isn't necessarily going to be factual or accurate either.
None of that matters if its from the mouth of a tory, dude
If a tory is speaking, it is to trick you into giving them money. You cannot say "this has to be true/false, because the tories said ..."
If a tory said it, it was a ploy for cash. Nothing to do with anyone elses ideologies or goals, or reality.
You lot are so unhinged- check out this diplomatic cable describing the tens of thousands of dead. Oh wait it was yet another lie from perfidious Albion.
Generally when people admit things that are politically inconvenient to them it is worth listening. If Trump admitted he did tax evasion would you be like "nuh-uh he is lying! He's a liar he didn't do tax evasion!"
If trump admitted to anything, I would look for how he was trying to spin it in his benefit. Because he, like a tory, does not act unless he thinks its going to benefit him.
Trump does not speak based on fact. Just grift. His admission of anything is not statements based in facts, just grift.
If they happen to align with truth? Glory be. But his statements appearing inconvenient is not a measurement of truth. Just like the tories.
Okay, how do you thing the Tories who strongly oppose china benefit from this admission? What is your theory?
I dont know what their current grift is. I just know how they act, and have acted, since their inception.
They arent proof that any statement is true. Citing them is like citing a creationist flat earther on your geology paper.
If a creationist was like "I'm lying. The earth is actually x billion years old" I'd cite them as "even the creationists don't believe their own rhetoric"