I don’t trust Newsweek, you probably shouldn’t either. However, with that being said… if the debate would have gone differently, and let’s just say Joe had a bad sore throat instead of “a cold,” and Joe went up there and said nothing at all, he’d still have my vote in this election. Honestly, I think if Joe would have said nothing, and just let Trump lie, that would have been better than how it went.
He appeared as weak, and a bit incoherent up there. He resorted to name calling on multiple occasions.
Trump lied about 90% of the things he said. Trump sounded better, and didn’t really take the cheap shots at Biden that we expected.
There was nothing about that debate that would have swayed “undecided voters” (who’s that by the way) to vote FOR Biden as a result of the debate. The number of lies coming from Trump may have persuaded some people to vote against him however.
So what you’re saying is that you saw the link was Newsweek, and then decided to read it anyway, instead of dismissing anything in it as potentially non-credible.
That’d be like if someone lied to you their whole life, but you believe them this time because they’re citing DailyMail.
I don’t trust Newsweek, you probably shouldn’t either. However, with that being said… if the debate would have gone differently, and let’s just say Joe had a bad sore throat instead of “a cold,” and Joe went up there and said nothing at all, he’d still have my vote in this election. Honestly, I think if Joe would have said nothing, and just let Trump lie, that would have been better than how it went.
He appeared as weak, and a bit incoherent up there. He resorted to name calling on multiple occasions.
Trump lied about 90% of the things he said. Trump sounded better, and didn’t really take the cheap shots at Biden that we expected.
There was nothing about that debate that would have swayed “undecided voters” (who’s that by the way) to vote FOR Biden as a result of the debate. The number of lies coming from Trump may have persuaded some people to vote against him however.
Idk why you mention the trustworthiness of Newsweek. This is an article about a Univision focus group.
You don’t know why I mention Newsweek when the link for the post goes to Newsweek?
This would be like me saying not to trust the OP because he posted the link. Figure it out, bud.
So what you’re saying is that you saw the link was Newsweek, and then decided to read it anyway, instead of dismissing anything in it as potentially non-credible.
That’d be like if someone lied to you their whole life, but you believe them this time because they’re citing DailyMail.
Nah, that’s not a good metaphor. Do better.
That’s a weak attempt at trolling. Try harder.