The true reason why the Media hates Musk.
miguelgg.substack.com
The true reason why the Media hates Musk.
As I have seen in several places: Once you think you despise what the Media have become, you see stuff like this and realize you are not despising them enough.
Community Notes and X in general has been the “troublesome priest” for the Lefty Media. They wish nothing more than make Musk go away and have the platform once again repeating the approved talking points.
So, I expect a DOJ investigation and indictment if Kamala wins because Truth is too dangerous a thing to be allowed to flow freely amongst the peasants.
Vote accordingly
Once again, I am reminded that leftists are really just children with big bodies and better vocabularies.
What they say is reality when they say it. What they said yesterday is no longer admissible. It is more important to have an emotional truth than facts.
And, if you point out their lies, they will try to silence you.
There's so many mis-truths and falsities there. The story itself is probably mostly true, but taken so far out of context that it becomes a lie by implication. The first is that he's reporting a six-year-old case as if it's a current event, but it's all downhill from there.
[begin sarcasm] I heard about this crazy death-cult in America, they're constantly expanding like some colonialist empire, they routinely abduct women and murder children thinking it will bring the end of this age and the birth of the next. It sounds like how Republicans want to treat women, minorities, and gays! I think Donald Trump might even be a member! [end sarcasm]
FYI, in that first sarcastic sentence I'm speaking of the Mayans. They lived in the Americas, practiced human sacrifice to feed their "gods" -- to the tune of up to 250,000 people per year -- and often had to raid other civilizations for more sacrificial fodder. Of course, they died out centuries ago, but spinning it like a current event makes it sound scary, doesn't it? And nothing in there is factually untrue; it's vague history and then open speculation not presented as fact.
In short, other than historical scale, I didn't do anything substantively different than what Kristof wrote.
The only question I have is, who were the pro-bono lawyer and judge who looked at this case and said, "This is fine," and turned that "excellent and caring mother" loose among polite society again?