> Normal people are aware that it matches election cycles though, so don't worry, it'll be coordinated.
You mean like how 2 months before an election the Republicans start screaming about "caravans of drug-dealing gun-toting gang-banging migrants snaking their way up from El Salvador into the United States"? Only to then mysteriously never mention such "caravans" again 5 minutes after voting closes?
Anonymous C replied with this 5 years ago, 12 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,141,449
@previous (D)
Yes, this caravan of over 7000 people.
Never mentioned after voting closed?
Does 'never mentioned' mean- mentioned dozens of times to you?
(Edited 43 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 21 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,141,454
@previous (C) Here is fox news' website the Friday before the 2018 election. Here it is 2 days after the election. Here it is the Monday after the election. How prominent is their caravan coverage after the election? Arguably "not very". I wish there was an easy way to prove the same point about their video coverage as well, because that was also skewed. They hyped it up so much like it was one of, if not the most important news storied facing America. And then the election happened it was scarcely mentioned again.
Anonymous C replied with this 5 years ago, 2 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,141,463
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Okay, now you're making progress. You've gone from never mentioned after the election to scarcely mentioned after the election.
How many news reports would it take for you to say that it was mentioned quit a bit?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 5 years ago, 27 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,141,470
@previous (C)
Wasn't me who said they "never" reported but you need to take him seriously, not literally. When he said "never" he meant it declined in relevance precipitously post-election. In the 2 days I linked, there are 3 combined articles, buried waaaaaaay at the bottom of the page. It just stopped mattering to the conservative news media because it had served its use as a prop to rile up conservative voters on the eve of an election.
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
WSD !m2cp3rR5zw joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 54 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,141,475
Anonymous B replied with this 5 years ago, 14 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,141,476
@previous (WSD !m2cp3rR5zw)
That is a lame comeback, Walter. If you have an issue with that image, then attack it directly instead of doing whataboutism.
...Or at least use a better whataboutism. You said blue states, plural, but that article seems to only pertain to New York.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 55 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,141,489
@1,141,475 (WSD !m2cp3rR5zw)
Im still shocked that this occurred
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,141,503
> You said blue states, plural, but that article seems to only pertain to New York.
This is all of American politics. Your system makes you all lot waste your time arguing about “red vs blue”, “liberal vs conservative”. It’s a massive waste of energy and anyone who doesn’t get that is a complete retard.
Anonymous C replied with this 5 years ago, 3 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,141,555