What is the validity of this claim? Seems like a stretch
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (146)
sorted by:
Reasons to be suspicious
As said, your statement of there is nothing suspect linking yourself is a hollow statement. It doesn't need to be said and I never said there was anything wrong with it. There was never a need for you to stand by it. That's why you dig, to find out if it floats or not.
Although given what I have presented overall I'm eager to learn more about this all not seeming like he suspiciously talks bullshit that you propose. Take your time.
Well done, thank you kindly.
'Matt Couch' ( you misspelled his name) has no legitimate press credentials'
so who is this 'legitimate press' you speak of?
Indeed, I misspelled his name.
And really, after all that, you think one paltry question somehow throws a spanner in the works? That's it? That's your checkmate?
You might have heard a rumour I'm starting a sportsbook. If you're happy to bet on your lame horse I'm willing to pay you at a rate of 10:1 if he crosses the finish line. No refunds on your highly likely loss - store policy.
no, if I was trying for a 'checkmate', it was; you thinking there are some kind of 'press credentials' that would make him more trustworthy...you didn't answer why that matters?
I have no desire to have a debate of semantics over this one question given everything I presented. It is your freedom to have your own opinion and bet on Couch Potato. If you have anything of substance to lend weight to his character or that his bedroom news desk provides serious truths, then let's see it.
Given all presented, if you think somehow there isn't enough in there to make an educated guess that he maybe, just maybe, might be full of shit because the MSM is full of shit themselves and that somehow makes him a bastion of truth... well... that's why I'd like to offer people like you this exclusive deal of 10:1 odds. :)
Plenty of sources reported on it. The news article was stickied here a few days ago in fact. https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/09/politics/joe-biden-stimulus-payments-signature/index.html
That article only says that Biden’s name won’t be on them.
Matt Couch is making the claim Trump’s name will be.
Those aren’t the same thing.
This right here. It was so fucking weird to see how many comments were like "YEAH TRUMPS GONNA BE ON THE SIG LINE" when those posts came out that were just stating Xiden's wouldn't be. It feels like shilly bait for gullible fools. Remember what we learned about news framing and pushing us towards our assumptions to make us look like fools. Nothing wrong with being hopeful real POTUS is still in charge but lets not fall for red herrings and half baked bait. We look stupid enough as it is due to generations of intentional programming by the elites by simply knowing how thin the veil is. Stay vigilant and don't let your biases cloud your judgement.
Exact.