How far back? Do you go through months and months and months (or even years) to make sure that "BREAKING!" news isn't actually months or even years old?
Thats not very efficient.
Edited to add: I'm wondering if we might have our signals crossed here.
I'm not criticizing you because I think you've posted something that's already been plastered all over the board recently. I brought up that bit about things I would be interested in posting myself already being posted about 20 times by the time I was able to create a post about it as a way to explain why I, personally, don't create new posts here. Because by the time I've read about it, many other people here have already posted about it that day.
I wasn't trying to say that there were 20 other posts with this "breaking news" about Gabbard already posted today.
I hope this clears that up, and not just made it more confusing.
Ok, but since it was from 8 months ago, then you wouldn't be seeing it by only checking a few weeks back.
Why not just do a quick search on it. Anything that's actually breaking news would be in the news. In this case, all you had to do was put Gabbard's name into a search engine, and click "news", and it would give you all the most recent news articles about her. And you would have seen there was absolutely nothing "breaking" in the news in regards to what was being claimed in that post you shared.
So I then went to YouTube, did a search for "Gabbard + voting investigation" and that video clip was listed in the first 5 results. And clearly from 8 months ago.
And not just that, just the claims being made in the post. Did it never even cross your mind that the things being claimed are simply not possible, due to, you know, the US Constitution and various laws? You don't have to be a lawyer to know that states are responsible for their own voting laws and Presidents or intelligence agencies can't just cancel or postpone elections.
These are things that should be known by people who are deep into politics. Like people here are. Or should be easy to check to see if they're true for people on an elite research board. Like this one.
Just if something has posted about here in the past few weeks isn't checking to see if what is being claimed holds water or not.
I'm 188% behind brain_deads efforts. But I feel the need to point it out in my case I'm just a "B" student, and you're picking on an anon called "brain_dead". So in a way there was pre-disclosure 🤔😒😉😄😄
Well, obviously I disagree that I'm "picking on them", but I feel the need to point out that my name literally means "Idiots Everywhere", so in a way, I guess I disclosed things to myself long ago. 🤷♀️
How can you tell if it's been posted about before or not, though?
You check the board.
How far back? Do you go through months and months and months (or even years) to make sure that "BREAKING!" news isn't actually months or even years old?
Thats not very efficient.
Edited to add: I'm wondering if we might have our signals crossed here.
I'm not criticizing you because I think you've posted something that's already been plastered all over the board recently. I brought up that bit about things I would be interested in posting myself already being posted about 20 times by the time I was able to create a post about it as a way to explain why I, personally, don't create new posts here. Because by the time I've read about it, many other people here have already posted about it that day.
I wasn't trying to say that there were 20 other posts with this "breaking news" about Gabbard already posted today.
I hope this clears that up, and not just made it more confusing.
I usually look several weeks back. I have not seen this.
Ok, but since it was from 8 months ago, then you wouldn't be seeing it by only checking a few weeks back.
Why not just do a quick search on it. Anything that's actually breaking news would be in the news. In this case, all you had to do was put Gabbard's name into a search engine, and click "news", and it would give you all the most recent news articles about her. And you would have seen there was absolutely nothing "breaking" in the news in regards to what was being claimed in that post you shared.
So I then went to YouTube, did a search for "Gabbard + voting investigation" and that video clip was listed in the first 5 results. And clearly from 8 months ago.
And not just that, just the claims being made in the post. Did it never even cross your mind that the things being claimed are simply not possible, due to, you know, the US Constitution and various laws? You don't have to be a lawyer to know that states are responsible for their own voting laws and Presidents or intelligence agencies can't just cancel or postpone elections.
These are things that should be known by people who are deep into politics. Like people here are. Or should be easy to check to see if they're true for people on an elite research board. Like this one.
Just if something has posted about here in the past few weeks isn't checking to see if what is being claimed holds water or not.
I'm 188% behind brain_deads efforts. But I feel the need to point it out in my case I'm just a "B" student, and you're picking on an anon called "brain_dead". So in a way there was pre-disclosure 🤔😒😉😄😄
Howls.
Well, obviously I disagree that I'm "picking on them", but I feel the need to point out that my name literally means "Idiots Everywhere", so in a way, I guess I disclosed things to myself long ago. 🤷♀️