>>2090
>I have had it somewhat hard to understand them, especially the Singer dirty moves because it´s more dedicated to finances than politics.
Understand that. Finance is lot of double speak and gibberish. Reading it in somebodies else's language must be hell.

>Not a bad strategy at all, in fact, if you want to beat your enemy, you must know their weapons. Getting into the zones they actively visit should give you a clear idea about what they are driving their public next.
It also can be used to establish a basic fact to someone who otherwise won't listen. The more mainstream media, for as bad as it is, can't fake things entirely. Fact checkers are still fact checkers even when they have a leftest bias and sometime of the most egregious claims and hyperbolic claims as false, events maybe later characterized a certain way, but that little spin may not be there in the initial reports (cnn I know will deceptively edit interviews that didn't go well for example). Some investigative reporters in the mainstream still love a scandal no matter who is from, etc. Even the huffpost buzzfeed tier left can be useful when you bring up all the awkward times they redact claims made. Plus they can be easy to trap when they invoke authority of certain groups/institutions whose data supports some case at the moment they want to push, other the data from said groups may contain stuff they don't like, which can cause all sorts of problems when they cite it as an authority.

yeah, I didn´t know who I was replying to because of that simultaneity
me too...

>fingers crossed
The Tree still stands!

>you seemed to agree with a lot of things I have said. I wouldn´t be surprised if your greens remind me of myself in some way.
There is one thematic element that really might

>Sweet bridges, they are working pretty alright after the maintenance session!