If i had

It isn’t “weird” at all. The Democrats ran TWO (2) extremely flawed candidates. And they BOTH had awful campaigns and platforms. It was inevitable that they would lose to the superior candidate, in both campaign and platform.

Hey…run Kamala again in ‘28.
😆

Yes... dems putting lipstick on those 2 pigs didn't fool America... didn't matter how much they overspent Trump both times or how many lies they told...

But Isn't Trump the one with a Wikipedia page on the lies they've told?

I know he has one but for the sake of fairness I'll see if they also have one because they might

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements_by_Donald_Trump

I also found

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories_promoted_by_Donald_Trump

Ok I couldn't find lies or stuff by Kamala but I'll now search for Hilary

I mean I got this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_body_count_conspiracy_theory

But those were conspiracy theories (the single link above this text not everything else) so yea

I wasn't exactly informed during 2016 election, I was way to young to care

I know this is like essay length but it's mainly me trying to be fair

Clinton seems less credible then Kamala relative to stuff but honestly I still would vote for Kamala, also Trump ain't running again after this :D so that's good

Oh wait I found a thing

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hillary_Clinton_controversies

Ok dang

But still Kamala don't have one

wikipedia?

LMAO

next

Hello viking

So you don't know who controls wikipedia??

From googling some guy Jimmy Wales but he def made it

Screen shot
9noevi.jpg (click to show)

Yes... another lib NGO.... WOW

What is a lib NGO?

Liberal non government organization?
I mean I have cited sources, and Wikipedia uses sources itself

Do you have reason to refute the credibility of Wikipedia

Political beliefs doesn't mean they can't be non partial or be fair

There's non US Wikipedia editors that would be able to change it as well if something is wrong

I want you to refute the credibility of Wikipedia, instead of saying a lib NGO

I want proof that Wikipedia is not able to be used as a source

I don't want an insult or words with nothing else

I just want links to sources that can prove this.

Yes, you don't know how libs spread dark money... It's all coming out... Pay attention.

No.

Do not change the subject

Sources that can show wikipedia is not credible. You got any?

So you want to ignore the money behind it?

figures.

Are you a teacher?
Wikipedia is still good source
There is a reason why everyone uses it

Nope STOP IGNORING IT.

YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE ME MAD and make me look not reputable

I am not ignoring a point

I don't want you changing the subject and ignoring the request

We can talk about whatever you want AFTER YOU GIVE SOURCES

I want sources of proof that Wikipedia is not reputable

I don't want you trynna change he subject. You say it ain't trustable, PROVE ME ERONG AND ILL ACCEPT (if I can't find reasonable and credible sources that disprove your own)

Been 4+ hours still havent gotten those links