No. And it also showed the question asked to Biden about fracking. So "context" is not an issue.

I hope u dont trust these fact checkers. Even fact checking websites.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Realistic CGI. Can’t tell what is real. Didn’t you see Mission Impossible. Dayum. Your tinfoil shield not working.

I didn't get to finish the debate so not sure what he said.  Last debate he said he didn't want to expand and not ban usage.  I would be all for banning fracking I think its a horrible thing.

Last night biden said that he did not say he wants to  stop frack.

Trump called him out and said theres vid of him saying he wants to stop it.

Biden says its not true and show the vid.

Vids posted and confirms biden did say he wants to stop fracking.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Realistic CGI. Can’t tell what is real. Didn’t you see Mission Impossible. Dayum. Your tinfoil shield not working.

Tin foil hat goes on the head, not covering the eyes. Brb, working on tin foil shield.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

The whole thing you are arguing on is free speech not how they make money...If anything the more free speech the more money they make.  The more people argue and fight, the more they use the platform, the more ads they see and the more info facebook gets.  All they care about is users, not what they say.  The more bias they are the less users they have.  If we broken down 50/50 by opinions of the party lines,  Facebooks best more financially wise option is to keep both.  If they pick a side they lose 50% of their cash.

Wrong.  FB doesn't want Trump in office.  They want Biden.  Shifting the opinions of users to vote for Biden fulfills a more important goal for FB than having a 50/50 split. 

They will always have a food fight between political factions.  Republicans are not going to leave FB if that's where the most people are.

Because there's so much fake news out there.  On both sides.  Having someone independent say look this is the facts helps the users.

Fact checkers don't check the facts as posted.  They look at it through a biased lens and call it false even though their rationale doesn't match what the post said.

Example (REAL):  Trump said the FBI spied on his campaign.

Politifact:  FALSE.  After many investigations by inspector generals and others, there is no evidence that the counter-intelligence investigation involving the Trump campaign was politically motivated.

Wikipedia:  Spygate (Conspiracy Theory)  Trump stated that the Obama administration put a spy in the Trump Presidential Campaign for political purposes.

Notice they went back to "for political purposes", even though that's not what Trump said?  They didn't argue a spy wasn't placed in the campaign at all, just not for "political purposes".

This is the game the so-called fact checkers play.  They use, or add, a couple of words that give them justification to declare the entire statement or idea false, even though those words were not part of the original quotes.

Wrong.  FB doesn't want Trump in office.  They want Biden.

Clearly the bulk of FB users are liberal women.  My wife does "do" FB and she confirms most on there are women with largely liberal viewpoints.

Losing conservative users (if any are there to begin with) would not hurt Suckman's bottom line.

Fact checkers don't check the facts as posted.  They look at it through a biased lens and call it false even though their rationale doesn't match what the post said.

Example (REAL):  Trump said the FBI spied on his campaign.

Politifact:  FALSE.  After many investigations by inspector generals and others, there is no evidence that the counter-intelligence investigation involving the Trump campaign was politically motivated.

Wikipedia:  Spygate (Conspiracy Theory)  Trump stated that the Obama administration put a spy in the Trump Presidential Campaign for political purposes.

Notice they went back to "for political purposes", even though that's not what Trump said?  They didn't argue a spy wasn't placed in the campaign at all, just not for "political purposes".

This is the game the so-called fact checkers play.  They use, or add, a couple of words that give them justification to declare the entire statement or idea false, even though those words were not part of the original quotes.

Just cause they don't post facts you like doesn't make it less of a fact.

Clearly the bulk of FB users are liberal women.  My wife does "do" FB and she confirms most on there are women with largely liberal viewpoints.

Losing conservative users (if any are there to begin with) would not hurt Suckman's bottom line.

You do know Facebook top 10 shared links etc are all conservative.  There's plenty of conservatives there. 

Just cause they don't post facts you like doesn't make it less of a fact.

You, sir (am I assuming your gender preference?), are an idiot.

If I said I saw you eating a shit sandwich and riding a bike, you would come back with,

"That's not true!  I was walking my bike!"

You can't fix stupid.

You do know Facebook top 10 shared links etc are all conservative.  There's plenty of conservatives there.

Or, Liberals are sharing the Conservative links to use as teaching examples.

Liberals can't meme.

You do know Facebook top 10 shared links etc are all conservative.  There's plenty of conservatives there.

Who told u that? FB? A company owned by a huge DNC supporter?

Liberal stuff pops on my feeds way more than positive conservative stuff. Esp on my yahoo news feed.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Just cause they don't post facts you like doesn't make it less of a fact.

Thats not how it works.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Thats not how it works.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Teach 'um how you source your "intel"

Was that millennial chick trying to reply while being ignored?  Not too bright. 

Being ID'd as one of the liberal women on FB must have been a trigger?

Just cause they don't post facts you like doesn't make it less of a fact.

I read this over a few times and, uh 

Think you're missing the point. 

Who told u that? FB? A company owned by a huge DNC supporter?

Liberal stuff pops on my feeds way more than positive conservative stuff. Esp on my yahoo news feed.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

If I remember correctly under oath to congress or they released it.

Don't use facebook so I see nothing, should try it out lol

I read this over a few times and, uh 

Think you're missing the point.

The fact checking sites I use have details and references so there is no bias....not sure what ones flap hate.

Or, Liberals are sharing the Conservative links to use as teaching examples.

Liberals can't meme.

Mostly links to articles not memes.  Meme are mostly posted on profiles not external links.

The fact checking sites I use have details and references so there is no bias....not sure what ones flap hate.

The sites you use have no bias? Absolutely none at all? 

The thing about fact checking isn’t necessarily (or only limited to) the facts being checked. It also includes filtering of posts, info, etc based on discretion.

You, sir (am I assuming your gender preference?), are an idiot.

If I said I saw you eating a shit sandwich and riding a bike, you would come back with,

"That's not true!  I was walking my bike!"

You can't fix stupid.

Yes I am a guy,  just cause I am not a republican and moderate don't make me anything else.  Though kind of sexist to assume all women are liberals.

https://www.factcheck.org/
https://www.politifact.com/