The fact that my sources repeat what I'm saying means that I'm right. What would you consider to be correct, that my sources contradict what I say?
All the people whose writings support what I say have no motivation other than what they say is true. That does not compare to a liberal conspiracy theory stemming from butthurt that Trump won in 2016.
No it doesn't. Repetition does not equate to being correct.
They no other motivation? According to who? You? Please.
Again, were that the case, anyone who said Trump colluded with Russia to fix the 2016 election in his favor were right since it was repeated over and over. That is directly comparable because it relies on the exact same logic.
Proof is not democratic. You aren't correct simply because people agree with you. That's what's known as "confirmation bias".
Except none of those articles support your claims. Repetition =/= support
By that logic, there was plenty of support for the claim that Trump colluded with Russia to fix the 2016 election in his favor.
The fact that my sources repeat what I'm saying means that I'm right. What would you consider to be correct, that my sources contradict what I say?
All the people whose writings support what I say have no motivation other than what they say is true. That does not compare to a liberal conspiracy theory stemming from butthurt that Trump won in 2016.
No it doesn't. Repetition does not equate to being correct.
They no other motivation? According to who? You? Please.
Again, were that the case, anyone who said Trump colluded with Russia to fix the 2016 election in his favor were right since it was repeated over and over. That is directly comparable because it relies on the exact same logic.
Proof is not democratic. You aren't correct simply because people agree with you. That's what's known as "confirmation bias".
Stay in denial all you want. You keep thinking the way you do.