this is what i found on youtube. sky news in Australia as seen from another nation link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jilQnBnNw-I not the most flattering view of the u.s. president. what do you think?
Its been pretty obvious how global leaders see Biden. This is no surprise. I mean he is the first US president held in contempt of Parliament in history because after he ordered his disastrous midnight evacuation from Kabul, he decided to go into hiding for 4 days.
Facts not beneficial and supportive of a closed mindset usually are seen that way, and shall not be engaged by closed minds.
Don't agree with the caption "Sleepy Joe has no time to think" - The problem is not time. The problem is the fact that Biden's brain is kuput and so has little ability to think.. regardless of how much time he has.
no one reads rupert's "daily news" for "facts." few get past page 3. here are plenty of pictures ....... What your favourite Page 3 girls are doing now – from signing with Meghan Markle’s agents to bodybuilder and DJ – The US Sun (the-sun.com)
Good grief -- I would hope we would not need Biden to say something that stupid to figure out what a complete moron he is .. "Pandemic of the Unvaxed" is not quite that stupid .. but darn close.
That would be difficult as the individuals who thought they were told to ingest disinfectants would be much too low on the IQ scale to even have a conversation with.
To be fair, Sky Australia has been pretty harsh on Biden for as long as I can remember. It isn't new. It is well deserved though.
Thanks hell raiser for finding that expert analysis of what's happening to our most mentally declined failed president in our history. Looks like there is one more news outlet in the world besides that of FOX who are giving us the low down on something as important as the current state of fecklessness coming from the presidency of Hiden Biden.
Not much difference from that and CNN or listening to the Biden-Fauci clownshow these days .. Where do you get your "facts" from ?
But when one watches CNN or MSNBC, you realize the closest thing to a beacon of truth- is sure as hell not there. Assuming of course you actually have a grip on reality and avoid drugs. Millions of people buy into the psychology of fantasy, that the world will conform to their wants and needs instead of them having to learn to cope with reality. The result of that is people who will choose politicians that tell them the lies they want to hear instead of the truth they need to hear- and put an entire team of incompetents on the field, none of whom know how to play the game or work together. AKA- The Biden disaster.
Sky is the AU branch of FOX, true. And Murdoch does own the NY Post. Which only discredits them in the eyes of people who judge by ownership instead of content.
really? what do you think of soro's view in helping liberals get in to d.a. or a.g. positions? interested in your view on that. thanks
ok, i can understand that from what i think is your side of things. but!----i have a question. can you prove anything they say is----wrong? i can see you dissagree with murdoch networks. but again then you should be able to prove any story from that network--wrong. i am interested to read your side on thier stories. thanks.
soros is a capitalist who can spend his money, under "citizens united," as if it were dree speech. i think a constitutional amendment limiting the effect of such money would be beneficial to restoring democracy. what would you propose to limit the koch bros (whichever survives, ) and othe corporate toxic influence on our politics?
so i take it as you have no problem with soros backing the majority of d.a's & a.g's, that will not prosecute criminals? soros is pushing (soft on crime) d.a. & a.g's around the nation. do you seriously think that enough states and congress will support a constitutional amend do that? i would (not) support any amendment to even try to limit supporting anything, either lib dem or gop. i posted asking about soros when you pushed your murdock statement on skynews. so i was asking about the liberal soros if you felt the same about any org that he supported. do you?
you "take" something that i did not say. i really hate randos on the internet assuming ****. good bye. come back in unbolded 12 pt type when you can tell me what uou think rather than feebly attempting to read my mind.
sorry, should i have said--"i assume? or i understand?" is there another way of putting it that you will not get ruffled at? just asking. trying not to offend you. thanks.
