No. of Recommendations: 5
Ok, I'll take one: I think the more recent example of this, the 16 "nobel prize economist" letter (more crap from supposedly experts) shows that they continue the same playbook of lying to support their guy. Luckily or maybe because the elevation of the poor debate performance,
So what's the lie? Your haven't shown us any lie at all. You've merely called it crap and stated "they continue the same playbook of lying". And the letter came out ahead of the debate, so your statement, "Luckily or maybe because the elevation of the poor debate performance," appears mistaken on the timing.
So because you don't explain why the letter is a lie, are we to think there was no letter when there absolutely was a letter? Am I to think you are lying about a lie? Too much effort for too little.
