You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
5

[–] sharpic 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Or you could, you know, look up the specifics from the source instead of dismissing something out of hand.

Like so

2
-2

[–] MegaMan 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

You mean your source that only used 3 of his words.

It's entirely possible to think something has problems but still want to support it. Grey areas still exist in America.

0
4

[–] sharpic 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

My point is that it's important to find out the facts.

In this case, he said Uber has "serious problems" and is "unregulated." That's the only reference to it I found.

And his campaign spent all of $611 on Uber in the last quarter reported to the FEC.

Those are the facts.

Whether that implies hypocrisy is up to the judgement of one presented with the facts.

Believing/disbelieving a headline, an article, or an editorial based on the originating url is willful ignorance.