One of the best and easiest ways to vet a source is to compare what they wrote to what the primary source said/wrote.
It reveals those who are so obviously lying and manipulating their readers that they don't bother to try to appear to be representing the primary source.
They assume their readers will be too lazy to check the primary source.
It's not a simple dismissal.
The false narrative is that the Dems haven't such huge egos, and I explained the evidence, namely that they actually believe they alone should run the country.
An individual example of such egotism is Hillary's disdain toward voters and feeling entitled to the presidency. Biden referring to voters as "dregs of society" would be another example, though he expressed it other ways as well, e.g., "you ain't black."
On the other hand, Trump's thinking he's better than them is a rather easy assumption.
It would be hard not to be.
But if someone wants to believe otherwise, well, that's why they have horse races. :Wink
Yes, we see that frequently.
In fact, I'm not sure I've seen a source that never does that.
Certainly the Dem MSM does it too frequently to keep count, unless perhaps it's the only thing you ever do, kinda like laying all the cigarettes end to end thus never having time to smoke.
I'm glad you check primary sources from news sources you don't like.
You should do the same for news sources you do like.
Compare how often a news source is different from the primary source and to what extent.
That is vetting a source.
If you say so.
Perhaps I misread the "how often" and "to what extent."
They sounded like separate occasions, not the same news story.
The bias is also found in the rhetoric of the "reportage," how they attempt to imply something that isn't so, or to reach a judgment that is uncalled for.
But we all have biases.
It's the sources that claim none that I immediately distrust, and that includes the Dem MSM.
And one of the easiest ways to detect that bias is to check the primary source that the article is quoting, see what they misrepresented or conveniently excluded.
Just make sure you do it for the sources you like as well as those you don't like.
I bothered because I was too caught up in the affairs of this world.
For the past several elections I voted contrary to a feeling I should not, which was a sin.
Going forward I will not vote.
It's interesting that you think God being Sovereign over all things is disturbing. It says more about yourself than it says about me.
Not one molecule is rogue and therefore outside of God's sovereign ordination. Yet, you are wanting God to be missing and unaware of what is happening. You seem to want Satan to be equal with God so that Satan has full authority which God cannot stop. Yet, the book of Job proves you wrong. It was God who ordained Job's suffering through Satan's actions. Satan could do nothing without God saying "okay."
So, if you're going to put your faith in God, put your faith in the God of the Bible, not the imaginary god in your mind.
So here is the problem. You are trying to feign a high ground by "bashing" those with legitimate criticism of the current President by suggesting that doing so is not accepting of what God has ordained. Also, you accuse others of being consumed in worldly politics while engaging in criticism of those who have an opposing view of your own.
I have news for you. No one has been dethroned. There is no throne nor king who sits on said throne in the US. Gods word says He sets up kings but does not say He sets up all and every king.
In the end this thread is fake outrage
based on personal political preference dressed up in some fake religious motive we all know is not true.