User talk:Mwilli95/sandbox
What I saw wrong with the Washington Post's coverage of Betsy DeVos conformation hearing is the negative association with everything that Betsy DeVos touched, like it seemed biased and painted her as a villain. Although the article did appear to be reliable. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/01/18/six-astonishing-things-betsy-devos-said-and-refused-to-say-at-her-confirmation-hearing/
Yeeah this second one here seems very unreliable because the author includes many figures and "facts" without explaining where they came from. In my personal experience whenever numbers like those are presented they should be validated. Phrases like, "It gets worse" and "delusionally titled" make me suspicious, especially considering how its spelled wrong. http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/01/17/cbo-trumps-obamacare-repeal-will-spike-premiums-50-one-year/
It's not honestly fair to say how terrible or great Donald Trump will be as president because he isn't in office yet, well he is but he hasn't had his first day in office yet. So this post is biased and unreliable. https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocratis/photos/a.347907068635687.81180.346937065399354/1392270180866032/?type=3&theater
Start a discussion about improving the User:Mwilli95/sandbox page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "User:Mwilli95/sandbox" page.
