Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
You're saying the government is lying in a way which:
a) Would be very noticeable in the country and
b) Makes no sense
Rushy in "providing no evidence for his claims and dismissing all evidence which shows him to be wrong" shock exclusive!
Those missing 15 million Democrat votes aren't people that decided to stay home, they're dead. They took the vaccine and it killed them.Which is impressive given that's more than the total number of people who have died in the US since the vaccine was available.
The rest are bot votes fed via the machines.Ah yes, but this is one of your claims and those don't require evidence. I'm catching on now.
Your opinion is definitely to be taken seriously.Not that any of this matters. Harris owns all the voting machines. The steal is already in, folks. It's over for Trump.
In 2020 he lost of course
Perhaps in retrospect the Democrats can admit running a candidate who couldn't make it a few months in their primary was a bad idea.What was the other option though when Biden was so clearly unfit for office?
According to the most recent polls listed on that website, the majority of respondents do support bans on assault rifles, although in the past the majority opposed them.
This fits with other recent survey information I've found here and here.
It's very misleading of you to point to the one section where the opposition won by a slim majority and ignore the section directly after where the opposition lost and by a bigger margin. I will say, though, that most polls I've looked up about public support for trans rights are all over the place, and it's hard to tell whether there are more results that suggest more people do support trans rights or the other way around. Nevertheless, whatever personal opinions Americans might hold about trans people's behavior, they're reasonably consistent in rejecting politicians who obsess over them. Ron DeSantis seems to be the only major politician who's found success lately in engaging closely with the culture war. Why this subject is apparently such a winner with him, I don't know, but then again, I also don't know why anyone would elect (and re-elect) an unpleasant, scowling little man with zero charisma or warmth who angrily snaps at his audience every time he gives a speech, so maybe Floridians are built different. There's a stark difference between personally disapproving of someone else changing their gender and voting for politicians who regularly rant about trans people and seemingly focus on them at the expense of issues that people actually care about, like the economy.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/majority-of-americans-reject-anti-trans-bills-but-support-for-this-restriction-is-rising
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/11/anti-trans-platforms-lose-elections/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/anti-trans-laws-not-politically-214632748.html
By saying that some abortions should be allowed, people are agreeing with Democrats, not Republicans.
No, not "then." You latched on to half a sentence in my first post and ignored everything else I said to make it seem as though I was being pedantic. I'll post my first quote again so there can be no misunderstanding:
But it doesn't "allude to the things you say." I'm not saying that the we-were-wrong-please-forgive-us elements are there, but they're too indirect for my liking. I'm saying they aren't there at all. The author isn't admitting to (or hinting at, or vaguely indicating, or whatever wording you prefer), being wrong about anything, outside of the anecdote about her family trying to social distance while hiking. Quite the opposite, in fact, as the main point of this article is that she claims to have been right along but is such a big person that she's willing to forgive her critics. Have you read the article, by the way? Because I wouldn't be surprised if you still haven't.
You should really just read the article. I know you think you don't need to, but you should.
Poll update:
National: Trump +0.1 -- This Day In History: October 26, 2020: Biden +7.8 | October 26, 2016: Clinton +5.4
Arizona: Trump +1.0
Nevada: Trump +0.7
Wisconsin: Harris +0.8
Michigan: Harris +0.6
Pennsylvania: Harris +0.2
North Carolina: Trump +0.4
Georgia: Trump +2.1
If you'll notice, that was not addressed to you. I was talking to Action80. You made a post about an article, I responded to you about the article, and then Action80 responded to me and quoted a line from the article. I quite naturally assumed that we were still discussing the article and responded in kind. If I had known that he wasn't interested in the article and just wanted to bitch and moan about covid policies, I wouldn't have bothered engaging with him.
Okay, so we're back to the point that not only have you not read the article, you haven't even read my previous posts where I discussed the article. Again, I would encourage you to read the article. Like I said in my previous posts, the author (a woman) is in no way apologizing for or admitting fault with regard to the most controversial covid policies involving mandatory public masking or vaccinations, and mostly criticized schools being closed for too long, not from the perspective of someone who's admitting that she was wrong and is asking forgiveness, but from the perspective of someone who claims to have been right all along and is condescendingly offering to forgive her critics.
Two problems here. First of all, if what you said was too stupid to be taken seriously, then you shouldn't have said it to begin with.
You focused on half a sentence from me ("It's an opinion piece written by one person who in no way "represents" the government or any company") and ignored everything else I said about the actual content of the article. If you had read my post, you would have seen my response to the argument you just made before you had even made it. Just like if you had read the article and not just the headline, you would have known that it's not saying what you think it's saying.
Ah, my mistake for assuming that your response to me would be about the subject I was discussing. In any case, if you're not talking about the article, then I've got nothing to say to you.
How else could I possibly interpret that other than you apparently thinking that this article came from the same people who gave us covid policies? But if I'm wrong, as you insist I am, then please just tell me what it is that you did mean.
I'm not interested in re-litigating covid policies.
Correct. In neither thread have you presented any evidence for your assertions.
Do you even know how Google works? If I Google something I'm not going to get the same results you do. Google tailors its results to the individual depending on past searches, interests etc. If there's some super-compelling evidence you want me to look at you're going to have to post it.
" Always an excuse, isn't there?Yeah. Asking people who actually know her to corroborate makes no sense at all. Better to ask random people who have never met her.
Well that depends on what you're asking for evidence of. If it's of having a job at college 40 years ago it's pretty obvious that's going to be hard to evidence.
Asking people who knew her at that time is probably the best you're going to get.
Your opinion about this is based on gut feeling and your general distrust of Harris. Which is fairly reasonable in this case, it's a hard claim to either prove or falsify.
Just stop pretending you care about evidence when you clearly don't.
Actually, I have provided links for the points I've made, and you even thanked me once for steering your straight. It's the points I haven't made that you're struggling with.
Such a shame that you weren't able to even highlight what you think you're responding to. I guess I have no choice but to accept that you were wrong on every point I've contested, since you're not counter-arguing, and therefore tacitly conceding.
Since your memory seems to be playing tricks on you, don't forget: in a week's time, it's Jizz for Jill!
I know, it's so obvious! And yet, the person I was responding to really did seem to be implying that this article was some sort of mea culpa on the part of the government and businesses:
I didn't take him out of context or anything. This guy literally said "they will have you do things that are obviously ridiculous nonsense, then when push comes to shove, they'll publish "sorry pls forgive
