Total posts: 5,890
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
This story has pretty much faded from our politics after something like two days of coverage. That's how Trump and MAGA works. Biden has a bad debate performance and the democrats devour him. Trump takes a $10 million bribe from a foreign dictator and no one cares. He's still at the top of the ticket and if anyone in the party suggests he step aside then it is them who are no longer in the party.
The parties are not the same, and if this is who the American people decide to vote for in November it will truly show the world we are not the example because we are overrun by a bunch of morons.
If only Donald Trump's name was Hunter Biden, imagine the national freak out...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What's your instinctual reaction to the political party of dick choppers?
My instinctual reaction is to think about how weird it is that you guys spend so much time thinking about and being politically motivated by what other people are doing with their genitals.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So the decision in November is quite clear: it's cackling Kamala and Tampon Tim or Donald Trump and JD Vance.
And that decision couldn't be any more clear to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.
Anyone who would call another ticket a clown show while supporting Donald Trump - a man so objectively stupid he can't even figure out that it's probably not a good idea to show up at a black association and start questioning the black candidate's race - just isn't a serious human being.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
When me and ADreamOfLiberty are united against your argument, you really need to rethink your argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Stating that is not a policy proposal, it is merely a statement of fact
He literally said that people with kids should get more votes than people without kids. And he said it out loud, on camera, in front of a crowd.
That is not a statement of fact, that is a policy proposal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
God you are a retard for needing a study to prove those with a stake in the future care more about the future than those without a stake in the future
So since you are fully on board with the idea that people who have more steak in our future should have their votes counted more...
Do you support a cut off age for voting, along with some kind of weighted system that gives more weight to the votes of younger people?
Created:
-->
@sadolite
you will always be a immoral blight on society just like me and everyone else.
If everyone will always be an immoral blight on society no matter what they do then the term immoral blight is entirely useless.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If that's the case, the the far left wouldn't be so batshit crazy over Kamala refusing to ban fracking. And Kamala wouldn't have made that flip-flopping political choice.
The left generally opposes fracking because of its environment impact. It has little if anything to do with gas prices.
I'm not very good at the kinds of demagoguery and political partisan hackery you require to classify as a "serious point"
All I "require" is that people who make claims back them up with facts and logic. And you're right, you are not very good at that. Which is fine, till you start accusing others of being demagogues and hacks. When a person does all of that, it tends to be the case that the only hack in the conversation is them.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
You all are immoral blights on society.
This reminds me of Ray Crocs schtick where he goes around asking people if they've ever told a lie, when they of course say yes he tells them that means that they are a liar and therefore need to repent.
It sort of sounds powerful until a few seconds of thought is applied. Being a liar is a bad thing, bit that depends on how you define the term "liar". A person who has told a lie once before in their life is not a liar by any reasonable definition, so the charge there is meaningless semantics macerating as a serious point.
Same goes for your claim above.
Religion is just more consistent than society
According to the bible, if your child is being unruly the proper response is to take them to the edge of town and stone them to death.
Consistent and good/useful are not the same thing.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
The very idea that all moralities have zero proof for them means that none of them can justify trying to be above others
This is known as the nuclear method, a classic logical fallacy.
It's most widely used to equate unjustified claims of knowledge with claims of knowledge that are justified - all on the basis that justified claims can't be proven with absolute certainty. Think of the guy who claims to know the election was stolen. When pressed, cannot present any evidence whatsoever so instead of recognizing that and retracting their statement responds with "well you can't know you're not in a mental institution dreaming this whole argument up". Which is true, none of us can know this with absolute certainty, that doesn't make their conspiracy claims any more justified. Effectively, their tactic is to blow up all knowledge so that their unjustified claim to knowledge is on the same standing as the claim that you are sitting where you are right now.
You're doing the same thing with morality. You start by adopting the religious mantra that the only morality which can be placed above any other is one that is objective, therefore if there is no objective morality than the guy who runs around killing and raping people for fun is the same as the guy who spends his life donating to charity. It's an absurd point for obvious reasons, but the idea that those two things are the same negates the entire idea of what morality is from the start.
Morality is, by definition, a system by which people judge actions as right or wrong. If you are logically forced to acknowledge all actions as the same, then the system we call morality is not possible.
Moreover, the point of all of this is that you are supposed to be arguing that morality being subjective makes it objective, but objective morality has an actual definition. If it's objective then any given action either is or is not moral, not by a matter of opinion, but because it just is, the same as two plus two equaling four. Yet you yourself argue that it is impossible to get there from a subjective starting point, so your argument directly contradicts your OP.
You should rename your OP. You're argument is not that morality being subjective makes it objective, but that morality being subjective means there's no such thing as morality.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Cool, so Biden not only fucked up Trump's gas prices, he fucked up Obama's
Presidents have very little if anything to do with gas prices. That's the fact. You and others who are ignorant of how these things work love to pretend that gas prices is entirely the result of the president's day to day decisions, as if they're some kind of day trader playing a PS5 game.
So I respond with your logic to show that even within your overly simplified world view, Trump still accomplished nothing. So naturally you pretend that the premise I adopted to refute your argument is actually my argument and use it to attack Biden who isn't even the candidate anymore.
The message went way over your head.
Let me know when you have a serious point to make.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
the man who goes into enemy territory daily
lol
He's made two appearances this entire election cycle in front of non-sycophantic audiences. That's quite far from "daily".
Unless you are seriously considering these interviews enemy territory, in which case the enemy isn't the interviewers, it's the remarkable stupidity that comes out of Trump's mouth.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Are you saying we need to go hide in our houses to get prices back down to where people could afford things?
Getting prices "back down" would require deflation genius. That would tank the economy.
Inflation is already back down to where economists widely consider optimal levels. Which is really odd because we were told it was due to Biden's policies which haven't changed even though the rate of inflation has...
I'll just let Chat GPT own you as well.Before the COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted the economy and oil markets, the average price of gasoline in the United States in early 2020 (specifically January and February) was around $2.50 to $2.60 per gallon.
Wow, you really owned me. How will I recover?
Funny how with all of the talk about how amazing Trump was for gas prices did he ever in his presidency, even during the height of the pandemic when no one was leaving their houses, see prices as low as Obama had them the year before Trump came to office.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Go it, go live on skidrow and see how safe blue areas are. Thats what you are looking to bring on a national scale instead of keeping it in California. Part of me hopes you guys succeed, so you have to live in a 3rd world shithole that America will become.
Funny, I recall hearing that back in 2020.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
If you get convicted, the problem is you. If Trump gets convicted, the problem is the system.
If great job numbers come out for someone else, it's fake news. If they come out for Trump, then to quote his press secretary: "they're very real now".
If the stock market is up while Trump is in office, it means he's doing an amazing job. If they're up under Biden, it means people are excited because Trump is coming back.
If Trump wins the election, the American people have spoken. If he loses, it was obviously rigged.
Hmm, I'm starting to see a pattern. It must be just me, surely the genius MAGA base would see it too if there was something to it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
In late 2020, around the time when President Donald Trump was leaving office, the average price of gasoline in the United States was approximately $2.25 per gallon.
Turns out when no one leaves their house gas prices go down. Who knew?
Curious, since you have on many occasions touted low gas prices as a reason to support Trump, do you support lockdowns since that is what caused them?
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Nah, it's too much fun watching MAGA squirm at the thought of getting their ass kicked by a black female.
Is she black or is she Indian?
Someone should really look into that.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Such as? What policy is Trump talking about? Name 3
Being great on immigration
Being great on the economy
Being tough on foreign policy.
Simple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Elon Musk would be far friendlier than fox.
This really goes to show how sycophantic the political right is. When Fox news is too hard on Trump...
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Insisting the debate is fair while having the courage to take on ideological opponents is incompetent. Okay.
I didn't say any of that. As usual, you do not read.
What was incompetent is Trump's negotiating since it was he that agreed to the rules he is now claiming are unfair.
Kamala literally fought to keep non violent offenders in prison after the Supreme Court ruled she had to let them go
And yet the political right will continue to paint her as soft on crime. You guys really need to make up your minds.
Dude you are literally an idiot that can be convinced to vote anyone with A D behind their name.
"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left" - Margaret Thatcher
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
P1. If any moral opinion is equally non-proven as others, but seeks better treatment than others, then it commits a contradiction it cannot justify, and becomes disproven.What is your objection to this premise?
I have a few actually.
The term "non-proven morality" is problematic from the start. Morality begins with a moral standard, that standard will always be subjective so no morality could ever be "proven". Therefore this right off the bat seems to confuse what morality is.
Moreover, you're claiming that the very act of one morality "seeking better treatment" than others negates itself which is logically absurd. The entire point of morality is to determine what behavior is acceptable within a society. This idea negates that entirely by asserting that everyone's morality is equal all the time, so by extension Ted Bundy's morality is just as good as yours, which means he should have never been locked up and instead sent free to continue his actions.
That's not morality, that's the absence of morality. Basically, your argument is the equivalent of arguing that atheism is a religion.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
For morality to even exist there must be an objective standard to even establish morality of any kind.
For morality to exist there must be a standard, there is no such thing as an "objective standard" because the term itself is incoherent. The standard is the basis on which all actions are compared. An action can be objectively good or objectively evil within a given framework, but the framework itself will always be a matter of opinion for which people will disagree.
And by "people", I'm referring to any thinking agent which includes God if there is one.
Religious based moral standards never change.
So when God wrote the old testament, was slavery moral?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I can negate it, and I did.
Then you are contradicting yourself
Again, if any morality claims to be above others, it becomes objectively wrong.
You can't negate someone else's morality without claiming your morality, or at least someone else's morality, is above it. Otherwise all you're doing is negating all morality, which aside from being a meaningless point also contradicts the idea that any morality let alone all morality is objective.
This creates an objective contradiction in your morality, since your equally unproven morality seeks non-equal treatment.
The contradiction is in the premise that all morality is objective. The rest is just where it inevitably leads.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
The muting of the microphone was in his favor? The lack of a crowd was in his favor? Being on CNN was in his favor?
I didn't say any of that, I said the exact opposite and explained why. Did you read it?
That is all against his interests, because the man has absolutely no interest in policy or governing. He's an entertainer, which is why he needs the ability to interrupt and he needs the crowd. That's all he's got.
He agreed to a debate where the rules were rigged against him
For the reasons mentioned above. That not only demonstrates his incompetence, it goes to show why he doesn't belong anywhere near the white house.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
They wont, because objective morality bans murder.
I just stated that my morality accepts murder as moral, and you cannot negate it so you are according to your own framework, objectively wrong.
I dont see how you make that conclusion.
If no morality can seek to be above the other then there is no such thing as right or wrong. That directly conflicts with the definition of being objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Like I said, been waiting. Will keep waiting. Enjoy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
You see Trump in hostile territory all the time. At the libertarian convention, at the black journalist event. Qe both know that fox hates Trump
If you think Fox News is hostile territory you need to have your head examined.
Sure, he went into both of your other examples and did what he does every time he gets asked anything other than softball questions... He dominates the headlines with op eds of how unfit he is. There is no way you can seriously say that Harris would bomb with independents anywhere near the same level as Trump. The man is repulsive to any normal human being who is not a partisan hack.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
one of those two is scared and a coward. That is not debatable.
Trump already agreed to the terms of the 9/10 debate, now he's backing out and trying to rewrite the rules in a way he sees favorable to him. You're right, it's not debatable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Lol just wait till the economy crashes.
Been waiting since Obama was in office. Only time it actually happened is when Trump was in. Guess I'll keep waiting...
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
They each get their own separate area. None are applied in same area. Due to them being equal, each gets equal separate area to be applied in.
That's not how it works. If your morality says murder is immoral and mine says it is moral, then when someone is murdered our moralities will conflict with eachother.
If all moral opinions are equal, none can seek to be above other or to destroy other or to rule over other or to claim more area than other or to claim any greatness over other, as the very idea of them being equal forbids that.
Exactly, which means that neither of our moralities can be considered right or wrong according your framework, which contradicts the concept of any morality being objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Trump did the first presidential debate in enemy territory, and now that the second debate is scheduled to be on neutral and fair ground, Kamala Harris has tucked tail and ran away.
There is absolutely no way you believe Fox news is fair and neutral ground.
Trump repeatedly said after the debate that they were very fair and the rules were designed to be just that, so this whole charge is just an ad hoc excuse for Trump to back out, and one he knows he can make because people like you will parrot his nonsense no matter how ridiculous.
It's also telling that Trump is insisting there be a crowd. The first debate was a success especially compared to the previous two election cycles because we got to see the focus remain on how the two candidates answered the questions. But Trump doesn't ever know what the hell he is talking about, so his only chance to "win" is by outperforming her because that's all he is, a showman and entertainer.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It was scheduled for Joe Biden.
Such a pathetic excuse. Whatever happened to Trump being such a tough guy who doesn't care who he's up against?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I said it wasn't the sameIt's close enough to make your pearl clutching a double standard.
A "lie" perpetuated by an entire community of Americans based on their own lived experiences going back over a century, and a lie spread by the president of the United States based on conspiracy theories...
No, not even close.
A "lie" that leads to civil unrest all over the country putting public officials in a very difficult position with regards to where they draw the line in protecting public property knowing that the very act of doing so will, if done wrong, feed into the very sentiment causing the rioting in the first place, vs a lie that resulted in an attack on the US Capitol where none of the latter concerns existed and yet the president of the United States figured he'd rather sit on his ass and watch it on TV than to intervene...
No, not even close.
And if that was too many words for you, one was a matter of civil unrest that put public officials in a no win situation, the other was conspiracy theory nonsense for which the remedy was a no brainer.
Not even close.
You said:It used to be the case that the loser concedes and everyone moves on.False
They did move on. "Not a legitimate president" and "not the president", are two different things. You seem to conveniently forget that post 2016 was a very different context from post 2020. In 2016 no one had ever seriously tried to claim the winner of the election was not the person Americans actually voted for, so hyperbolic language and simbolic voting carried a very different meaning. Once that happens and the Overton window shifts to the point where people actually start believing our elections aren't secure, these words and actions carry a very different meaning.
This is basic human nature. It's like comparing Trump to Hitler before someone almost successfully assassinated him vs doing it after. After the attempt the right went crazy over this claiming the left was inciting violence and yet they said almost nothing while it was happening. The connotation changed.
These examples aren't the same. This is a dishonestly false equivocation.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
3. The only way all moral opinions can be equally applied is if all have same amount of area for application.4. Thus, each person can own his body and apply his moral opinions to it.
This doesn't work. You can claim all moral opinions have the same validity or worth, but once they are applied in the same area they will contradict eachother. That conflicts with the concept of either of them being objective.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The mere idea that left wing msm should to vet a republican vp is pure fantasy land.
Yes, yours. No one else ever suggested it.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I'm split on this. It's hard to imagine Trump keeps him given that he is objectively bad for Trump's reelection prospects. But then again Trump is such an egomaniac it's hard to see him facing the fact that he was wrong.
Really curious if there are any good logistical arguments on either side of this, is there any reason replacing him would be difficult?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I have an obligation to address the content of those characterizations.
So you see your trolling as the fulfillment of your obligations. Ok bro.
At least he wasn't like Biden saying the criteria for vetting a VP consisted of the essential and critical characteristics of skin color and genitalia.
Mike Pence was picked because he was an evangelical Christian. Joe Biden was picked because he was a white class working guy. VP's are and have always been picked for superficial reasons as a means of appealing to a targeted segment of the population. No one ever cared about that before until Kamala came along. Gee, I wonder what's different about her.
Regardless, I'd much rather my preferred candidates select a VP for superficial reasons than to single one out for the quality of demonstrating their willingness to be an unabashed sycophant.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trolls are gonna troll.
Don't you have anything better to do?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Kamala is peaking at the wrong time. Trump has 320 million cash on hand to use. When people actually start tuning in, those negative ads are going to hit hard.
He'll be fine, just a few more rallies talking about when Kamala decided to be black and Hannibal lector and those moderates will come flooding in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The charge that the police are.... [bla bla bla]= "It's not a lie so it's fine if it inspires violence"
I never said it was fine, I said it wasn't the same. A claim you have yet to provide any meaningful response to, the above being the latest example.
(I know you like to pretend these things don't happen, but that is your point dying horribly, screaming for someone to save it)
I never suggested these things didn't happen, you would know that if you've ever paid attention to a thing I've said.
What I've argued repeatedly and will continue to do at length if necessary is a that they aren't remotely similar. They all took place in an entirely different context first off all, and the point every single one of them was making was that Trump didn't win the right way, none of them claimed he didn't actually win.
To confuse those two things is, as Bill Maher likes to say, like someone looking at an elephant and a mouse and can't tell which one is bigger.
Define the belief of the Trump deranged in a single statement:The only variable is Trump.
It's a literal fact. The only time in history we've ever had a president unequivocally claim the election was stolen is the only time we've ever had a situation where half the country believes the election was stolen. That's not a coincidence and the reason why is common sense. It's called the bully pulpit for a reason.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Yeah I just don’t share your confidence in the competence of an 80 year old Trump and his cronies and I think you underrate the stability of the system. I don’t think the apocalyptic rhetoric is warranted, there will be a 2028 election no matter who wins
Of course there will be. Russia also still has elections.
It's not a matter of competence, it's a matter of loyalty. If everyone from the top down cares more about serving Trump than the constitution, the constitution becomes meaningless and whatever Trump says go. This is why the man values loyalty so deeply, he doesn't care about the rules, never has.
His VP pick is the perfect example of this. It becomes clearer and clearer by the day that they didn't even bother to vet this guy, at least not for what he's supposed to get from a VP. Trump learned from having a VP that valued the constitution first, he won't make that mistake again. So once he thought he had it on the bag he picked a guy whose only qualification is that he's a Trump sycophant - a guy who despises everything Trump stands for but was willing to kiss the ring and fully debase himself anyway. That's what having no principals looks like, the most important quality to being on the Trump team.
The executive branch doesn't control everything so I understand the position that Trump will not ultimately succeed at destroying the American experiment. But the fact that there is absolutely nothing you can show to demonstrate that he won't try is what baffles me. The naivety is striking. It's like someone taking their car to 120 with your child in the backseat. Sure they're fine now, and sure they are statistically likely to be fine the next time, but does that mean it's fine to put them in that same car again?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
To you he told a lie, the lie inspired violence.To me BLM (and top left-tribe personalities) told a lie (that racist cops go out looking to murder minorities), the lie inspired violence.
Perfect encapsulation of the problem here.
The charge that the police are brutally mistreating black people is a charge the entire black community has been screaming about since reconstruction, coming to a head during the civil rights movement, then again in the early 90's along with the LA riots, and more recently with the amplification of this issue by social media. To claim it's the product of "top left-tribe personalities" is breathtakingly ignorant.
There is nothing like that when it comes to claims of a stolen national election. It used to be the case that the loser concedes and everyone moves on. The only variable is Trump. Without him this is an issue only on the fringe corners of the internet.
These two example are not the same.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Your inevitable and stubborn shenanigans negate any chance at moving any discussion with you forward.
By "stubborn shenanigans" what you really mean is that I have to audacity to disagree with your view of it and explain why using logic.
If your only purpose here is to change other people's minds and the apparent lack of possiblity of that happening says to you that the conversation isn't worth it, the clearly it's not me who is the stubbornly close minded one here.
accusations of projection are all too often the adult equivalent of “I know you are, but what am I?”
"I know you are but what am I" is childish because it's a thoughtless retort thrown out there as a point in and of itself, as if that alone qualifies it as legitimate.
I don't use it as a retort, I use it as an assessment after days of providing painstaking detail explaining how your point was BS from the start to which you admittingly never attempted to provide a coherent argument against. Those are two completely different things.
*Whoops, look at Double_R being stubborn again and not just agreeing with you. Clearly he's not worth any serious attempt at conversation, obviously.*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Yes yes, big chain of causality, but you keep saying "but for one man" like it matters; so clearly you think something special happens when the chain of causality passes through a single individual.
Chain of causality arguments are always fallacious because the same logic can be applied to anything. It's just another form of the nuclear method whereby one attempts to "blow up" all knowledge so they can argued we can't know anything.
We're not talking about chain of event causality. We're talking about how Trump is directly responsible for January 6th. He's the one who lead the charge for two months telling everyone the election was stolen (a brazen lie). He's the one who, after riling these people up, set the time and place for them to assemble. He's the one who then riled them up one last time before directing them to the Capitol. And once they attacked, he's the one who was supposed to send in the troops and instead spent three hours watching it on TV.
Pretending January 6th was just some coincidental thing that had little if anything to do with Trump is just dumbfoundingly stupid. Even Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell understood that on that evening, everyone did. But collective amnesia is a skill of the MAGA cult these days.
I see no morally relevant differences between Trump telling people to "fight like hell" and a bunch of left-tribers using similar (or more violent) language; justifications aside of course.
I know, that's because you pretend every action happens in isolation so you can ignore the big picture.
Trump didn't just tell the crowd to fight like hell, that was one very small part of a two month long campaign to weak havoc on the certification process. There was nothing remotely similar to this happening on the left.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
what about all those people who elected and supported that one man?
We all must take responsibility for what the people we voted for do, that is irrelevant for the responsibility of the person who committed the act.
Supporting Trump before January 6th was one thing, supporting him after is another. The latter is the scum of this country and will be the reason it falls (if we don't stop it first).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
This is shocking that the deficet grew only during the year a global pandemic started sweeping the world. What could this mean?
Trump was president right? Don't we hold the president automatically responsible for what happens during the time period when they are in office?
Created:
-->
@cristo71
So, gee, thanks and all for trying to make my words sound less ridiculous or more relevant by incompletely quoting them while claiming to completely quote them, but I would rather you at least try to keep your shit honest.
So no, you don't have anything substantive to dispute so you fall back on silly little technicalities.
Again, you argued that my interpretation was drastically different from yours, yet you couldn't be bothered to point out a single meaningful difference between them despite me literally breaking up the two quotes and numbering them piece by piece to show how they line up exactly. So instead you whine and complain that I left out your parenthesis quote, and even after I explained why in detail you have nothing to say in response to it other than to quibble over the definition of one of the words I used to explain it. It just comes off as nothing more than a pathetic attempt to win the argument somehow while ignoring the whole point of the conversation.
It's not that any of this matters, it's that I find the projection fascinating. You claim I'm the one gaslighting you even though I'm the one willing to subject my arguments to a full intellectual autospsy while you sit there and offer nothing more than a carnival bark. Why you bother I don't know but one thing is for sure; if you had a meaningful refutation to the points I've made in this thread you would have offered them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
This is some crazy gas lighting. It's like if a murderer is on trial for murder and you point out murder is wrong and then they say "it's weird you are so obsessed with murder"
Crazy gaslighting? What on earth are you talking about?
Pointing out something doesn't make you obsessed with it. Pointing it out repeatedly, especially when it has no real relevance to the topic at hand is when you show yourself to be obsessed with it.
Nearly everytime you launch an attack on the left it always manages to include people's genitals. I find that very weird, nothing about that had anything to do with gaslighting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Trump is weird. Let's cut our dicks off and be democrats now.Cutting our dicks off is not weird but border security is
I think what's weird is just how much of your political energy is spent thinking about other people's genitals
Created:
-->
@cristo71
And I took it out for a reasonAh, so you were incorrect when you claimed thisFor easy reference here they both are in their entirety:Were you intentionally lying, or no?
Entirety, as in there was nothing else relevant that was left out. Normally the excuse is that the words posted are cherry picked out of a greater point. There was no greater point here, that was your whole quote minus the one part I removed because it was irrelevant and because taking out that irrelevant piece put into stark clarity that both of our statements were exactly the same.
Do you have anything to say of substance, or are these silly little technical arguments all you got left?
Created: