Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Who needs stats when we can just let Tucker Carlson arm us with all the arguments we need to be able to tell others they need to think for themselves?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
No but a sudden change in the rules is most certainly a power grab as well as undermining the expectations of a predictably fair election.
No, it’s not. Context matters, and I’m not sure if you noticed but we kind of went through this thing we call a pandemic which tends to call for adjustments to the way we do things. Never ceases to amaze me how election deniers always leave that out.
We can all cut the BS now, the only reason republicans take issue with any of these changes is because Biden won. In places where they are and have always done the same things, like Florida for example, republicans have no issues with any of it. This is also why states are taking the remarkable step of not just auditing their own elections almost a year out, but auditing specifically the counties Biden won. The “real” concern here couldn’t be any more obvious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I have no idea what you’re talking about, but your post smacks of projection. It’s the people who do the least amount of thinking that are normally the most prevalent when it comes to accusing others of just believing what they’re told. At least put some substance behind your claim, but we know that’s not going to happen.
And as usual, your post skips right over everything I said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Maybe I'm ignorant here but how exactly is it that this is able to happen?
How what is able to happen?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Making it easy for people to vote is not a power grab, that’s what we call democracy. Never ceases to amaze me how people try to make that as if it were somehow nefarious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Your worst orangemanbad story is reality under Pres Brandon.
Our worst story is the complete collapse of the American experiment, which he is actively working on. The fact that so many around the country and even some on this thread are still claiming the election was stolen despite having no evidence or even argument for our it is proof of that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
that's due to covid and imports not happening as much because many, many issues arose as there were outbreaks of the delta variant worldwide
Hand democrats a mess, then pretend democrats are responsible for that mess. I feel like we’ve seen this before…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The reason some can’t grasp it is because it’sa logical absurdity. An unchanging being contradicts logic because under any recognizable definition of the word “being” it must function in some way in order to qualify. But function by definition requires change.
Your argument, or observation, or whatever you are calling it doesn’t work because you are conflating entirely different things, and you seem to be doing it because they use the same word but in each case those words have very different meanings. Existence doesn’t apply the same when we are talking about a tangible part of reality vs a concept. Concepts exist as the manifestation of a physical brain, they don’t exist in the same way a creator of everything would.
Your argument, or observation, or whatever you are calling it doesn’t work because you are conflating entirely different things, and you seem to be doing it because they use the same word but in each case those words have very different meanings. Existence doesn’t apply the same when we are talking about a tangible part of reality vs a concept. Concepts exist as the manifestation of a physical brain, they don’t exist in the same way a creator of everything would.
And if you are not trying to establish existence then what’s the point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I have little interest in justice whatever that means to you personally.
I take that as a no, which is quite extreme. It’s to suggest that if someone were to say, murder your child, you would be fine with that person going on to live their life as if nothing happened provided they don’t do it to anyone else. You’re entitled to that view though.
Based on its utility of course. How effective is this deterrent? Is the death penalty really a deterrent? It doesn't seem to me that murder was prevented even in the days of hanging mobs and lynchings.
That’s a red herring and I’m sure you know that. We’re not talking about prevention, we’re talking about deterrence.
We’re also not talking about the death penalty. I think it’s pretty well established that the death penalty does little to nothing to deter murder which makes sense because compared to life in prison, the person if caught will essentially lose the remainder of their life either way. But getting caught is irrelevant if there is effectively no punishment at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Since we believe in this eternal, never changing concept it doesn't seem much of a leap that a creator is all that implausible.
Fallacy of composition - These two things are categorically different.
Math is an extension of logic, and the laws of logic apply to everything that exist. I would go as far as calling logic the laws of existence. And since they are a prerequisite to existence itself, they must also apply to a creator since the argument you are trying to make is that this creator… exists.
Our also a mistake to call these concepts eternal. Something that is eternal exists eternally. These concepts don’t exist, they apply to things that exist. If there is no existence these concepts have no meaning.
But even if I accept everything you said, it’s all still irrelevant because plausibility is irrelevant. We don’t pray to a being merely because we find its existence plausible. We don’t go to church merely because we find it plausible. The time to adjust how we live our lives is when we have reason to believe it’s actually true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
The way that the votes were counted, sometimes taking several days (or even weeks in extreme cases) was completely unacceptable and should not be allowed to happen again. I don't blame people for suspecting fraud when it appears that your opponents just keep finding ballots.
Well first of all they weren’t finding ballots, they were counting them. But more importantly, the reason it all appeared to be such a big disaster was because republican legislatures in multiple battleground states passed laws not allowing a single mail in ballot to even be opened let alone counted until after Election Day. This was done on purpose specifically to feed into the narrative that mail in ballots were illegitimate because they knew they were going to shift heavily towards Biden.
In states where they do this every year like Florida, not only were there were no issues but we saw the exact opposite. Biden had the early lead because they counted their mail in ballots as they arrived, then Trump pulled ahead and we got our results that night. Oddly enough no one complained about voter fraud there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Yes, 3+3 has always equaled 6.
What does this have to do with God?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The point is not the heinous nature of the crime as that is a subjective judgement. The point is to protect public safety and choosing the least harsh penalty that would insure it.
If it were somehow possible to be guaranteed that person 1 would never again become a danger to anyone, would you support no punishment at all?
Also, where does deterrence factor into your equation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You read the next sentence? Let me reiterate it.“So nothing is uncovered that risks distrust in the voting system.” Cause there is no democracy with a distrust in the voting system.
So you’re claiming the courts sat back and let the election be stolen because they didn’t want to risk distrust in the system. That’s absurd.
What causes distrust in the system is a former president running around the country telling his voters the election was stolen, and folks like yourself repeating these claims despite having no evidence of it. It never ceases to amaze me how it’s always the same individuals fomenting the distrust who are also the same individuals talking about how important trust is in our system.
Why would it not benefit Biden? An extremely large portion of his votes came in via mail in ballot.
That’s not relevant. Biden received a much higher portion of mail in ballots because given the circumstances, his voters were more likely to use the mail in system. But if we’re talking about cheating then we’re not talking about voters, we’re talking about people who would be willing to risk jail time to cast a fraudulent ballot. That is what you need to substantiate if you really want to make this claim, and that is what you have at best, no facts to back up.
The reality is that most examples of cheating in this past election were Trump votes and the only example of an actual election being stolen by political operatives was in NC in when republicans did it. So no, the facts do not support any of your claims here. There is no reason to believe democrats would be more likely to cheat than republicans.
And who’s counting the ballots? Democratic operatives who were counting ballots without GOP watchers even remotely close.
They weren’t Democratic operatives, they were election workers. Please stop with the dishonest BS.
They were counting ballots in the middle of a pandemic with no vaccines available at that time. Context matters.
If you care about ballot integrity, the solutions are simple.
Ballot integrity is a whole different conversation. We’re talking about whether the election was stolen. Ballot integrity cannot be an argument for that because at best, all you’re arguing is that we really don’t know if these votes were legitimate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
it's a concept in the mind, 3+3=6 and can't equal anything else, right?
Right.
So… now what? What does this have to do with God?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
3 is our way of describing an observation we make about reality.
But let’s just set all that aside. So we don’t know “where” the number 3 is. Now what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
You use general worse life outcomes to justify special treatment.
No, I don’t. You don’t pay attention to the arguments I am making.
Whenever I speak of worse life outcomes I tie them directly to their root causes. Outcomes is not an argument for oppression, it’s evidence that the oppression we all know occurred was effective.
I fail to follow how me merely mentioning how average group behavior affecting outcomes has anything to do with treating individuals different.
So do I
But if you happen to support reparations or affirmative action or other forms of preferential treatment,
I don’t
Who won't acknowledge it??? I have said multiple times that there are likely spillovers from segregation.
It was a generalization. If you haven’t noticed, this thread is about why some on the left view race realism as a bad faith discussion. I’m explaining why. This isn’t about you.
Yeah, and a lack of a substantive response to anything I say is also not an argument. Curious!
You’re not sticking to the topic. This is what I notice a lot of you on this site do. You fight so hard to have the conversation you want rather than the one you are actually engaged in, then it’s as if you don’t even recognize I haven’t followed you down the rabbit hole, so you walk away completely misunderstanding everything I’ve said because you took everything as if it were being made in the context of your imaginary conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Ultimately, Joe Biden loses.
Loses what?
He is presenting mounting evidence daily that he is patently incompetent to be the President. He3 has yet to have a single accomplishment worthy of the office, and his poll numbers, even among Democrats who voted for him are tanking badly, so badly, even Jimmy Carter, at his age, is more cognizant of the fact than is Joe, himself, who is in a constant state of lalaland. Currently, he has held more pressers after which he has walked away when finished airing out his mind, such as it is, than stay to answer questions
The previous president thought clean coal was when you take coal out and scrub it with a brush, he thought the solution to California’s wildfire problem was a rake, and needed it explained to him why we shouldn’t drop a nuclear bomb inside a hurricane. He was literally beyond parody. But you argue Biden is incompetent.
The previous president never had an approval rating above 50%, spent the almost his entire term in the 30’s, and would never even acknowledge any poll that said he was unpopular literally calling them fake polls. But you argue Biden’s numbers are talking badly and Biden isn’t cognizant of it.
The previous president set the record for days without a press conference, eliminated the daily press briefing for over a year, and never sat down to do an interview with anyone other than Fox News until election season came around (and then quit because he was being asked real questions). But you argue Biden won’t take questions.
You talk about the 25th looming, but hand picked members of the previous president’s cabinet actually discussed invoking it. In real life.
It really is like the last 4 years never happened.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
No they weren’t. In many cases courts refused to even accept the case. I’m sure you know why. So nothing is uncovered that risks distrust in the voting system.
None of this refutes anything I said. You’re claiming the election was stolen and the courts just sat back and let it happen. That’s takes some very serious explaining, yet all you offered is “I’m sure you know why”. No, I don’t. Please explain.
Yes. Via laxed mail in ballot rules where signatures weren’t verified with the required veracity in states like WI, MI, PA
Again, your claim makes no sense. Laxed signature verification is not a plot to steal an election. And even if signature verification did swing the election by a margin large enough to effect the outcome there is no evidence it would have benefited Biden. Of the anecdotal examples of people who actually got caught trying to cheat, many of them were trying to cheat for Trump.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
This is why statues of people still alive are disgusting. It is an attempt to seek worship.
I fail to see what the person being alive has to do with it.
It’s not about worship, it’s about glorification. The United Center in Chicago has a statue of Micheal Jordon outside, that’s not about worship. It’s about symbolizing the greatness which Jordan brought to the team during that period. If the Bulls has never won an NBA title that wouldn’t be there.
The idea that statues are supposed to encourage people to study their history is ad hoc nonsense. The only place you will hear that logic is in the southern United States where people twist themselves into pretzels trying to rationalize why they have literal traitors to the constitution propped up as heroes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I think my answer has been very clear. It was stolen through violations of checks and balances within states and lack luster signature verification.
It’s not clear because it’s nonsensical. The violations of checks and balances you speak of were upheld by their state supreme courts, and lackluster verification has nothing to do with the claim the election was stolen.
To steal an election is to find a way to award the office to the loser. Is this what you believe happened, and if so, do you believe it is the result of a plot by political operatives to make this come to fruition?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
In 2016 we had people saying #notmypresident , and asking the college electorate to overturn the election and in 2020 we had people asking Mike Pence to somehow install Trump as president despite losing.
There’s always someone out there saying something. Finding the craziest voices among us is not how we measure the political climate.
Not my president and not the president are two entirely different things. No one in 2016 claimed that Trump didn’t actually win. Not my president was a slogan by some expressing that Trump didn’t represent them. Nothing more. And the idea of the electoral college interjecting and making Clinton the president was rejected there even a majority of democrats, so it’s silly to compare that to what is going on in the Republican Party today or to the actual danger Trump poses to democracy.
The mail in ballots were an attempt to cheat by getting disinterested uneducated people to vote, because they usually swing left
Getting people to vote is not cheating, that’s literally what democracy is.
And neither party has a monopoly on uneducated voters. In fact if you look at statistics, higher education correlates directly with support for democrats.
The elections are not fair and democrats pretending it is, when they won is not helpful. It's stupid
Please explain how elections are not fair, aside from the fact that republican voters are over represented in the house, senate, and electoral college.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Room for fraud =/= republicans lost because of fraud committed by the other side
Please connect those dots.
I would also love to know your answer to the question this thread is about, probably more so than anyone else here since your avatar is a picture of the guy making this claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If "bleeding heart liberals" aren't willing to make such a small and efficient sacrifice, why should I have to sacrifice a higher dollar to life ratio (because murderers are more expensive than African children) to save a murderer from getting executed?
I’m quite sure in my last reply to you I specifically stated one of the major reasons to oppose capitol punishment was to ensure we do not execute innocent people. Yet you seem to have completely disregarded that point in your response.
I’m also quite sure that I haven’t yet said anything about money, so I’m not sure why you have suddenly become so fixated on it.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
why should we waste tax dollars on taking down confederate statues and prohibiting people from flying the confederate flag?
Statues are how we glorify our history, which is in turn a public statement of our values.
Please explain what there is to glorify about the confederacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Without mail in ballots, everyone knows Trump would have won.
Turns out when more people vote republicans lose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'm left-wing but not stupid or arrogant enough to think that I know for certain that the elite string-pullers didn't forge/alter ballot results.
What does certainty have to do with anything? I don’t know for certain that my plane is going to land, that doesn’t stop me from getting on it and heading to my destination.
Do you have any evidence or reason to believe the election was stolen? If not, then why bother with this? Did you have the same concerns about 2016 or any other election?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Most people don't really care about the lives of strangers, this is why they aren't willing to spend $1/day to save a kid in Africa via sponsorship. If people aren't willing to sacrifice $1/day to save an innocent child in Africa, I don't know why they would be willing to sacrifice $20/day through collective tax money to save some adult that probably committed murder.
If I sent a dollar to every starving kid in Africa I would be homeless. The fact that I hold onto my money says nothing about whether I care about innocent lives being killed by the state.
This is not a serious post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Why do you use this definition of atheist
Atheism defined as belief that there are no gods is a useless and inaccurate definition mainly for two reasons;
First is that god is one of the most Ill defined words in the English language. You ask 20 different people what they mean when they say they believe in a god and you’ll get 20 different answers.
Since the only requirement to being a theist is to believe in a god, any god, theism clearly isn’t tied to any specific definition of it. Therefore neither is atheism. So that requires atheism as you’re defining it to be the rejection of every god concept that has ever been conceptualized, an absurd position since there is no way that any one person could ever conceive of every god concept let alone give enough thought to each one in order to reject them all.
The second reason is because defining atheism the way you are has no practical usage. Imagine 3 roommates; one believes there is a god, one believes there are no gods, and one has no belief either way. One of these is not like the other.
Only one of these individuals will pray at night, only one will go to church on Sunday, only one will potentially allow their belief in the divine to influence how they vote, what they believe about morality, or take seriously a 2,000 year old book.
The other two are functionally the same in every way. Both live their lives *as if* there were no gods because unless you actively hold a belief in one, there is no reason for any decision you make to be influenced by it. We live our lives according to what we believe to be real, not what we believe to be possible.
So looking at these three individuals, there is no reason to conjure up a definition that separates the last two. It serves no purpose. Im convinced that the only reason so many try is because theists cannot uphold their burden of proof so this is all nothing more than an attempt to invoke a false equivalence.
Created:
Posted in:
It’s been almost a full year now since the election and we still have prominent politicians pretending they don’t know who won.
I’m curious to know what the temperature is on DART regarding this question. Do you believe Biden legitimately won the election, yes or no? If not, why not?
Obviously every left winger will say yes so I’m really just asking everyone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So to recap, credentials are the problem.
But if you suddenly became the sole shareholder of a large company, your lack of credentials are the problem.
Do I have that right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I’ll make my own prediction: the DNC will do everything it can to make sure mail in voting becomes a continued— even permanent fixture in the election process…
It’s not a prediction, it’s happening right now and for good reason. Turns out when we make it easier to vote more people become engaged in the political process, which of course the right wing hates so they have to make up voter fraud claims to propagandize against it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Do you know how long it has been since our press has been free and fair?
How is our press not free?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Opinions are not a criminal activity. Nor threats to your precious democracy.
My precious democracy? Well thank you at least for not hiding your contempt for it. That’s a start.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I honestly didn't expect the economy to do well under Trump. I kinda expected more of the same from clinton-bush-bama years. That was just a surprising bonus.
What was, that the economy continued to grow under Trump at the same rate it was growing for the previous 7 years under Obama?
No, I just wouldn't allow someone with no education on how to run a company to hire a ceo.
The question was, if you inherited a Fortune 500 company and were in need of a CEO would you hire someone with no credentials?
What do you mean you would not allow someone without an education to make that decision? Sounds like you’re dancing around the question.
Would you hire someone with no credentials? Yes or no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So we have Hillary in 2016 who deliberately and verifiably fabricated evidence and presented it to a grand jury...that's not a crime...but having an opinion on how the ballots were counted is a crime against "democracy?"
Two completely different topics of conversation. You are intentionally conflating statutory criminal violations with threatening the foundations of what makes our democracy strong.
Perhaps you should spend some time reading the federalist papers and educate yourself on what the founding fathers were concerned about when they created the presidency.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
I appreciate his media handling.
He trained half the country to think of a free and fair press, one of the bedrock foundations of a functioning democracy, as the enemy of the American people and to excuse as fake news any report they do not like with no application of critical thought whatsoever.
Please explain what there is to appreciate about that.
Had them eating our of his spoon because he understands media better than any president ever. Conversely, they didn't get him, at all.
Eating out of his spoon? All he ever did was complain about how unfair the media was treating him. That was what… part of some master plan to make everyone think he was a childish, petulant, vile, ignorant buffoon to what… get tax cuts passed? What’s the logic there?
Please enlighten me as to what the media (and apparently myself) don’t understand about Donald Trump. I’d love to hear it.
If he is indicted, they better have more and better evidence than the House ever presented, because both impeachments were sacks of rotten potatoes that had no more legal standing than a drunk hanging on a lamppost, and the Senate, in both cases, served their roles with sober dispatch.
First of all, legal standing has nothing to do with it. Impeachment is a political trial, not a criminal trial. Congress’s job was not to determine whether he can hold onto his freedom, it’s whether he can hold the nuclear codes. Big difference.
Second, the evidence in both cases was overwhelming. If it were possible to find intelligent and unbiased jurors he would have easily been convicted. Instead republicans all decided to protect their president by doing the same thing you have done all up and down this thread: ignore every argument made and then claim no argument has been made. It turns out you can’t make someone understand something they don’t want to.
Either he is innocent - which, as of now, constitutionally, he is, or he will be found guilty, but only if he is indicted. You have naught to do with any of that process.
That’s not the conversation we’re having.
Yes, Trump is entitled to due process. Please stop explaining this as if you’re breaking some kind of ground here.
This isn’t criminal trial, it’s a debate site. We’re not juror’s ruling on Trump’s freedom, we’re DART users expressing our opinions. You’re welcome to join the conversation and share yours at any time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I wonder how much illegal immigration would go down, if half the US media stopped falsely reporting that the US border is open, illegals were getting welfare, and were being welcomed in open arms.
I think they’re coming over for their free Obama phone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
A) Do you believe Vladimir Putin was a threat to Russian democracy?
B) What laws did he violate
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you even understand what this conversation is about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The idea that "fixing other countries" will stop people from 3rd world nations from taking advantage of welfare nations with open borders is pure fantasy.
As is the idea that we have open borders
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
You can see an incredibly clear impact of all the Trump policies that were slowly rolled out in 2019 in the numbers, as well as the massive spike that began immediately upon Biden winning.
Why does Trump get 3 years to show progress but Biden is immediately responsible the moment he gets sworn in?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Where are any if the the indictments for alleged crimes Trump has committed? Y'all own the DOJ, now. Why is everybody so shy?
If they indict Trump then it’s a corrupt witch hunt fueled by the fake news media.
If they don’t indict Trump it’s proof that Trump is innocent.
Heads I win, tails you lose. Must be comforting knowing your bubble could never burst.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
The reality is, there are no current indictments against Donald Trump for the issues Secular raises, and he thinks that should not matter, that he is guilty anyway. Nope, as well, since guilt is only established upon conviction
I can see I am engaged in a bad faith argument, but I guess I’ll continue anyway for the record.
SkepticalOne never argued that Donald Trump should be locked up because he said so, we all understand and believe in the right to a fair and free trial. You are hiding behind the defense an idea no one is attacking.
What he’s arguing is that it is unreasonable to dismiss the multitude of facts showing Trump has likely committed a crime, something that Robert Mueller who you continue to invoke stated very clearly.
If you have any actual opinions on the subject you are welcome to share them. I can however see why you won’t, because it’s rather inconvenient for someone to pretend their political opinions have an ounce of credibility while supporting a man for president who doesn’t believe the law applies to him.
Not a crime unless it is demonstrated to be so, by evidence presented in court.
And Joe Biden doesn't have dementia unless diagnosed by a licensed psychiatrist. Yet somehow I doubt that will stop you from taking a loud and proud position on that issue, so why not Trump?
Because this is a bad faith argument.
Show me the statute prohibiting that a private citizen do that. Tell me how that violates the 1A. There's your answer regarding how 'that alone' is isn't a threat.
So to be clear, your position is that the only way for a person to be a threat to democracy is if they violate a statutory law? I somehow missed that conversation during the constitutional convention. Please point me to where the founding fathers concluded this.
And while you are at it please point me to what laws Vladimir Putin or Hugo Chavez violated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If you oppose the death penalty, then your fine with murderers living off of taxpayers for their life.
There are many other possibilities, please stop projecting your close minded views onto others.
Where for example does your consideration for wrongful convictions come into play? How many innocent lives is an acceptable cost to ensure all murderers are killed by the state?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
I've not interpreted whether Trump is guilty, or not, but you have, even without an indictment, let alone a trial.
This is a thoroughly dishonest tactic. The conversation you are having is being held in the court of public opinion where the standard is whichever conclusion is most reasonable. If you have any thoughts on that you’re welcome to share them. But to sit here and pretend you’re advocating for reason while running away from the arguments and hiding behind your shield made out of “Bob Mueller didn’t indict him” is not only dishonest, it’s a complete waste of time.
And has SkepticalOne already pointed out:
“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including”
This is a literal crime, so hiding behind what others did or did not do already fails.
I've heard that so many times, yet it is never justified. WHY is he a threat? HOW is he a threat? WHEN was he a threat? Be specific.
He’s a former president of the United States who is still running around the country claiming he really won the 2020 election.
You claim to know all about the constitution and the philosophies behind it. Please explain how that *alone* is not a threat to American democracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So if you suddenly became the sole shareholder of a Fortune 500 company and needed a new CEO, you would hire someone with no credentials?
And I’m also curious, what were your thoughts in 2016 when it came to the prospects of Trump and how the economy would do under his handling? If you thought he would do well handling the multitude of problems every president faces… why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
The numbers have risen so much under Biden that his administration released 50,000 people without even a court date. Hard to see a scenario where these people EVER leave the US:
This is the only real answer I’ve gotten so far. I’ve always thought US policy of letting migrants go in the US and expecting them to return was dumb, but it’s also always been US policy to my understanding.
So is this really it? It’s Biden created crisis for maintaining longstanding US policy?
Created:
Posted in:
I am constantly hearing this on Fox News and other right wing outlets. To me it just looks like another example of one side pointing to anything bad that’s happening while the other side controls the White House, then pretending it is not only worse than it’s ever been, but also pretending that what’s happening is entirely a direct result of the president’s actions.
Problem is every time I hear someone talk about this all they provide are anecdotes. Can someone please explain what the claim is exactly and support it? Would really appreciate the enlightenment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And how would you know? Credentials? Exactly. That's the problem.
Credentials is the problem? Tell me more…
Created: