Total posts: 866
-->
@Mall
Polls change.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
People who vote pro choice don't vote for Trump even with a states rights concession.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Fine, but I didn't know you trusted Ivy League schools.
Created:
-->
@Savant
If you're a blue person living in a red area or vice versa, then it's just a 6 hour drive in most cases.People are lazier than you think.
I don't think that's true.
It happened with India/Pakistan; they just split upI don't think the cultural difference in the US is that big. Throw politics aside, and Democrats and Republicans are more similar to each other than they are to people in other countries.
The same is true with India/Pakistan; they were similar; but their religion was different.
Why would Canadians look down on blue America?Pride.
Sounds pretty weird.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
What makes Trump more credible than Harris here (other than who you initially agreed with)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If No (the typical MAGA response), then can you please explain how you square your belief that someone whose words are not to be taken seriously can be fit for the most serious job on earth?
Because to them, politics is a joke; it's a team sport.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Undoubtedly most people's lives would be improved by following those guidelines but I find it unethical to regulate.
I agree, but that's why I said encourage. My plate is what the government currently recommends. What would you recommend in it's place?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Snowflake alert.
Created:
-->
@Savant
Best chance of that was the Civil War.
It's different because that was a policy disagreement; the south wanted slaves because without them, the south was worried their economy would collapse. There were also no cars back then, meaning that if you were a Northerner and you liked slavery, then tough luck. If you're a blue person living in a red area or vice versa, then it's just a 6 hour drive in most cases.
Good luck motivating people now when physical region correlates much less with political views.
It happened with India/Pakistan; they just split up (and they didn't have cars; they had to walk). Americans have as easier time going to their side of the Harrica/Trumplica border.
Canadians looks down on Blue America too.
Why would Canadians look down on blue America? Blue America gives Anglophone Ontario and the rest of Anglophone Canada a bridge to the Anglophone Atlantic provinces.
The Neville Chamberlain strategy.
What's that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Would you want the government to encourage people to eat foods that put them more in the blue zone?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
It's a matter of condoning literal murder or not, not one of bodily autonomy and the left actually admitted bodily atlutonomy was not their concern when it came to vaccine mandates.
I was libertarian on the vax mandates at the height of the COVID pandemic. Although, getting a shot is much less of a violation of bodily autonomy than 9 months of pregnancy. I'm one of the few people that prefers Harris to Trump that also prefers RFK to Harris.
As far as male bodily autonomy is concerned. What is the selective service?
A draft that should end. End the wars! Conscription is slavery (and Harris just like Trump should get called out for not ending the draft).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
You do know that economic interventionism causes hunger right? How many people started under Mao?
A lot, but it's irrelevant because the left is advocating copying Norway; not China. If they were identical, then either there would be massive amounts of starvation in both or neither.
Chocolate and shit both look similar. It's easy to tell the difference.
Wrong. whiteflame and Barney are not retarded but prefer kamala. I am sure if you ask their arguments for why, it would be better than the easily disprovavble shit that you say.
I doubt it. I'm just blunt and state the truth. I don't know their styles much, but they prefer Euphemisms and decorum (which is fine if that's how they like to operate). I'm just blunt; kindof like Trump.
Yes and this is why people are literally crying that he said he would veto a federal ban on abortion.
Are you one of those people that is upset with Trump over this?
If yes, then how is a zygote a human being when in the womb, but not the IVF test tube?
If no, then do you want abortion banned because you think it's murder?
If yes, then why don't you criticize Trump on it?
If no, then why don't you want it legal nationwide?
Created:
Of course, if it was the opposite, then Trump would claim it's rigged.
Since the tide is against Harris now, it means it's not rigged and she should get out there and state policies like what MAGA claims they want her to do (hint: she's done that here and MAGA world can find literally no disagreement with it and they will still not vote for her because they will vote for Trump no matter what because MAGA world does not care about policy). They're in a cult and I don't see how anyone can disagree with that at this point. If they get angry at me for being unhinged; then I can respond that Trump is more unhinged; he called the left the enemy of the people; I'm merely wanting people to break out of a cult.
This is why America needs to break up; red America can have Trump as their King; I won't care; I don't live there. Blue America can get annexed by Canada so we still have free and fair elections (that MAGA only thinks are free and fair if Trump wins). MAGA calls every democrat POTUS candidate radical left; if the democrats had RFK be their candidate, then MAGA would eventually call RFK radical left (as Trump has done before and MAGA world eats it up without thinking).
Lets just split up at this point. Trump can have an absolute monarchy in red America; I just want no part of it in New England.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
The important part is he did what his voters wanted.
And his voters are wrong on the issue of valuing male bodily autonomy more than women's in any state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
So say no chasing takes place and Trump wins by 2% they may have the ability to pictor that but not a 5% difference.
What would make you say that. Most battleground states have millions of voters; your whole friend group may be entirely MAGA and you therefore assume it's similar across the whole state; it isn't.
But if they really wanted to rig the election, then they can just say that Trump won TX, "by a whisker", flip all the battleground states to make them blue by 3-5 pts; and Florida goes blue by 2 (this is regardless of actual voter turnout; 90% of TX could vote for Trump and you have no idea unless the election results say so).
If you think Trump won in AZ and GA in 2020, then how many votes did Trump get vs Biden? I would just trust the results (like I did with FL in 2020 which in prior elections, it was very close). Not anymore though.
Texas has some very blue parts; NY has some very red parts. No one person counts 160 million votes.
There is a reason everyone hates boomers right now and it's because you don't get to escape responsibility for auctioning your kids future.
I don't hate my boomer grandfather; I barely see him.
Created:
Posted in:
Pro UD: 5 (Korea, FLRW, Savant, GP, Mark Webber)
Anti UD: empty set.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Trump is pro choice, but he was elected by conservative Christians and wanted to give them a win so he elected judges who would overturn Roe vs Wade.
So he did what he did for votes and not based on what he believes?
I would say the damage is even lower than you think since every state has exceptions for health of the mother.
I'm only fine with a state banning abortion (violating bodily autonomy to prevent zygote homicide) if they also ban IVF and premarital vaginal sex for unvasectomized men because of the pregnency that can be produced as a result (birth control pills aren't effective enough when used in practice) to prevent zygote homicide.
If the standard is consistent for both genders, then fine. But don't give men bodily autonomy and also not give it to women. Treat them the same.
Created:
Posted in:
Trump said he wants abortion up to the states.
The only reason a state would want to ban abortion is if they see it as murder.
But if you think abortion is murder, then you'd want it banned everywhere.
His argument is different entities have their own views on abortion so local entities should make the call. However, the most local government out there is the individual person, so from that perspective, if you're being consistent, then individuals would get to decide if abortion is legal for their own bodies (until the moment of birth, if we're really going to let local entities decide their own policies just like the policy in Alaska). Jennifer might be willing to abort at 29 weeks; Sabrina might be willing to abort until 20 weeks; Emily and Fiona might be a bit more conservative since they go to church; they might ban themselves from allowing abortion to be done to their territory.
The most logical interpretation of Trump's, "leave it up to the states because it's more decentralized" is to decentralize it up to each individual person (and if this means some people will abort late term for whatever reason they want, then so be it).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
Six dollars isn't much to give for the privilege of voting.
But MAGA people know in a nation of 160 million voters, one vote doesn't change an election that big (which is irrelevant if it didn't cost you anything, but it does).
It makes more sense to give your favorite candidate $3 so they can reach out to more people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
So I'd they can fudge the numbers by 10% we need to vote 10% harder or something.
If they really want to fudge the numbers, then Trump can win 90% of the vote in an area and they can easily edit it to be 10%.
They won't be that obvious; but they may make North Carolina go 51% D, 49% R even if 60% vote R in that state. It could be 90% R, the elites can make it 51.5% D.
If you really think the elites will rig the results no matter what, then don't vote and save money on gas.
Even if kamala wins though and the country slowly turns into Venezuela as a result, if you vote at least you can say that it's not your fault and escape responsibility
If the election was between Mr. Rogers and Adolf Hitler (you think Harris is more like Hitler, I think Trump is; it's irrelevant for my point), and you vote for Hitler, he can do very horrible stuff. You don't have to take any responsibility for how you voted; you can just say you regret is and it doesn't matter. No legal punishment for voting for Hitler. If everyone who votes for Hitler changes their mind, then the issue is settled and the group doesn't get judged. Reagan and JFK supported segregation in the 1940s, nobody used it against them because society moved on by then.
Created:
Posted in:
Feel free to share this with everyone you know chain reaction style.
The average Trump voter in a small town has to drive 20 miles to the polls; 40 miles round trip. Assuming 20 mpg, this is 2 gallons ($4/gallon), means voting for Trump costs $6 for them.
If Trump will easily win the election (or the elites will rig it so Harris easily wins), then there is no point in wasting $8 for an election already settled with the price of gas in this economy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
I don't like either one, I prefer Harris to Trump, I say, "Ka-MA-luh".
Really, does this matter? I don't care if you say I-RACK or A-Rock (Iraq). We still killed a lot of stranger mother fuckers.
Stop with this petty bullshit!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
3-0.
I disagree with the UD sometimes. We can't be the same person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, I did think everyone would encourage suicide of pedophiles since pedophiles are so bad for society, but most people dont for some reason. At least not here. I dont know why.
Peer pressure.
People on DART tend to have higher IQs than non DARTers. Low IQ people are easily susceptible to peer pressure (with that comes caring about their reputation and fitting in).
It is socially taboo to encourage suicide and to support pedophiles (defined as respecting their right to life). I ran an experiment with 3 people who I know are low IQ. I asked them if someone was considering suicide, then what would they do? They said they would want to get that person help. I then asked, "What if that person is a pedophile?" They couldn't respond because they didn't know what was socially acceptable to say (prevent suicide or to be sadistic to pedophiles).
People on DART are more likely to have higher IQs and therefore, are more willing to be an ideological minority on an issue they actually believe in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Thank you for your vote:
Pro UD: 2 (Korea, FLRW)
Anti UD: empty set.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Thanks for the vote.
I thought everyone would encourage the suicide of a pedophile because there's comfort in saying what you actually think if 80-90% of the population encourages you to do it.
Created:
Posted in:
I would like to be able to post images without a link. I like my identity being hidden.
Created:
Posted in:
The US should end illegal immigration with open borders so nobody would be here illegally (debateart.com) post 37 indicates a pro underdog position.
I've heard people disapproving of him though. I've never heard this sentiment about anyone on DART so quickly.
But yeah, do you like or dislike underdog? This doesn't effect me personally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MarkWebberFan2
Honestly, I liked the Underdog as well. I can start criticizing the left as well if you want to balance things out.
I probably should conduct a poll as to what people thought of the underdog. I've heard a lot of positive and negative things about him. I'm new to the site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
So there will be some selection bias. You won't get a completely random population.
That's fine. Like, if you can't afford to move, then don't move. I don't support giving randos in Serbia free trips to America.
why would any jobs get higher wages?
Lets say a place has 300 million people and 30000 Actuaries. The ratio of people to Actuaries is 10K:1.
Lets say the population quintiples: 1.5 billion people and 75000 Actuaries. The ratio of people to Actuaries is 20K:1. The demand for Actuaries relative to the supply has doubled, leading to higher wages for Actuaries.
It takes time for infrastructure to be built and for businesses to expand to take advantage of the new work force.
Tell that to the Pilgrims. They built their settlement in 1-2 months with hunger, no bulldozers, and no mexicans.
It will be easy to acclimate the new population that won't have hunger (construction sites have food), a bunch of bulldozers, and a bunch of hard working Mexicans. I swear, their tacos and marajuana gives those Pablos and Javiers energy. I'm joking.
Over the long term things will eventually recover, but that could take decades (depending on how many people you are talking about).
It will probably take a few months.
because if you have enough housing for 1 million people, then suddenly have 2 million people, now you have 1 million homeless people. Over the course of years, you would be able to build more housing, expand businesses to make jobs for them etc. But if you do it too fast, you create poverty and death.
Tell that to the pilgrims; you can't go too fast.
They had lots of workers working on 1 single project.
That 1 project housed more people than the number of workers making that one project. Therefore, you won't need 1 billion people making 1 billion projects; maybe 1 million (1000 people per building).
building regulations aren't just about making sure it doesn't fall down. They are about making sure it's safe.
Empire State building was safe.
They are about making sure it is energy efficient (you wouldn't want to have to build a million coal power plants because you built shoddy housing with bad insolation).
They did this with the Empire State building.
Skipping them might let you build faster (it also might not) but you are going to get lower quality buildings and have alot more problems down the road.
The Empire State building is very high quality and has no major problems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
If you allow too many people with the exact same skill sets into the country in a very short period of time, you create a large amount of unemployment.
This is true, but if open borders happens, then it's not like every person coming here is going to be a car mechanic. Some jobs immigrants would be more likely to do; others they would be less likely to do. Some jobs will get lower wages, other jobs will get higher wages. People who work the low wage jobs might find a higher wage job and systemically, everything sorts it's self out.
There's no problem with a city growing, but if it doubles of triples in population in a year, that is going to cause TONS of problems.
Why? It's like Dallas turning into Chicago (a city with about twice as many people).
If you could magically drop a billion people in the US tomorrow, most would die from starvation, exposure etc. There simply isn't enough housing, hospitals, grocery store etc to support that many people. And you can't possibly build enough to support them quickly enough to keep them alive.
You sure about that? The empire state building was built in only 1 year (and the building still stands). Imagine how quickly a supermarket can be built iff you have 1940 style building regulations (what the empire state building was subject too and it still stands).
Created:
Posted in:
I'm the blue zone
Define the blue zone.
you can attribute to the amount t of processed foods eaten though.
But I would imagine European food is often about as processed as American food. Maybe 20% less, but if a European wants to eat a hamburger, then they will eat a hamburger.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Life expectancy is more strongly correlated with lifestyle choices. Those on a Stadard american diet do worse than people on plant based diets.
Thanks for continuing the script.
Me: The vast majority of Americans and Europeans eat meat.
But if you make this claim, then do you believe being plant based is good?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If that's the goal, then it's a pretty useless warning. 1 person beng jailed (or even killed) would intimidate an ideolgical group if they made up 1% of the population and 99% hated them enough to want to prosecute them; but not when they make up roughly half of the population.
If any POTUS candidate was liked by only 1% of the population, then they would not be POTUS or be any serious threat to power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Those who are moving for an emergency, IE refugees, and those who are moving for a better life. For those moving for a better life, you want to make sure that them moving benefits your nation.
I would assume the vast majority (maybe even over 99%) of the migrants and refugees increase the power of the nation. A store can have 70% of it's customers be below the poverty line and they don't care; they'll take what they can get.
70% of our migrants might have not a lot of skills; we'll take what we can get.
We probably could kick them off of welfare (and if their children starve, then so be it). If you would be willing to give their children lifesaving welfare but not let the migrants be in the country, then that position makes no sense.
There's no way the infrastructure of Canada could handle that.
If the infrastructure of America can't handle 1.2 billion migrants, then you just build more infrastructure.
For the refugees, it's less about "does it benefit your country" and more about helping people in need.
I don't want to help any poor refugees fiscally; if they starve, then I don't care. My $100 matters more than their children's lives, but George Soros'es (or Elon Musk's) $100 matters less to me than their children's lives. If they come here and starve, then it's not my problem; you can raise taxes on George Soros, but not me. George Soros'es net worth and Elon Musk's met worth are irrelevent to me.
You also want to make sure that they are actually refugees and not just economic migrants trying to jump the line.
I hope they are economic migrants and not refugees; they're richer; more productive. Why turn down any economic migrants?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And the US has some of the strictest anti speeding laws in the world (some of the lowest speed limits). That doesn't mean they heavily enforce the law.
In Canada, my guess is about 40% of the population believes Caitlyn Jenner is a man. They aren't going to jail 40% of their population.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
The economic freedom index would have those things lower the economic freedom of the United States, you would have to simultaneously do that while also eliminating taxes or something to make up for it.
Why? Scandinavia has really high taxes and they have a higher amount of economic freedom?
I would say though that the scandinavian countries could have an even higher standard of living by dropping the policies you recommend.
But then their economic freedom would drop to be more like ours.
What right wing fiscal policies does Scadinavia have where the US has a left wing counterpart policy?
Please read the following article to know why what you suggest is evil.
They cite Fraser institute.
Fraser Institute - Wikipedia is biased.
Now, what I would do is common sense: Cite life expectancy of the countries with UHC vs the ones without it (assuming they are all 1st world). Let me know what you get.
Life expectancy won't be a biased measure I think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Canada literally tries to end free speech. They literally tried to end Jordan Petersons career for not endorsing woke politics.
That's a public figure; not people in the office. I'm just operating off of what I've heard online.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Once again look at the starvation levels in countries that try to have the most economic interventiomism like north Korea, Venezuela and China.America becoming like those cou tries would result in more children starving
Why not Scadinavia (which people want to copy and not North Korea, China, etc)?
You would say:
These places have more economic freedom than the US.
To which I say:
Ok; so then get Universal healthcare and massive welfare like Scadinavia to increase our economic freedom
And you never rebut that.
So do you want to murder children like an evil piece of shit or are you just retarded and don't see that taking cou tries lower in the economic freedom index is bad and will have the same results it has always had for the last few hundred years
Neither; you are the retarted one for not continuing the script.
The script:
Me: Lets have more free stuff!
You: That's socialism!
Me: Scandinavia has more free stuff and they are more successful!
You: These places have more economic freedom than the US.
Me: Ok; so then get Universal healthcare and massive welfare just like Scandinavia to increase our economic freedom.
You: ABC
Please state what ABC is or accept UHC to turn us more into Scandinavia to increase our economic freedom.
And if you like your own comments, then publicly own it so people know the obvious claim that you agree with everything you write the moment you write it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Food insecurity is not a useful statistics because of how prevalent food banks are and other resources like soup kitchens.
So because of welfare (that the conservatives want to cut, leading to more children starving unless they can send enough charity work to equal the loss of welfare funding (which if they could, then they would have already done it). Since they haven't, it means that private charity won't be enough to feed starving children and the government must force people to pay more in taxes to save the poor children.
Cutting welfare -> more children's deaths because assuming charity will fill the void is wishful thinking.
Cutting welfare -> more children's deaths because assuming charity will fill the void is wishful thinking.
Are you liking your own comments again? Are you that desperate for approval?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
But Canada doesn't have more free speech than the US.
It depends on which perspective you're talking about.
From a governmental perspective, the US government is more pro free speech than the Canadian government. You can say more offensive speech in the US than Canada and not get in legal trouble.
From a social perspective, the US society is less pro free speech than the Canadian society. If I'm in an office in Toronto and talk politics with people, then I'm way less likely to lose my job than if I do it in America.
Not being thrown in jail for what you post on the internet doesn' matter if it makes you unemployable perminatly.
Created:
Posted in:
In America, talking politics at work is considered taboo. In Canada, it isn't; it's a literal pastime in Canada (it's like talking about baseball in the US).
Canadians on average therefore, talk more about politics than Americans do.
This is why Canada is so much more left wing than America. Free speech turns people closer to Canada's leftism over America's conservatism.
If right wingers like free speech so much, then alright; but keep in mind free speech shifts people to the left on average (at least on the Canada, America spectrum).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
To change my mind on Trump you would have tondo one of the following.1. Prove Kamala Harris is more of a paleo conservative than Trump2. Prove that both would move the country the same direction towards or away from the paleo conservative vision for the country.
Or I could argue Paleo conservatism is bad and should not be adopted as a belief.
Paleo conservatism:
Paleoconservatives support restrictions on immigration, decentralization, trade tariffs and protectionism, economic nationalism, isolationism, and a return to traditional conservative ideals relating to gender, race, sexuality, culture, and society.[20]Paleoconservatism differs from neoconservatism in opposing free trade and promoting republicanism. Paleoconservatives see neoconservatives as imperialists and themselves as defenders of the republic.[21][22]
- Immigration: The US should have open borders because more people -> more GDP and that's how we stay ahead of China. It also is good for family values, because seperating parents from kids -> less single motherhood. They say, "The law" (that should change) but then advocate changing the law in the wrong direction (ending birthright citizenship). They do not consistently support the law, only sadistic policies to immigrants (that if they were white, then they could be undocumented and you wouldn't care (like Trump's wife for a while)).
- Decentralization: In what way?
- Trade tariffs: Free trade is the best for America and job growth.
- Nationalism: In what way?
- Isolationism: In what way?
- Right wing RSG views: Irrelevent; black people cheer for blacks, white people cheer for whites. Women and men tend to cheer for their own respective gender. I don't care about someone's RSG views as they tend to reflect characteristics they were born with.
- Anti-abortion: Abortion should be legal and you agree with this. Paleo cons want to ban abortion from conception (which you don't agree with)
- Homophobia: Homophobia is bad.
Paleoconservatism is a bad ideology and you should agree with that. If you don't, then defend Paleo conservatism.
So know you claiming that literally murdering a baby is equal to IVF treatment isn't going to move me, neither is some retarded argument that aborting a baby is equivalent to stem cell research going to move me.
Paleo cons want to ban abortion from conception (so they think a zygote is a human being).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Because I think everyone watching this can agree with me when I say this.
1. Harris can say, "Kick out the whites. America is for natives and POCs only. I'm not racist; whites have Europe. I'm just looking out for my people!" and I would call her out on it and state how horrible she is and how much I would not vote for her (I would even prefer Trump to Harris if this happens), but if Trump says, "Kick out the blacks; they have Africa; America is a white country. I'm not racist; blacks have Africa. I'm just looking out for my people", then not only will the MAGA base (including Wylted) not consider it a deal breaker, they would change their minds and agree with Trump on it.
That lets you know who really has the higher IQ (me or Wylted). My policies I think through, his policies Trump thinks through.
Wylted won't deny my bullet point because he knows it's undeniably correct and the same is true with virtually every person that supports Trump to this day.
If any of the viewers of this comment talk politics on their own, then state my bullet point, modify it as you see fit, and expose people for who they really are.
If they say, "If Trump said that, then I would criticize him", then ask if it's a deal breaker. If they say no, then you still expose them. If they say yes, then gradually whittle down the level of seriousness that they consider to be a deal breaker (you could add, "If Trump came out as supporting killing unborn babies"), then they're broken down to the point where they would say yes. Then you show Trump defending free IVF and state how IVF kills zygotes (which they argue are unborn babies).
I don't see how a MAGA person who doesn't tolerate a POTUS they believe is racist can respond to that. It's a knockout punch, and I think this image is appropriate.
America vs Russia. We know who MAGA sides with; who do you side with? I side with the country they call woke. Well, you know what they say:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
@WyIted
Oh; I see you gave 3 likes to your stupidist comment on here (and 0 to the other ones just to show how desperate you are for validation that you have to inflate your approval using spam accounts). Your other comments here you were at least making points where I could see someone agreeing with you. I guarantee you, every like I've gotten on here that I can remember (except the ones where I'm open that I liked my own comment) were from other users. Your likes are inflated by multi accounts that you control and the mods should look into it; I've tagged a few (especially since they came all at once). So voter fraud that I believe is legitimate (and I have screenshots to prove this in case he tries to fix his mistake in hiding up voter fraud which I should have grabbed last time but hey; not even me (the cream of the crop) is perfect). But you learn from mistakes. I think Wylted is doing voter fraud (either that or he is so desperate to find conservatives who actually like his stuff just to inflate the numbers).
In other words:
My muscles: image1
Wylted's muscles: image2
Note: Anytime Wylted gets any likes at all; anyone reading this comment should assume they are all his own multi accounts that do it. I think the mods should investigate Wylted for multi accounting.
And then he will call DART a leftist haven (which is code for a reality haven) and cry and complain about being the victim like a little child. You how these people react to critisism; it's like Napolean Dynomite challanging the Rock to an arm wrestling contest (except he claims it's rigged when the Rock wins and the Rock is somehow cheating).
He's not cheating; he's just better at his craft of being strong; just like my craft of being smart is better than Wylted. At least Napolean has enough common sense to either not challange the Rock or if he does, then he knows he will lose and accept it. Wylted doesn't have the guts because this is Wylted. Not just a a chicken, but a roasted chicken, served up by yours truly.
This chicken might still be alive and might need more roasting. I will let the main course decide for himself; I'm only a chef, but bon-appitit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
You have an IQ lower than most black men
Would you say that of the people that liked every one of my comments on this thread (and to prove that the current one like isn't me, I will like all of my comments on this thread so you can see that someone else liked it (so you should be able to see 2 likes)? I think one of the likes is from FLRW, who went college (Harvard) and has an LGBTQ studies degree (not the conventional LGBTQ degree; a Lets Go Build Trucks Quickly degree (aka engineering)). Ivy League; so woke and snowflake that Ben Shapiro went there.
You can't understand my argument and come up with a decent rebuttal except having to resort to childish, SJW insults; I would say that's pretty low IQ behavior right there.
The right on UHC:
Me: Lets have UHC!
MAGA: That's SOCIALISM!
Me: Norway has it and they aren't socialist!
MAGA: They are capitalist with social programs! They have MORE economic freedom than the US!
(
Me: Alright; lets have capitalism with social programs and gain economic freedom!
MAGA: NO! That's SOCIALISM!!
Me: Norway has it!
MAGA: They are capitalist with social programs! They have MORE economic freedom than the US!
)
This part repeats indefinitely.
Created: