Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

That’s true. It also doesn’t invalidate it if I do waste it though. OK, bye

That’s normal relatively to two senile Hitlers without taste

Removed by mod

Tulsi, Vivek, RFK, NIki…

It’s funny that half the people in that list (Tulsi and RFK) are actually pretty normal (relatively, of course). Better than both running candidates.

OK, I haven’t even been in the US, so just an outside opinion.

May have been both. Just like with Biden, there may be people feeling that their party should win, but not with such a candidate.

Removed by mod

The shooter was killed by Secret Service.

Very convenient.

A “false flag assassination attempt” is not as hard to rig if you know it won’t be properly investigated.

You are making a good example of a person who maybe thinks they can argue in good faith but very clearly doesn’t, with emotional pressure and such.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Well, this comment of yours doesn’t look like a good faith argument.

What I meant is that it takes two sides for one. And when two people are ready to argue in good faith, one may downgrade the level of contention from “argue” to “discuss” without any loss.

(For me and my sister it would still be “argue”, but we are just rude to each other.)

Removed by mod

That would be try to attract people outside of social media, not try to divert them inside social media where you’ll waste energy

it necessarily widens the debate-space from an unopposed confident statement to a dialogue that the onlooker can take into consideration while making their own decision.

That part would be right if we weren’t talking about social media, which are designed to neuter this effect.