As with all things regressive, their whole truck is to treat their own viewpoint as a default state, and then try to force everyone else to argue around it, which allows them to steer the discussion and eventual outcome.
When they’re headed off on one avenue they pivot, but this is the consistent direction of almost all regressive talking points.
These folks won’t witness it either. Not with that eye anyway.
This was a large part of the discussion in Europe at the end of WW2.
Germany wasn’t the only country trying to decide an answer to “the Jewish question.” Some advocates may have had good intentions, but many just didn’t want to open their borders to Jewish refugees, and the idea of Israel was a convenient way for them to wash their hands of it.
Many governmental entities will not contract with companies that “boycott Israel.”
This, of course, is poorly defined. And is being litigated in Michigan, I believe.
But the argument from regressive AGs is that boycott is not speech - it’s action, and therefore they are permitted to enforce a ban on that action.
Pretty shit tier argument, and one that will probably bite them in the ass if there’s any chance of consistency from the supreme court (slim chance.)
The hypocrisy is the point.
Not the original person you responded to, but I type 120ish wpm. The trick is to try to tap into the same part of your brain that verbalizes words when you talk, rather than the part that composes stuff when you write.
This. It’s all a giant, “Nuh-uh, you!”
They create a specious argument, present it as a straw man of “what democrats want,” and then ridicule it as if they didn’t make the whole thing up themselves.
It’s dumb as shit, but it’s all on purpose. These people are ivy League lawyers who took speech and debate. They know what a fallacy is, they just choose to use it for its effectiveness in mass psychology rather than actually governing or leading.
They understand. They just know if they say the shitty thing, it will give their bubba voters a misogyny hardon, which translates directly to votes.
There’s a concept in politics called the gish-gallop. Also called firehose of lies. It’s a time honored tradition, but in the past it was usually multiple people spewing crazy shit until they got called out too hard, at which point they’d quiet down and someone else would rotate in to take the heat.
With the way congressional districts are drawn, and now that they’ve seen Trump successfully accomplish this as a single person, to me the simplest explanation becomes that these liars lie because they know there won’t be any immediate consequences, and that the more they can squeeze out, the less likely any given piece of it will be addressed.
Russia stopped pushing Jill Stein quite so hard once they compromised the major parties (democrats by releasing their emails, republicans by using their email trove as kompromat.)
Most people consider conversations ended if neither party adds anything for a space of time.
A reasonable space of time is definitely overnight.
Just remember that it’s business. It should be boring. They raised your rate, it isn’t worth that price to you, and be bored with asking them to process the cancellation.
If it is worth some price to you, they may offer you another deal. Know what you’re willing to accept, but don’t expect anything.
Also, you may be able to bypass all of this by checking to see if you can cancel from their app or website.
Rob’s is assuming he 1) sees everything, 2).didn’t or can’t miss anything important, and 3) that his interpretation is correct.
That’s why it’s arrogant and stupid and people get annoyed.
Seriously, have you never been upset or hurt and had someone try to tell you that you’re not?
Thanks for the clarification. It’s hard to keep up with all of his cases.
Agreed, but this is one of the problems with our election system - there’s a long, informal wind up, during which we let these private entities use the election systems owned by the states, and then a pretty short official period.
The state by state filing deadlines spread from now-ish all the way to march.
Because he’s not running for president yet.
He’s running for the private nomination of a private party. If he wins, he will be running for president. But states will still need to wait until he files to be on the ballot, because that’s what needs to be blocked.
I don’t like it either, but it’s not actually crazy. Yet.
Same as last time - undoing the budget surplus, massive tax giveaways to oil and gas, and shutting off the tap to anything that helps anyone who doesn’t give campaign contributions. Last time, they closed all of our state hospitalsand laid off large swathes of the state work force, and bankrupted the state’s employee insurance fund. This time, I am willing to bet they gut the emergency fund at the first opportunity.
There’s room for being understanding - but these bad faith actors use our willingness to give the benefit of the doubt so that they can build plausible deniability for themselves, while never intending to operate in good faith.
Imo, three strikes and you’re a shill.
He’s deliberately provoking so he can claim Persecution Points. It’s the biggest PP he’s got.
Is he granting permission? This should be exhibit one in any cases against someone punching him in the face.
Lol what?
There are no empty spots for them to claim, and I highly doubt you can draw a line anywhere that would work. They tried that with India/Pakistan and it was an absolute cluster.
This isn’t like the civil war where it was regional. This is a lifestyle divide.