Perfect....
Wow, that was fantastic.
Perfect....
Fantastic and fantastically sarcastic column by George Conway. All should read.
So no actual proof of the claim. Just a conclusion. Okay.
My favorite part: I believe absentee voting, where voters mail in their ballots, is good, and that mail- in voting, where voters mail in their ballots, is totally different, and bad — and will result in "the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election” in history. Except in Florida, where absentee and mail-in voting are the same and both good, "because Florida has got a greatFantastic and fantastically sarcastic column by George Conway. All should read.
What's up with Democrats and their "free stuff"?
If Trump is such a miserable piece of human trash then why don't you and others who feel the same way simply stick to attacking him using proven facts?I did not say that. You said that. I said this: “I’ve been following along since January, and have come to my own conclusions. You may do the same, based on what you have learned to date.” In other words, I left it up to you to answer your question. I’m not surprised you once again seem incapable of doing your own research, however. That’s usually the case with you. I would, myself, rate the claim as unproven. Not baseless, but unproven.
![]()
How Jared Kushner’s Secret Testing Plan “Went Poof Into Thin Air”
This spring, a team working under the president’s son-in-law produced a plan for an aggressive, coordinated national COVID-19 response that could have brought the pandemic under control. So why did the White House spike it in favor of a shambolic 50-state response?www.vanityfair.com
What's up with Democrats and their "free stuff"?
You have a narrow definition for “proof” and “facts”. There are certain sociocultural phenomena that don’t address themselves to the same techniques as, say, the light of a fleeing galaxy.If Trump is such a miserable piece of human trash then why don't you and others who feel the same way simply stick to attacking him using proven facts?
You have a wide definition for "proof" and "facts" if you believe that the article that resulted in this discussion (for one) proves anything. There are certain sociocultural phenomena that don't address themselves to the same techniques as, say, the words of a fleeing politician.You have a narrow definition for “proof” and “facts”. There are certain sociocultural phenomena that don’t address themselves to the same techniques as, say, the light of a fleeing galaxy.
My apologies, I assumed that if you were interested in an actual conversation, then you would have mentioned a couple of claims that stretched your version of the facts a little, some that stretched them a lot, some that seemed pretty fair even if you don’t think the evidence the author provided was as clear or solid as it could have been, etc. You know, some of the core signs that you’ve attained to the arguments with some semblance of an open mind.You have a wide definition for "proof" and "facts" if you believe that the article that resulted in this discussion (for one) proves anything. There are certain sociocultural phenomena that don't address themselves to the same techniques as, say, the words of a fleeing politician.
If Trump is such a miserable piece of human trash then why don't you and others who feel the same way simply stick to attacking him using proven facts?
Yet another potentially impeachable offense. I have literally lost count of them at this point.