Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)E
Posts
0
Comments
1398
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • I post on a message board that has absolutely nothing to do with politics. Of course, there are always topics that come up that someone has a political opinion about, so occasionally the board devolves into some political bickering.

    However, at some point, I realized every time one of the posts became political it was because a conservative brought politics into it. I thought maybe it was just my bias and overlooked it when it was a leftwing/liberal. . .but nope, every time I noticed it getting political from there on out, it was always, without a doubt, a conservative who had to bring their politics into it.

  • Agree your logic is questionable, at best.

  • Failed to win either major party’s nomination.

    You failed to win the nomination, so by your logic you're a fascist. I can't make sense of this.

    And I thought we were talking about the two people who did win the nomination of their major party.

    This isn’t a game of “gotcha"

    You were clearly trying to pretend you caught them admitting Harris is a fascist. You can't play gotcha and then claim you aren't playing gotcha.

  • Someone who isn't fascist at all is less fascist than a fascist. This isn't the gotcha you desperately want it to be.

  • I’m just happy to see users calling out these bullshit articles taking shit outta context.

    But what bothers me is that even when the blatant deception is pointed out, you still have a large percentage of people here actually defending such bullshit.

  • Then don’t. You aren’t obligated to defend him.

    Really they are just defending honest assessments of facts. Unfortunately, because the title of the article is so disgustingly disingenuous and blatantly misleading, it led a lot of people to believe his statement is blatantly hypocritical. . .so by pointing out reality you are actually "defending Trump."

    You are all but admitting that reality doesn't matter. Sounds exactly like Trump supporters. Please don't be like them.

  • "loaded"? Lol. It's a blatant lie.

  • The title is basically a blatant lie, easily shown to be deceptive simply by reading the article.

    Yet look at this comments section and how many people have bought the deception hook, line, and sinker.

    We shit on Republuicans for being idiots who support Trump, which is true, but it's almost like we are trying to out-stupid them.

  • Go out and do an informal poll of the people you know and ask them who they think is a worse human.

  • If one has more power, they are likely to do more harm in the world, regardless of how shitty they are of a human being. While I have no love affair with Cheney, he is not the absolutely piece of human garbage that Duke is.

    You think that people here are defending Cheney, but really it's you defending Duke.

  • Are you suggesting that Cheney and Duke are equivalent?

  • So...you lie about what a poster said and then block them when they call out your lie. This is an incredible level of intellectual cowardice.

  • Lol in what fantasy world have I been defending David Duke?

  • What am I supposed to do? Repeated that an endorsement is a one way thing?

  • And she denounced him. So clearly she doesn't want it either.

  • I made my point and can defend it. You just hand waved it away with some empty accusation.

    It's clear who has more faith in their position. Both you and I know it too.

  • The association alone is damning

    He just said he supports her. That's not an association. He agrees with her on her policy towards Israel. Unless you think her policy towards Israel is unreasonable and only would be held by a white supremacist, then its a ridiculous position to try and maintain, because it basically says that anyone who opposes us support of Israel agrees with David Duke and thus is "associated" with him.

  • It’s stupid if you ignore the context of why people would have a problem with it, Taco.

    I'm not ignoring any context. It was a picture provided with no context.

    The context you've now provided "There is no good reason for her to be having dinner with Vladimir Putin," is stated as if it is a priori, but it's not.

    And that seems to be your whole point: it's damning because she shouldn't have been there, because I say it's damning that she is there. It's circular. The reality is that because you can't explain it, it's suspicious, not damning. And I agree with that. It should raise suspicions. You're confusing your suspicion with knowing something.

    You still haven’t explained why it’s okay for Stein to be having dinner with Michael Flynn and Vladimir Putin.

    That's not how it works. You're the one claiming something nefarious. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying the evidence provided of your claim is "r/conspiracy levels of stupid" as it's one of their favorite pieces of non-evidence.

  • You really think being photographed with someone is damning evidence? No offense, but that's /r/conspiracy levels of stupid.