I mean, the dude used to be at Binance. This isn’t someone making good decisions.

Sure bud.

I bet you can also safely check your texts while driving without missing anything on the road.

People who are like this should really try to train their hearing better. You miss so much about the composition of a shot when you’re reading subtitles.

Imagine if every painting in an art museum had a QR code pasted on top of it, or if every scenic overlook had glass you had to look through that had text explaining what it was you were looking at.

They have beliefs, and if you don’t understand that you can’t understand them. If you don’t understand them you can’t beat them. Sticking your head in the sand or lying to yourself isn’t going to help.

Why so defensive buddy?

You also don’t need to lie about their beliefs. When you do that, it just makes people wonder why you’re lying and why you can’t stick to the truth if your point is so strong.

Apparently you don’t understand Schrodinger.

The rest of us are laughing at you, so you could try that?

I’m just letting you prove it yourself.

Op Eds are obviously influenced by the bias of the newspaper that runs them. But, there’s no need to veer into conspiracy theories just because two of them happen to be anti-Obama for different reasons.

Not to any particular person, just fair to the truth of the situation. You know, not whacking at straw men.

Apparently so. You seem surprised that there were two people who had different opinions on the same page in the Op Eds. That’s what Op Eds are.

Again, I ask, are you familiar with the concept of an Op Ed? Or are you just confused that people might have different opinions?

She should prove that she would do it, and the only way to do it would be to set up a realistic scenario in which someone is taking a shot at Trump and she jumps in front of him. Everything else is just bragging or idle speculation.

To be fair, they have a problem with trans women in women’s sports. They don’t have a problem with trans men in men’s sports because they can’t imagine a situation where a trans man could possibly compete with “real” men.

It goes along with their idea that women are weak, so women are weak athletes and women’s sports teams are weak. If you accept that, it’s not a big stretch to think that someone who has gone through puberty as a male will have an automatic huge advantage in every women’s sport because their body has male characteristics.

On the other hand to them, the military is the ultimate in manly activities. Anybody other than a pure, manly man will be at a disadvantage in anything military. That includes trans men, trans women and regular women. Right now the focus is on trans people, but I’m sure they’ll want to kick women out of the military too eventually.

So, if you accept that logic, it makes sense that trans women are too weak for the military, but too strong for women’s sports. There’s no contradiction there.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of an Op Ed?

Not only is it what Op Eds are for, it’s also extremely common practice to have two contrasting views on the same page to give voice to a variety of different opinions.

Complaining about two Op Eds on the same page with different opinions is like complaining that a dictionary has two definitions of two different words on the same page.

To stealman it

Is that when you steal your talking points from someone else?

That’s how some democracy sometimes works. Sometimes supermajorities are required in democracies. Who cares about what the majority wants? Why should that be the only thing that counts?

Yeah, and that’s why it should be a cautionary tale for all other hugely important referendums.

Sometimes things getting done is a good thing.

Why does 50%+1 represent the will of the people?