EleventhHour

How can they have a military tribunal for someone who was never in the military?

That’s the point

You must not have watched the same presidential debate I did.

you mean when he kept responding to Trump’s tirade of lies? THAT was all over the place, so it makes sense that Biden would have to cover a lot of ground.

oh, no disagreement here-- but it’s either Biden or Cheeto Mussolini.

i’m glad you’re not choosing that latter!

he may hove spoken more clearly, but - by no means - is he a better speaker. he spent the entire debate incoherently spewing his unhinged conspiracy theories and lie after lie.

Biden stuttered and is old.

Neither disqualifies him for the presidency

Someone should redub that movie with all of the answers provided by ChatGPT and its voice

Until you can back up your statements with verifiable evidence, you should probably just stop

Trump lied, while Biden got his facts straight. Clearly, an old man with our best interests at heart is better than a cheap imitation of Hitler.

Removed by mod

Sealioning

Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassmentthat consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate”,[5] and has been likened to a  denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki,[7] which The Independent called “the most apt description of Twitter you’ll ever see”.[8]

Just asking questions

Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off, or as emojis: “🤔🤔🤔”[1]) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one’s opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.

The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers), and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations).

Your dissembling changes nothing. It only confirms my claim that you’re arguing in bad faith.

Thanks for that!

well i am missing your point i guess

Yes, despite it being very simple and my having explained it clearly…

sorry

No, being “confusing and distracting” by muddying the waters was you whole point. You’re clearly arguing in bad faith. It’s just that I called you out.

Facing the consequences of your actions is not a state of victimhood.

“Fuck your feelings”

— MAGA

just because I had something to add doesn’t mean I missed you point.

that’s a fine song and dance you do.

let me know when you can back up you claims with evidence, instead of showing ed hearings…

That was “my claim”.

Backed up with nothing but excuses and self-serving bullshit. You have zero evidence to back up your “claims” …

Blaming me for calling you out and then blaming both me and others for your own actions and their consequences is textbook projection.

Facing the consequences of your actions is not a state of victimhood

This appears to be an issue with accurate reporting. Considerations like this would make the data make a lot more sense.

The problem is the interpretation by those running the study.

I said “the internet”… And now you’re demanding I prove…

I asked you to prove your claims. (if you can’t, of course, nobody should believe them). Not something unrelated. But thanks for the

Red Herring

A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question.[1] It may be either a logical fallacyor a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion. A red herring may be used intentionally, as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g., in politics), or may be used in argumentation inadvertently.[2]

Why don’t you just answer the question?