581–590 of 615 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A) that’s a very biased view of it that you clearly are emotionally invested in B) an encyclopedia should describe all things factually. It’d be one thing if it described it as truth, but describing it truthfully is far different
A) Non-argument. B) Repositories of knowledge should not contain anti-knowledge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A) Non-argument. B) Repositories of knowledge should not contain anti-knowledge.
Since you can just counter anything I say with calling it “anti-knowledge,” I’ll leave you with a profound quote: “That’s just like, your opinion, man”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can read a summary on his Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avi_Loeb#Claims_about_alien_li...
I note that article seems quite biased against Loeb. For example, they cite USA Today strongly criticizing him, which is not a reputable source in this debate. Wikipedia also doesn't mention that many other astrophysicists think that his 'Oumuamua theory is unlikely but not crazy. They only cite very negative criticism, but not the many more neutral responses. They also don't mention that he is far from the only one…
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avi_Loeb&action=e...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
people are dying in camps but go off
thats about all i expected from you. you dont have a source
https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/deaths-a...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The blatant dumpty astroturfers are getting annoying, aren't they?
Being a dunce seems more likely than taking cash from the Russians but what do I know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s also all the crime trump and his cronies are trying to distract from that they’re doing by ignoring laws and taking bribes and stuff.
Yeah, but like whatabout…
What about all the red states who started the gerrymandering?
That’s the real question.
Why are you calling out one but not the other?
Because you’re a partisan hack
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are technicalities around all of this yes, but we used to have a Department of War with multiple branches of the military under it. Now we have a Department of War with multiple branches of the military under it. It's only named by executive order, which in practice is almost indistinguishable outside of some paperwork that few people will ever see. It's largely the spirit of the thing and the shift in communic…
> we used to have a Department of War with multiple branches of the military under it. No, we didn't. When the Department of War existed, it had exactly one branch under it, the Army. The Navy (including the Marine Corps)—as well as, in time of war only, the Coast Guard—was under the Department of the Navy, which was a separate cabinet level department. When the US Army Air Forces, which were not a separate branch of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The upcoming elections they are in the process of rigging.
Are you talking about Virginia where their constitution requires two legislature votes and an election between changing district maps? A fact everyone knew before attempting a redistricting to eliminate Republicans seats by forcing six districts to run through Fairfax… Or are you talking about something else?
- the pardon of anyone involved with Jan 6, both the invasion of the capitol, the fake electors and the truthers that were condemned for lying in court or just plain contempt;
- the promotion of 2020 election deniers to positions of power over the elections in the current administration;
- the promotion of incompetent but loyal people at the head of the DOJ, FBI and DNI, who all refused to answer the question "who won the 2020 election" in a straight manner during hearings;
- the strategy of universal gerrymandering being a capstone of the GOP platform;
- the Supreme Court's recent ruling on VRA, and subsequent action to make sure it is applied ASAP even though the election affected has already begun (which is the exact opposite of how they ruled in the past);
- the constant refusal of Hesgeth to commit to the rule of law;
- the prosecution brought against six lawmakers for daring to remind soldiers they can only follow lawful orders;
- the constant accusations of voter fraud that don't exist;
- the attempt to forbid early voting, impose citizenship obligations
- etc, etc, etc.
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/2026/02/trump-threat...
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/save...
Reminder also that Trump never commited to accept the results of the 2024 election before he won. Not a single time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but like whatabout…
Wait you’re what abutting me? What about all the red states who started the gerrymandering? That’s the real question. Why are you calling out one but not the other? Because you’re a partisan hack
My memory starts more than a year ago.
California, Illinois, and New York, rigged decades earlier than your screen told you to be mad at republicans who in reality are playing catch up on gerrymandering.
But I noticed you’re trying to avoid the actual point.
Virginia illegally pushed a new map against their own state constitution and their Supreme Court shot it down. Cry more about it.
Yes, I’m a partisan hack. Yeah that’s what’s going on here. You read the referendum question they pushed in Virginia and pretend you’re on the correct side of legitimacy.