If someone claims something happened on the fediverse without providing a link, they’re lying.
Lol. I’m sure you’re playing those cards in good faith.
It couldn’t have anything to do with her politics or the fact that she’s an opportunist with no principles who flipped to the right as soon as it was personally advantageous for her. Nope, every single Democrat, including those who are women, racial minorities, or female racial minorities, could only possibly dislike her because of racism and sexism 🙄
God I hate Tulcels.
And everyone else is free to criticize her, even if that’s a point of view you don’t like.
If your best defense of her is, “The things she’s said aren’t illegal,” that’s not exactly a high bar.
Turns out when you opportunistically betray your party and join the other side, you tend to alienate the party you were with before! Who knew?
Have we finally solved the mystery of why people dislike former revolutionary war general Benedict Arnold?
If he starts touching rich people’s assets he’s gonna piss off every powerful person in the country, ideology be damned.
Writing something in dust is fine and if you think otherwise you’re a nerd. Who gives a shit, just wipe it off.
Going beyond that, I wouldn’t. What, am I gonna target every car with a Trump sticker too? If you’re gonna fuck with cars you should target gas guzzlers, not EVs. I’ll absolutely judge someone for owning a cybertruck, but I’d rather let it break down on its own so they blame Musk instead of me.
90 senators, including Bernie Sanders, rejected Obama’s 2009 funding proposal that would’ve closed the camp. And with good reason. Obama’s move would’ve simply moved the prison onshore while continuing the indefinite detention without trial, potentially legitimizing the practice further and providing a clearer legal precedent.
Yes, he technically tried to “close Guantanamo Bay” but in a way that wouldn’t adress the actual reasons people want it closed.
“A number of important questions remain unanswered regarding the rather complicated issue of not just how you close down the facility, but what you do with the prisoners,” he said in part. “In order to answer these questions, President Obama has appointed a high-level committee of top administration officials who will be issuing a report in the coming months. I think that it is prudent to review that plan they develop before we spend $80 million in taxpayer money.”
This thing I don’t understand
What don’t I understand about it?
I will refuse to believe any evidence to the contrary
There is no evidence to the contrary. The only way there could be would be if they got caught.
Plus I just happe to know you’re already conservative from your other posts so it’s just more evidence to back it up.
Lmao of course you do.
As I always say, “If someone claims something happened on the fediverse without providing a link, they’re lying.” Please cite any evidence at all that I’m conservative.
I apologize for my mistake earlier, when I said my suspicions about Anonymous were more reasonable than your belief that I’m a Russian bot, what I should’ve said is that they’re more reasonable than your baseless and unfalsifiable belief that I’m secretly a conservative. Huge difference.
Lmao, “conservative conspiracy hole.” I guess “being suspicious of anonymous sources” makes me a conservative conspiracy theorist, somehow 🤣
This is just basic critical thinking lol.
In this case? Yeah, probably. If there was proof of their identity they would no longer be anonymous, would they?
It’s a much more reasonable assumption than how your lot assumes anyone who disagrees with you for any reason is a Russian bot, and can’t be convinced by any amount of proof otherwise.
deleted by creator
Anytime I see something about “Anonymous” I just assume it’s some kind of fed psyop until proven otherwise.
No, you’ve started to see things more clearly.
They really wrote a whole-ass article about two random schmucks lol
Nothing I’ve said has made any assumptions about you at all. I’m merely describing your express position. You’re using sarcasm as a cheap trick to mask your inability to defend it, but I’m not sure who you’re supposed to be fooling.
Oh, my mistake. So if you don’t vote for them unconditionally then you think it’s acceptable to place conditions on voting for them. Would you say that “not supporting genocide” is a reasonable condition, or do you draw the line at something worse than genocide?
Votes for Dems completely unconditionally and demands others do the same "Why does everyone keep assuming we’re pro-Dem? Don’t they know that we send negative energy waves through our mind palaces towards zionist Dems all the time?"
Wouldn’t they be legally liable for that unless they can prove it in court?