lol really man?
July 21st - Trickle Down Economics discussion
Source 1 - "The MYTH of Trickle Down Economics" youtube video
not sure if you'd consider a youtube video a credible source
July 22nd -
Source 2 - From Welfare to Work - Brookings.edu
Source 3 - "Do people get more money from welfare than work" Quora question
Source 4 - Three rules for staying out of poverty
here we have three sources in one post wowee, one's 16 years old (probably older than aeshebi if we're being honest), one's a quora question though and the other claims these statistics out of thin air, providing no source for any claim of "If you do all those three things, your chance of falling into poverty is just 2 percent. Meanwhile, you’ll have a 74 percent chance of being in the middle class." If you could provide an actual statistically based study that would be nice! Neither wikipedia nor the two articles you linked indicate any study other than Ron Haskins saying "yeah we ran study here are the results"
July 22nd -
Mother of ur posts
not gonna try to dissect this one tbh cause you provide a ton of sources some ok some HIGHly questionable. D'souza for one, and citing the holocaust for why white privilege does not exist on the other.
July 22nd -
Ben fucking Shapiro lmao
A youtube video of Ben Shapiro explaining white privilege. Self-explanatory for rational observers.
August 29th -
NYT stands by Sarah Jeong after racist tweet - Fox News
A youtube video of someone not serving a MAGA hat
Another youtube video of the Berkley incident from 2016
the last post u included sources in, where two are youtube videos, and one is fox news, and all to what? prove a point that some dumb leftists out there get carried away? to try to generalize the left movement as racist and backwards i guess?_?
That you accuse me of a "double standard" indicating I am not actually sourcing my material is downright laughable, when literally anything you cite is either a youtube video or some conservative "claims he is not racist but is actually extremely racist" thinktank engine. I think Brookings is the only non rightwing material you sourced statistical analysis, and even then that didnt even show a study, just claims they ran a study. You are incredibly disingenuous and making it impossible to have a rational debate.
so the defense is "thats just how he is?" Thats like saying "ok grandpa, we know you're racist as shit but its ok we understand its just how you are"
you're right, it was a bad source.
Here's a better source. Notable to me at least are the lines:
"
Defendants made various expenditures to carry out those activities, including buying political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons and entities. Defendants also staged political rallies inside the United States, and while posing as U.S. grassroots entities and U.S. persons, and without revealing their Russian identities and ORGANIZATION affiliation, solicited and compensated real U.S. persons to promote or disparage candidates. Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities. 7. In order to carry out their activities to interfere in U.S. political and electoral processes without detection of their Russian affiliation, Defendants conspired to obstruct the lawful functions of the United States government through fraud and deceit, including by making expenditures in connection with the 2016 U.S. presidential election without proper regulatory disclosure; failing to register as foreign agents carrying out political activities within the United States; and obtaining visas through false and fraudulent statements. "
Deflection to Obama, lol
This is a little complicated. The short answer is he
did try to warn states, and importantly wished to sign a bipartisan agreement so that the States and the public could be warned. Unfortunately, Representative McConnell reportedly told Obama to back down, and attempted to turn it into a partisan issue. That is, if Obama came out during the election that states should be wary, Mcconnell could claim it was election interference. Should Obama have still gone ahead and warned states? Yeah, I think so. I think his insistence on compromising was detrimental and set him up to fail at a lot of what he tried to accomplish (Obamacare is a good point for that).
jeez man dont project your anger onto me with your passive aggressive "get that through your thick skull" like you aren't the one linking fox news and quora questions. I never stated that Russia straight up changed votes, nor does the public losing confidence in elections have anything to do with whether or not Russia changed votes.
u ever hear of a RICO case buddy? also man u should really smoke some jazz cabbage i can just picture you with weepinbell face red but with smoke coming out of your ears
when have i personally attacked you? when I inferred u possibly read breitbart? or when i called u a fanatical partisan? if thats your definition of a personal attack then LOL there's so much low hanging rotten fruit that i could be chucking at you
also that article really doesn't, because I wasn't arguing that Trump uses an unsecured device I was arguing that his staff, since the beginning of the presidency, have. Please stay on topic and focus. u wanted to debate but u continually shift the goalposts or deflect from the premise and you cite non-credible sources, if you cite at all.