Youtube comments of Sam Brockmann (@SamBrockmann).
-
1700
-
1300
-
1200
-
1100
-
913
-
860
-
813
-
774
-
671
-
670
-
657
-
617
-
524
-
361
-
331
-
318
-
291
-
288
-
283
-
264
-
263
-
229
-
227
-
226
-
202
-
198
-
191
-
190
-
184
-
161
-
154
-
153
-
143
-
143
-
137
-
126
-
117
-
115
-
115
-
94
-
88
-
87
-
85
-
84
-
77
-
77
-
72
-
72
-
71
-
70
-
69
-
68
-
68
-
64
-
62
-
62
-
60
-
58
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
44
-
40
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I don't think that AI should be restricted, simply because humans might lose jobs. I think that humans should be doing jobs that require human decisions.
That said, I think AI needs to be limited because there are some things that DO REQUIRE a human decision. And that means that probably about 95% of what people think AI should do, it should never be doing. I work with AI. I write code that takes business processes and automates those processes, often using AI. I am not just giving my uninformed opinion; I know the limits of automation (with AI or just "dumb code"). Unlike Mr. Walsh, I do have an informed opinion here. And the limit is, if a human has to make this decision, no matter how simple or how complex the decision is, then you do not let the code make that decision.
An example is, "Should self-driving cars replace truck drivers?". And the answer is no, because truck drivers make a lot of decisions.
We may call AI intelligent, but AI is only as intelligent as we program it to be.
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Really, the fact that Native American warfare was rading parties, that's why they resisted the Europeans so long. Imagine if all the Natives had simply lined up, with tomahawks, bows and arrows, knives, clubs, etc. and charged at the guns, horses, lances, swords, cannons, etc. of the Europeans. They would have been massacred.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@moonsigil , you've never been to LA, huh? The level of *everything*, every other city on the planet, is cleaner. It's not a high bar, no. Somehow, LA can't meet, let alone, beat the bar of not allowing used drug needles to lay on the sidewalk, not allowing the homeless to shit on the sidewalk, not allowing the business and art districts to look like garbage dumps. It's not a high bar, no.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@historybits2570 , "WELL, MOM, NOW THAT YOU'RE OLD, YOU CAN FOCUS ON YOURSELF MORE!"
No, on a serious note, even if your mother is the worst person in the world, you shouldn't hate her. That doesn't mean that you tolerate bad behavior. It doesn't mean you don't set boundaries.
It is sad that, my wife's parents, due to their misbehavior at my daughter's last birthday party, only see our 3 daughters under restricted conditions. But I don't hate her parents. My wife doesn't hate her parents. We will protect our 3 daughters, even, as sad as it is right now, from the my wife's parents.
The point is, while there have to be necessary consequences for others' misbehavior, in order to protect yourself and your own children, that doesn't mean you show hatred to those who misbehaved.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
Just about every cover of any Bob Dylan song is better than Bob's original version. We can pretend that Bob Dyland was a musical genius, but the reality is that Bob's material always tends to lack something. Every cover of his material adds something. Jimi Hendrix's version of "All Along the Watchtower". Mr. and Mrs. Cash's cover of "It Ain't Me, Babe". My Chemical Romance, “Desolation Row”. The White Stripes, “One More Cup of Coffee”. Guns N’ Roses, “Knockin’ On Heaven’s Door”. The Byrds, “Mr. Tambourine Man”. The list goes on and on.
Bob Dylan's nasally, horrid vocal tone over "minimalistic folk rock" is never a good mix (and never has been). He is only famous, because drugged out hippies couldn't tell the difference. The reality is, Bob is a good lyricist, a sh*t singer, and a sh*t musician. But lots of other folks recognized (due to those drugged out hippies' legacies) Bob's skill at lyric writing, and they covered his songs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brentryan2047
"brother it feels like you are falling into the trap of the pharisees. God tells us to strive for a sinless life but clearly tells us we won't get there and will fall short."
That's not what the Pharisees' issue was. The pharisees' issue was that they had added to and/or misinterpreted God's Commandments.
"Jesus led an example we can not, on our own, attain. That's why we need his gift. If you truly are able to completely stop sinning in this life you don't need him anymore do you?"
Yes, that's entirely the point. We become more and more Christ-like, follow God's Law (Jesus kept God's Law perfectly!), and thus we increasingly become less and less sinful. Did you think the lifelong process of becoming like Him meant that you kept sinning and sinning? The Bible is QUITE CLEAR, that you are supposed to become like Jesus was, including removing all sin from your life.
"You also take Paul's writings calling out sinners... In the church... To mean you should call out non believers."
You may want to re-read what I said. I never said you call out non-believers. But that also doesn't mean that you ignore the sin. God didn't ignore the sin of the Ammonites, Canaanites, Hittites, etc., simply because they were "unbelievers". (They clearly were.) Likewise, we shouldn't pretend that, just because someone doesn't go to church, it's ok if they participate in sin. We are NOT showing love to anyone if we just handwave sin.
"Jesus was a teacher, he didn't just walk around chastising everyone and be exclusive."
You might need to re-read the Gospels. Jesus was a hell of a lot more than a teacher, bud.
1
-
@brentryan2047 , you know very little about the Bible and very little about the Pharisees if you don't understand WHY Jesus kept calling them hypocrites. You also don't realize that part of legalism is /pride/. Legalism is defined as: "strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, especially to the letter rather than the spirit". This would include boasting about one's adherence to those things which God's Law does not command.
I counsel you to re-read Romans 6 to Romans 8. You'll note that Apostle Paul defines:
1) What the Law cannot do (save us from sin; Jesus' death did so, obviously);
2) What the Law does do (define what is sin);
3) and Call the Law holy (because it came from God).
"So why on earth did you then follow that with a question to me about whether I think we are to go on sinning and sinning?? The answer Is YES and you said it yourself! Do you think you are not currently sinning? Are you living a perfect life? See above, the parable of the pharisee and tax collector."
And so what you're saying is, you do not believe the Word applied to you, when it said, "15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”" (1 Peter 1:15-16 ESV). Obviously, this refers to Lev 11:44, Lev 19:2, and Lev 20:7. Clearly Apostle Peter thought that God's Law mattered, and he commanded the Christians to be holy. To be holy is to be "sacred or set apart". In other words, as we well know, sin separates us from God. The Law defines what is sin. Jesus died for our sins. Christians are expected to be holy AND get sin out of their lives, as this is part of the process of becoming like Christ.
So, if you do not think we Christians are capable of reaching a place where we no longer sin, then why would Peter demand Christians do so? Why would God have demanded we do so in Leviticus?
"Of course Jesus was a lot more than a teacher but in the context of bringing people to him he took a servant approach and that of a teacher. Which was my point, not sure what you were getting at with that comment."
What I am getting at is, you seem to not know even the basics of the Bible or the faith of which Jesus is the author and perfecter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's ironic. In the 1700s and 1800s, we had enlightened monarchs, such as Frederick the Great (of Prussia), Catherine the Great (of Russia), etc. These were no doubt great rulers. Now, the rulers are less obvious; they hide behind regulations, behind faceless groups, behind donations to politicians, behind news corporations, behind lawyers and judges. We claim we are free, and yet we dance to the tune of tyranny as much as they did under the enlightened monarchs of the past.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@laymansview5246 , I don't give a rat's ass if he was drunk, sober, high, having a mental episode, etc. It doesn't matter. Truth is truth; speak it, always.
If a man is willing to do what Vivek did, on a show where the stakes are nothing compared to dealing with leaders of powerful nations, then that man is, in my opinion, too weak to lead our nation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NdifonNtui , or what about the riches of Mansa Musa. Mansa Musa, of the Mali Empire, went on pilgrimage to the Muslim Holy Sites. Along the way, he gave out gifts of gold (and other riches). He gave out so much gold in Cairo, Egypt that he devalued the price of gold.
Regarding architecture:
"Mansa Musa also built the Sankore Madrasah (or University of Sankore). In Niani, he built the Hall of Audience, "an admirable Monument", surmounted by a dome and adorned with arabesques of striking colors. The wooden window frames of an upper story were plated with silver foil; those of a lower story with gold. Like the Great Mosque, a contemporaneous and grandiose structure in Timbuktu, the Hall was built of cut stone.
In fact, during this period, there was an advanced level of urban living in the major centers of Mali. Sergio Domian, an Italian scholar of art and architecture, wrote of this period: "Thus was laid the foundation of an urban civilization. At the height of its power, Mali had at least 400 cities, and the interior of the Niger Delta was very densely populated.""
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AlejandroRisin , and? That doesn't mean the lyrics of "Fat Bottomed Girls" are good for kids. I have let my daughters listen to Queen songs. I don't have a problem with that, provided that, as a parent, you discuss what the lyrics are saying. (As I did.) For example, "We Will Rock You" clearly involves a man being disrespected and beaten.
"OH, THAT'S NOT WHAT IT'S ABOUT!"
No, that is what it's about; take the lines:
"Kicking your can all over the place"
And
"Somebody better put you back in your place".
"NO, THEY'RE JUST SAYING HE WAS KICKING A TIN CAN, AND HE WAS BEING A SH*THEAD WHO NEEDED TO RESPECT OTHERS".
Were they? I'm quite sure, while Queen wasn't referring to advocating violence, they were definitely referring to someone getting their ass beat. I don't think that's problematic, in context of the song, but let's stop pretending that lyrics were more appropriate in the '70s because they weren't as obvious as today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Sirkilla120 , which is a tenet of. . . socialism. It has never been right wing to merge corporate interests and the state. Under right wing ideals, the government and the corporations are separate entities, and the government only enforces contractual law and prohibition of monopolies. This ties in with complete capitalism, by which I mean, the free markets determine everything. No government handouts to businesses, no "loans" to major companies to keep certain industries afloat. No price caps. No minimum wage. Nothing, except the free market.
If you examine the USA, the USA does not have capitalism today. The USA has a system of corporate cronyism, even among politicians who claim to be right wing (but don't embody right wing ideals). The USA did have capitalism once, but we can thank Alexander Hamilton for f***ing that up for us. Look into the "Whiskey Rebellion".
My hairline is fine, thanks. It's called an undercut and a widow's peak. You should get an undercut, buddy. You would look more fresh.
1
-
1
-
@Matt-jc2ml , ermmmmm, no. If we define right and left according to basic principles of politicism, the usage is universal. The right wing, across the world, has always been less government, more freedom. This, for example, is what the classical Liberals wanted. The left wing always has been more government, to somehow - despite the irony of this - to increase freedom.
The right says, "Leave the people alone", whereas the left says, "WE THE RULERS OF THE PEOPLE KNOW WHAT THE PEOPLE NEED". As we have seen, more extreme forms of left wing ideals (Communism and Fascism) have resulted in the deaths of millions. Ironically, Fascism - despite being left wing in every single way, including its revolting ultra-nationalism (a trait it also shares with Communism) - is derided by modern academia, but Communism is praised by modern academia. Socialism is a failed ideology, that has resulted in chaos, death, and control of the masses. Sometimes that control is less extreme, like in modern Europe, thus the death and chaos is less extreme. But the chaos and death still exists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FunnyBunny-pd5xx , that's classic Left Wing gaslighting for you. Under Jim Crow, the Left Wing told us, "WELL, BLACKS AND JEWS AND ASIANS AND HISPANICS" - sure, they used different, much worse terms - "ARE NOT REAL PEOPLE!"
They even experimented on black men. (See the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments.) But hey, the party which literally harmed minorities loves them, right?!
So, now, it's "WE LOVE THE MIDDLE CLASS". Sure.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matthewapsey4869 , you don't know what the word "trespasser" means. Quit using buzzwords from abortion blogs, you twit.
The baby did not invade the woman unlawfully. The baby is there because the woman engaged in natural processes. If she did so in a hedonistic way, whereby she took no precautions or consideration for the consequences of her hedonism, that is not the baby's fault. It did not invade her body. Being unwanted by the mother doesn't change this fact.
Furthermore, as the baby is, by definition, a human being, it has the right to bodily autonomy as well. The ultimate denial of bodily autonomy is murder. You cannot claim the mother has "self-ownership" (aka "bodily autonomy") in one breath, and then refuse to even acknowledge the baby's bodily autonomy exists.
I will give one thing to you, though, at least you are consistent in your moral depravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Really, the fact that Native American warfare was rading parties, that's why they resisted the Europeans so long. Imagine if all the Natives had simply lined up, with tomahawks, bows and arrows, knives, clubs, etc. and charged at the guns, horses, lances, swords, cannons, etc. of the Europeans. They would have been massacred.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The reason these folks are so dogmatic about this stuff (and probably will die due to their own bad health chocies) is simple. Gluttony is their friend. They have made that demon their friend. They like gluttony. They are offended when you, in even the smallest way, advocate for moderation.
Many people make food, because they are good at cooking/chef skills. They want to make others happy. They want to bless their family. They recognize that their husbands, brothers, uncles, fathers worked hard, and they're hungry. They know their kids are growing, and the kids need nutrients. Many people view food as a way to show love to others.
Or maybe they want to share their cooking/chef skills with others and be paid for their labor. They may not even be altruistic at all. But they want to exchange their labor for others' money. They want to build a business and hire others.
Not this woman. This woman is boldly selfish. She views food as her source of pleasure, and she does not wish to be told that moderation is best. She does not want to share with others. She literally wants the biggest slice of cake you will give her. She doesn't care if you join her, as long as she gets cake.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Migglesworth , no, Kennedy wouldn't have won by a comfortable margin. But you believe whatever nonsense you want to believe. You justify the fact that one of the major political parties of the USA said, "NO, WE WILL NOT ALLOW THE PEOPLE TO DECIDE! RFK IS OUT OF THE PARTY!" however you want to justify that. Because that's what happened, and even if it meant that Trump would have lost the race - again, I don't think Kennedy would have won by a "comfortable margin" (it would have been by a tiny margin, if RFK won at all) - that doesn't excuse what the DNC did.
To make matters even worse, CNN, the DNC, and the RNC all agreed that RFK should NOT be at the Trump-Biden CNN debate. They excluded the only major third party candidate, a third party candidate who was kicked out by the DNC.
"RFK LEFT THE DEMOCRATS OF HIS OWN FREE WILL!"
If you believe that, I will sell you a coral reef in the Andes Mountains.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1