Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "The Hill"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rabbitsforyang8273 Hey, dumb dumb, I'm simply pointing out the fact that a VAT doesn't do what Yang claims it does. He even linked to a study that completely debunked what he said it does. He just didn't grasp it. Nothing you can say, denying reality, won't ever change that fact.
I've also commented on other topics, when they come up again, and again, for years, on channels I'm subscribed to. Do you not do that, or do you just hunt down Yang videos, all over YouTube, like a cultist?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Gawanipony 3 We know for a fact that they started making baseless claims of widespread voter fraud, from the get go. The election swinging the other way is only evidence of the election swinging the other way, and yet Trump was already making up bullshit on election night.
We know for a fact that they still didn't have evidence of widespread voter fraud, when they set up their hotlines, fishing for evidence. They still didn't have evidence, when they set up their online affidavit gathering, fishing for evidence. They still didn't have evidence, when they offered rewards, fishing for evidence. Desperately fishing for evidence, is evidence you don't have evidence.
Trump did this in 2016 ... claimed widespread voter fraud ... and his own election integrity commission found nothing of the sort, proving Trump just throws around baseless bullshit.
At this point, it's ignorant to give this group of pathetic little liars the benefit of the doubt.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@richardgoldman Lol, what 100k straight votes?
So Trump starts off complaining about these stupid states, whose Republican legislatures wouldn't allow early processing of mail in ballots, not giving election night final numbers, and now you think it's a great idea to start letting parties count and recount votes in every state, check and double check every machine, even though they already have observers, whenever they want ... and how many times until results are given? Nothing about fear. That just sounds nonsensical. It sounds like going that route is based on fear (paranoia).
Not only do those states have Republican legislatures, half of them also have Republican governors, and Republican secretaries of state. But, sure, Democrats are criminal masterminds, who fabricated millions of votes, in multiple states (oddly just these slow ones), to steal the presidency, but somehow couldn't come up with thousands to take the senate. Some masterminds.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Backhand77 If two candidates will both cage kids (and you ignore some nuance), but one also wants to toss 10m of the poorest Americans off of Medicaid expansion, while the other wants to add people to Medicaid expansion, Medicare, and possibly have a public option, then voting for the later is reducing harm. If a third candidate, that has zero shot at winning, and voting for them would give the first candidate more of a shot at winning, voting for them is, at best, being insignificant, and at worst allowing for more harm.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jhallin5185 Nordic countries have some of the more evenly mixed economies. What is it you think mixed economies are a mix of, if not capitalism (privately owned and operated) and socialism (publicly owned and operated)? Sure, they aren't 100% socialist, but to pretend they're not, at all, socialist, is nonsensical.
If those are your ideas of "true" socialism, then what is Marxism? The Marxist ideal is a non authoritarian, stateless, version of what, if not socialism? Saying those are "true" socialism is like saying fascism is "true" capitalism.
1
-
1
-
1