Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "WHOA: 86% of Trumpists Think Biden Didn't Really Win" video.

@Halon's Razor Americans have been going by the AP call, since 1948, including Trump, who went by it in 2016, excepted victory on the 8th, accepted Clinton conceding on the 9th, and accepted an invitation to the White House on the 10th, to talk transition. He was even using their calls to brag about which states he had won on election night, this election. Ivanka even congratulated daddy, a couple days ago, when the AP called Alaska for him ... after all you whiny babies started crying about the AP doing what they've done for decades.
12
@Halon's Razor Who said they were the law? As you say, it was just a formality, because Clinton wasn't flinging baseless claims and acting like a baby.
4
@Halon's Razor Well, the Mueller investigation charging 26 Russians, and the FBI recently saying Russians are interfering again, isn't quite the same thing as just pulling shit out of your ass and flinging it around.
2
@jilliancopeland6825 Ugh, yes. I wandered into a Sky News Australia comment section last week. They're lunatics.
2
@Halon's Razor Let me get this straight. Not collecting taxes to pay for schools, and having everyone pay for private schools on their own, would benefit the rich and poor equally? Pretty sure that's not correct.
1
@Halon's Razor You said "Lower taxes helps everyone both rich and poor, the only people it harms is government". Taxes do, in fact, pay for public schools, so not sure how I strawmanned you.
1
@Halon's Razor Either collecting zero taxes for education only hurts the government, or it doesn't. Which is it?
1
@Halon's Razor That's lowering taxes as much as possible. It either only hurts the government, or it doesn't. Which is it?
1
@Halon's Razor If you don't like lowering taxes 100%, for some strange reason, how about this ... Person A is below the poverty line, making $10k a year and paying 10% taxes ($1000). Person B is making $1m a year and paying 10% taxes ($100k). If you lower both of their taxes by 10%, person A gets to keep an extra $100, and person B gets to keep an extra $10k. But, that's $10100 no longer going towards things like education, Medicaid, affordable housing, SNAP, disability, etc. How does that only hurt the government, and benefit the one in poverty? Why do capitalists detest the poor, so much?
1
@Halon's Razor Rofl. It's $10k a year per student for public school. That rich guy just stopped paying for the poor guy's kid to go to school. Or, Medicaid pays out about $6k per recipient. That rich guy just stopped covering his healthcare. Etc. But he gets $100. Woop!
1
@Halon's Razor Do you actually know what a strawman is? You claimed lowering taxes only hurts the government. Zero taxes is simply lowering taxes 100%, dumb dumb. Obviously, that was a bullshit statement that you couldn't stand by and then used a strawman claim as an ad hominem.
1
@Halon's Razor Except, you made the claim, not me. I didn't make the claim for you, as you just did for me. And, I'm pretty sure anyone who does like high taxes, likes them so wealth can be redistributed in some way, making sure everyone is fed, so your argument doesn't even make sense. Unless the person also likes the idea of simply hoarding all the money, or something.
1
@Halon's Razor Also, you've once again shown that you don't understand fallacies. "The fallacy is in the argument that could be reduced to absurdity -- so in essence, reductio ad absurdum is a technique to expose the fallacy." https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Reductio-ad-Absurdum
1
@collins48lc Rofl. Pakman is an elitist, but billionaire Ruport Murdoch isn't?
1