Search results

Oh, I very much do get that's the point and how you mean it. As Cherico implies, it's even more so here. But I don't understand the relevance, sorry?

It's pretty unclear what this is stated in relation to, or what bearing it has on... Well, anything.

Along with other things, people who love trump can hate mitch for backstabbing and fighting trump, whilst people who hate trump can hate mitch for defending and supporting trump. Mitch is a man straddling a fence so hard his dick fell off and all his shit was forced up into his brain.

Wow... You know, the answer to that is as simple as typing "Ulvade" into Google. You don't even need to press enter before it tells you.

Huh, so she was. Yeah, that's not great. 😅

Well, she's not the one who runs or counts the election, is she? Surely it would be, if anything, more suspicious if she did have prepared answers and in depth information at hand about any irregularities and issues?

You forgot a use to period.

Uh huh, I knew they were but so what? Why would I call you when video games "lose credibility" whatever that's supposed to mean?

I never said they weren't credible. :)

Uhm... Yes? It's media, and it's pretty mainstream.

Watch the mainstream media's effects... On the media? :unsure:

So, it was someone who most likely knew exactly what the situation was but intentionally recorded an out of context, deceptive video for the sake of misrepresenting election integrity and riling up the republican base? You'd think with all the "obvious and indisputable" evidence floating around...

I know your talking points. I don't care to argue it with you. The point is, the monotonous repetition is bad enough, but the repeated incorrect phrasing raises the annoyance factor even further.

OMG! You repeat this 5 times a day. If you do absolutely have to share your favourite nonsense so often, please try and remember that the phrase is "en masse" not "in mass".

Also, I've said it before, but maybe in this context people will better see the truth of it. trump only ever burns bridges, he doesn't build them. (Or walls.) I'm sure the ever dwindling percentage of americans who worship him think his refusal to compromise or seriously negotiate on anything is...

Yes there is? Statistically speaking, desantis either ate more or less fish in the two months prior to the election than other candidates who didn't do as well. Don't conflate correlation with causation. Desantis was running in a safe election with ample support. Claiming his win is somehow...

As previously pointed out, that isn't just a democrat thing. https://www.google.com/amp/s/abc11.com/amp/dead-republican-wins-candidate-north-dakota-david-andah/7641637/ I guess candidate quality isn't that important to republican voters either?

Me? And plenty of other people too. Who didn't expect that?

The supreme court ruled the case as moot and vacated the previous decision, without an opinion. There's no decision to be ignored. They just kinda deleted the previous case from jurisprudence. Which sets the stage for relitigating if a similar situation occurs again, but that's about it. Doesn't...

So... You haven't seen the posts, there's absolutely no evidence of law breaking, the clearly opposed article didn't even suggest anything of the sort, but it fits your assumptions so you'll assume it's true based on literally nothing?