AnotherAttorney

And wouldn’t you know it? They stopped.

Nope, they didn’t.

Also, they had real evidence.

Nope, they didn’t.

Yeah, such a “perfect call,” it landed him RICO charges in GA and two other upcoming similar cases in NV and LA.

Charges are not convictions.

But that’s not the same as trying to send fake certificates and a fake slate of Electors, which has landed some of those electors in legal jeopardy.

The Supreme Court affirmed that the nonconforming electors in 2016 broke state law and upheld criminal penalties against them.

name me a Democrat that ever even floated such an idea

CHAZ was an actual insurrection in Portland undertaken by left-wing groups. Unless you’re talking about elected democrats, in which case feel free to name an elected Republican that was ever proven to have done that.

Got any substantive points, or are you going to just keep peddling misinformation?

They most definitely can — it’s just not generally because they’re in fear of their lives lmfao.

… or that there isn’t a legal basis for it because, y’know, that’s kinda the whole point of judges.

the Constitution is pretty clear that Trump is disqualified by the factual finding that he instigated and supported an insurrection

The fact that every court to address this issue has said this is not the case suggests otherwise.

I doubt any judge would actually remove Trump from the ballot, and even if they did there is no way it would survive in the appellate court.

All this is going to do is further bolster Trump’s claims that there is a witch hunt against him.

Idk man same-day delivery is fucking awesome.

My friend, are you illiterate? From the article:

51% say it should be legal “only under certain circumstances,” and 13% say it should be illegal in all circumstances.

Now add them and tell me what you get…

The 47% and 49% figures that you’re reading are made from a subdivision of that 51% “certain circumstances” category. Like, it says that right above those figures. To that end, that 47% doesn’t mean no abortion restrictions – it means “legal in all or most cases.”

when they kept claiming election fraud long after they lost

Which is also in the video I provided.

brought 60+ lawsuits

The Democratic Party itself sued Trump claiming his election was illegitimate.

called Secretaries of State to “find me X votes,”

So a recount, lol.

tried to get the vice president to decertify peoples votes

Democrats did the same thing for Trump — it’s literally within the first two minutes of the video that you apparently neglected to watch.

tried to send fake Electors to vote for them

Democrats tried to get republican electors to reject their oath and vote against the actual election results — very democratic, right?

planned to use the Insurrection Act to stay in power

Which they didn’t, lmfao.

So yeah, as to the issue of complaining about election fraud, they are fundamentally the same. Got any more areas that you want me to remind you of the democratic equivalent for, or would you prefer to actually watch the primary source that you pretty blatantly disregarded before posting all that?

64% to be precise, per Gallup.

While you use words of hate, I try to use words of love. Be better honey.

Nobody wants your anti-choice bullshit.

A majority of Americans favor regulations limiting access to abortion.

Oof, you’re really gonna hate that the definition of a primary source includes videos. Pretty basic stuff.

Might wanna consider applying that “stupid and dishonest propaganda” tagline to your comment. Seethe some more sweetie.

So, are you denying that democrats claimed election fraud when Trump was elected?

I don’t recall claiming to be a victim. All I did was drop of video of democrats claiming election fraud.

I mean, yeah. I gave you a primary source of a plethora of prominent democrats, including the current president and vice president, claiming election fraud when Trump was first elected.

I’m guessing your overly abundant use of question marks and italics, as well as lack of any sort of substantive retort other than claiming propaganda, is related to your cognitive dissonance. I’m sorry this doesn’t fit your world view.

His sources are pretty mid, but he’s right. A lot of people who like to trash Trump for yelling about election fraud also seem to forget democrats have done the same thing in the past.

Also, the whole “both sides are the same is bullshit” tagline is very Reddit. Doesn’t work as well here, where conservatives aren’t systematically banned for not agreeing with the hivemind.

I mean, Project 2025 is essentially a brief on how to reduce government bureaucracy and regulation, which has been a position of conservative economics for as long as I can remember. EPI also briefs lawmakers on how to implement liberal economic policy. I’d hardly call either of those undermining democracy.

I think you’re right the most of the argument for the ban relates to fairness, and I frankly doubt that there have been any sort of safety studies done in cricket that would speak to my point.

[1] Because while strength decreases, empirical research shows that it does not decrease to the level of removing the competitive advantage in women’s sports.

[2] This article contains utterly no discussion about transgender athletes that have already undergone male puberty.

[3] You’re relying on ad hominem attacks instead of actually addressing any of the substantive findings. Moreover, your articles do not contain a single empirical study.

[4] If you read the full article, you would see that it doesn’t decline to the point of removing the advantage, as my quoted sections show. In fact, the very next sentence after the one you quote reads “However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events.” Your claim of cherry picking is ironic.

[5] Yes, the meaning of a case study is that it studies a single case. Notably, there are only five known transgender swimmers in the NCAA’s Division I, which was the subject of the study. I’m not sure what you’re trying to do by citing another study (ultimately finding that transwomen “were still stronger and had more muscle mass following 12 months of treatment”) in support of my point, but go off I guess.

[6] Your “systematic review” is close to a decade old and, unsurprisingly, doesn’t address any of the studies I cited. Moreover, the study you’re citing consistently admits that it doesn’t have enough information to really make any judgments - and its conclusion is based on the importance of sports for the physical and mental health of transgender people. To the extent it discusses competitive advantage, it does so entirely within the context of androgenic hormones, and contains no discusses of anatomical differences (e.g., larger bodies, longer legs, bigger bones, larger lungs). In addition to citing an outdated study in a rapidly evolving field of research, you then you cite a Daily Beast article – lmfao.

It’s impossible to buy a house, gas prices are insane, and the cost of consumer goods are still through the roof. The article tries to point to average wage increases over the last few years, but this categorically ignores the fact that most Americans haven’t seen a wage increase during this time. This suggests that the wage increase isn’t happening around the median of wages, where most hourly Americans find themselves, but rather is occurring at either the floor or ceiling — neither of which has an impact on most Americans. If I had to guess, I would think this is probably happening at the floor, given how many states have been raising minimum wage recently.

Of course, this is great news if you’re earning minimum wage. The issue is, most Americans aren’t.