FlexibleToast @ FlexibleToast @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

1,003

Joined

2 yr. ago

You might notice that Kamala Harris is not in fact Joe Biden. Even if she wants to do it, that doesn't mean she can make Joe do it.

I don't even think you need to qualify that with nytimes. Just ignore the op-ed section.

Hey, at least you got the concept of what I'm saying. Don't trust opinions. Trust actual, credible journalism.

Which could have been influenced by Russian media. You and I don't know because it's an opinion piece. It's not a researched piece of journalism.

I'm not. I'm not the same person. I'm just telling you that you shouldn't cite an opinion piece as evidence.

Don't get your evidence from opinion pieces.

Great contribution to the discussion.

Wandavision had a strong start and just got worse with each episode.

It wouldn't have. However, kind of ironically if it was filled with helium, it would have never gone up. Helium doesn't have the same amount of lifting power as hydrogen.

Weird, the person that would have a personal stake in having hydrogen cars fail.

That's what I'm asking. What are you talking about?

Screaming? I thought I was typing...

as if somehow the popular vote has ever won a presidency

Uhh, that's exactly how it works per state. The most popular vote in that state gets the electoral votes for that state.

Is it really that hard to conceptualize 90,000 > 550? Or that green party voters back then were much closer to democratic voters than republican? You have to ignore the most obvious fact in order to contrive others.

I mean if you're ignoring the context of the election and 2000, then maybe you can make that leap.

I did read the link. And it still seems like a ton of mental gymnastics to ignore the vote totals.

Lol, no. Why would you even think that?

I don't understand that conclusion. According to their table there, Gore lost by ~550 votes and Nader had over 90,000 votes. Do you really think those votes would have been evenly split?

Apparently a lot of people were thinking the same way you were if judged by the votes.

Chill? I'm not heated. Clearly it was a misunderstanding, that's why I explained it. I didn't mean any disrespect.

No... Because I'm only referring to one post.

He's wrong anyway, the green party isn't a threat to any of the parties, but it's designed to shape off 1-3% off the democratic vote to help republicans.

I'll break it down for you. The first part of the post literally says this:

the green party isn't a threat to any of the parties

And then the very next part of the same sentence is:

but it's designed to shape off 1-3% off the democratic vote to help republicans

Which is exactly what I pointed out. It starts by saying the green party isn't a threat and then gives the exact reason why it is a threat.