Already answered. It's clear you were arguing in bad faith and refusing to give others the same curtesy you were provided.
See, that wasn't so hard and I actually agree with you too. Now why couldn't you have given the other user the curtesy of answering their question and having a discussion in good faith instead of ranting about their opinion without addressing anything they said?
Something someone else wrote.
Doubling down I see. It's an opinion and while I may not agree with whoever you think is the best president you can't really be wrong.
I'm just annoyed at people who rant about other peoples opinions but refuse to offer their own when asked. You aren't arguing in good faith here.
For the record I don't think FDR was the best president but I also disagree with some of your characterizations.
You were using an analogy where a bully threatens to beat you up and take your money.
No, I wasn't.
That's nothing like the current situation. The current situation is a nuclear armed nation is willing to wage an endless war and we're throwing money and bombs and tanks at the problem trying to make it go away.
No, it's not.
You're comparing small scale things to nuclear scale things and it's really just absurd.
No, I'm not.
Here's what I'm getting from their comments:
"US bad, Russia good. I love Putin and anything that I can pretend is a communist nation, despite not even being slightly close"
Bullies also don't have nuclear weapons.
Uh, yes. Yes they do.
It certainly can be.
It wouldn't be a third party, it would be a replacement party. It's happened many times, and not always with a name change.
All voting is a popularity contest, so I guess you don't like voting or democracy?
They asked for a specific example and you failed to provide one. You had 45 choices and couldn't even pick one?
If you're in the US you haven't lost yet. Still federally illegal, so you're still breaking federal law in legal States.
I don't see the relevancy of what you've chosen to quote from this article. Unless you're comparing Sanders campaign donors to Saudi Arabia?
I don't see the relevancy of what you've chosen to quote from this article. Unless you're comparing Sanders campaign donors to Saudi Arabia?
States do not have unrestricted rights and cannot negate human rights.
I wish this was true but sadly it is not. Anti-choice candidates have continued to be elected and pass laws since June 2022.
Some have sure, most I doubt. The largest instance certainly hasn't.
Intent is irrelevant. Humans don't work that way and will continue to downvote what they don't like/agree with and upvote what they do like/agree with. Creating a system that ignores how people work and asking them to please use it how you want will never work.
Everyone should just embrace how it's actually used and move on.