Jump to content

Would Leftists Support Biden If He Called Off The 2024 Election?


Would leftists support Biden of he called off the 2024 election?   

14 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Dude, she was advocating for bailing people out specifically for their part in the protests. More specifically, the rioting. Get your head out of your ass.

You start off by calling me dummy, then you say that ?

  • intransitive verb To indicate indirectly; imply.

What did you think it meant?

Obama didn't say "These murders were because of...." directly, he implied it. He tried to be sneaky about it. 

Now that you know what the word means, go read that sentence again, stupid. 

Like I said before, the same people who think "march peacefully" means "TAKE OVER THE COUNTRY IN AN ORGY OF VIOLENCE!" also think that "stay angry, and focus your anger" means "stay peaceful and calm". 

No shocker here: that same group of ?s think that 8 yr olds have the wisdom and maturity to choose gender reassignment (and the sterility that comes with it it), but 18 yr old college students completely lack wisdom, and therefor cannot be held accountable for student debt.

You can't even manage to be honest about dictionary definitions. 

OED

Which Word?infer / imply

Infer and imply have opposite meanings. The two words can describe the same event, but from different points of view. If a speaker or writer implies something, they suggest it without saying it directly:

The article implied that the pilot was responsible for the accident.

If you infer something from what a speaker or writer says, you come to the conclusion that this is what they mean:

I inferred from the article that the pilot was responsible for the accident.

Infer is now often used in informal speech with the same meaning as imply:

Are you inferring that I’m a liar?

However, this is still considered incorrect in standard English.

 

Obama didn't "infer" anything while speaking. You mean to accuse him of "implying" something. Rather, you inferred something from his speech that was absurd because of your delusional alternate reality and extremely fuct version of "logic."

Again, let the record show that you can't produce a single statement from anyone in either administration supporting violence. You have only your delusions and lies.

Not a single statement supporting violence, when you claimed that everyone supported violence. Pathetic lies.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Contrarian said:

Yes, but in order for common sense to win, you need to win the intellectual battle.

Once you resort to physical violence, you have lost the battle.

In your case, start first with verbal violence, limit that, and work your way up to civility. 

The strong win with data, logic and accuracy. The losers resort to loser tactics: like not recognising a valid election in 2023 America. ?

If you do not like angered confrontation, don't provoke it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Hodad said:

Great, let the record show that you could not produce even a single example of a person in the administration supporting violence, despite claiming that *everyone* did, up to and including the president.

I set you a VERY low bar and you couldn't even clear that. Why? Because lying snakes lack legs are are, consequently, notoriously poor jumpers. 

At least you're predictable. 

This is so very typical of the common Libbie. They demand evidence, then deny the evidence. Then they attack the messenger because...the message does not conform to your preferred narrative. 

You may have your opinions, but you may not have your own truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Contrarian said:

Well, the truth is not with someone that likes FSB communist material like you then uses the keyboard to pass the same information via holes like Redacted. 

when everything fails is name calling and talks about violence (previous posts).

That is weakling behaviour. ?
 

Oh, I welcome It, is just another time I can prove my point and dismantle your superficial points.

So violence is provoked now. Aha. Just make sure you don't use that defence if you ever find yourself in front of a real judge. They don't tolerate thugs, especially fake ones. ?

Actually...agrivated assault is not uncommon. 

And again...you attack the messenger. Here's a message you might enjoy.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10435987/Ukraine-amateur-army-Thousands-young-civilians-drafted-military-amid-Russia-invasion-threat.html

You exhibit a very closed intellect. You have your preferred narrative and any other consideration is false...regardless of facts.

Over and over, this preferred narrative of yours gets exposed as completely false. Yet you continue to cling to it.

Now...you wanna continue this silliness? This...display of your "superficial points"?

Edited by Nationalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Contrarian said:

Update: I quoted myself because is better to talk to myself than to the person above. ?

The best part is when the manipulator is feeling nobody is here to support him, maybe 1-3 other trolls, and he starts reacting to my messages with laughter.

He thinks this way he gains the upper hand but he knows he lost the battle. A lost Canadian MAGA puppy manipulator. ?

AGAIN, see your doctor, family doctor.  ?

I saw my family doctor. I asked him about masks, the vaxx and the treatments. His answers told me all I needed to know. See...my doctor and I have known each other for decades. 

You are under the impression that all doctors were cowed by the threat of losing their credentials. But my doctor is my age and is quite prepared for retirement. 

You simply cannot propagate lies indefinitely. The truth is like water. It always finds a way through.

Edited by Nationalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

To people reading: 

Regardless of this one says, consider seeing your doctor and listening to your doctor, is my advice. He might even say that you don't need the vaccine, the key is to reach out to that trust level and ignore the manipulators with a keyboard online. 

Thanks,

Contrarian. 

Lol...yes people. Ignore the scientific evidence. TRUST...blindly...your shackled doctor.

Ignore facts...ignore your own senses...and OBEY. That's the paramount issue.

You must OBEY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...yes people. Ignore the scientific evidence. TRUST...blindly...your shackled doctor.

Ignore facts...ignore your own senses...and OBEY. That's the paramount issue.

You must OBEY.

"Obey" experts is far less risky than seeking advice from profiteers selling ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine because they're telling you what you WANT TO HEAR and feeding your bias against "big-pharma."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...yes people. Ignore the scientific evidence. TRUST...blindly...your shackled doctor.

Ignore facts...ignore your own senses...and OBEY. That's the paramount issue.

You must OBEY.

You have demonstrated over and over again that you have zero interest in facts. You don't use data or evidence to inform your opinions and even when they are delivered to you on a platter you lack the willingness or ability to incorporate them and revise your beliefs. 

A person who can't or won't use facts themselves absolutely should talk to experts and obey. It's your best chance of success and survival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nationalist said:

This is so very typical of the common Libbie. They demand evidence, then deny the evidence. Then they attack the messenger because...the message does not conform to your preferred narrative. 

You may have your opinions, but you may not have your own truth.

You don't have evidence. In you posted links to something entirely different that in no way supports the claim made. Classic naked link bait and switch.

Is a bail bondsman pro murder if they front bail money for someone accused of murder? 

Of course not. Don't be stupid. 

Community bail funds have very simple core values and they don't have anything to do with supporting crime. They simply believe that a person who happens to have $0 when arrested doesn't deserve to lose their job, house and family while they await trial any more than a person arrested with $1000 (or whatever arbitrary figure). 

Edited by Hodad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, robosmith said:

"Obey" experts is far less risky than seeking advice from profiteers selling ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine because they're telling you what you WANT TO HEAR and feeding your bias against "big-pharma."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32373993/

https://www.biznews.com/health/2023/01/23/ivermectin-efficacy

Science robo-bot. Don't you "follow the science". No eh? Rather watch people die needlessly that cross the narrative eh? Such a compassionate human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You don't have evidence. In you posted links to something entirely different that in no way supports the claim made. Classic naked link bait and switch.

Is a bail bondsman pro murder if they front bail money for someone accused of murder? 

Of course not. Don't be stupid. 

Community bail funds have very simple core values and they don't have anything to do with supporting crime. They simply believe that a person who happens to have $0 when arrested doesn't deserve to lose their job, house and family while they await trial any more than a person arrested with $1000 (or whatever arbitrary figure). 

Lol...what a plank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Hodad said:

Infer is now often used in informal speech with the same meaning as imply:

Guess what dude, in the first dictionary I checked in, it was right there. It's an accepted meaning of the word. So the fact is that I used a word just like the dictionary says the word is to be used and you have a problem with it. Call the waaahmbulance, loser. I don't care.

FYI you're not the word police, you're a stupid liar who uses words incorrectly all the time, like sedition for example. 

More importantly, why are you opting for the semantic debate instead of talking about why Obama tried to link the murder of 5 cops to something from over 100 years ago? Why can't you address the topic of Trudeau's hate speech? Biden's hate speech? Hillary's hate speech? Kamala's love of rioters? Michelle Obama's dog-whistle to rioters? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

oh, this is a new one, which one is this one again?!

It's new to you, because you're stupid. 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/full-transcript-president-obamas-speech-dallas-police-memorial/story?id=40521153

Quote

We also know that centuries of racial discrimination -- of slavery, and subjugation, and Jim Crow -- they didn’t simply vanish with the end of lawful segregation. They didn’t just stop when Dr. King made a speech, or the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act were signed. Race relations have improved dramatically in my lifetime. Those who deny it are dishonoring the struggles that helped us achieve that progress. (Applause.)

But we know -- but, America, we know that bias remains. We know it. Whether you are black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or of Middle Eastern descent, we have all seen this bigotry in our own lives at some point. We’ve heard it at times in our own homes. If we’re honest, perhaps we’ve heard prejudice in our own heads and felt it in our own hearts. We know that. And while some suffer far more under racism’s burden, some feel to a far greater extent discrimination’s sting. Although most of us do our best to guard against it and teach our children better, none of us is entirely innocent. No institution is entirely immune. And that includes our police departments. We know this.

If any potential rioters were sitting at that funeral, wondering "why those pigs got murdered", now they know. 

That's like if a cop murders a black guy tomorrow and someone stands there at their funeral saying "hundreds of police officers were assaulted in this neighbourhood 3 years ago during the BLM riots". 

Uhhhh, pardon? Does that even matter one bit? What does that have to do with a murder today? If they use that excuse tomorrow, how long can they trot out the "BLM riots" excuse for murdering people? 

The fact is that a murder happened and it was vile and ugly and the perpetrator needs to be shamed 100%, and no excuses can be made for it. 

Were the BLM riots an excuse for Chauvin to kneel on Floyd? Of course not. It would be disgusting to bring that into the conversation.

 

5 cops laid there dead as nails and Obama sat there throwing shade on cops like it was somehow relevant to their fate. We could do that all day, every day, and just justify murder after murder until there's no one left. 

In order for society to move fwd and become what we hope it might, we need far better people than Obama as president. His racism (which he admitted to during that speech) did a lot of damage to America that was unnecessary. 

Edited by WestCanMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

As USUAL, there's a (bad) reason you FAILED to post content from YOUR CITE.

Quote

Conclusions: Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have antiviral characteristics in vitro. The findings support the hypothesis that these drugs have efficacy in the treatment of COVID-19. People are currently using these drugs for malaria. It is reasonable, given the hypothetical benefit of these two drugs, that they are now being tested in clinical trials to assess their effectiveness to combat this global health crisis.

Congrats on finding a study which SHOWS "hypothetical benefit."

IOW, you got nothing until the clinical trials PROVE effectiveness.

 

23 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

 

Quote

Another large randomised control study on ivermectin efficacy for preventing and treating COVID-19 has been released to the public ahead of publication in an academic journal.

IOW, "Biznews" is NOT a peer reviewed scientific journal. 

 

23 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Science robo-bot. Don't you "follow the science". No eh? Rather watch people die needlessly that cross the narrative eh? Such a compassionate human.

Just because YOU IMAGINE you have "science" does not make it true.

You're the one who naively believes what YOU WANT TO HEAR over true science.

Thanks for admitting you LACK "compassionate human."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

This is the kind of reply that does not help your reputation. 

Fight the man back with data and logic. 

He asked for evidence and I gave him evidence. So he denies the evidence.

Ya can't fix "stupid".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Shackled?  I thought he was the puppet master pulling everyone's strings.

You guys really need to get the facts of your conspiracies straight because you're all over the map.

You need to learn to pay attention. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, robosmith said:

As USUAL, there's a (bad) reason you FAILED to post content from YOUR CITE.

Congrats on finding a study which SHOWS "hypothetical benefit."

IOW, you got nothing until the clinical trials PROVE effectiveness.

 

 

IOW, "Biznews" is NOT a peer reviewed scientific journal. 

 

Just because YOU IMAGINE you have "science" does not make it true.

You're the one who naively believes what YOU WANT TO HEAR over true science.

Thanks for admitting you LACK "compassionate human."

Interesting.

Did all the planks come out today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

You need to learn to pay attention. 

I have been paying attention and one day Fauci is the guy in charge but today he's in shackles.

I've asked you people numerous times to explain the discrepancy but you never do.

It's the same with Trudeau, one minute he's the harmless Mr Socks and then he's suddenly Adolf Hitler.

Like I said you guys are all over the map.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I have been paying attention and one day Fauci is the guy in charge but today he's in shackles.

I've asked you people numerous times to explain the discrepancy but you never do.

It's the same with Trudeau, one minute he's the harmless Mr Socks and then he's suddenly Adolf Hitler.

Like I said you guys are all over the map.

Nice try...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Guess what dude, in the first dictionary I checked in, it was right there. It's an accepted meaning of the word. So the fact is that I used a word just like the dictionary says the word is to be used and you have a problem with it. Call the waaahmbulance, loser. I don't care.

FYI you're not the word police, you're a stupid liar who uses words incorrectly all the time, like sedition for example. 

More importantly, why are you opting for the semantic debate instead of talking about why Obama tried to link the murder of 5 cops to something from over 100 years ago? Why can't you address the topic of Trudeau's hate speech? Biden's hate speech? Hillary's hate speech? Kamala's love of rioters? Michelle Obama's dog-whistle to rioters? 

There is no substance to debate. Your claims are utterly without merit. Plain stupid, actually. You can't support your claims. You can't find an example of anyone in either administration who supported violence. You've been revealed as a liar again. So what is left to debate? 

If you don't want to learn the difference between infer and imply, fine. You've never been much interested in learning, so no surprise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2023 at 11:36 AM, Contrarian said:

This is a thread started by a MAGA Canadian Supporter which does not even recognize a LEGAL election in the United States of America. 

So, he can't even be loyal to a legal government in his country, a legal government in America, yet he is loyal to Trump and starts a thread about LIARS. ???

The internet keeps giving. 

@Contrarian Bud...the above was your first entry in this thread. Read it carefully. Do you sense a hint of condescension here? I sure do.

You keep feigning this holier than thou crap, yet...

YA GITS WUT YA PAYS FER!!!

and then some...sometimes. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,744
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    John Wilson
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Fluffypants went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • exPS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • gatomontes99 went up a rank
      Proficient
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...