It's a Heisenberg theory: it's right or wrong depending on whether you say that it's good or bad.
Same as the Heisenberg elections held by the US: they are the most secure in the 250,000 years and fraud is impossible if Democrats win, or Russia stole it if Republicans win.
It’s gotten to a point where no amount of evidence for or against something matters at all. If the story is good for their side, they endorse it. If it’s bad for them, they deny or ignore it. I know lefties who were calling the shooting a hoax less than an hour after it happened. They saw it on live television. They know it makes zero sense to endanger yourself in a false flag. But they still prefer the 1% story to the 99% story, so that’s what it is.
Leftists talk about the Great Replacement like Yudkowsky's hilarious Roko's Basilisk concept. It exists, but talking about it is soooooo bad and evil. In the case of the basilisk, talking about it is supposed to bring it into conception, but the fear for the Great Replacement is that talking about it might kill it.
Funny they should mention this. Ohio was the #3 contributor of troops to the Union Army (behind only NY, which was drafting Irishmen fresh off the boats, and Pennsylvania, which was directly invaded by Lee and was where the Battle of Gettysburg was fought). In the decades after the war, Ohio dominated the Republican Party and many of the Republican presidents between Lincoln & Hoover were from Ohio (Hayes, Garfield, McKinley, Taft, Harding). If they want to make the case that Vance looks like an American nationalist willing and able to kill for the Stars & Stripes, a future agenda-setter for the GOP and also a future President, fine by me.
I'm glad all these losers hate Vance, it just makes me more hopeful about the pick.
Of the declared "short list" members, Vance was my choice, although I also admitted to not knowing about him too much, but liked some of what I'd seen. I then heard about some of his earlier stances, and got a bit warier. He's said and done some good stuff, and some less good stuff (mostly in the past.)
But if all these people hate him, maybe he'll turn out to be amazing. Although, then again, they'd be calling whoever Trump picked Literally Hitler Jr., so take it with a grain of salt.
Still, them spilling their spaghetti over this is fun and an at least potentially good sign.
Can a leftist explain how this theory is wrong?
It's a Heisenberg theory: it's right or wrong depending on whether you say that it's good or bad.
Same as the Heisenberg elections held by the US: they are the most secure in the 250,000 years and fraud is impossible if Democrats win, or Russia stole it if Republicans win.
I've seen that called celebration parallex.
It’s gotten to a point where no amount of evidence for or against something matters at all. If the story is good for their side, they endorse it. If it’s bad for them, they deny or ignore it. I know lefties who were calling the shooting a hoax less than an hour after it happened. They saw it on live television. They know it makes zero sense to endanger yourself in a false flag. But they still prefer the 1% story to the 99% story, so that’s what it is.
Leftists talk about the Great Replacement like Yudkowsky's hilarious Roko's Basilisk concept. It exists, but talking about it is soooooo bad and evil. In the case of the basilisk, talking about it is supposed to bring it into conception, but the fear for the Great Replacement is that talking about it might kill it.
He explicitly stated that Ohio towns were being destroyed by drugs, and the cities were being demographically changed.
They normally consider the eradication of the poor, white, working class to be a moral imperative.
Not you, considering that you supported vaccine mandates.
any woman who insists casual abortions are a human right outs themselves as a hoe.
Funny they should mention this. Ohio was the #3 contributor of troops to the Union Army (behind only NY, which was drafting Irishmen fresh off the boats, and Pennsylvania, which was directly invaded by Lee and was where the Battle of Gettysburg was fought). In the decades after the war, Ohio dominated the Republican Party and many of the Republican presidents between Lincoln & Hoover were from Ohio (Hayes, Garfield, McKinley, Taft, Harding). If they want to make the case that Vance looks like an American nationalist willing and able to kill for the Stars & Stripes, a future agenda-setter for the GOP and also a future President, fine by me.
It's a racial attack, and it almost seems tailored to get you to reflexively like Vance more.
I'm glad all these losers hate Vance, it just makes me more hopeful about the pick.
Of the declared "short list" members, Vance was my choice, although I also admitted to not knowing about him too much, but liked some of what I'd seen. I then heard about some of his earlier stances, and got a bit warier. He's said and done some good stuff, and some less good stuff (mostly in the past.)
But if all these people hate him, maybe he'll turn out to be amazing. Although, then again, they'd be calling whoever Trump picked Literally Hitler Jr., so take it with a grain of salt.
Still, them spilling their spaghetti over this is fun and an at least potentially good sign.
Well the MAGA over on TheDonald aren't. They're like "ugh could have been worse".
It’s a safe choice, which means it’s a bad choice.
Flynn or Carson would have gotten people excited.
Then the MAGA crowd are fucking idiots for not realizing that he's literally the best pick.
He looks like a living bobble head doll.
The Cuomosexuals are criticizing looks?
Spare me.