Except someone actually cast their vote as “present” you fucking moron, thus making it logical to include in a break down of the voting patterns of congress.
Nearly an identical number of House members abstain from every recent vote related to Palestine, Iran, Hamas, or Israel. Must mean absolutely nothing.
settle the issue once and for all
The issue is that there are 3 politicians that are anti-zionists. That's it. That's the whole issue. The amount that are zionists is probably uncountable versus the number that aren't, but you didn't focus on that.
forum slider
You dumb nigger. What am I sliding? I'm in this single thread, however many comments deep, that's days old now, posting about the direct topic. And I even agree with you that zionists have an insane amount of power in the US and white supremacists have zero power.
With what percentage of votes did Trump win in 2016?
If you are trying to use the votes to determine the level of support or the opposite, the relevant question is what percentage of the voting population voted for Trump.
abandon this sock already
Whenever you stop responding, I'll probably just go back to full time lurking again.
Edited to add:
You have zero ability to guess how those who didn’t vote at all would have voted
I can infer, but sure, I can't be sure.
and considering the overall trends they probably all would have voted in support of cucking to the zionists.
But you can! And you can contradict yourself in the same sentence, too. Very impressive, very jew like. Bravo, Shlomo.
The same reason you included the present vote. I'd say you know this and what being absent/abstaining from a vote means, but at this point you've only confirmed that you're actually mentally challenged.
Do you know how math works you fucking mongoloid?
412/413 = 99.8%
And what is 412/435? Where's the 435 come from? How many members there are in the House.
Oh you mean...exactly what the title and body convey?
Except you fuck it up by having your question answered. How are you this dumb that you don't understand that simple point? I agree with the point you're trying to convey, you just go about it here like a retard.
Blow it out your ass sockpuppet
Stop thinking about my ass, faggot.
Looks like it’s 99.5% of them you’ll have to explain
There are 435 members in the House. If you're going to count present as a vote against, why not those who were absent or abstained? 95% is staggering support, still. No need to inflate it when most people don't care about the minute difference. It's similar to the stupidity of your thought exercise in that your point can be made without easily being proven wrong because of hyperbole/retardation.
Feel free, faggot. That would be infinitely more productive than your cry-bitching so far
I'd just focus on the ridiculous level of bipartisan support for Israel, like that House vote proves, and then how it's impossible to name any politician or law passed that forwards white nationalism.
Yeah that’s what I thought you fucking parasite
You thought about me enough to respond 2 extra times instead of just editing your post to make sure I saw it, just because I didn't respond fast enough for you. Lol. You queer.
How disingenuous can you be? Even this will probably be handwaved by you in some way, but I'll link it anyways: https://archive.is/1Md2d
If you can’t that means zionists control the US government and white nationalists are a non-entity
And if you can fulfil half of what you asked, what becomes of this retarded thought excercise? It still means that white nationalists are a non-threat and a non-entity. Are you going to say that because I named anti-zionists, white nationalists are a threat (which is retarded)? Because it'd be equally retarded to say that because I can't name white nationalists, that zionists aren't a threat and don't have power.
Retool this horribly constructed thought experiment. And don't be a double retard and try to use it on any normie, let alone a lib/prog/dem/another type of faggot if you're trying to make a point about zionist control of the US.
No, you listed three diversity hires (funnily enough leaving off the jew AOC) who support a boycott movement. Can you quote any of them saying they are explicitly “anti-zionist” or are you only capable of conflation?
And now you're arguing like a jew because you're wrong. BDS is explicitly anti-zionist and their website even says how being anti-zionist isn't the same as being anti-semetic.
Read the title and post body again retard, it’s a package deal and you admit you can’t even begin to answer half of it.
This is absolutely retarded. What does it mean that I can name 3 politicians who are anti-zionist, then? If you say it still means the US is controlled by zionists, the whole thing is worthless.
As unlikely as that is, I’m glad you found my thought experiment so provocative you decided to make a new one
I guess. I feel baited, but I did bite. So you did win on that.
I easily named 3 politicians who are openly anti-zionist. Does that mean you're wrong? No, it means you made a dumb argument. It works the same way from the other end. That is why this is a retarded thought exercise.
I forgot my old account, which I lurked on anyways.
You're a retard. I agree with your premise, but this thought excercise is shit.
I can't name any white nationalist politicians because there are none. That fact won't stop libs/progs from either lying or being deluded enough to name any and all Republicans as proof that they do exist and have power. Then you're stuck with either abandoning this stance, arguing with them that they're wrong (which won't work), or flailing around like a sped. And on the other end, even if BDS is controlled opposition, it's extremely easy to point to and has high profile supporters in congress.
Yes, zionists have a ton of power, but this is a retarded thought excercise.
BDS is explicitly anti-zionist and supported by Rashida Tlaib, Cori Bush, Ilhand Omar and probably the rest of the squad. Even the wiki page for BDS has a list of people who support it publicly. And while white nationalists have no power in the US, any lib/prog you ask this question of will name the entire Republican party as proof that it does.
If that's the number, then yes. He won with the support of 27% of the voters. There is a difference between voters and votes, but you must not have developed object permanence and can't understand that simple fact. If you're not special needs, you can infer that some of the voters who stayed home did so for a reason, not just because extenuating circumstances prevented them from voting. Include in those reasons would be who they did or did not support. Remember Bernie Bros?
Bye faggot, and have a merry Christmas!