***Official H&F LC Thread***
A valid strategy for getting ripped imo.
(From http://extrafabulouscomics.com/, kyleb's (RIP) favorite web comic)
Except you failed to prove either, mainly due to your lack of critical thinking skills.
Yeah. I even proved it a different way. You ignored it, of course:
Again the point is that dumber, less informed voters lean Trump. That's all. Fortunately proving this is like proving the Pythagorean Theorem, there are lots of ways to do it. You didn't like my other methods. Fine. The easiest proof is the one I gave earlier and it's the hardest to deny. Here are some citations again that you won't read.
1. Trump voters are less educated.
Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/ho...v...
I can find you more of these if you want. That was just the first hit. There are probably even better sources.
2. Education is correlated with intelligence.
Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/ho...v...
So there you go, Mr. Dealer in Facts. You can just focus on those two and you end up that the inevitable conclusion. You can even ignore everything else.
The four questions that were polled were all Kamala talking points. So, of course Kamala voters were more likely to have been exposed to them from Kamala's emails, watching MSNBC, etc. The underlying points of the questions were also biased toward Kamala, meaning Kamala voters were more like to see them as useful data points than were Trump voters. If you want to prove Trump voters were less informed, you'll have to do better than that.
Stock market up is a Kamala talking point? Come on, Trump talks way more about it. Crime being at an "all time high" wasn't a Trump talking point? Come on, man, really? Inflation wasn't a Trump talking point?
But it doesn't matter what they were. They were true statements that any reasonably informed person should know. Yeah, I know, you're going to tell me that maybe Trump voters interpreted those questions in some different way. Doesn't matter. If they can't understand the question, that is kind of what dumb is? Again, if you don't like this method, just use the one above. It's more direct and relies on zero talking points.
Same for intelligence. You claim you weren't trying to argue that smart people voted for Kamala because they're smart and dumb people voted for Trump because they're dumb, but you keep saying it without saying it.
I love it. I don't say it. You know I don't say it. So you claim I "keep saying it without saying it".
How about we just stick to things I'm actually saying?
You should have said Kamala's agenda is skewed toward the needs and interests of the elite and, as people vote their interests, you think more elites voted for Kamala. Then you could post those walls of text trying to correlate intelligence and levels of education.
I don't understand. Is this what you think? You think more intelligent/educated people tend to vote Kamala? What are we even arguing about then.
Of course, if Kamala voters were really smart, they'd not have continually gone online telling everyone how smart they think they are and how dumb they think Trump voters are. Same for MSNBC, CNN, and Kamala's surrogates. It's wasn't a very good strategy for winning an election.
Yes, that is a bad strategy for winning an election. Good thing I'm not making any claims about election strategy.
I said nothing about the electoral college. I posted an image of Trump winning the election. Yes, it included the projected electoral college outcome. That's how we vote in America. LOL at how hard you'll reach for whatever you can find.
LOL. I'm Rich Muny. I didn't say anything about the electoral college. I just posted an electoral college map. Look at how clever and tricky I am.
2.5 million more people voted for Trump than for Kamala. It's not that hard.
Yes, that is true. I don't know who you think is disagreeing with that. It's not me. I'm not the one disputing obvious facts. Also more people voted for someone other than Trump than voted for Trump. That is also an undeniable fact. Sorry that bothers you. If it's any consolation, he may still pull it off a majority (but doubtful).
LOL. I'm Rich Muny. I didn't say anything about the electoral college. I just posted an electoral college map. Look at how clever and tricky I am.
You're a weird dude, Melk. The only thing I said about the electoral college was that Trump won it. You're really trying to argue that I thought Trump's popular vote margin was the same as his electoral college margin? Weird. I've been posting the popular vote margin on X in earnest well prior to the post that fascinates you for unknown reasons.
As for third party voters, they are more aligned with me than they are with you. It's that simple. Otherwise they'd have voted for Kamala to save her doomed candidacy.
You posting a PBS article that stated a "diploma" bias in voters without a source? I didn't ignore it. I opined that Kamala's policies were more focused on the interests of elites and that people were voting their interests.
Your interest in this is in trying to prove that Trump voters are dumber and less informed, despite your repeated claims to the contrary.
Stock market up is a Kamala talking point?
The point is being used to show that we have a strong economy. It just happens at the stock market is doing better than most other indicators.
Crime being at an "all time high" wasn't a Trump talking point?
Crime is a major issue for many. Deny it all you want, but many voted on it, including many CA voters.
Inflation wasn't a Trump talking point?
Phrasing it in terms of this year only, rather than total inflation during the Biden-Harris administration, was biased in favor of Kamala. Same story for border security. I explained both to you in detail already.
But it doesn't matter what they were. They were true statements that any reasonably informed person should know. Yeah, I know, you're going to tell me that maybe Trump voters interpreted those questions in some different way. Doesn't matter. If they can't understand the question, that is kind of what dumb is? Again, if you don't like this method, just use the one above. It's more direct and relies on zero talking points.
Not so. Many families know that money is tighter. For them, hearing that prices aren't going up as fast as they had been doesn't resonate with them. They are plenty informed about how much they spend and how much they have. Someone who watches too much MSNBC and gets all of ActBlue's emails will know Kamala's talking points here. That doesn't mean they're more informed. It means they pay more attention to Kamala'a claims.
FWIW, I was well aware of the four points from that survey. They didn't ring true to me because they don't tell the entire story. I'm well informed.
I don't understand. Is this what you think? You think more intelligent/educated people tend to vote Kamala? What are we even arguing about then.
So explain your claim. Are you simply claiming the current Democrat platform is more aligned with the interests of elites, or are you saying something else?
Yes, that is a bad strategy for winning an election. Good thing I'm not making any claims about election strategy.
The strategy should be NOT to do it. But, I hope you all keep it up. It doesn't offend me because I'm a lot smarter than you, but there are a lot of voters who are repelled by it.
The PBS article is the source, dude. And within they cited a poll from PBS/NPR/Marist. Also if that was your problem (which we both know it really isn't), I explicitly said I can provide more sources. Mindflayer provided another source as well (which I'm sure you also ignored) Let me know if you want more. This request is particularly hilarious from someone who posts almost zero sources for his claims, but one of us actually posts sourced info and I'm happy to continue to do it.
Are you seriously suggesting that less educated people don't tend to vote Trump? Because if you're not, then I don't know why you are arguing with me.
I didn't ignore it. I opined that Kamala's policies were more focused on the interests of elites and that people were voting their interests.
Sure, that may or may not be true. Doesn't matter. Doesn't change the underlying fact.
Your interest in this is in trying to prove that Trump voters are dumber and less informed, despite your repeated claims to the contrary.
WAT? NO. That IS very close to I am trying to prove. I would state it slightly differently (i.e. dumber, less informed voters tend to vote Trump). I'm claiming this right now. How can you be this confused?
The point is being used to show that we have a strong economy. It just happens at the stock market is doing better than most other indicators.
You really seem to have a problem with facts. It is not a point. It is fact. Stock market is up or down. The answer is factual, knowable and undeniable.
Crime is a major issue for many. Deny it all you want, but many voted on it, including many CA voters.
Yes, Crime is an issue. "Is crime at "all time highs" (even the single source you posted showed this to be untrue)?" is a question with a factual answer. People who did not know the answer tended to vote Trump.
Phrasing it in terms of this year only, rather than total inflation during the Biden-Harris administration, was biased in favor of Kamala. Same story for border security. I explained both to you in detail already.
LOL, so your argument is that "Well if they had asked a different question than what they asked, then the responders would have answered differently" Again knowing that the inflation rate is down is a fact. Knowing that inflation and prices are not the same thing is also a fact. People who didn't know these things tended to vote Trump.
Not so. Many families know that money is tighter. For them, hearing that prices aren't going up as fast as they had been doesn't resonate with them. They are plenty informed about how much they spend and how much they have. Someone who watches too much MSNBC and gets all of ActBlue's emails will know Kamala's talking points here. That doesn't mean they're more informed. It means they pay more attention to Kamala'a claims.
It also means that they don't know the facts that describe the reality of our situation.
FWIW, I was well aware of the four points from that survey. They didn't ring true to me because they don't tell the entire story. I'm well informed.
LOL, "they didn't ring true"? Well, they were true, as it sounds like you are aware. This is basically my point. People who didn't think things that were actually, literally, undeniably true tended to vote for Trump.
It's very easy for someone to think "Well inflation is down, but prices are still high, so I'll vote Trump". If that level of thought is to complex for you, then yes, you're kind of dumb.
So explain your claim. Are you simply claiming the current Democrat platform is more aligned with the interests of elites, or are you saying something else?
It may or may not be. Irrelevant to the point.
The strategy should be NOT to do it. But, I hope you all keep it up. It doesn't offend me because I'm a lot smarter than you, but there are a lot of voters who are repelled by it.
Yes, you are a very clever boy!
I don't care about strategy. I'm not Harris' campaign manager. I'm not making any claims about strategy. I agree that the strategy should not be to call potential voters stupid no matter how stupid they may be. Also irrelevant to the point.
You're a weird dude, Melk. The only thing I said about the electoral college was that Trump won it. You're really trying to argue that I thought Trump's popular vote margin was the same as his electoral college margin? Weird.
Nah, what's weird is talking about how many more people there are and then posting a graphic with the number of more electoral votes there are. Do you think that's not weird?
As for third party voters, they are more aligned with me than they are with you. It's that simple. Otherwise they'd have voted for Kamala to save her doomed candidacy.
This is another figment of your imagination. I'd ask you for a source, but we know you don't do sources. There are plenty of polls that showed Harris up in WI/MI/PA. If she takes those three, she wins. Obviously, we now know those polls were way off, but someone could have easily thought Harris was going to win despite their not voting for her. Who knows?
But you're free to believe that your imagination actually reflects the truth.
Are you seriously suggesting that less educated people don't tend to vote Trump? Because if you're not, then I don't know why you are arguing with me.
That's a lot of text repeating the same questions I already answered for you, Melk. You should go back and read what I already posted to you.
While I dispute your characterization of people being "less educated" based on college degrees (and, on that, LOL if you think degrees in majors like gender studies are equivalent to those in STEM fields), I didn't make an argument regarding this one way or another. I simply disputed your implied claim that smart people vote for Kamala because that's the smart thing to do, and vice versa. I said people are voting their interests. Kamala had an agenda aimed at elites, so some of them voted their interests. You seem very confused on this point.
You really seem to have a problem with facts. It is not a point. It is fact. Stock market is up or down. The answer is factual, knowable and undeniable.
I'm personally happy that the stock market is up. Someone working paycheck to paycheck is less interested in the market and is more interested in other economic factors that weigh more directly on their day to day life. I'm not more informed about the stock market because I'm smarter. I'm more informed about the stock market because I have investments and I care about it.
LOL, so your argument is that "Well if they had asked a different question than what they asked, then the responders would have answered differently" Again knowing that the inflation rate is down is a fact. Knowing that inflation and prices are not the same thing is also a fact. People who didn't know these things tended to vote Trump.
Biden-Harris have been in office for almost four years. People are judging them on all four years, not just the prior twelve months. That's why inflation rate is more of a campaign talking point that resonated more with people looking for something positive to say about Kamala.
It also means that they don't know the facts that describe the reality of our situation.
That makes no sense. They know total inflation during the Biden administration has been high. They see it daily.
LOL, "they didn't ring true"? Well, they were true, as it sounds like you are aware. This is basically my point. People who didn't think things that were actually, literally, undeniably true tended to vote for Trump.
No. It means they see through the spin. Dems think they can just tell us men are women, Califormia is tougher on crime than Texas, etc.
It's very easy for someone to think "Well inflation is down, but prices are still high, so I'll vote Trump". If that level of thought is to complex for you, then yes, you're kind of dumb.
Did you even read that before you posted it? Prices went up during the Biden administration, they are still up, and people are voting based on that.
That's a lot of text repeating the same questions I already answered for you, Melk. You should go back and read what I already posted to you.
While I dispute your characterization of people being "less educated" based on college degrees (and, on that, LOL if you think degrees in majors like gender st
How many times are you going to do this! It's not an "implied claim". I never said it. I also explicitly said that I never said it. And I did this a million times. Maybe you should be the one to go back and read again, don't you think? To help you in this goal, here's a post very explicitly denying saying that. It's not even a day old:
I was worried someone would make that assumption and I clarified in earlier posts (one of which was a response to you). I'm saying that but without the causation. So it's,
*Less intelligent and informed people tended to vote for Trump
It is NOT
*Less intelligent and informed people tended to vote fo
It should tell you something that all you can do is argue against "implied claims" that I have explicitly disavowed instead of the actual words on the page. Why not try that instead?
I said people are voting their interests.
That may or may not be true. It is irrelevant. If dumber people tend to vote for Trump, then dumber people tend to vote for Trump. The reason why they do does not change whether it is true or not.
I'm personally happy that the stock market is up. Someone working paycheck to paycheck is less interested in the market and is more interested in other economic factors that weigh more directly on their day to day life. I'm not more informed about the stock market because I'm smarter. I'm more informed about the stock market because I have investments and I care about it.
Yes, in such a case, someone who simply didn't know that the market is up would definitely be less informed. They would not necessarily be less intelligent. I'm sometimes using the casual term dumber to encompass both. People who are less intelligent and/or less informed tend to vote for Trump. If they simply didn't know that the market is up that is less informed. If they thought that stock market is up means that "economy is doing better" by whatever metric they want to use , then they did not understand the question are less intelligent. You can take your pick. I suppose it could even be both.
Biden-Harris have been in office for almost four years. People are judging them on all four years, not just the prior twelve months. That's why inflation rate is more of a campaign talking point that resonated more with people looking for something positive to say about Kamala.
It doesn't matter, man facts are facts. If they didn't know the inflation has declined in the last year they are uninformed. If they thought that "inflation has declined in the last year" really refers to the last four years, they either don't understand English or are very unintelligent. Take your pick.
That makes no sense. They know total inflation during the Biden administration has been high. They see it daily.
Cool. That wasn't the question. The question was "True or False: Inflation has declined in the last year and is near historic averages". It does not ask what they see every day. And if they don't know the difference between prices declining and inflation declining, then yes, they are uninformed or unintelligent.
No. It means they see through the spin. Dems think they can just tell us men are women, Califormia is tougher on crime than Texas, etc.
Unlike those issues, which are again irrelevant to the discussion, even you can't dispute the facts in the poll. That's why you keep bringing up a bunch of irrelevant stuff.
It's very easy for someone to think "Well inflation is down, but prices are still high, so I'll vote Trump". If that level of thought is to complex for you, then yes, you're kind of dumb.
Did you even read that before you posted it?
Sorry, I'm assuming you know too much. My bad. If inflation was 4% last year and 3% this year, then inflation went down, but over the entire time period prices went up. This should be obvious to anyone. If you don't understand that, we have bigger problems than I thought.
Prices went up during the Biden administration, they are still up, and people are voting based on that.
Man, I'm beginning to think you were one of the people polled. They didn't ask "Why did you vote for Trump?". They asked a very specific factual question. If you can't understand the difference between those two questions, then yes, you are dumb. There is no way around that as much as you keep grasping for straws.
You sound like the kid who took second place at a middle school debate.
I know thremp is retired, so it makes sense he can argue with melkerson.
But what about Muny? Melkerson? You guys retired too?? Must be nice.
I know thremp is retired, so it makes sense he can argue with melkerson.
But what about Muny? Melkerson? You guys retired too?? Must be nice.
That's a no for me. Normally I just multitask on this shiet. I know you're not reading the text walls, but it's easy AF. Yesterday's posts were while I was at kids swim lessons. And on my rests when lifting, during which I was also watching football (super boring day in the NFL). Also, my wife's got us bingeing a not so great series right now, so easy to post while watching that.
LOL. Good talk. Get back to me when your reading comprehension and logic reach middle school level.
You're the one who fails at critical thinking. You think people being familiar with Kamala'a talking points means they are more informed in general, as opposed to merely being more informed about those four specific points. Then again, you all think biological men should be in women's sports and spaces, Project 2025 is Trump's plan, Joe Biden was cognitively strong and that videos to the contrary were cheap fakes, and on and on.
You're the one who fails at critical thinking. You think people being familiar with Kamala'a talking points means they are more informed in general, as opposed to merely being more informed about those four specific points.
Yeah, being informed on facts related to important issues in the election was kind of important. What does more "informed in general" even mean? You got some sources that people who tend to vote Trump are more informed on anything? Oh yeah, that's right, you don't do sources. That's research paper level work for our "dealer in facts".
Then again, you all think biological men should be in women's sports and spaces, Project 2025 is Trump's plan, Joe Biden was cognitively strong and that videos to the contrary were cheap fakes, and on and on.
Never said any of this. But you love making up stuff that we both know I never said to argue against. I suppose this is what you think "critical thinking skills" actually are. It's certainly easier than arguing against what I actually say, because you're clearly incapable. But keep at it!
Man it's wild how much training has been training and evolving in the hypertrophy world. 2nd place Mr. Olympia Classic (arguably better than cbum) and he trains upper/lower. Terrence Ruffin is also doing upper lower 4x/wk. Seems like "go back to beginner style training" is the new thing not just in Oly with Olivia Reeves. Less is moar, boyos.
I've been thinking about upper low 3x/wk a bit (probably just 2 upper 1 lower) but what I'm doing now is working really well already.
Yeah, being informed on facts related to important issues in the election was kind of important. What does more "informed in general" even mean? You got some sources that people who tend to vote Trump are more informed on anything? Oh yeah, that's right, you don't do sources. That's research pape
Dumb point, Melk. You posted a survey of four questions. You can't extrapolate beyond those four questions.
I didn't claim to have data on Trump voters. I have no idea if anyone collected any or not. I was claiming that your data doesn't prove anything close to what you think it does, and I already explained why. If that's too complex for you, that's too bad.
Never said any of this. But you love making up stuff that we both know I never said to argue against. I suppose this is what you think "critical thinking skills" actually are. It's certainly easier than arguing against what I actually say, because you're clearly incapable. But keep at it!
I didn't say you personally do or do not. I said a lot of Kamala voters do.
Melk,
Beyond your insistence that this survey data represents "objective facts" about which Democrats are more informed specifically, and that they are smarter in general (based on proxies like completing higher education, which I think you'd agree involves a population at least marginally selected for something other than raw intelligence), what exactly is the purpose (other than Melking) of getting Rich to "admit" this? Just personal satisfaction?
Can someone DM me when consider poor ghetto ass black kids over things like "school shootings" or "illegal immigrants" (most kids are not criminals, but most adult illegals are)?
Maybe we can even talk about how gun laws are actually most useful for BLM causes and keeping ghetto ass gangbangers alive (who are responsible for the vast majority of mass shootings among children).
K.
Man it's wild how much training has been training and evolving in the hypertrophy world. 2nd place Mr. Olympia Classic (arguably better than cbum) and he trains upper/lower. Terrence Ruffin is also doing upper lower 4x/wk. Seems like "go back to beginner style training" is the new thing not just in
This is definitely in line with our prior autism about where is the optimal point on the "can do more on roids".
I can definitely say without a shadow of a doubt, I have no ****ing clue where the line is. But I'm always interested in the science on this expanding. I'm old enough to have read t-nation and how anyone on roids was a on a 6 day a week 2/hr session type program. But maybe you can just juice and spend slightly more time than a 20yr old natty with gifted genetics and get there (more maybe less, we don't really ****ing know!)
Melk,
Beyond your insistence that this survey data represents "objective facts" about which Democrats are more informed specifically, and that they are smarter in general (based on proxies like completing higher education, which I think you'd agree involves a population at least marginally selected
Melk just doesn't see it. He's so fixated on this survey that he can't look at it critically. As you note, all four questions were Kamala talking points, so her voters were far more likely to have heard them. Also, it was true/false. That also biased the results toward Kamala voters, as they didn't have to be informed on any facts at all. They just had to have an opinion about them when asked, and Kamala voters would obviously answer that things are great under Biden-Harris. That's simple confirmation bias.
The funniest part is his insistance that correctly answering one of these four true/false questions translates into being more informed overall.
from a progressive: "Overall crime rates are down nationally, but in cities where Democratic mayors or district attorneys took a lenient approach to prosecutions of shoplifting or to encampments of people who were homeless, drug-dependent, mentally ill, or all three, they were voted out of office by a fed-up working and middle class." -- Robert Kuttner, co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect, and professor at Brandeis University’s Heller School. Nuances like that don't compute with Melk.
Can someone DM me when consider poor ghetto ass black kids over things like "school shootings" or "illegal immigrants" (most kids are not criminals, but most adult illegals are)?
Maybe we can even talk about how gun laws are actually most useful for BLM causes and keeping ghetto ass gangbangers alive
wow this is so problematic, sweetie. I am going to put down my avocado toast to educate you, okay sweetie?
BLM is an entirely peaceful movement and black people are far less violent than white people (I have interacted with exactly one black person in the last month, an obese HR lady with a business degree she barely earned passing grades for and was definitely not a DEI hire). The main mass shooters are WHITE REPUBLICAN INCEL MISOGYNISTS OKAY? They don't get women because of their bad personalities and misogynistic beliefs. Everyone knows that compliance with liberal shibboleths and feminist ideology is the only determinant of a man's reproductive success and attractiveness; these guys are just psychotic to believe that the reason they don't get laid is because of physical features or a lack of money and status to compensate for a lack of physical attractiveness. And it's this same psychotic delusion along with massive unchecked privilege as WHITE MALES that causes them to be performing mass shootings at such an alarming scale. I have literally NEVER heard of a black person engaging in a shooting of any form; I think you might need to check your white supremacy and stop reading fake news. Get on Bluesky and get off X!
All we need to do to solve the problem of rampant mass shootings on the part of white right wing extremists is to literally confiscate all guns (perhaps with financial compensation) and more feminist education at all levels of school and workplaces. And more therapy and psych meds. These are extremely effective and should be normalized for a large % of the population。We should put these as interests in our online dating profiles. Totally normal.
Spoiler
sorry i couldn't help myself
Dumb point, Melk. You posted a survey of four questions. You can't extrapolate beyond those four questions.
1. Based on that survey, you can say they are less informed about those four things. You don't even seem to understand that.
2. It's not like there isn't other data. Here's another survey asks people about where they get their news. You can see all the data in the link below, but focus on people who "don't follow political news". I think we can all agree that these are less informed people. After all, they are telling us they don't follow poiltical news. Who do you think they tend to vote for? I'll give you one guess:
Source: : https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-el...
I didn't claim to have data on Trump voters. I have no idea if anyone collected any or not. I was claiming that your data doesn't prove anything close to what you think it does, and I already explained why. If that's too complex for you, that's too bad.
I know that you didn't claim to have data. You have data about almost nothing. But in this case it doesn't really exist. Nearly all the evidence out there points one way. Sorry for the bad news. It sounds like you're going with "Well sure that data may suggest Trump are dumber, but it doesn't prove it to my rigorous standard." That's denial. You can make that statement about any claim just about anything.
I didn't say you personally do or do not. I said a lot of Kamala voters do.
Come on, man the posts are right here for everyone to read. Shall we have a look?
Then again, you all think biological men should be in women's sports and spaces, Project 2025 is Trump's plan, Joe Biden was cognitively strong and that videos to the contrary were cheap fakes, and on and on.
Words are hard! Here's a pro tip, if you mean to exclude the guy you are responding to you can't use "You all". Hope that helps.
Melk,
Beyond your insistence that this survey data represents "objective facts" about which Democrats are more informed specifically, and that they are smarter in general (based on proxies like completing higher education,
1. Regarding bolded, I posted a link to a study that took that into account when correlating education with intelligence. It also references other similar work. Obviously, people who study these things are aware of that, as am I. I can't blame you for not bothering to read the text walls, but it's in there.
2. To answer your question, we both know Rich is never going to admit it. Real talk. Everyone knows dumber people tend to vote Trump. It's like the sky being blue. Deep down even Rich knows this. He admitted as much. Earlier he said something like, "It's bad strategy for the Harris campaign to call Trumpy voters dumb, It doesn't bother me because I know I'm smarter ...". And that makes sense. If you think you're smarter, that kind of insult does nothing. So why is it bad strategy? Because it bothers people who really are dumber! And then they get mad and spite vote against the people who look down on them. But his whole theory (which he repeats like million times, despite my not disputing it), rests on the fact the insult kind of hits because it's true. If it weren't true, the people would blow it off, like Rich Muny claims to do himself.
Furthermore, we know that the Trump and Trumpy people call people on the left dumb all the time on social media and other venues. I can find you tons of examples of "blah blah dumb libs..." , but I'm sure you know this. Why does no one say "well calling liberals dumb will cause them to spite vote against Trump"? It's because the insult doesn't hit the mark. They pretty much all blow it off, the exact way Rich Muny does.
So, not only does everyone know this, but Rich knows it too. I guess I just find cognitive dissonance such as this to be fascinating, and therefore I tend to probe it. That is a component of Melking, so I guess the short answer is Melking.
The insult is bad Strat directed at Trump voters because some of them are dumb and the dumb ones take offence, but it doesn’t hit the mark with some Libs because…
no Libs are dumb?
Or no Libs think they’re dumb?
The insult is bad Strat directed at Trump voters because some of them are dumb and the dumb ones take offence, but it doesn’t hit the mark with some Libs because…
no Libs are dumb?
Or no Libs think they’re dumb?
bro libs are all 140iq+ geniuses. That's why they can abstract that men are women and women are men and men and women are exactly equal except when women are better. I feel sorry for those of you who aren't gigabrains and have to vote for trump because you're just not erudite enough to understand the brilliance of Kamala bro
