"Although secularized over the years to signify dreamy pot-o-gold optimism or new beginnings Somewhere over the Rainbow, it wasn’t until the San Francisco Gay Freedom Day Parade celebration in 1978 that the rainbow symbol was co-opted by the non-heterosexual lobby group."
Nowhere in that does it say he complains everytime he sees a rainbow, let alone that all of them complain every time they see one, as you claimed.
Called it.
It's not hard to predict that people will challenge your evidence when it doesn't support your claims. But this is a good tactic when posting BS that doesn't support your point.
I searched for what you told me to, copy and pasted it here, and it doesn't even support your claim for that individual let alone for all right wing Christians as you said.
Certainly we can both agree that 0 evidence is not going to convince me. So it seems quite presumptuous to assume no amount of evidence could convince me.
your hard-on for attacking every post I make
Believe me, I bite my tongue plenty when I see your posts, so we both know it's an outright lie that I attack every post you make.
You post here too much, and I post here too much. It's not harassment that every few days we butt heads over something. It's just what happens when people disagree.
I don't get why people are so confident that this is a dumb move that won't work. We know games are buggy at launch, and people rush to buy them anyway. And then the forums are filled with people losing their shit that the game has bugs in it and isn't perfect. This idea that gamers are some patient group doesn't reflect the reality I've seen over the past 2 decades.
If you claim the campaign is saying something, but openly admit the campaign is not reaching you, then you are doing exactly what I said: not looking for yourself and just parroting what you were told the are saying.
This isn't difficult. The Biden campaign is not saying what the OP is claiming they "see a lot of," he has provided plenty of platform and has seemingly gone out of his way to me minimize mentioning trump (although I expect that the change). The claim that it's happening a lot is just mindlessly parroting a talking points being fed to them.
It doesn't have to fall in line to be useful. But I suggest that if you are jumping in to challenge a point you make it clear that your point has nothing to do with the point being made. Most people are going to respond to things considering the context.
Yeah, but Clinton got some debate questions beforehand and private chatter clearly showed that the brass preferred her. This is literally unforgiveable because, just like braindead Trump supporters, I fell for the "it was rigged" despite the complete lack of evidence. And even worse in this case because Clinton crushed him!
Moderate democrats were splitting the vote, and when all of them dropped out, the vote consolidated to a moderate candidate.
Are you basically arguing that, despite (unfortunately) not appealing to the average democratic voter, it's somehow wrong that he didn't win in favor of a politician who does?
He did win against her. Until the Superdeligates swung the election in favor of where their money and the DNC wanted.
Holy shit, the delusion gets greater with every passing day.
Clinton crushed him, by like 12 percentage points. Millions of votes. Absolutely trounced, and it was clear from the start he was going to lose. You take the superdelegates out, Clinton still wins. You give all of the superdelegates from the districts that Sanders won, Clinton still crushes him. Superdelegates played near zero role in Sanders getting smashed by Clinton, unless you really want to stretch and say their pledging made people vote for her. . .but 12 percentage points of people? Nah. You gotta be crazy to believe that.
On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders spent the first part of 2015 categorized as a likely loser who received very little media attention (indeed, the whole Democratic contest received relatively little attention until it became competitive). But once he gained traction, Bernie got some media buzz, and it wound up giving him the most positive media coverage of any candidate in either party, at least through 2015:
As his poll numbers ticked upward, [Sanders] was portrayed as a “gaining ground” candidate, a favorable storyline buttressed by reports of increasingly large crowds and enthusiastic followers. “The overflow crowds Sanders has been drawing in Iowa and New Hampshire,” said USA Today, “are signs that there is ‘a real hunger’ for a substantive discussion about Americans’ economic anxieties … .” The “real hunger” extended also to journalists, who are drawn to a candidate who begins to make headway against an odds-on favorite.
Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic. For her part, Hillary Clinton had by far the most negative coverage of any candidate.
Ftr, I voted for him in both 2016 and 2020 and I would vote for him today as well. I just recognize that I'm much further left than the average Democrat, and that this whole "Bernie was robbed!" is as rooted in reality as "Trump was robbed!"
An improper relationship and something certainly to be suspicious about. But you aren't pointing to anything that did actually sway or control the election.
You cherry pick some facts, make vague claims to stuff, and don't quantify at all how much they influenced the primary.
You're the equivalent of the trump supporters who cry "but they moved some boxes under a table!" You have nothing but suspicion, and actual analysis of whether or not there is evidence of any kind of rigging revealed nothing, in both cases.
The facts suck when they don't support what you want to be the truth, but it's time to wake up and accept it.
I literally just posted an analysis of the primary, that goes far deeper than winning the popular vote...and you're saying I think it's just the popular vote?
Of course you don't because you're spewing opinion, which you convinced yourself is fact, and I'm providing you with actual analysis, which contradicts what you want to be true. As I said, the facts suck when we don't want them to be true
Listen to yourself, youre misrepresenting the opinion of Harry Reid to make your point. You want me to point to you the opinion of establishment democrats who agree it was fair...or do their opinions only count when they agree with you?
I’ve referenced, like, 5 different real world events, and your response is to show me a single academic article
The article looks at many different angles, and actually quantifies things. Claiming it is a single point is like claiming that you've provided a single point because it was just "a single comment." And does it really need to be explained that quantity != quality? Like you, trump supporters point to a lot of things that they find suspicious. Like you, they cant actually provide anything significant that actually would rise to stolen/rigged.
You’re a deeply unserious person and this is a waste of my time.
This is you dealing with the cognitive dissonance of wanting to believe you are evidence based, but when faced with evidence that contradicts what you think you know to be the truth figuring out a way to ignore it.
Also, I think if you were being honest, you’d admit that you only found the article because you did a web search for, “was the Democratic primary rigged,” and picked the first thing that supported your worldview,
Lol this is hilarious. Notice how you didn't address any points in the actual paper, you just searched the Internet, found an opinion of his you could use to claim bias. Makes it easier than actually having to consider the facts.
You've also got me completely wrong. Like you, I thought the DNC fucked sanders. I bought into the narrative too and as the facts were initially coming out, they seemed pretty damning to me. And I was pissed.
However, after the dust settled I looked around objectively reanalyzed the facts and realized that there was really no substance to the claims sanders was screwed.
Did the DNC prefer Clinton? Yes. We're there things they did wrong that hurt Sanders? Sure. Is there evidence that the primary was rigged? Not, not a shred. You've not provided anything. All you've done, like a good trump supporter, is point to things that make you suspicious. And like you I was suspicious to so I don't consider that unreasonable.
But now that the facts have come out, to still hold onto that initial assumption is evidence of desperately trying to hold onto a worldview.
Wait, you think I need to reiterate all the points in the paper rather than just have you read the primary source? What sense does this make?
You clearly didn’t read it,
What, exactly, made this clear?
but you expect me to read and refute any hyperlink you share
No, I "expect" (I suspect you're too far into this now to ever admit you may have been wrong, so I don't actually expect it) you to read the link (or at least skim over it) and realize that the facts don't support your conclusion that the election was rigged against Sanders. The paper provides some pretty compelling evidence. The most damning that the DNC controls the caucuses, while the states run their individual primaries. . .and Sanders did better in the ones run by the DNC. It's funny that you put more effort "refuting" the paper by scouring the web to give you some kind of out, rather than actually addressing anything in the papers themselves.
You’re like the kid that didn’t read the assignment but is desperately trying to give his book report based on the synopsis on the back.
And if that's me, you're the kid who just read the title and concluded you know everything about the book, then when showed the synopsis you deny that's what it's about. You probably would say something genius like "If I search for 'synopsis of book' this synopsis is one of the first results!" lol literally anything to avoid the actual point.
You can go ahead and have the last word. I’m out.
Without addressing a single thing in the paper too. Well done. But sure, Harry Reid said he wasn't give a fair shake. That's it, it was obviously rigged against him. Damn, super convincing.
On golf courses? No, but every time I've seen one driving around out in public it hasn't been some rich person, it has been some kind of working person. Usually like a security guard or someone doing some kind of service. Rich people drive their expensive cars.
Funny that you would use an article about cops writing tickets to argue that speed cameras are bad. We all agree that speed traps suck and are wrong, but nothing in your article is about the topic, unattended speed cameras, and it mentions nothing of them doing anything shady, outside of aggressive enforcement.
If you want change here, it comes from the bottom up. But likely the most effort you want to put in is vainly checking the box next to a third party for POTUS: no effort but you can fool yourself into believing you've made a statement.
Where did I say anything about you not being allowed to criticize anyone? It's sounds like you are accusing me of being multiple people because other posters have made some argument that I did not... Which is quite frankly nuts.
You're saying to do the work for them, right after saying that giving them different rice to grow will put them out of business. Lol
And, yes, rice is a short cut. It's unobtrusive as it doesn't require anyone to change their diet or learn how to grow new things.
You want to go in there, drive farmers out of business by doing the work for them, and then expect everyone to just change their diets based on what you want them to eat.
I feel that you’re intentionally trying to one up me instead actually have a proper discussion here.
Projection of the day, my friend. I'm sorry that the only example you actually floated immediately contradicted your previous position of not driving farmers out of business.
Expensive, hard work, job creating activities, instead of shortcuts.
Except there are kids whose lives and health we can save, right now, if we just start growing golden rice. Why this insistence on letting children die while you come up with a concrete solution that will take years to implement?
Also subsidize imports if Vitamin A rich foods to make up the difference if local yields are insufficient.
I don't mean this as an insult, just a statement of fact: you are very ignorant about this whole thing. You don't think people have considered bringing in and growing high beta-carotene foods before? It's not so simple. We are talking about extremely poor people and areas here, where there is little or no infrastructure to support this as a long-term solution. However, they know how to grow rice, they eat rice, it requires them buying nothing else, it requires them setting up nothing new, it's a great solution that fits seamlessly into the current framework, and it's relatively cheap.
What you are suggesting requires drastic change and a lot of upfront money, and continued on-going long-term support and financial assistance. Not only that, but it requires touching so much that the change of unintended consequences is extremely high. You worry about driving farmers out of business by giving them license free access to rice. . .but you are all sticking your fingers in most everything about their food logistical chain? It's not consistent.
Pretty much all of the misconceptions you listed could have been solved by simply reading the article, or even being slightly informed about the process of approval of experimental evidence.
Judging from a place of ignorance isn't really any better.
And when people are mindlessly and unfairly judging people, we shouldn't call them out? If I see someone being racist should I just throw up my hands and say "well people are going to people"?
And why aren't you following your own advice and allowing me to people without being challenged?
This is hilarious. You responded to me first, I only addressed you have you jumped in. You are also not "unbiased" because you didn't read the article either and defended the assumption, accusing me of assuming too. But not only that but making false assumptions about my position and then accusing me of being on a high horse. And you're trying to pretend youre some neutral party. Lol
Whatever, my man. You want to let ignorant judgments go unaddressed, be my guest, but I'm going to people over here and call it out like it should be.
You were talking about how we (me and the top level commentor) were both fair in our assumption about what kind of person was that was willing to undergo the procedure. And the article is about people willing to undergo the procedure. So you were absolutely talking about the article. Not only that, but incorrectly claiming that my position was based on being equally as ignorant as you and the top level commentor, when my position was actually based on being knowledgeable by reading the comment.
Christian lifeguard can't handle standing near a Pride flag, sues Los Angeles ( www.advocate.com )
New York governor to launch bill banning smartphones in schools ( www.theguardian.com )
Key misinformation “superspreaders” on Twitter: Older women ( arstechnica.com )
PlayStation's CEO drastically underestimates the Steam crowd's patience, thinks PC gamers will buy a PS5 for exclusive sequels ( www.gamesradar.com )
Seeing a lot of this lately... ( lemmy.world )
Via Berkeley Mews
What could have been... ( lemmy.world )
Rhode Island's Authoritarian Government Has Banned All 30 Kei Trucks In The State (golf carts are OK to drive on the street though) ( jalopnik.com )
There are a lot of low-paying jobs out there. I'm just saying... ( lemmy.world )
Trump told donors he will crush pro-Palestinian protests, deport demonstrators | Speaking to wealthy donors behind closed doors, he said that he supports Israel’s right to continue “its war on terror. ( wapo.st )
‘A catastrophe’: Greenpeace blocks planting of ‘lifesaving’ Golden Rice ( www.theguardian.com )
Thousands of children could die after court backs campaign group over GM crop in Philippines, scientists warn...
Neuralink Can Implant Second Person With a Brain Chip, FDA Says ( gizmodo.com )