Huh, now I have you projecting, too?
Sadly, my country doesn’t let 18 year old women get free drinks at bars due to age restrictions, and the only people I hear giving free vacations to girls tend to be Republican Representatives from Florida trafficking them for sex, but I have talked to at least 2 girls before and, you’ll never believe this (and I know the previous statement was already beyond your imagination), they aren’t fans of being treated like sex objects.
There’s your first steps!
You literally said 18 year old women get free things from 40 year old men and sell feet pics on OnlyFans. I highly doubt you respect women.
Alas, English is only my third language. I hope that my words convey their correct meanings in your tongue as they do mine, though I fear your misunderstandings wouldn’t be rectified by a better diction or syntactically grasp therein, but learning is a foundational basis to grow as a person, and I support your endeavors into the craft.
I hope you meet a lot of women that you respect as human beings.
Also, not sure why my parents’ basement would have gates around it. Perhaps you meant walls? That would make your statement a bit more insulting, if that’s what you were going for. Ya know, for next time.
Ah, I think I understood now. You’re saying that 18 year old women have money because they are more easily able to be sex workers.
And you don’t see why that is a horrible viewpoint to have? I mean, it definitely feels sexist and like you are reducing young women to their value as sex objects. It also feels like you would expect young women to act like this.
I hope you realize that isn’t how most people, let alone young women, act, and also that most sex workers are pretty varied in gender and age.
What is wrong with making money on OnlyFans? What is wrong with making money in the NBA? I am now more confused.
Those are really weird incel beliefs.
But, for levity, please explain what is wrong with this:
10k a month for “feet pics” on only fans
It’s not ableist to disqualify someone from being President if they smell really, really bad because that means that they are unable to accomplish an action themselves or with the help of their advisors.
Here in America, calling the cops very often gets you more Nazis.
You know there’s words you can use besides “normal.” A common one is neurotypical. Also, everything you said is generalizations with no basis in reality and incredibly ableist, so, again, you have proven me right.
That is a very ableist attitude to potebtially exclude learning disabilities, so maybe my comprehension skills were pretty good after all.
I’ll take “Things you don’t believe” for $200.
I would prefer someone who didn’t try to overthrow an election be in charge of our country, and sadly Trump absolutely fails that very simple litmus test.
This is really just a summary that will pertain to most cases. https://electioncases.osu.edu/case-tracker/?sortby=filing_date_desc&keywords=&status=all&state=all&topic=25 is a collection of all the cases, so you can see them all!
Considering that Trump got fact checked only a couple of times and that Trump himself got an unfair treatment where he was given the chance to rebuttal every single time he wanted, I will say that you have given a biased answer. I am still going to say that Trump did, indeed, lie about the election being fraudulent. Given that, let’s see how each of those court cases were ruled!
Trump v. Biden (Wis. Dec. 14, 2020). 3 out of 4 claims dismissed under doctrine of laches. This is actually funny because that means the plaintiff does have standing. Last claim ruled against Trump.
Trump v. Wis. Elecs. Comm’n. (E.D. Wis. Dec. 12, 2020). Ruled against. No violation of the Elections Clause.
King v. Whitmer (E.D. Mich. Dec. 7, 2020). Could’ve been dismissed for lack of standing because the plaintiffs were Republican presidential electors and not state electors. But INSTEAD analyzed the merits and ruled against them regardless.
Ward v. Jackson (Ariz. Sup. Ct., Maricopa Cnty. Dec. 4, 2020) Plaintiff denied relief because they failed to meet evidentiary standards for their election fraud claims. Evidence showed election was 99.45% accurate and the errors were human errors.
Law v. Whitmer (Nev. Dist. Ct., Carson City Dec. 4, 2020). Dismissed because plaintiffs failed to prove that any voting device malfunctioned, that the election board was guilty of malfeasance, or that there was election fraud.
Donald J. Trump for President v. Bockvar (M.D. Pa. Nov 21, 2020). Dismissed because lacked standing BUT ALSO reviewed the case and rejected the plaintiff’s claim that upholding the Equal Protection Clause requires complete equality because that would be impossible.
Wood v. Raffensperger (N.D. Ga. Nov. 20, 2020). Could’ve been dismissed for lack of standing OR doctrine of laches, BUT INSTEAD court rules on merits regardless! Dismissed plaintiff’s claims of violation of Equal Protection clause (same as above), Elections and Electors Clause claims because Raffensperger didn’t didn’t override or rewrite any state laws, AND a claim that individuals have a constitutional right to observe the electoral process.
Bower v. Ducey (D. Ariz. Dec 9, 2020). Dismissed for lack of standing BUT ALSO reviewed the case and found that plaintiff’s claims were largely based on hearsay and irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections and no claims of fraud were credible.
Constantino v. City of Detroit (3d Jud. Ct. Wayne Cnty. Nov. 13, 2020). Plaintiff preliminary injunction denied due to failure to meet evidentiary standards, including locations, frequency, and names of those involved of alleged misconduct. Additionally, defendants provided sufficient evidence to convince court that they acted within the law.
Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes (Ariz. Sup. Ct., Maricopa Cty.) Case dismissed due to numerous procedural defects on part of the plaintiffs.
Idk man, it really looks like that EVEN THE CASES THAT WERE DISMISSED TO LACK OF STANDING were reviewed and found not credible for so, so, so many reasons.
Which of the fact checks do you think were unfair?
Don’t Republicans support doing something now and then fixing things later? They treated fixing healthcare like that by trying to repeal the ACA without a future plan, so it seems odd that they would treat this situation different, no?
Actually, I think it’s also grammatically correct. You can use an interjection (which “weird” would count as here since it’s a show of emotion) followed by a comma.
I don’t really see how he would be better on national security, given that most, if not all, of our national security agencies regard Trump as a threat. He frequently gives out secrets to foreign powers (whether this is accidental or purposeful is debatable), has a distinct disregard for the military, (including doing nothing about Russia putting bounties on US soldiers, instituting a trans ban in the military against the advice of the military, calling captured soldiers losers, etc.), and he also tried to overturn an election he consistently called fraudulent in spite of no evidence found to support that conclusion and loads of evidence to conclude that the election was fair through a number of methods (fake slates of electors, organizing a mod and several senators and representatives to delay certification of the election, getting Pence to not certify).
If you meant border security, then why did he help kill a bill that would have fixed many of the things he’s complaining about?
History proves you wrong. The fucking Three-Fifths Compromise proves you wrong! Imagine pretending we would somehow be more racist if we removed the Electoral College, I can’t even.
Remember when claiming immigrants were stealing and eating pets was enough to disqualify someone from being a president?
… No?
Ah, my bad, this insane new low seems to have never happened before.
I am forced to kill the frog. Truly there is no fun to be had making fun of someone without the faculties to understand they’re being made fun of.
I assume you’re probably a mid to late teen, but, regardless, I think you should hit those books. Knowledge is power, and, uh, you probably need a lot of power.