Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
She was found to lie about many things during the debate. I won't repost them but you can easily look back through the thread if you like.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump is losing the debate acting like a raving lunatic
- Thread starter F1fan
- Start date
You stated a challenge that implies that moving to Springfield and letting our a pet cat would be dangerous. That tells us you are believing the lies by Trump and Vance and other right wingers that Haitians are stealing and killing the pets. The whole motivation for these lies are racist. That you believe the lies suggests your racism.
You have no examples so we throw out your opinion.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Not just Haitians .. it includes Hezbollah, Hamas and Houthis too.
None of these people are worth anything, according to those with status.
They have dehumanized them, further exacerbating the division between ethnic groups.
i.e. the haves and have-nots
I don't agree with Shia philosophy, but I do not agree with promoting division either.
..and that has been happening for decades in the middle east .. due to oil.
The oil age is not over yet, despite climate-change .. demand is currently still increasing.
Last edited:
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
You'd throw it out anyway, and I am not going to repost things.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I actually do not believe that Haitians are killing and eating pets. Or stealing and killing them. Go ahead and move there, and let your pets run free!
TRUE STORY TIME:
Springfield is less than 20 miles from me and I drove past the exit for that town yesterday as a matter of fact. I did not stop.
Then why did you challenge anyone to move there and let their cat out if you truly don’t see there being Haitians killing them? Your challenge is meaningless without you holding some belief that it happens.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I just moved so I won't be moving again anytime soon, but feel free to do so. Warning: You will be living less than 20 miles from me!
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Since I am not a racist and implied nothing, I guess the post is meaningless! But go ahead and move there. I promise to leave you alone.
You posted it. You had some motivation to do it. Could it be some subconscious reason and you’re not consciously aware of it? A lot of racism does simmer in our subconscious and it can get expressed with our actions and statements.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Sounds like you're speaking from personal knowledge.
By the way, you're the one who said the post was meaningless.
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
Harris was supposed to get to the root causes of immigration and failed, but now she claims she wants to build a wall to help solve the immigration problem now that it's an election year.
He said it in a debate two weeks ago and you say it's an "obsession"? If you are saying it "ad nausem", then it's your obsession - not his. Trump didn't invent the news coming from Springfield.
Filtered news is even more opportunity for biased reporting.
Bomb threats from other countries is another reason to increase our national attention on Springfield.
Vivek already visited Springfield, held a townhall, and got a standing ovation. People in the government of Springfield were invited to attend and chose not to. Trump plans to visit Springfield, which is only going to embarass the Mayor more if he chooses not to attend that as well. This goes Trump's way over time because the issues are real. Kamala's suggested the bomb threats were due to racism, but we learned bomb threats are coming from other countries. This isn't helping her.
Perhaps you keep saying "disinformation" because you don't actually have a legitimate rebuttal to the point that Trump is paying attention to the news and Kamala isn't.
There's that word again. There's no reason I should believe your news sources aren't disinformation.
Do you deny that the police have reported the bomb threats as coming primarily from another country?
How do you know that your information not disinformation?
So... this "disinformation" is successfully swaying the minds of people with regard to Springfield and the bomb threats also hurt Kamala's chances... is this your way of acknowledging that I was right that Trump's comment will age well and this issue will swing towards Trump over time?
It seems to me that your using the word "disinformation" for news you don't like, which, imo, doesn't reflect well on you.
Kamala should talk about Laken Riley. It would demonstrate that she isn't just like Biden in forgetting who she is.
I think that's a failing on your part. If you look around the world at criminal candidates, it's not difficult to see how criminalizing them increases their popularity. One of the most famous examples would be Nelson Mandela who was sentenced to life for conspiring to overthrow the state. The US designated him a terrorist until 2008. Whenever a sentence appears to be unjust the people object to it and the accused gains popularity.
Is this not on your list of fact checks? If you think Trump called nazi's fine people, then you are the victim of disinformation. Kamala actually had the gall to suggest Trump was anti-semitic because of Charlottesville. This lie has been looooong debunked.
Governor DeWine announced today that he is dedicating $2.5 million toward expanding primary care access for everyone living in Springfield.
Feel free to cite your own sources of disinformation. I want to see your bias exposed.
This is winning issue for them. The problems in Springfield are real. People remember Trump's comment and that Kamala denied there are problems in Springfield. She blamed bomb threats (which come primarily from other countries) on racism, which is an unforced error on her part. Meanwhile, Trump plans to visit Sprringfield directly. Do you deny the optics favor Trump more and more as time passes, or do you not like it and so call Trump is a conman and not address any real issue?
I think I'll take a leaf from @Revoltingest and say that rest of what you are saying here isn't worth addressing further.
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
There are multiple backsides that these stories are pouring out of. We're looking at a dung heap. If it were just one story, this would probably favor Kamala. You can laugh at one story or two stories or maybe three stories, but when the stories keep coming, your denial looks out of place.
And if it was just one delusional moment, it would've favored Kamala long-term. But Springfield is a real place with real problems, so it turns towards Trump over time.
You say these are delusions, but it may be that you have difficulty taking an unbiased view.
The most delusional comment from Kamala was her suggestion that Trump is anti-semitic.
The police have said that the bomb threats are coming from other countries. That's international attention, which might not be helpful.
They also declined to attend a townhall in Springfield to discuss the issue with residents. It's not convenient for them.
The Biden-Kamala administration is almost entirely to blame for the massive increase in illegal immigration.
Perhaps you are spreading very unhelpful disinformation.
The Charlottesville hoax is the most obvious delusion.
Just because you don't believe what residents in Springfield are saying doesn't mean they are lying. Just because you don't believe video of cat being grilled doesn't mean it isn't happening. All you really have here is that the authorities in Springfield don't confirm what residents are saying.
Let's think about it for two seconds, should we stop talking about the issues because other countries deliver bomb threats to Springfield? Think harder.
We should have free and open discussion on the issues. How about that?
It's not out of touch to talk about the impact of immigration on the U.S. It is out of touch to deny there is an impact.
Maybe I should watch more Fox News so that I can be more aware of their talking points.
In fact, these are Fox News talking points support the point I'm making, which is that over time the Springfield issue will favor Trump.
But you do acknowledge that Kamala wasn't fact-checked by the moderators.
Trump claimed there was an increase in crime. The moderators fact-checked and said that there hadn't been.
Perhaps, you should stop spreading lies, because we should have more discussion about Springfield, not less.
Frustrations with the problems caused by immigration were aired by Springfield residents on Aug 27, 2024 at the Springfield City Commission Meeting. What exactly did Vance admit to doing? Do you know?
Kamala seemed to have been unaware of it altogether.
Betweeen the car crashes and the overloaded health care system we can agree that eating a few pets might not be the biggest problem caused by immigration in Springfield.
We can also agree that the pet comment brings more attention to the issues Springfield faces than simply saying their health care system is overloaded. In terms of bringing an issue to the attention of the public, Trump knocked it out of the park. And because there is a legitimate immigration issue in Springfield, this swings in Trump's favor as time passes.
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
That article of fact checks is embarassing for CNN. And they didn't even mention the most obvious lie from Harris, which was about Charlottesville.
Now, I also have to correct you, because I never claimed that Trump was fact-checked every time he made a false statement, as your response to me seems to imply.
I did point out that their were obvious fact-checks of Kamala that the moderators didn't make. Regardless of how many fact checks you think there should have been, the implication is moderator bias.
Moreover, the fact-check on the Springfield pet comment specifically, means that people will remember ABC's fact-checking bias. People will remember that they fact-checked Trump, but didn't fact-check Kamala. To that point...
ABC’s David Muir sees newscast ratings tank after his controversial debate moderating
People remember the bad moderating from the debate. That fact-check about the pet eating was particularly memorable.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Wrong:
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
I would have thought that means that the US supported the apartheid regime, until they
saw that it could no longer survive.
That has nothing to do with Trump, who falsely accused Democrats of not winning the US election,
and other abuse of his position/wealth.
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
I think it's very clear that the City Manager said he hadn't seen any proof. But this also shows that the City Commission has been aware of this issue since at least March 12. 2024.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What supposed lie is that? And seriously, Trump lied ten times more often. Please support your claims with valid sources. Far right insane sources will be an admission that you are wrong.
You appear to have a problem with reading comprehension. I made no claims about you. I was referring to what Trump claimed. Trump lied and said that he was live fact checked by the moderator almost all of the time. He was only live fact checked three times.
LMAO! The New York Post. You have to be kidding. Here let me help you. Try to find sources in the green zone of this chart. They range from conservative to liberal, the New York Post is not even close to being reliable:
Yes, there was "bad moderating". Trump lied far more often than Harris, that is a fact. He should have been moderated even more often and they let Trump get the last word in far more often. If anything the event favored Trump. He is just so awful that even moderation in his favor did not help him.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
That's an absurd statement .. it's like saying that prime-ministers of a particular color in the UK are responsible for the increase in small-boats crossing the English channel.
In reality, you cannot disconnect policies of previous administrations, and world events .. economic
and otherwise.
It's a case of divide and rule .. find a town that is suffering from unsustainable immigration, and
blame it entirely on the immigrants .. and encourage people to be selfish, protectionist with
promises of financial reward for supporters.
That is not a sustainable immigration policy .. it seeks to divide causing more inequality and war.