placeholder

Your point about Must was quite correct. Then you ruined it all by apparently claiming that George Soros is not a citizen.

Since you use the plural, I'm assuming that you are referring to German people. . Given that The Third Reich fell about 80 years ago, the number of Germans complicit in war crimes must be vanishingly few by now. Or is it the case that you believe in inherited guilt? That ridiculous notion has been used to heinous effect against the Jews for about 2000 years. Now, if you mean German fans of the Third Reich are somehow culpable, that would be the AfD. You know, the group praised by J.D. Vance and Elon Musk.

Whether or not I hate Trump voters, by "us" do you include the majority of Americans who didn't vote for Trump?

You continue to demonstrate your need for remedial reading. Here's the relevant part of my quote salient to your latest instance of miscomprehension., Given that it occurred in a Federal prison while Trump was President, it seems likely that if there was foul play there's a good chance Trump was behind it. Do "likely" and "a good chance" signify an assertion of fact? I really don't have the time have to explain to you the difference between probability and certainty? I will offer you an explanation from AI but the problem is that, given your past form, there's a good chance you'll misconstrue this as well. Still, I live in hope: "Probability is the likelihood of an event happening, while certainty is the state of being absolutely sure about something" https://www.google.com/search?q=probability+vs+certainty&oq=probability+vs+certainty&gs_lcrp=EgRlZGdlKgkIABBFGDkYgAQyCQgAEEUYORiABDIICAEQABgWGB4yCAgCEAAYFhgeMggIAxAAGBYYHjIKCAQQABiABBiiBDIHCAUQABjvBdIBCDg3MThqMGoxqAIAsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

So stupid. If the FBI wanted to subvert Trump's 2016 campaign, all a member would have to have done is leak about the ongoing investigation of his campaign. In fact, Peter Strzok was part of that investigation. Yet somehow no leak occurred.

What notorious killers would those be?

This will be the third time this morning I've had to correct a right winger on what "if" signifies. Here's that sentence again. "If it did, it clearly didn't influence them enough" If introduces an hypothesis or a speculation. A sentence with a conditional clause is not a statement of fact or an assertion. It doesn't speak well of your command of English, that you don't understand the significance of a two-letter word like "if". And you still have no answer for the fact that Trump reneged on his promise to allow Medicare to negotiate with big pharma over drug prices. And still no answer for the fact that the Republicans were unanimously opposed to the change.

More empty deflection. You have no more proof that I'm not an American then you have proof that you are one. For all we know you could be an Australian fan of Trump's.

A remark worthy of Stalin.

Or maybe the point that rough diamond was making is that it's Russia that traditionally has posed a threat to Canada. Or that maybe now the threat comes from a nation south of its border. From a loon who is currently the chief executive of that nation and is talking of annexing Canada.

So that makes it okay for the Trump administration to undercut the right free speech?

If it did, it clearly didn't influence them enough. On the other hand, if it did influence the Republicans, then it was a spectacular success. You really can't face the fact that Trump reneged on his promise to allow Medicare to negotiate with big pharma. And that Republicans and unanimously opposed too The same people who proclaim that they want to reduce government spending somehow are too squeamish to apply the ax where it would really count.

When the facts are against you, you resort to personal attacks. You've got nothing.

Are you seriously suggesting that Big Pharma is happy with Medicare being authorized to negotiate with Big Pharma? Your question demands speculative answers. But if you've got actual evidence to show that Big Pharma bought its way into some sort of mitigation, prove it. But it still won't change the fact the Trump reneged on his promise. And the Republicans were unanimously opposed to giving Medicare authorization. When it comes to cutting back on those huge expenses, somehow Trump and Republicans aren't so eager to accomplish that.

It's a fact that "everyone is standing to applaud everything Trump says" Was it even true a month ago? Everyone?

Deflecting much? I see you're still avoiding that fact that Trump reneged on his promise to allow Medicare to negotiate with big Pharma. And you also are avoiding the fact the Republicans unanimously opposed this measure. Keep wriggling. It won't change the fact that you're hooked.

Unfortunately for Biden he had a couple of Dinos to deal with And, of course, you completely ignored the fact that Republicans were unanimously against it. Unanimously. And that Trump reneged on his promise to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices directly with big pharma.

It was Republicans who unanimously opposed the biden administrations plans to let Medicare negotiate prices with big pharma. Biden got something passed but it wasn't as strong as it could have been had there not been strong Republican opposition. What's more, in 2016 Trump campaign on enabling Medicare to negotiate drug prices with big pharma. He reneged on that promise after the election and even before he took office.

Whatever Ford's motives may be, the fact is that strident oppostion to Trump's plans for Canada is a winning issue. And the fact that the Liberals also stridently oppose Trump most likely figured in their recovery, too. What amazes me is that despite Trump's attacks on Canada's economy, and even on its legitimacy, there's a host of right wingers who deny that it's having a very significant effect on the Canadian electorate.

Well, Canada just had a real election in Ontario. Conservatives won a record victory. Doug Ford, the premier of the province, has been exceptionally hostile to Trump's plans for Canada. He even threatened to cut off Canadian electric power to the US. Is that real enough for you?

The only possible problem with that strategy is that Americans might mistake silence for complaisance.

You may have laid some of it out, but you offered no refutation. Your previous post was interesting but not relevant. At least not in the way you framed it. As I pointed out, if Ford is a clown, that makes his victory based on his strident oppostion to Trump, all the more impressive.

Speculation from one poster and and and unproven claim from another.

Depending on what information they shared, it could well be.

I see you have no answer for my pointing out that Ford being a clown is irrelevant to the significance of his victory anymore than it would be to point out that Donald Trump is a clown as being relevant to his victory. In fact, if your characterization of Ford is correct, that would only make his victory based on his opposition to Trump even more significant. In other words, despite the possibility that Ford may be a clown, he won a huge victory.