Slip

Keep adding more qualifications to make your ridiculousness yet more ridiculous. It's quite amusing for many of us I'm sure.

I'm not sure where google are getting their figures. CNN show arizona: 51.7% to 46.1% in the Dems favour with 80% counted, Georgia: 49.6% to 48.3 to the Dems (runoff expected) with 99% counted, Nevada: 49.0% to 48.0% to the GOP with 88% counted. Reuters also show Arizona: 51.7% to 46.1% (80% counted), Georgia 49.6 to 48.3, also 99% counted, and Nevada: 48% to 49% (GOP) with 88% counted. The Grauniad differ with 49.4 to 48.55 in Georgia (99% reported).

Various different sources are reporting the republican senate tally at 49 and others at 48, as kindly posted by members on the thread. Can anyone reconcile the discrepancy as I can't see to find out where it is.

In your opinion presumably? Don't give up.

Agreed. It's starting to look like this craven decision may have been the touch paper that leads to the destruction of the Conservative party for the foreseeable future.

But if it gets deleted before you see it, you never know. I'm always disappointed to follow a mod in 5 minutes after a clean up.

When I saw the headline I thought this was going to be about the authorities tackling the intimidation from armed magas at polling stations. Imagine my surprise that it's a different wing involved.

In addition I note that the survey is in partnership with "Convention of States Action"- https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Convention_of_States_Action So we can see they are highly partisan if sourcewatch are to believed. Trafalgar group seem a bit weird too- something about "social desirability bias" although their election polls do seem to be historically reasonably accurate for election predictions.

You got there in the end. Well done.

Then don't claim it. Let's try to keep on topic, and my apologies to all if I've dragged it off.

You made a claim (they both took these talks seriously), Place holder asked you to provide evidence for your claim. You couldn't or wouldn't and then somehow expect him to prove your claim untrue. This is hardly the first time. Please stop it.

That is literally an opinion, or should we call it a maga-fact?

Why are you quoting me with this? I have made no comment on whether or not hotels are closing to normal customers due to housing immigrants. All I said was that I haven't seen anyone on here denying that is true and asked you to provide me with an example, which you can't or won't do on the basis that it is somehow 'commenting on moderation'. For the record I have no problem with your suggestion that local councils are booking out entire hotels to house asylum seekers. I only said I hadn't seen anyone on here denying it as you claimed. You won't support that claim. Up to you.

You say it's false. You say you didn't make anything up. You call me a liar, but you won't give an example to prove your point that you didn't make it up. You even go as far as to claim you can't say which forum rule would be broken by giving an example because that in itself would break some mysterious forum rule. Laughable. ????

If you were to stop pushing maga conspiracies you would get a lot fewer critical responses.

How so? Specifically what forum rule would you be breaking to offer evidence for a claim you have made? Regardless, as you are unable or unwilling to back up your claim it will have to be filed in the rather busy category of 'stuff Mac Mickmanus just made up'.

Often denied on here? It's the first I've seen of it. Can you provide any examples? Meanwhile the local Tory MPs have been steaming in and quashing those deals in short order. (In their own constituencies at least).

Your attempt to move the goalposts notwithstanding, you are wrong. It is entirely the point of view that you are supporting that leads to political strife. The MAGA movement is actively and demonstrably fomenting political violence and intimidation as a normal way to go about your goals. I'm done. If I want to play chess with a pigeon I'll buy an outside board.

There has been plenty of evidence of him promoting maga/q ideologies very very recently. There may be an argument that this particular individual has mental issues, however, you miss the point. It's the normalisation and promotion of political violence by MAGA, which will lead to more and more situations like this, that means there is no conflation but only connection in the post you replied to.

The links between the perpetrator and MAGA seem to have been pretty well established thus far. It isn't conflation when there is connection.

Never mind that. As Placeholder showed above Gweiloman's post is pure BS driven by Putin's propaganda.

Right wing sources have been suggesting a sex-for-hire situation gone wrong, and even some posters here have pushed the 'who was the other person in the house?' deflection. Seems we can put these to bed now:

and here's a noxious comment from one of his revolting brood laughing at and glorifying such political violence:

He made it up, as he usually does. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/10/28/musk-twitter-racist-posts/

It's a (fundamentally dishonest) rhetorical device.