I suspect that more people may be motivated by the nasty hate shown for Swift by Repubs than by her endorsement of anyone. Her endorsement only shows who she prefers for President. The attacks on her show what Repubs are like and we why don't want them in government.
I'm surprised it's as low as 18%, was expecting it to be around 30-40%.
It's America after all, if Trump can be elected once and even now stand a good chance of being reelected, then I'm willing to believe that American stupidity has no bottom to it.
A conservative person in the Year of Our D-g 2024 is a fucking Pakled. These are the very stupid and very aggressive morons from “Star Trek” who … well, watch “Lower Decks” to find out.
I'm a conservative, but I do not define it the way the Repubs do. I don't think they're conservative at all; they're too destructive.
To be conservative, a nation needs to invest in its future. That means educated citizens with universal healthcare. It means rooting out corruption in organizations. It means making sure everyone has opportunities to pursue according to their own wants and talents.
Repubs "win" arguments by changing what words mean.
Any sentence prefaced with "To be honest" is suspect.
I did not use "No true conservative" logic. I used dictionary definitions and logic in general.. Also, I did not challenge what people call themselves. I challenged its accuracy and logically refuted it by pointing out that they want to destroy things far more than they want to conserve them. If you have any counterarguments, please let me know.
Here is the logical fallacy:
No true Scotsman arguments are fallacious because instead of logically refuting the counterexample, they simply assert that it doesn't count. In other words, the counterexample is rejected for psychological, but not logical, reasons.
The no true Scotsman fallacy is the attempt to defend a generalization by denying the validity of any counterexamples given. By changing the definition of who or what belongs to a group or category, the speaker can conveniently dismiss any example that proves the generalization doesn’t hold.
No true Scotsman fallacy example
Person 1: No Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge!
Person 2: But my friend Duncan likes sugar with his porridge.
Person 1: Yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.
The word “Scotsman” can be replaced with any other type of group affiliation. The no true Scotsman fallacy often arises in discussions around political, social, and religious matters.
The Illuminati and the Lizard Illuminati are two different groups that often are at odds with one another. Lizard Illuminati gatherings are weird. A lot of heat rocks and bowls of meal worms.
I've mentioned before that I am an original Chiefs fan. Dad bought some of the first season tickets and planted my 8 year-old butt in a seat at the old Municipal Stadium and...history! I am still a fan of my hometown even though I'm not there anymore. I am no longer a fan of my home state and its love of gun culture!! Governor of MO, Mike Parsons, was at the parade and later assured people he was safe....BFD....witnesses said he ran as if he were scared of the melodic open-carry noises even though he had an armed security detail!! I think maybe he should have stood his ground and watched little kids being shot with the guns that are more important to him than their young lives!! Maybe he should have cheered for the gun culture he enables and it's beautiful accomplishments!! Or, better yet, he should get fucked and thrown out of office!! ✊✊✊
TBF, his security detail were probably following protocol by rushing him to safety. Of course, none of us peons can afford to have an armed security detail so we’re fucked when the shooting begins.
That's what I figured. A political statement would have been a single person with an AR-15. These were multiple shooters with handguns. I immediately flashed on good guys with guns until the moment they weren't.
Yeah, I should have been more specific. I mean an attack on random strangers who just happen to be in a certain place at a certain time, as opposed to someone who pisses you off because they, I dunno, dissed your girlfriend's outfit or something.
I suspect that more people may be motivated by the nasty hate shown for Swift by Repubs than by her endorsement of anyone. Her endorsement only shows who she prefers for President. The attacks on her show what Repubs are like and we why don't want them in government.
It's me, I'm the 43%.
So, what you're saying is that 4 out of 5 Americans don't believe the conspiracy theories about Taylor Swift. That's encouraging.
Always look on the bright side of life (whistles)
Ta, Evan. I'm glad it's only 18%.
I'm surprised it's as low as 18%, was expecting it to be around 30-40%.
It's America after all, if Trump can be elected once and even now stand a good chance of being reelected, then I'm willing to believe that American stupidity has no bottom to it.
"83% indicate they are likely to support Donald Trump in the fall."
This means that 17% of those who think Taylor Swift is a Dem psyop are going to vote for Biden.
Chew on that for a while.
Face it:
A conservative person in the Year of Our D-g 2024 is a fucking Pakled. These are the very stupid and very aggressive morons from “Star Trek” who … well, watch “Lower Decks” to find out.
I'm a conservative, but I do not define it the way the Repubs do. I don't think they're conservative at all; they're too destructive.
To be conservative, a nation needs to invest in its future. That means educated citizens with universal healthcare. It means rooting out corruption in organizations. It means making sure everyone has opportunities to pursue according to their own wants and talents.
Repubs "win" arguments by changing what words mean.
To be honest, you just used the "No true conservative!" logical fallacy.
And further, who am I to challenge how people defines themselves?
Any sentence prefaced with "To be honest" is suspect.
I did not use "No true conservative" logic. I used dictionary definitions and logic in general.. Also, I did not challenge what people call themselves. I challenged its accuracy and logically refuted it by pointing out that they want to destroy things far more than they want to conserve them. If you have any counterarguments, please let me know.
Here is the logical fallacy:
No true Scotsman arguments are fallacious because instead of logically refuting the counterexample, they simply assert that it doesn't count. In other words, the counterexample is rejected for psychological, but not logical, reasons.
The no true Scotsman fallacy is the attempt to defend a generalization by denying the validity of any counterexamples given. By changing the definition of who or what belongs to a group or category, the speaker can conveniently dismiss any example that proves the generalization doesn’t hold.
No true Scotsman fallacy example
Person 1: No Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge!
Person 2: But my friend Duncan likes sugar with his porridge.
Person 1: Yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.
The word “Scotsman” can be replaced with any other type of group affiliation. The no true Scotsman fallacy often arises in discussions around political, social, and religious matters.
The Illuminati and the Lizard Illuminati are two different groups that often are at odds with one another. Lizard Illuminati gatherings are weird. A lot of heat rocks and bowls of meal worms.
OH FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!
I've mentioned before that I am an original Chiefs fan. Dad bought some of the first season tickets and planted my 8 year-old butt in a seat at the old Municipal Stadium and...history! I am still a fan of my hometown even though I'm not there anymore. I am no longer a fan of my home state and its love of gun culture!! Governor of MO, Mike Parsons, was at the parade and later assured people he was safe....BFD....witnesses said he ran as if he were scared of the melodic open-carry noises even though he had an armed security detail!! I think maybe he should have stood his ground and watched little kids being shot with the guns that are more important to him than their young lives!! Maybe he should have cheered for the gun culture he enables and it's beautiful accomplishments!! Or, better yet, he should get fucked and thrown out of office!! ✊✊✊
What was that last thing again?
TBF, his security detail were probably following protocol by rushing him to safety. Of course, none of us peons can afford to have an armed security detail so we’re fucked when the shooting begins.
RE: the shooting, apparently it was a dispute between armed idiots (or at least one side was armed), not a terrorist or psycho attack.
I tend to think that armed idiots are terrorists and psychos.
That's what I figured. A political statement would have been a single person with an AR-15. These were multiple shooters with handguns. I immediately flashed on good guys with guns until the moment they weren't.
Depends on your definition of “psycho.” People who solved disputes with guns are pretty psycho in my opinion.
Yeah, I should have been more specific. I mean an attack on random strangers who just happen to be in a certain place at a certain time, as opposed to someone who pisses you off because they, I dunno, dissed your girlfriend's outfit or something.
We had a shooting in a Baby Gap at the mall between a baby daddy and the mother's boyfriend.
The mall didn't like that. Bad for bidness.
TAYLOR SWIFT IS…PEOPLE!
"18 percent say yes she’s a Deep State plant, but only 13 percent disapprove of her?"
If they asked the approval question first, then the people who hadn't heard of the conspiracy before might've been indifferent.
Potatoes, carrots, rutabagas, and even peanuts are among the many Deep State plants.
Don't forget kudzu, which is a non-native, Deep (South) State plant, forever creeping northward.
I like that Taylor Swift is such a great football player.
And . . . The pollsters could not reach 70% of Americans because they won't pick up the phone to spam calls.
So the numbers are meh.
Occam's Duct Tape: Believe in one conspiracy theory, might as well believe them all.
aka crank-magnetism