Alex 🟧

It's only slowly dawned on me how significant it is that for the rest of my life, I'll be able to tell everyone, "I lived 2 miles from the Capitol Building during the 2021 insurrection."

The debate over James Talarico calling God "nonbinary" is silly because it shouldn't be a debate. It is scripturally true. God is everything. God is everyone. God is every gender. Case closed. But we get into this ridiculous convo because conservatives find it Very Important to describe God as masculine. More importantly, they demand God be described as a man. Several years ago, I did a segment on MSNBC and referred to God with "she/her" pronouns. I wasn't being political with that. I really wasn't. That's just how I refer to God, and it is scripturally sound even if conservatives swear it isn't. So, this rightwing reporter reaches out to me on LinkedIn because he watched the segment, and he was quite upset with me for using she/her pronouns in reference to God. I asked him: "What is your scientific argument that God is male? Do we know anything about his anatomy?" He responds: "No, of course not. It's because God is referred to as 'he' and 'him' all throughout Scripture." And I said: "So, let me get this straight: you have no scientific evidence that God is male, no descriptions of God's anatomy that would support that claim, but because God identifies as male and uses he/him pronouns, you respect and honor that. What does that sound like to you?" And he started typing and then he stopped typing and then he blocked me. These folks are loons and we should call them loons and we should challenge them on Scripture and we shouldn't back down from that conversation. So, yeah, I think James Talarico is spot-on and I give thanks to God, in all Her wisdom, that She inspires him to speak the truth.

@IosuaRodriguez No fair. I came up with this combo first. You stole my idea!

Soy el único que piensa que Mega Meganium + Peliper va a ser un lead durísimo en Pokemon Champions? Beneficios de sol + lluvia para debilitar ataques tipo fuego, posibilidad de poner tailwind, vendaval y otras cositas interesantes. No sé de competi pero me parece interesante🤔🤔

@cmclymer I agree, and I've seen it in other areas as well. Part of the reason there's so few women in competitive Pokemon is because social norms give them less time to invest in it.

"How do you explain the lack of women among top chess players? Men just have natural ability in this area. That's not sexist to point out." No. That's not the case at all. And you're not gonna like the actual reason for the lack of women among top chess players. Every professional chess player has spent years constantly studying, playing, and traveling. By the time a player reaches the top tier of the chess world, it's pretty much what they've been doing most of their waking hours for many years. There's not a lot of time for much else. And who does the bulk of all caregiving in society? Women. Mothers. Sisters. Daughters. Being a professional chess player isn't incompatible with caregiving, per se, but it's definitely not easy finding a balance that works. Most men don't worry about this. Most women absolutely worry about this. There are male pro chess players who are adept caregivers and find a balance that works, but it's just not a problem men in chess have to deal with on the sheer scale of how women must negotiate that challenge. Women are few among top chess players because they don't benefit from social structures that allow the time and commitment over a long period to reach that level. It really is that simple. It's not about intelligence or aptitude. It's about gender norms in family and society not fitting well with the astonishing commitment required for top level competitive chess. Now you know.

@cabsav456 The goal isn't to make people believe one particular lie. The goal is to lay the groundwork so their base gives absolutely no legitimacy to their opposition.

How would the Democrats take control just because the current Republican-led Congress weren't able to pass a bill? Why are people saying this? And no, it does not make sense if your reasoning is because we have massive election fraud benefiting Democrats. Republicans swept in 2024.

@lxeagle17 At this point, I think the basic script of the midterms has been written. While some individual races might be up for grabs, the overall forces at play are fairly predictable.

I don't think that peace with Iran is going to meaningfully improve Trump's approvals, but it may avert an even bigger crash. Otherwise, two more months of this and you might well get into the mid-60s for disapproval. There isn't really a "floor" here in the conventional sense.

@pawpawchamp @BraddrofliT Once again, you engage in the classic rhetorical technique of shifting the ball back into my court rather than answer my question: what could prove you wrong? Unless you can reply with a direct answer to that (and that alone), I'll know I'm just feeding a troll.

I wasn't claiming that the perjury itself proved fraud. It was what he admitted to under oath that constitutes evidence of tampering.Under NIST guidelines, the very first rule for any certified voting equipment is that only proven competent personnel may interface with the machines. By his own sworn testimony, he did something so extraordinarily incompetent that it could not possibly have been accidental. That single act immediately voided the machine’s certification. I was also pointing out that I could easily explain why that action would be considered a crime in almost any other setting, but you wouldn’t take it to court because you don’t want to believe it, and it wouldn't achieve the outcome you desire, whether its right or wrong.

Let’s stop pretending this makes sense: if Democrats really had the power to rig the 2020 election, why the hell wouldn’t they use it again in 2024 to keep Trump out? The conspiracy falls apart the second you apply basic logic. Looking forward to MAGA comments.

@pawpawchamp @BraddrofliT I've already indicated what it will take to prove me wrong. Instead of directly answering, you've argued that my goal post is placed unreasonably far. Name a measurable level of evidence that could prove the 2020 election was legit. If you can't, I'll know I'm wasting my time.

@pawpawchamp @BraddrofliT The burden of proof falls on whoever is making the claim. Besides, proof of perjury is different from proof of fraud. If we agree to continue arguing over the semantics of what I say, does that mean you commit to providing an answer to my question when we are done?

@ChShersh Type safety.

gun to your head your favourite C++ feature

@pawpawchamp @BraddrofliT Fair enough. Can you give me a response that I can also bookmark?

@as0355 @BraddrofliT Be patient. I'll bookmark this conversation.

@pawpawchamp @BraddrofliT I apologize for not being able to post long responses like you, but I can think of better ways to spend my money.

@pawpawchamp @BraddrofliT I've clearly indicated what could prove me wrong about the 2020 election being legitimate (criminal convictions for fraud). Can you give a measurable level of evidence that could prove your claims of election-altering levels of fraud are wrong?

@fawfulfan Carl Sagan did say it's easier to con someone than it is to convince them that they've been conned.

MAGA voters know they've been conned — they just can't say it out loud: ex-GOP strategist rawstory.com/maga-voters/

@pawpawchamp @BraddrofliT You're doing more than just asking questions. You're asserting that a crime has been committed. Even if I did agree that Biden winning with the smallest number of counties is suspicious, how does that prove a crime has been committed? Would a judge buy that?

Seriously, examine the numbers below and be honest with yourself: Democratic winners 1976: Jimmy Carter — ~55% 1992: Bill Clinton — 48–49% 1996: Bill Clinton — ~48–49% 2008: Barack Obama — 28% 2012: Barack Obama — 22% 2020: Joe Biden — 17–18% Republican winners 1980: Ronald Reagan — ~75–80% 1984: Ronald Reagan — 85–89% 1988: George H.W. Bush — 73–74% 2000: George W. Bush — 77–78% ( 2004: George W. Bush — 81% 2016: Donald Trump — 82–84% 2024: Donald Trump — 84–86% Average intelligence should make you question the legitimacy of such elections. I have no doubt you would see it that way if the shoe was on the other foot. If you don't think so...

@pawpawchamp @BraddrofliT Biden didn't do any better than Clinton in urban areas. The suburbs are what doomed Trump. If he'd performed as well as down-ballot Republicans in GA, AZ, and WI, he would've won. Why would Biden submit fraudulent ballots that voted for Rs on the rest of the ticket?

@as0355 @BraddrofliT Yes, Obama held the previous record low. To question the legitimacy of that makes a person normal. The saying "there was no widespread fraud" is absolutely true, because there wasn’t a widespread win either. Fraud in just a few densely populated counties can be enough.

@pawpawchamp @BraddrofliT Obama in 2012 was 22%. Pretty darn close. More importantly, WHAT DOES PERCENTAGE OF COUNTIES HAVE TO DO WITH WINNING THE ELECTION? The counties Biden won generate 3/4 of the nation's GDP. That's kind of how urbanization works.

@as0355 @BraddrofliT No President has even come close to winning only 17% of U.S. counties.

@fletchlives1968 @HannahBrandt_TV @RmcccClayton @elonmusk Again, a study by the Heritage Foundation found only 77 instances of voter fraud. Do you have an actual reliable source to back up your claims?

Why are democrat controlled states refusing to turn over voter roles? Answer: The voter fraud is rampant (especially with mail in voting). Democrats squawk about democracy until a republican wins an election. I want a fair contest. Best ideas win. We currently do not have that.

BREAKING: In a phone call just minutes ago President Trump told me Democrats want to make a deal on DHS funding but he doesn’t “think any deal should be made on this until they approve save America.” First I asked him how long he’s prepared to have ice agents help out at airports He told me, “For as long as it takes.” Then I asked “Some lawmakers are saying they should just fund TSA while they negotiate on DHS. What do you think about that?” President Trump said “Now that I did this the Democrats want to make a deal. And I don’t think any deal should be made on this until they approve SAVE America. Ok, so you have a scoop.”