What I said is absolutely correct. If you have a disagreement perhaps you should be more clear and less snarky.

Atheism is the belief that there are no gods and out right rejection in the belief of any gods.

No, not quite. Atheism is not believing in a god, it doesn’t mean you claim there is not a god. A subtle difference, but it is the difference between not believing, and believing not. Also, agnosticism isn’t a middle ground between theism and atheism, there is no middle ground, as it is dichotomous. Agnosticism speaks to knowledge, or what you claim to know. So, a person could be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist.

Oh did Democrats stop the Republicans when the winds shifted?

Oh no they didn’t. They went along with them.

What the hell are you talking about? Your comment is entirely divorced from reality. There were 175 cloture votes to break a filibuster on nominees during the Obama administration and 314 during Trump. Nearly doubled in half the time.

When Schumer was minority leader, he vigorously used the filibuster to do just that. Under his leadership, Democrats used the filibuster to block funding for construction of Trump’s border wall in 2019. They used it not once, but twice to impede passage of the Cares Act — forcing Republicans to agree to changes including a $600 weekly federal unemployment supplement. They used it in September and October to stop Republicans from passing further coronavirus relief before the November election. They used it to halt Sen. Tim Scott’s (R-S.C.) police reform legislation so Republicans could not claim credit for forging a bipartisan response to the concerns of racial justice protesters. They used it to block legislation to force “sanctuary cities” to cooperate with federal officials, and to stop a prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion, bans on abortions once the unborn child is capable of feeling pain, and protections for the lives of babies born alive after botched abortions. - Washington Post

It’s not though. The question makes the assumption that he would have been handed over for the Nuremberg trials.

It absolutely misses the point, and so have you. It is a hypothetical whereby he was captured, turned over to the Nuremberg trials, and found guilty. That’s the basis of the hypothetical. Saying that wouldn’t have happened absolutely misses the point of the hypothetical.

Take away their veto, it belongs to the Soviet Union, which they are not. Give it to Ukraine while you’re at it, they have roughly as much claim to it.

Is my pareidolia flaring up or does that glacier look like Trump’s face? (which also appears to be melting)

Adam Schiff spent money propping up an RNC candidate to torpedo a fellow Democrat.

So he spent money to win an election. That’s pretty normal.

This isn’t about him putting forward a platform…

Agreed. Most campaigning isn’t about simply stating a platform.

this is about him sabotaging a legitimate threat…

Sabotage? That’s an overstatement, if not a complete falsehood. He raised the profile of the Republican in an open primary, knowing Katie Porter had less support amongst Democrats.

…and making it more likely that a republican wins the seat - …

From 0% to .005%? How reasonable is it that any Republican wins this seat, let alone this specific Republican.

…do you think his genuine interpretation is that a republican should take the seat?

I think he realizes that this is the best chance for him to win the election. Winning being the purpose of an election, he’s acted as any reasonable person would.

You have still failed to state your standard, and how someone trying to win an election within the bounds of all applicable rules falls short of that standard.

I can’t imagine anyone is smart enough to have $500m to lend, but stupid enough to accept this stock as collateral, especially knowing Trump’s ability to tank it.

Because they’re running for a job where they should have the public interests first.

Yes, in the job they should have the public interest first. But he’s competing to get the job, he can’t work in the public interest unless he’s elected.

Just because America is a shitty corporate hellhole doesn’t mean we can’t be disappointed when politicians fail to live up to a reasonable standard.

I’m not sure what your standard even is? How can a candidate act in the public interest? They put forward their platform and the people decide. That’s what happened. Should he not run because you don’t think his policies are best for the public? Isn’t that what voting is for?

You’re asking candidates to compete for a job. Why are you surprised when they take actions consistent with their best interests. I don’t think Schiff did anything inappropriate. Schiff mentioned Garvey to raise his profile because he’s easier to defeat.

This isn’t like Nixon contacting South Vietnam while he was a presidential candidate and telling them to not make peace because he wanted the war as an issue. That directly led to the deaths of thousands of Americans.

Assuming you preferred Katie Porter, what did you do to ensure she’d be the candidate?

The real question is why does someone who claims to be worth around $6B need a loan at all? It just doesn’t make sense. /s

Because bad guys show up for every election, and the good guys, which are the majority, don’t.

20 gunmen killed*

• gunmen may or may not have had guns when shot, but don’t worry IDF soldiers immediately placed guns on each body before alerting the press

They’re going to pull a Hillary and spend all the money for the party on the presidential race, and spend it poorly.

If by presidential race you mean Trump’s legal bills, then sure.

The map below shows the states…

No, it very much does not!

If below cost was your main point, perhaps don’t wait 5-10 comments in. The points that you raised up to that point we addressed in my initial comment.

My apologies, you are an idiot. Below cost was literally contained in my first comment, I haven’t even made 5 comments, let alone 10.

Learn to make your point more effectively and perhaps you’ll come across as less foolish and less abrasive when online.

How ineffective of me to clearly state the point you failed to comprehend in my first post. Luckily being right means I don’t have to concern myself with being abrasive to idiots.

Unclear why he’d bother

That’s the best bar story ever!

Hey, did I ever tell you about the time I won the American Samoa Democratic primary?

Unfortunately, you’re either dishonest or an idiot with poor reading comprehension. I think it’s the former. The words you decided to ignore were “below cost”. BYD sells a car for $10k, alternatively Tesla’s cheapest car is around $40k. If you can’t understand the difference, then I can’t help you.

When there are multiple established companies, then we can worry about how fair the competition is.

If you let a company, that is subsidized by a foreign government, sell goods at below cost you won’t have multiple established companies.

Lol, are you new to the US legal system?

If by new you mean an attorney for over a decade, then I guess so. But its occurrence, or alleged regularity, doesn’t make it any less serious of an ethics violation. You can get away with a lot of shit as an attorney, but if you steal someone’s money or lie to the court, they’re going to drop the hammer on you.