Re: Why Won't You Answer, Glenn V.?

On Saturday, March 20, 2021 at 11:26:19 PM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote:
> On 20 Mar 2021 18:20:24 -0000, "Glenn V." <[email protected]> wrote: 
> 
> >On Saturday, March 20, 2021 at 1:24:37 AM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote: 
> >> On 20 Mar 2021 00:04:22 -0000, "Glenn V." <[email protected]> wrote: 
> >> 
> >> >> > 
> >> >> I've answered you. 
> >> > 
> >> >No, you haven't. Go look at my questions again. 
> >> > 
> >> You didn't ask questions. You just bashed Republicans. 
> >> 
> >> Republicans want Voter ID. Democrats don't. 
> >> 
> >> Sweden has voter ID. 
> >> 
> >> Republicans want to ban mail-in voting. Democrats don't. 
> >> 
> >> Sweden does not allow mail-in voting. 
> >> 
> >> Republicans want to ban vote harvesting. Democrats don't. 
> >> 
> >> Sweden does not allow voter harvesting. 
> >> >> I've pointed out that the voting reforms 
> >> >> Republicans want are THE SAME PROCEDURES IN PLACE IN SWEDEN. 
> >> > 
> >> >Again, quit making things up out of thin air. Republicans are nowhere near 
> >> >wanting our system, as I've explained in detail. Do you understand this? 
> >> > 
> >> You explained no such thing. 
> > 
> >That's exactly what I've done. You selecting some things, cutting out 
> >others displays only your dishonesty. Do you understand that this is 
> >transparent and embarrassing on your part? 
> >
> Do you understand that your going completely bonkers when I disagree 
> with you is transparent and embarrassing on your part? 

No, i don't and the fact is that you don't know what you are talking 
about. Since you insist, let me give you a simple lesson in reading, shall 
we? Two examples:

-Three weeks of voting, prior to election day. You do not have this 
everywhere, that's a lie on you part. Do you understand that you are lying 
about this? The fact, John, is that in several instances of those appr. 
250 bills or so, that are now proposed from the GOP all over the US, the 
argument is to reduce early voting.

Why is that so, John? How does that apply to voter fraud or voter 
suppression? Do you understand the question?

- Another one.

In Sweden eligible voters equals registered voters. Not only do you not, 
in the US. But the GOP are in no way acting to achieve this. Instead, the 
act to get rid of it. That's a fact - do you understand this?

And this is exactly why your cut'n paste style debating is dishonest. You 
simply ignore what you don't want to accept as facts.

Do you understand that this is shameful behavior on your part?

> 
> You have talked about how great voting is in Sweden, IN SPITE OF THE 
> FACT THAT SWEDEN HAS THE SAME POLICIES REPUBLICANS WANT HERE.
> >> 
> >> You huffed and puffed about the evil Republicans, and then were 
> >> embarrassed when I pointed how Sweden handles elections. 
> > 
> >Again, quit making things up and attribute your language to me. Do you 
> >understand that this shows your dishonesty? I've never used the word 
> >"evil". Your sinister and purposely false debate style is shameful. 
> >
> You have indeed portrayed Republicans as evil, trying to "suppress" 
> the vote. 

That's your interpretation, and you should not make it look like I said 
that. You do this all the time. And think you can get away with it. With 
me, you will not. Do you understand ?

> 
> And you have bragged about how Republicans are headed for the dustbin 
> of history, for failure to be sufficiently politically correct.

Bragged?? It's a sad, sad story where the Republicans are today. Frankly, 
I don't understand that an educated man like yourself seems completely 
unable to see what the state of the GOP of today is. You should listen, 
for a change, to some prominent ex-republicans - well. ex GOP republicans, 
like Stuart Stevens or Charlie Sykes for example.

But sure - on this course, the GOP are heading for disaster, this is the 
first true interpretation of yours I've seen so far.

> >> >> >FYI, I have very clear opinions on the tech companies' actions. 
> >> >> Then what are those opinions? 
> >> >> 
> >> Still no answer. 
> > 
> >You don't decide what I answer. Neither do you get to decide that I should 
> >accept your change of subject. Do you understand this? 
> >
> Yet another evasion. 
> 
> The question is a simple one: do you approve or disapprove of the 
> tech companies banning Donald Trump? 
> 
> You direct hostile "questions" at me, and demand that I answer. 

I direct questions according to the topic of this thread to you, since you 
discuss the subject at hand with me. You, on the other hand, invents 
opinions of mine completely away from the topic and then demands an 
answer. Do you understand the difference?

> 
> But you won't answer that very simple question.
> >I'll give you one last chance. What motivates making it illegal in Georgia 
> >to help feed voters in line?

> It's a form of bribery.

Hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha! 

I feel sad for you, John. And don't know what it is that you are "head 
deep" in. But it's surely not beneficial to your process of logical 
thinking.

> >How is reducing the number of polling 
> >stations in certain districts motivated? Does this help eligible and 
> >registered voters? 
> >
> I would not know how it's motivated without knowing the specifics.

And yet you've defended this throughout this thread? Without knowing about 
the consequences? That's impressive.

> 
> And you don't know either.

Yes, I do.

> >Do you understand that those are important questions? 
> > 
> >>
> Not nearly as important as knowing whether you approve of the 
> censorship of Donald Trump. 

In your opinion, that is.

>
> Kindly give an honest answer. 

I just may do that, since you now, finally, seems to get my point about 
your language.

> 
> .John 
> ------------------------------- 
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm