Okay, but if you keep texting the Republicans until November 2018, you’ll have to leave.
Sounds suspiciously like Democrats who are upset with a Hillary loss.
What would a rational tribalist look like?
Since it involves the destruction of the county, yes.
“Pfft; we got plenty of counties, snowflake. And if we run out of them, we got parishes too. Fake news!”
A most gracious concession, sir. 
In your particular case, please feel free to ignore all my posts. Thanks in advance.
That would be the key point, yes.
You introduced this topic. Plenty of evidence was provided contradicting the claim. Evidence was produced that the “facts” in the story you linked are wrong. How do you respond to this? Are you going to face the strong probability that you were wrong? If not then what does that say about you? What does it say about people who think like you? That share these kinds of misleading stories like you do? How can you continue to pretend that you have any kind of moral high ground at all? C’mon, you aren’t a robot I hope? How can you as a human being continue to spread these kinds of lies and look at yourself in the mirror?
Rebunkterd: To be Butt-Fucked, un-righteously, a second time for the same pretext:
“After spending all day helping her move with my truck and gas, I got rebunkterd by hurting my back trying to unload her piano at her new place”
Dude, I’m standing right here.
Do not personalize arguments in this fashion. If you feel you must, the Pit is right around the corner.
[/moderating]
I just wanna be clear. Someone says the arguments that Clinton is corrupt in this way are stretched; you respond “Good for the goose…”
That means, I believe, that you agree that the arguments are stretched; however, you also think the arguments that Trump is corrupt are stretched, so it’s okay. Is that correct?
Because people–including Lindsay Graham, Robert Mueller, pulitzer-prize-winning journalists, posters on this board, et al–who offer the evidence about Trump don’t think that evidence is stretched. They offer it sincerely and after significant reflection. You, on the other hand, appear to be saying you offer evidence you don’t think is strong, as a secret rhetorical flourish. You don’t believe either set of evidence, but you’ll offer the anti-Clinton evidence anyway and pretend that you believe it.
Is that correct?
If so, I believe the conclusion writes itself.
Wait wait wait…
Doesn’t Mother Russia have, like, a shit ton of this stuff laying around anyway? I read in school that they had so much of this that they were minting coins with it at one time?
Uh, what’s the deal anyway if they did? Law aside, it’s not like getting uranium through a straw purchase of some kind is going to suddenly make them a nuclear superpower. They were one already.
I’m not sure what the issue really is here. It has the taint of some vast bullshittery from Fox all over it (I can tell based on the reaction of the ill educated I know,) but in reality land, what’s the rub? Can someone explain that to me? I’m not that smart either.
If it was the same deal, but dealing with widgets, no one would care.
Same as if it were aluminum, or steel, or anything else.
Uranium is scary though. If you mention uranium, you have already partially activated the fear response in conservative reactionaries, and then you just have to throw the word “Hillary” in there, and you’ve tied her to something scary.
The logic doesn’t have to make sense. If it did, it would be counter productive. It’s just a way of scaring their base and demonizing their opposition.
You know I think it was platinum that they were banging dimes out of instead of uranium. My coffee kicked in on me just now.
There is lots of stuff that they use uranium for though right? Like MRI machines and stuff?
No human is immune to that sort of thing.
It’s not solely a property of “Them”
No, but in the current political world, you’d better bring a shit-ton on evidence if you’re going to try and claim the “both sides are equal” canard. They aren’t, and this constant pretending that they are is getting old.
I believe that someone in this or another thread said that the uranium can’t leave the country, legally. It’s just a business deal. If you have experts in dealing with uranium, and the current set of mines don’t take 100% of their time, then you can operate another mine more cheaply than someone who only has one mine.
You might not be able to take uranium out of the country, but you are allowed to take money out.
No human is completely immune from being manipulated.
Which is why I don’t blame the victims of manipulation.
I blame the manipulators.