In what specific ways has Any Republican taken voting rights away from any one?

[MrTaboo]

Please cite specific laws, regulations that anyone can search. No talking points.

[Soteris]

There are tons of Republican interference in peoples right to vote. Here are some examples:
AL H. B. 194, AZ H. B. 2492, FL S. B. 524, GA H. B. 1015, GA H. B. 1368, GA H. B. 1432, GA S. B. 441, KY H. B. 301, OK H. B. 3046.

Just a random collection from a virtually bottomless barrel. I can literally provide you with at least 10 times that number if you really want.

But that is sort of besides the point, it is very easy to see Republicans infringing on peoples rights to vote. The two most obvious examples are the Photo ID laws which are entirely pointless from the viewpoint of increasing election security and only serves to put another barrier between the people and the ability to vote which means fewer people will vote. The other example is gerrymandering which is getting so bad that the election maps are being rejected by the courts for being blatantly unfair.

The Republican party has zero interest in election integrity. All they care about is securing power and they will burn down any system which gets in the way of that including the elections.

[MrTaboo]

You'll have to be specific. Meaning which lines in those bills i tried reading the first. Outlets ans found nothing. Even Google how they supposedly take away voting rights. Can't find anything.

Bill, section, line. Specific. Just because you cite a random bill means nothing in logical agreement.

[Soteris]

Alright then. Just taking a stab in the dark, lets stake PA H. B. 1706

This bill for example shortens the window in which you can apply for mail in ballots. I do not really have to specify the line or whatever since it clearly states it at the top and all that. Its a fairly easy bill to understand.

Also these are not random bills. They are from a list I have of bills that specifically undermines the US election in some form or another.

[Soteris]

Actually, that was a bad choice. I am going to make some pancakes and ill be back with another example later.

[Soteris]

MI H. B. 4128
This is a better example. It is a bill that allows the state to purge voters who has not recently voted. As I have said previously, purging voters has been a strategic move by the Republicans to prevent specific groups of people from voting who they believe would primarily vote for Democrats.

Again, its a short bill so I dont feel a need to specify what part of the text is relevant.

[MrTaboo]

So getting rid of voters that haven't voted in 20 years that also don't ha e proper birthdays is a bad thing? Songs like they're getting rid of fraudulent registars.

And Pennsylvania bill, pen Sylvania is a Dem state.

[Soteris]

I can't think of any legitimate reason to arbitrarily purge voters due to any other reason than the change in their legal status to vote such as dying or moving somewhere else under another jurisdiction. Not having voted in a certain amount of time, even if that time is a very long time, is a really bad excuse however. This is especially true since USA has such a terrible voter turnout and these people at least voted at some point.

[goaded]

"And Pennsylvania bill, pen Sylvania is a Dem state."
With a Republican majority legislature. Which is where bills come from.

[Soteris]

@goaded No, he is right. Its a bad example because it has plenty of democrat support. To be honest, the list I have is not really compiled for this question in particular which means it contains bills supported by both parties. After all, this list is intended as a complete list of bills that infringes on elections which both parties are guilty of if at different degrees.

[DaveJord]

www.nbcnews.com/.../19-states-enacted-voting-restrictions-2021-rcna8342

Says 19 states have passed 34 laws that have made voting harder. They are making it harder to register to vote, absentee vote, maintain registration for voting, limiting the number of voting locations, place like Florida have out lawed Sunday voting. Stricter ID laws reduces turn out dispro­por­tion­ately to number of registered voters and census information on tax paying Americans.

www.brennancenter.org/.../impact-voter-suppression-communities-color

Its all a matter of opinion.

[MrTaboo]

None of them ate "harder" to vote. I live in one. We just made it harder to cheat.

[DaveJord]

Matter of opinion.

[goaded]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States#Purging_of_voter_rolls

But that's old news. The recent trend is to make it possible for legislatures or other (Republican) officials, legislatures or judges to deny votes from entire counties based on nothing more than an allegation of fraud, not proof.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/06/14-gop-controlled-states-have-passed-laws-to-impede-free-elections/

[AviatorTom]

No voting rights have been taken away. In some cases, voting has been made more difficult (for example, by reducing polling places and times of early voting) but there is no law that says voting should be easy.

[MrTaboo]

Polling places were removed because of redistricting because of censis. It happened here. And early voting was changed illegally In 2020 by buricrates.

[AviatorTom]

@mrtaboo There are still polling places for people to vote, and still early voting dates and times for people to vote. And a person can always vote on election day. No one's rights were taken away.

[MiseriaCantareAFI]

I bet if i told every republican leader that i was jewish and dont believe that abortion should be oulawed

that they would try to take my right to vote away, in every way possible, since "pro life", is a "christian" thing, and they don't like that im jewish

[joeldalton]

You're clearly an idiot, maybe voting isn't for you.

[MiseriaCantareAFI]

@joeldalton hahaha, projecting much, eh?

[MiseriaCantareAFI]

@joeldalton by the way, I've reported you

[MiseriaCantareAFI]

Dude, the guy i just reported, literally just called me an idiot

We all do it

It's just, the right is more likely to do it

[MiseriaCantareAFI]

Also, it sounds like you were jaded from the start, asking this FUCKING GOD DAMN QUESTION

YOU FUCKING DOUCHEBAG

[Avicenna]

Unsurprisingly, the two loudest voices pushing BS on this topic are European leftists that don’t understand the US Constitution, much less voting legislation or case law.

[TroyDT]

Other than forfeiture of voting rights as part of the penalty for certain felonies I can't think of any. Frankly I am more concerned with the increase in the size and scope of the federal government by both major parties.

[exitseven]

Yes, thousands of dead people will be prohibited from voting.

[MrTaboo]

Damn, very repressive...

[OddBeMe]

Forcing poor people or old people to have a drivers license or a copy of their birth certificates is overkill. Because there's NO fraud…other than from the GOP trying to prove fraud. Ironic…

[Avicenna]

Yeah, sure, because no one ever needs government-issued photo ID for anything and no one ever commits identity theft, cheats or lies.

[OddBeMe]

@Avicenna when voting…because it gets you nothing but federal felonies.

[Avicenna]

Can you identify the exact federal statutes that you’re referring to?

And how do you propose to identify and prosecute those who do it if they don’t show you any ID? Most likely, they‘d vote by mail and their signatures wouldn’t be checked for matches with the ones on file. Good luck catching them when those are accepted as valid votes.

Oh, and prosecuting fraud depends on whether the prosecutor feels like doing it.

[OddBeMe]

@Avicenna Lots on this page. And what would be the criminal's gain? one extra vote?

[OddBeMe]

forgot to link... :)
www.justice.gov/.../federal-election-fraud-fact-sheet

[888theGreat]

none. Voter ID just keeps them from voting 10 times

[MrTaboo]

Weird how they gate that.

[jimmy2]

All they done is make it more identity of who you are Dem use dead people and it they find a way to all votes from illegal immigrants I would not be surprised

[Anonymous]

Forcing 3rd party candidates off ballots, oh wait that was Democraps that's been forcing 3rd parties off ballots.

[joeldalton]

*crickets*

[Soteris]

*loud speaker*
AL H. B. 194, AZ H. B. 2492, FL S. B. 524, GA H. B. 1015, GA H. B. 1368, GA H. B. 1432, GA S. B. 441, KY H. B. 301, OK H. B. 3046. AZ H. B. 2237, AZ H. B. 2289, AZ H. B. 2378, AZ H. B. 2379, AZ H. B. 2780, AZ S. B. 1259, AZ S. B. 1285, AZ S. B. 1357, AZ S. B. 1475, AZ S. B. 1574, AZ S. B. 1629, KS S. B. 418, NH H. B. 1473, NH H. B. 1567, OK H. B. 3677, OK S. B. 1637, RI H. B. 7214. IL S. B. 2946, MI H. B. 4127, MI H. B. 4128, MI H. B. 4491, MI S. B. 277, PA H. B. 143, PA S. B. 878. PA H. B. 1703, PA H. B. 1800, PA H. B. 1300, WI A. B. 201, WI S. B. 204, IL S. B. 2949, MA H. 762, MA H. 792, MA H. 812, MA H. 3878, MA H. D. 2559, MI S. B. 285, MI S. B. 303, NE L. R. 3CA, NY A. B. 4326, NY A. B. 4901, NY A. B. 8180, NY S. B. 1853, NY S. B. 6450, NY S. B. 7368, OH H. B. 387, PA H. B. 1300, PA H. B. 1334, PA H. B. 1800, PA H. B. 853, PA H. J. R. 1596, PA S. B. 422, PA S. J. R. 735, WI A. B. 201, WI A. B. 306, WI S. B. 204, AZ S. C. R 1005, MO H. B. 1454, MO S. B. 633, MO S. B. 668, MO S. B. 670, MO S. B. 679, MO S. B. 695, MO S. B. 738, MO S. B. 780, MO S. B. 861, MO S. B. 900, NH H. B. 1153, SC H. B. 4622.

... etc.. I mean, I can go on if you like.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris you can. You can continue to bullshit and lie all you want. Your first example right out of the gate... took me about 5 seconds to debunk.

"Elections, prohibits state and local election officials and their employees from soliciting, accepting, using, or disposing of certain donations from individuals or nongovernmental entities for funding certain election-related expenses"

https://legiscan.com/AL/text/HB194/id/2566677

This isn't suppression/interference/whatever bullshit word you want to use in the slightest. This is what happens when you just follow NPC programming and never think.

[Soteris]

That bill prevents election officials to work with non-profits. This includes criminalizing transportation aid, poll worker training, education and assisting people with registering to vote.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris Right? Again, not voter suppression, not voter intimidation, not any bullshit you’re trying to float.

[Soteris]

If you dont help voters to vote then chances are they will not vote and that is not to mention the issues at polling locations without trained polling workers. However you twist it this bill will result in fewer people voting.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris So it's ok to bribe voters?

[Soteris]

So is it okey to help voters to register and vote? Like for example if they have a physical handicap and have trouble traveling to the polling location?

[Agagagagaga]

@Soteris Dude you are waaaay too obsessed with American politics and government. I knew you were a loser, but goddamn 😂 Go get laid or something man, Jesus 🤦‍♂️

[Soteris]

@Agagagagaga But I am correct, and you are not. That makes my fee fees happy.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris It's fine. The bill says it is not ok for people running elections to do so. The bill doesn't prohibit "everyone" from providing those services. So when are you going to stop lying?

[Soteris]

The biggest problem with the bill is how its written in an intentionally vague way which you are able to abuse and punish any non-profits who intends to help.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris lol so we've gone from "THIS BILL RESTRICTS VOTING" to "It can be misinterpreted". Now's a good time for you to just take your L and move on. You bullshitted and got caught. On the FIRST example you posted, RIGHT out of the gate. With about 10 seconds of googling.

[Soteris]

Its not that it CAN be misinterpreted, that is just what makes it worse and its also the intended application of it but even if you read it in the most charitable way it still restricts non-profits from providing all the support I already put forward. If you include what it could be misinterpreted as then it makes it fairly easy for the state to selectively remove and criminally punish election officials for arbitrary reasons which could include politically motivated crackdown of the polling location.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris Again, it doesn't restricts nonprofits, it restricts them from working with people who run elections. You're lying. Plain and simple.

[Agagagagaga]

@Soteris I’m sure if I looked into those bills all they are doing is trying to stop ballot harvesting and Liberals handing out coffee and donuts at voting centers to influence voters.

They tried to do this in Georgia, allow people to serve drinks and snacks at voting centers which would obviously provide a means to bribe and sweet talk voters in line.

And if you say that’s pretty shady what do Lefties such as yourself scream?

OMG THE RACIST REPUBLICANS ARE KEEPING PEOPLE FROM VOTING!!!

So forgive me if I think your politics is nothing but hot air and hypocrisy. 🙄

[Agagagagaga]

@joeldalton He’s a Lefty, they have never been concerned with the truth.

[Agagagagaga]

@Soteris I looked up one of your bills randomly that you say is taking away voting rights, and surprise surprise, it doesn’t. It’s nothing more than a bill asking for ID for voting:

“ I. (a) A person desiring to vote shall, before being provided a ballot, announce his or her name and address to one of the ballot clerks who shall, if the name is found on the checklist by the ballot clerk, repeat the name and address. If the address announced by voter is different from what appears on the checklist, but is in the same town or ward, the ballot clerk shall record the change of address in red on the paper checklist and the supervisors of the checklist shall cause the centralized voter registration database to reflect the change.

(b) The voter, unless challenged, shall then be asked to present proof of his or her identity meeting the requirements of paragraph II. If the voter presents such proof of identity to the ballot clerk, the ballot clerk shall give the voter one of each ballot to be voted on in that election.” -MA H. 812

So asking for ID before voting to ensure citizenship is restricting voting. GTFO. 🙄

Why am I not surprised. Hypocrisy hypocrisy hypocrisy.

[joeldalton]

@Agagagagaga so that's two easily debunked. I'm sure you can throw out the whole list. Because he also didn't actually research any of this, he read it one huffpo or some other bullshit site and just parrots it.

[Agagagagaga]

@joeldalton I hate how goddamn dishonest they all are. “THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY VOTING FROM MINORITIES!”

Really? I mean conservatives did pretty well with African-Americans and Latinos in the last election. 😂

“It’s RACIST to ask for ID!”

Really? Like when I have to show it to get medication at the pharmacy or board a plane? 🙄

THEY WANT TO SUPPRESS THE VOTE!

Really? The bill just says you can’t hand out drinks and snacks in voting lines to influence voters. 😂

[Soteris]

Oh please, you know me better than that. Yes, this bill specifically targets election officials however it does so in a way that they get blamed if a non-profit organization helps register voters due to their usage of the word "personal services" AKA someone helping the polling official by helping register other people to vote is a personal service and illegal according to this bill.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris yes, I do know you're stupid enough to think anyone believes this BS. Psst. No one does. There is no evidence of Republicans taking away voting rights, or suppressing the vote of anyone. So you tried, you failed miserably.

[Soteris]

@Agagagagaga This bill is not about ballot harvesting.

As for MA H812, its just a fact that arbitrarily requiring extra steps to voting is an obstacle to vote and that there is neither an issue with the current verification system nor evidence provided that bills such as this would even work in the first place.

So yeah, its just an attempt to put more obstacles between the people and the ability to vote. Nothing more than obstructionism under a thin pretense of "security" which is inherently bullshit.

[Soteris]

My points still stand perfectly fine thank you very much and I got literally hundreds more if needs be, some of which you have already seen. Thing is however, you are really bad at debunking my points because you just arbitrary declare victory and go home anytime you run into difficulty.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris no, not bad at all. it took 10 seconds for two of us to debunk two of your claims. There’s no chance you’re pulling this one out. You tried, you failed.

[Soteris]

It took 10 seconds of reading for you to be confused and misunderstand the bill at which point you flushed the bill down the toilet and declared victory like your super hero Donald Trump does. So no, you did not disprove me even slightly just because you can't read.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris aww, you keep trying. It’s so cute.

[Soteris]

Trying? Is that not what you should be doing?

[joeldalton]

@Soteris There wasn't any try. I debunked your BS in about 10 seconds. You're floundering around trying to sacrifice a bit of dignity.

[Soteris]

Again, its impossible that you debunked me since I doubt you even understand the issue even after I have repeatedly explained it to you in detail.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris I do understand the issue. The bill clearly does nothing to restrict voting but yet you make up fantasy scenarios where it does. I live in reality. You do not.

[Soteris]

Does helping citizens register to vote increase the number of people who votes?

A fairly simple question really.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris Does giving gifts or paying people who run elections open up the potential for fraud? Simple question.

[Soteris]

Yet you refuse to answer my question. Curious.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris Because your question is irrelevant to the bill you posted. You failed, bro.

[Soteris]

It is not. If the bill gets in the way of registering new voters that is actively stopping people who would have voted from voting.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris The bill is getting in the way of people paying off election workers. Preventing fraud. Not some lunatic fringe fantasy hypothetical your autistic brain dreams up.

[Soteris]

Even if what you said is true, its not, but even if it was. That would still prevent voters from voting and the bill would still be interfering with the election.

If you truly felt there was an issue with people bribing election officials you should have written a better law that did not cause collateral damage on the voters. Hence its a bad law no matter what you argue.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris It is true. And you have zero proof it stops people from voting. None. Zilch. Nada. I also notice you've gone from "ITS VOTER SUPRRESION" to it's a "bad bill". You can't even keep your BS straight. You lost, dude.

[Soteris]

It is self evident. If people do not register to vote then they can't vote. Very simple. I am sure even someone as dense as you can figure it out eventually.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris No one is being prevented from registering to vote, dipshit.

[Soteris]

So you are saying that the effort to help people to register does not increase the number of voters by even a single one? That sounds unlikely.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris I'm saying you can't pay off election officials, idiot.

[Soteris]

... So? How does that change if this bill lowers the number of voters in the election?

[joeldalton]

@Soteris So you're an advocate of fraudulent voting? That's the bottom line of your bullshit. Fuck off.

[Soteris]

Your argument is as retarded as saying "Do you want school shootings? We should outlaw all guns to stop this!"

This law does not increase election security and it harms a lot of other things in the process of failing its primary supposed role. Which I have also explained to you previously. So yeah..

Are you advocating for preventing people from using their right to vote?

[joeldalton]

@Soteris It absolutely makes for safer elections if the people running them can not accept gifts. At this point you're just being willfully stupid. You lost this debate. So any reply you make from here on out is just stupidity.

[Soteris]

It absolutely also makes schools safer if the person that comes to kill them does not have a gun. Your point is?

[joeldalton]

@Soteris yawn... take your L and run along little boy.

[Soteris]

Ill take my W thank you very much loser.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris you have none. go away, boy.

[Soteris]

Says the toddler who can't read.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris ok, liar.

[Soteris]

As if I have bothered to lie to you.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris your first reply was a lie. Nothing more. Adios.

[Soteris]

Oh really? Why dont you prove it then for once or the ironic thing would be that it makes you a liar.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris I did in my first reply. You lied. End of story

[Soteris]

No, that is just an example of you not being able to read. Being unable to read is not a very strong argument against my point.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris I read it to you verbatim, dipshit.

[Soteris]

Not only were you wrong but you also did not even understand what you repeated to me. Sad.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris lmao. It’s funny reading your lies and BS.

[Soteris]

You talking about reading again? I am not going to fall for that one.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris no, I’m talking about you being a liar. But that’s nothing new for leftists. IF you had to tell the truth your political views would all fall apart.

[Soteris]

Because what? You and numpty number 2 believing that you debunked two of the perhaps around 70 pieces of evidence I put forward? Very convincing there bud.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris Um. that was 2 done immediately. With minimal effort. Randomly picking bills to actually real wouldn't result in 100% debunking if the list wasn't wholly bullshit. And you just copy/pasted from some lefty site, not from actual thought you put into it. So it's all thrown out. Bye loser.

[Soteris]

"Minimal effort" eh? Yeah, I believe that. There was no effort on your part to understand and rebuke my argument, at least that is something we agree on.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris I destroyed your argument two days ago. preventing election officials from taking bribes is not and will never be voter suppression. You're a shitty liar and and idiot.

[Soteris]

Your argument simply reinforces mine. Of course you dont understand.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris ok, lying sack of shit.

[Soteris]

Nothing I have said is untrue, everything you have said is either wrong or deceptive.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris yeah, reading the title of the bill is deceptive. You dipshit.

[Soteris]

... You do realize that the title of bills in USA is the playground for politicians right? They love to play around with them, especially by arranging them into fun acronyms like "Help Eliminate the Levy on Locution Act" spelling out "Hello".

They also love to put in random garbage such as the "Inflation Reduction Act" which literally has nothing to do with inflation. Its a bit sad that I have to explain such simple things to you but the title is not part of the legal text in the bill and can be literally anything.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris of course. But this bill is also 5 pages and the text aligns with the title. So you got caught trying to lie and now you're spinning in the wind.

[Soteris]

So why does it lower the number of voters again? Maybe you should read the title some more.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris Prove that it does. I'll wait. Find me one person who wasn't able to vote because of this law.

[Soteris]

Anyone who registers to vote from a non-profit organization encouraging voter turnout for example. They also help with training for poll workers so anyone going home because of waiting in line for too long or because of bad service or perhaps because the polling location can't be opened because of there not being enough poll workers would also contribute. Just to give a few examples.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris No, a hypothetical person is not a person. Find me a real person. otherwise STFU.

[Soteris]

Why would I waste that much time placate your lazy ass when what I say is irrefutable already?

[joeldalton]

@Soteris Because you know you can't. Sorry loser.

[Soteris]

No. Because that would involve having to personally contact a non-private organization and get a confirmation which while possible is far more than you would ever deserve for being a troll on the internet.

[Soteris]

*non-profit

[joeldalton]

@Soteris No, it would mean actually backing up your bullshit. Which you can't do. Hell, find one real person affected by ANY of the bullshit bills you posted at the start.

[Soteris]

Yes it would mean that. After all, you care about such silly proof as having to trot forth an actual person. Even if I gave you a number of people who registered to vote through a non-profit organization you would just dismiss that unless I could put a face to them and identify them for you.

That is the kind of asshole you are.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris Still waiting. One person.

[Soteris]

The level of proof you are demanding is unreasonable and while I can provide it, if I actually cared enough, I have made the choice that you do not deserve it. You are free to contact these non-profits yourself if its so important for you or you can accept the already irrefutable level of proof I have presented already.

I am however not going to bend backwards for your amusement.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris well you've admitted you can't. One person. That's it. Tuck your tail and head back to the basement, son.

[Soteris]

Well, if it is so easy then you can do it yourself.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris I didn’t make the bogus claim that these laws restrict voting rights. You’re really pathetic after you get called on your BS.

[Soteris]

I provided more than sufficient proof for my claims, it is just not up to your insane standards.

Actually, lets just examine how stupid your standards of proof actually is. I made a claim that this bill does (among other things) lower voter turnout AKA get in the way of some people who would have voted otherwise from voting now. I proved these people existed through logical deduction to an irrefutable degree.

But this is not enough for you. No, you expect me to give you a real life person as an example. Why? I already established these people existed, giving a specific example would not change anything. The only reason you have for asking this is because it is harder to prove, not because the proof itself has greater value to the conversation than the logical argument I already provided.

In fact, the only reason you even asked for this proof is because you have no interest in the truth, you just want to undermine the argument and falsely claim victory. You are no less pathetic than people using the God of the gap fallacy and I would bet my last pair of underwear that you would just move the goalpost if I actually gave a shit to actually call up these organizations and get a physical example.

You are just a worthless internet Troll. Of course, I knew this from the start otherwise I would not have bothered to talk with you. You are my entertainment, nothing more.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris No, you gave hypothetical situations. That’s not reality. When you can prove it, I’ll believe you. As such you are bullshitting. Which is what you tend to do when you can’t back up your claims.

[Soteris]

I mean.. Hypothetical situations are always supposed to be true, its just a case if they apply or not that is the question. That is what makes them a hypothetical situation following real rules and reaching a real conclusion.

My example is not even that hypothetical. It assumes that there are non-profits that performs campaigns to help people sign up to vote.. and there are non-profits that performs campaigns to help people sign up to vote.. The only way you could possibly argue against my conclusion is to either prove that there are no such groups or that signing up voters does not increase voters which is fucking absurd even for you.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris so again no evidence of anyone actually being prevented from voting. Making you full of shit.

[Soteris]

En contre my developmentally challenged friend. My logic is self evident, its proof of itself and does not require outside validation.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris lol. you homo. You lied. You got caught. Be a man and admit it.

[Soteris]

Again, nothing I have said has been disproved by you and I have said no lies. It is also you whom have been shown to be dishonest by requesting unreasonable levels of evidence for no other reason than to be difficult.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris disproven at the start. You lost.

[Soteris]

Which is objectively false. In fact, I would even argue that my hypothetical argument is far more true than finding an actual person as you demand since its evidence for itself where as I could easily falsify a person and you would be unable to verify it. Not like you ever cared though.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris so if I say hypothetically a man can fly by flapping his arms then that’s true and I don’t have to prove it either way according to your logic.

[Soteris]

... But a man can fly by flapping his arms. It would be VERY challenging on earth indeed but swimming is a thing and if you changed the gravity and/or the medium such as replacing air with water then it is very possible indeed which is not to mention that increasing buoyancy would make us float etc..

There are countless ways in which a human can "fly" using any definition of the word you want and I can prove it without having to go to a space station and to it personally because hypothetical situations are correct when correctly applied.

So yeah.. Nice shooting yourself in the foot you big dum dum.

[joeldalton]

@Soteris lol. You are so desperate to pull this massive L into a win. It's sad at this point.

[Soteris]

Right back at you

[joeldalton]

@Soteris yeah but I was right and you were wrong. That’s the difference