SectionC3

Agreed. But the second sentence in your post was not an opinion. Hence Rule #2 applies.

Excellent point. And a fine application of Rule #2. Looks like as of May of this year it was 16 miles. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/26/theres-new-wall-194-miles-border-16-miles-didnt-have-wall-before/ So that settles it. Trump has more miles of border wall than he does new auto plants.

I think he has four new miles of border wall, right? Or is it zero? I gave up on keeping track of that lie a long time ago. So maybe it’s tied at zero apiece!

Rule #2, please.

In swing states, of course. And the key word in the thread title is ”imaginary.” Because these new auto plants are nothing more than that. No surprise, Trump is making stuff up. Hoaxes, if you will. Rule #2 link here: https://www.chron.com/news/article/Trump-keeps-bragging-about-imaginary-auto-plants-15556772.php Discuss.

Based on the link that you used (in accordance with Rule #2; well done!), it looks like that poster is against free speech. How sad!

This is a model use of Rule #2 evidence. Well done, as always. We all should follow this lead.

I’m going to have to ask you to support that with Rule #2 evidence, sir.

I’d ask you to support your contention with respect to Rule #1 with Rule #2 evidence. But I’ll save you the trouble. Your contention that Rule #1 requires one to not “be an a-hole” is a hoax. The Rule #2 evidence with respect to that point is here:

That would be outstanding. This whole Rule #2 thing is just outstanding. Makes things so much better around here.

Looks like it to me. Great use of Rule #2 evidence to support your point, too.

A little more recent fear mongering here: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/donald-trump-and-the-politics-of-fear/498116/ Note Rule #2 compliance. Oh, and here is the gem about the “Antifa Air Force!”: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/03/politics/donald-trump-plane-thugs-protesters/index.html Note continued Rule #2 compliance.

Great thread, by the way. Very important subject. Here is Rule #2 evidence of some early-2020 Trump fear mongering: https://www.newsweek.com/trumps-liberate-tweet-incites-insurrection-flouting-federal-law-1498791

Not the issue. Right now the issue is Trump’s refusal to fight a war against COVID-19. Please stay on task and on subject. Thank you!

So you can’t satisfy Rule #2?

Hoax.

Rule #2, sir.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/10/us/wildfires-live-updates.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage Big fires out west. Looks like they were forest fires. Is nature now part of Antifa? Or is nature a communist arsonist?

And this is the point. Even if China had “us” fooled, the Woodward tapes reflect that Trump knew of the dangers of the virus in February and March of this year, and that Trump knowingly downplayed those dangers. So at that point, Trump fooled us, and perhaps himself. And that is where the blame lies here.

Thank you. So well said. It was a failure of leadership from the top.

Hoax. I don’t jump to your comply demands. If you show me the discussion, I’ll be happy to continue it with you. It’s hard for me to know what you would like to talk about unless you show it to me. Hence Rule #2. We can’t play guessing games here. So if you’d like to continue the discussion, please take the time that you previously dedicated to declaring a fake victory in an Internet discussion and let the person with whom you have engaged know what exactly it is that you would like to discuss. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Rule #1. I think I invoked rule #2 earlier. Please comply.

I’m gonna have to Rule #2 this one.

Seems we have a Rule #2 situation here, sir.

Where?