@MikeBrownsWorld@AustinLostroh@PBDsPodcast TPUSA, Erika, the FBI, everyone that cared about Charlie should be doing what Candace is doing. Imagine if someone was shot twice in the back, they said it was a suicide, then all their family and coworkers didn’t question it at all, wouldn’t you think it was suspicious?
@IanCarrollShow I can’t believe person thought it was a good idea to pay $300k to debate a topic against someone that has been doing a live show investigating the topic for almost a year straight. Not to mention the topic was about one of her best friend’s murder.
@pointed_si58747@SStricklandMMA She didn’t say anything remotely comparable to yelling fire in a movie theater. I’m not sure what kind of speech laws you have in Israel, but in the US, we are supposed to be free to say what we want. Her indictment is a violation of our constitutional rights.
@realZacZook@grok@Caroline__Emma@ComicDaveSmith America is not defined by the actions of our government. A core US principle is to be critical of our government and prevent tyranny. You can love your country and against the actions of your government at the same time.
@FIfIKnowAnymore@Thomas489596405@DorLinder He operates a school for boys and teaches them how to handle real world situations. He worked with the restaurant employees to simulate a conflict with a waiter. Check out his page @NewEmergingKing I wish all schools did what he does.
He got engaged to one of his students after she turned 18, it’s not far fetched to imagine he was inappropriate with her while she was his student. I read that article someone else posted and it said the court case was about alleged harassment after they broke up, not about his inappropriate relationship with her before she turned 18. Even if he didn’t do anything inappropriate while she was underage, dudes a creep for getting with one of his students right after she turned 18. There is a 0% chance that he wasn’t thinking about a “romantic relationship” with her while she was underage. He gives off that “you’re so mature for your age” vibe. I’m glad someone called him out on it, and his reaction is very telling.
You’re a bot account. But I’ll bite anyway, it WOULD be worth someone’s time to debate an issue that has lost a huge amount of support. Especially if they are as passionate about it as Ben is about Israel. The majority of the world has turned on Israel so it would definitely be worth his time to win a debate on it and get some support back.
@resdPH@Bl00dOld@AntSpeaks If radical Islamic terrorism was bad before, do you think killing their religious leader would make them more or less radical?
The previous ayatollah was against nuclear weapons for religious reasons and was negotiating in good faith. But after the US/Israel took him out, his successor, after seeing what happened when they tried to negotiate with the US diplomatically, will be much more radical in their approach. Not to mention all the radical Islamists, if they committed terrorism before, do you think that killing their religious leader would make them more or less radical?
So if you don’t support our government’s decision to get in multiple wars without congressional approval, that costs trillions of dollars, heavily weakened the value of our money, that got countless people killed, and created more enemies than it eliminated, that means you hate America? That makes sense.
You seriously think Pakistan is funding bot farms to support Dave Smith? That makes no sense. People support Dave Smith because his arguments are supported by facts, common sense, and moral superiority. None of his debate opponents can refute his arguments, which is why they resort to personal attacks. If you can’t see that and you conclude that all his support and his huge growth in popularity over the last few years is due to Pakistani bot farms, you’re completely captured by propaganda. If anyone is using bot farms to sway public opinion, it’s most likely the people that actually have a vested interest in public opinion on these issues, not Pakistan.
@grok here’s a hypothetical scenario, if “Mark” invaded “Steve’s” home and hurt Steve’s kids and then returned back to Mark’s house with his family home, then Steve decides to retaliate by burning Mark’s house down knowing that his family was inside, would Steve be charged for murdering Mark’s family? Would you say he willingly hurt innocent family members?
@OGTrinny@ComicDaveSmith I must be missing something because I don’t see it. Do you have an example where he didn’t listen to the other side and provide a relevant counter argument?
@grok In your opinion, is “Where’s Daddy” a tactic that intends to kill the family members of Hamas, or choosing to drop bombs on buildings and shelters that they know are populated with civilians, or choosing to block all food and water from entering Gaza for months, is that evidence that they willfully chose to hurt/kill civilians?
He provides better counter arguments to every debate opponent. He listens to the other side, rejects it and gives a good reason why. Then the opponent usually starts attacking him personally or tries do delegitimize his expertise. He has won every debate because he proves why his perspective/argument is better and/or morally superior. Everyone that isn’t biased or captured by propaganda can see the objective truth in his arguments.
@rollscannardly@DropSiteNews Why do you think he is retarded? I’ve yet to see anyone give a good counter argument. Dave easily dismantles all the state propaganda talking points so people end up calling him names because they don’t have a good counter argument.