@canonpress "can i run for office"
"under the current constitution, yes"
"in your vision of america?"
"in my vision of america, no"
"well, the constitution currently says i CAN run for office, so your wrong"
Nobody disputed the current Constitution. You're answering a different question
@vvolfmayne@TheWyteRabbit1 these types of posts need to be community noted and demonetized for clickbait, it happens too often that a headline makes it seem like it just happened
@rachel_power@Rach4Patriarchy if you're pointing out that someone's student was supposedly taught by them and still doesn't understand the fundamentals, you're inevitably commenting on the teacher too
@amdeporres@TeamYouTube No it doesnt, and i never made that point. But it does raise the question of artificially inflated numbers and whether thats a good thing or not.
@Nonny4506@TheEnigmatic_01@proamericapol "proof beyond reasonable doubt" the burden is on proving that the gun was used, not that it wasnt used. I'm on the side TR most likely shot Charlie, i just want the whole truth to come out
@TheEnigmatic_01@proamericapol Your boss paid 300k to look like a dumbass live in front of millions. I'm on the side that TR shot charlie. But again, she is clearly saying there is evidence that should be looked into further. In court of law "proof beyond reasonable doubt" yet there is still reasonably doubt
@Nonny4506@TheEnigmatic_01@proamericapol Actually, she doesn’t. She’s clearly saying these things should be looked into. It’s possible the gun found wasn’t the gun used, Tyler wasn’t the last to touch it based on fingerprint degradation, it wasn’t Tyler in the cameras, and it wasn’t this car on video.
@TheEnigmatic_01@proamericapol Her claim was that the evidence should be explored further, for example, the debris in the gun, the degraded fingerprints, just accepting the camera footage was actually Tyler Robinson, that the car was Tyler Robinsons, etc... thats her claim. you seem to have missed that point
@TheEnigmatic_01@proamericapol Ive rewatched this debate for the 3rd time. She is clearly saying there is evidence that needs to be explored, but it isnt. At the end of the day, just remember your boss spent 300k for a debate, he came unprepared and lost in front of millions of people.