use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. subreddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
subreddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
advanced search: by author, sub...
~5 users here now
Leftist Democrat Mayor sentenced to 30 years for kiddie porn
submitted 9 months ago by [deleted] from hotair.com
view the rest of the comments →
[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun - 9 months ago (7 children)
It's the shittiest shit take... Must be socks.
[–]g0ldfish 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 9 months ago (6 children)
Says the brain dead user with a no argument or evidence.
[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 9 months ago (5 children)
All you did was cherry pick data. It works for Dems too https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/cbwz35/here_is_a_list_of_democrats_chargedconvicted_of/
[–]g0ldfish 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 9 months ago (4 children)
44 comments in this day-old post and as you can see, no one bothered to search for two seconds to get that summary of claims: also with no links therein, and some questionable claims, like (1) Epstein was ALSO a major GOP donor, (2) Harvey Weinstein was ALSO a major GOP donor, (3) Asia Argento is a former porn actor, (4) Ed Murray resigned after accusations; not proven guilty, (5) actor Russell Simmons faced allegations and was not proven guilty, (6) ... I could continue down the list, noting problems with the various claims and allegations. Perhaps because the list contains so much disinformation it was not previously used as evidence in this thread. You can't always argue that the person providing evidence is "cherry picking". Try being less lame, while also appreciating that you shouldn't argue with the likes of me, boy.
[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 9 months ago (3 children)
Same as your list. Unless it's a proper study, it's just jaw jacking and virtue signalling.
[–]g0ldfish 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 9 months ago (2 children)
Re-read what I wrote 3 or 4 times. It might eventually sink in.
[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 9 months ago (1 child)
Cherry picking is an invalid argument form
[–]g0ldfish 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 9 months ago (0 children)
AGAIN: 'You can't always argue that the person providing evidence is "cherry picking".' It's evidence, and extremely rare on Saidit.
view the rest of the comments →
[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun - (7 children)
[–]g0ldfish 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (6 children)
[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (5 children)
[–]g0ldfish 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (4 children)
[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (3 children)
[–]g0ldfish 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (2 children)
[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (1 child)
[–]g0ldfish 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)