null

Disprove what about them, beyond what I already have?

I mean, he lost the presidential primary to an orange moron, so not sure he can even talk about “winners”. Sounds like he’s just whining.

I know what the article and the headline say

Congratulations?

Your initial criticism is still invalid.

It’s not.

Can you find a source that says they were allowed to resubmit the post?

Why would I do that when it’s not my claim? The onus is on you to show that they were disallowed.

So you don’t know.

Like I’ve said on every loop.

which was ignored

Does not appear in the quote. If you have another source for that claim, it’s weird that you haven’t shared it by now.

Where do you get the idea that they were allowed to resubmit the post?

Fair, I’ll rephrase: you cannot demonstrate that they were not allowed to resubmit the post.

You keep using this quote – have you actually read it?

They asked about submitting the post for approval and they were offered a meeting with Acton.

That’s what it says.

You’re making the positive claim that they were told they cannot resubmit the post for approval. That quote does not demonstrate that to be the case.

Do you understand that yet? Or do we have to loop around again?

why can’t the original posters resubmit through the proper channels

They can.

Now we’re really cooking!

Okay, so let’s work it out starting really broadly: should everyone in the world have access to post anything they want at all to that Facebook page?

They posted to Facebook.

Ooo you’re getting warmer! Are these specific people banned from posting that specific criticism anywhere on Facebook?

Oh look at that, suddenly it’s “specific” criticism is banned. Good, we’re starting to get there.

But of course that’s not quite right, is it? Because like we just established, even that specific criticism isn’t banned because we just read that criticism in a substack.

So maybe you meant specific people are banned from making that specific criticism?

Interesting, I swear I just read a substack criticizing this…

So I was right, you literally don’t have a clue what I was arguing.

That explains a lot.

I don’t think they meant split the vote, I think they meant doing stuff like pushing candidates like Graham Platner.

Where did I say anyone was being fair?

I’m so curious, can you steel-man what I was arguing? I genuinely don’t think you have a clue.

We really shouldn’t have to assume…

Also how are we going from “has a favorable opinion of” to “identifies as”?

Because the people that would vote for DSA candidates think everything she said is based.

So she looks good to them, and Fox News gets to say “see, this is how unhinged the Democrats are”.

Here’s the poll: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28524353-cnn-july-poll-conducted-by-ssrs-midterms-parties/

How are they drawing the conclusion that “A third of Democrats now identify as democratic socialists” from that?

Compute.

Stay mad, keep stalking!

If you read the linked thread it describes everything.

Lmao I was there, it doesn’t “describe” anything you’ve accused me of. Again, just be specific. If it’s so obviously true, that should be simple.

you’ve now insulted me multiple times and now called me a transphobe out of nowhere.

How dare I respond to your multiple insults with multiple insults??

Truly pathetic that you want to dish it out but can’t take it.

So well done on the speed run. Have a fantastic day. Becare as anger like this raises stress immensely and can lead to other health issues.

Have the day you deserve.

If they delete comment replying too for everyone else.

Unlike the crybullies you associate with, I don’t delete or ban or block things that threaten my hugbox.

In fact, anyone who’s not a coward can join the room in my profile if they have beef. No bans or deletions for anything other than illegal content.

No crying to the mods to delete or ban because you can’t defend your made up shit.