You’re the one making the extraordinary claim that this decision had ‘nothing’ to do with massive, nation-wide, broadly covered protests occurring in a hotly contested election year amongst a key demographic.
That’s just it though. Neither of us can point to a causal chain of events conclusively proving or disproving our belief.
The difference is, my belief is fully compatible with the mountain of circumstantial evidence mentioned in my above comment, whereas your belief requires one to completely ignore all of it.
So you’re going to look at a decision in the heat of an enormously momentous election year, made by a president who is running for reelection, amidst numerous, widespread, widely covered protests made largely by a demographic that is absolutely critical to this candidate-president winning said election…You’re going to look at all that and say it had ‘nothing to do’ with those same protests.
Not, ‘there were other factors’, nope, you confidently assert the protests had nothing to do with it and demand proof of a suggestion to the contrary.
Once again, check your tether.
You start distorting reality, and it gets tough to stop, by nature.
You’re the one making the extraordinary claim that this decision had ‘nothing’ to do with massive, nation-wide, broadly covered protests occurring in a hotly contested election year amongst a key demographic.
So, prove it.
Ahh. So when one person makes a claim that’s unproven, but you believe it- the onus is on the person that asks it to be proven to prove it isn’t?
Sorry, but that’s not how it works…
There is zero evidence to support the statement that this has anything to do with protests. ZERO. you cannot prove it.
I’ll save us both a lot of frustration and wasted time and simply refer you back to my first comment.
I’ll also save us both a lot of frustration and wasted time and simply refer you back to my first comment.
That’s just it though. Neither of us can point to a causal chain of events conclusively proving or disproving our belief.
The difference is, my belief is fully compatible with the mountain of circumstantial evidence mentioned in my above comment, whereas your belief requires one to completely ignore all of it.
So you’re going to look at a decision in the heat of an enormously momentous election year, made by a president who is running for reelection, amidst numerous, widespread, widely covered protests made largely by a demographic that is absolutely critical to this candidate-president winning said election…You’re going to look at all that and say it had ‘nothing to do’ with those same protests.
Not, ‘there were other factors’, nope, you confidently assert the protests had nothing to do with it and demand proof of a suggestion to the contrary.
Once again, check your tether.
You start distorting reality, and it gets tough to stop, by nature.