You're making an assumption that crap was true.
A fair chunk of it was, after all, if you actually pay any attention at all to the reasoning and what was actually being said. With that said, it was presented as a mildly amusing start to discussion, not as an irrefutable end. If you had meaningful criticisms, you've ever had the opportunity to actually make them.
And once again here's another post that claims if someone doesn't see things your way, they must not have spent enough time on it, must not have looked at it.
Is it really that hard to understand people can disagree with you?
People certainly can! People are also under no compulsion to accept the validity of the disagreement, though, when there's been no sign that it's meaningfully related to what was said and, in fact, there's clear reason to believe that it's based on a failure to understand what was said.
No! We don't see the world the same. And I don't care care what you believe.
I wouldn't expect us to see the world in exactly the same way. That you're pushing that, however, is still little more than an irrelevant dodge to the criticism that is actually being levelled against you here.
This thread is getting weird.
Good job to you!
I say she failed to have a magical answer for the immigration problem. Trump wants magic, writing's on the wall for everyone that can't produce his magical solutions.
Alternately, of course, it's quite likely to be yet another attempt to change the conversation away from Mueller's distinct lack of exoneration of him and towards the fearmongering about illegal immigrants. A number of Republican strategists consider it to be very much in their party's favor when the focus is on illegal immigration and refugees.
What happens if it turns out the call details were 'leaked' by the prime ministers who received the calls? Will Trump declare punitive tariffs? I don't know how effective a wall between the US and Australia would be. It would be geographically tricky.
Hmm.
Water walls?
I think you're probably right.
I'm just not counting on you being right.
"But this time will be different" is a shaky basket to put all your eggs in. And I'm more skeptical than most that Trump's standing has been reduced in the eyes of his supporters or any meaningful number of "neutral" parties.
After the lengths that Fox News and company have gone to portray him as a hero who's being attacked for solely political reasons by a bunch of mean, violent, law-hating baby murderers who are trying to steal your money?
Yeah, I'm not assured, either. It's quite worth remembering that Republican turn out was quite high in the 2018 elections, despite Trump's horribleness. That Democrats turned out in greater numbers doesn't change that a bit. Trump could easily win in 2020, if a win against him is taken for granted again.
Which circles us around to Trump Tower Azerbaijan and the connections there to that group, as well as the nigh certain lawbreaking that the Trumps were doing there.
I'm not sure there's even a settled question to that question. making a settled answer even more problematic.
If one clearly defines what sound is, there will be a clear answer, one way or another.
For example, if the definition is -
1.
vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.
Than yes. "Can be" is distinct from "are." If we go by Tragic Monkey's definition where it's only sound if it actually is heard (who or what hears it generally doesn't matter), than no. So, there's your clear answer.