It appears you want to continue down this road of accusing me of something. Good luck with that.
Pretty sure he wasn't saying that.
You have no business in any discussion involving reading.
Given your track record, we can't very well go with your opinion, but thanks anyway.
I laid out the ground rules for pursuing your affirmative claim. You have, however, chosen to abandon it, so I'm good if you're good.
Given your track record of understanding English, we can be sure.
... that you are dodging the question. Great. We'll resume the next time you insist the Epstein files be released to the public.
Can you not read for comprehension? (IBDaMann)
You laid out ridiculous arguments about what my claims were. I see no reason to abandon the normal rules of logic and debate to follow your "ground rules." Why do you think you can avoid providing evidence for your affirmative claim that 50% of the monarchs in Europe in 1773 owned and controlled all the land in their monarchy?
If you can't defend your claim of 50% and have chosen to abandon it, I'm good with that if you are.
I see you are going to continue with your logical fallacy then you double down by adding another straw man.
I know what he meant but interpreted it in an unexpected way because of how he worded it.
He was talking about law-fare. How many J6 rioters were a victim of law-fare?
Quite a few. Not all by any stretch, but many were. Look at "Buffalo man" Jacob Chansley. After ALL security video was released, the government prosecution's case fell apart as much of it proved a lie. His sentence was suddenly reduced to time served and he was released. That's one of the more prominent cases out of J6.
He didn't attack the cops.
Nor did the vast majority of those at that riot. Yet, they got gone over with a fine-toothed comb compared to radical Leftists attacking federal officers during Trump's first term and now, particularly, ICE agents during Trump's second.
Provide your evidence to support your claim.
What 'files'?