DJL

You're the one who is posting the words of the woman calling Vox's reporting a lie. These are YOUR claims. I looked back through old Vox articles and can't find anywhere that they promoted a message assuring their readers that it would not be a pandemic. What Vox did do was to make that claim in a Tweet (Jan 31), one that they DID acknowledge was wrong on March 24. The Washington Post article Feb 1 stated that at that point the Flu was still more of a threat but went to great lengths to describe that it has entered our country and has caused many deaths where it gained a foothold elsewhere: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/time-for-a-reality-check-america-the-flu-is-a-much-bigger-threat-than-coronavirus-for-now/2020/01/31/46a15166-4444-11ea-b5fc-eefa848cde99_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&tid=lk_inline_manual_19&itid=lk_inline_manual_19 The next WaPo article was about how we perceive threats and tend to fear things that are more novel, it did not say the coronavirus was not a threat. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/01/31/how-our-brains-make-coronavirus-seem-scarier-than-it-is/?tid=lk_inline_manual_22&itid=lk_inline_manual_22 The NYT article Jan 29 was about how in Europe people and places face a stigma despite there only being 40 cases on the European continent at that time. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/world/europe/coronavirus-stigma-europe.html The final WaPo article Feb 3 she referenced was an opinion piece about the dangers of over reaching government control. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/03/why-we-should-be-wary-an-aggressive-government-response-coronavirus/?tid=lk_inline_manual_33&itid=lk_inline_manual_33 So, all instances that were either retracted, relevant to that time or did not say what she claimed.

Just wait until you get to phase II of Brent, when he actually has to admit he's wrong and says something like, "Well, I prefer an open field to glaciers anyway."

You just literally equated your "reality" to "straws".

She was being asked about correcting a previous wrong and gave examples of newspapers who do that all the time. Yes, those newspapers should and do correct their stories if they get them wrong. Should she not correct herself or is she more interested in whataboutism?

The thing about walking in on underage girls while they were changing is accurate. There are several accounts from this, multiple occassions and he even said so. His daughter even said so.

Are you trying to excuse this type of behavior?

Being sold directly from Donald Trump's campaign website. Just for those wanting to simultaneously politicize and sexualize their adolescent daughters.

How do you know that POTUS approved it?

And what is it about this image that let's you know that Trump created and posted it?

Does Trump now go by the nickname DanielDonahue who created this meme 5 months ago on imgflip? https://imgflip.com/i/3jf8gy

The phrase is "too stupid to argue with".

We'll build a bridge out of him.

You have to resort to God in the face of data and facts? Kind of reaching, aren't you? If your point of view is only supported by your feelings and wants then isn't it you who is clutching to a religion? It's like some sort of Monty Python sketch with you two and you're figuring out whether to burn a witch.

And you have a more accurate or better explanation than the people who study this professionally?

We should get to the real discussion we're having but that covers it mostly. Biden is going to be the candidate, the DNC is not going to withdraw him, there's simply no way to re-vote for a new candidate. In the real world we would probably not hire this person to many roles if we knew there was a credible accusation of a sexual assault and this person was to be the face of our company. So all we're left with is picking who we prefer between two people accused of sexual assault. Hopefully neither will be in office 5 years from now.

Except it says the opposite of that. You're trolling. It shows them coming and going at a random rate but overall in a trend of increasing in volume. And then all of a sudden they ALL SIMULTANEOUSLY SHRINK. Again. Graphic. Page 76.

Yes. He knew exactly what he did and should've known that in any conversation with the FBI he needed a lawyer with him.

Play on Smurfs. "You can go Smurf that up your Smurf" - not an actual line from The Smurfs.

Right click, image search.

That's a conversation I've had a few times with people. Why do all of this without having reaped the benefits? Yes, there's the concept of not holding onto a bad poker hand but we decided that we would prioritize human lives. Let's say that this was only effective enough to have saved as many lives as we've lost, around 60,000 people, approximately the number of soldiers lost in the Vietnam War. If we were to vote on having those lives back in exchange for a few months of lockdown I think it's clear how that vote would go. If we were to abandon this right now we would suffer both the consequences in lives AND the economy.

I mean....there are so many other creepy pictures out there...

BTW, that's not Biden, it's a doctored picture, the original subject was Mexican President Obrador.

AND>>>>>>> There are 11 bodies at Glacier National Park where that placard is posted that are no longer considered glaciers because they don't move anymore and are not growing.

Page 75. This is the ebb and flow of glaciers for the last 2000 years. Upwards means retreating, downwards means expanding. 1st the majority of the track downwards over the last 2000 years meaning that they were getting larger, not smaller as you've said above. Now look at the band all the way to the right and you'll see that almost ALL of the glaciers retreat simultaneously. Look at any other band and you won't find as well sychronized of a move towards retreating. Now look at page 76, another graphic. En mass they're headed toward expanding/advancing until around 1800 and the trend entirely falls off. Now, according to your OWN WORDS??? Any thoughts on this? https://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/solomina16qsr_238964.pdf