This is all well and good but I want to know how Eric got ahold of that self-portrait emoji he used in the tweet??

The only counter-argument for Trump having been the sharpie user was that it was a nice, smooth curve that gently touched the original projected path on both ends. Wouldn’t have expected that care and attention to detail from him.

I mean, Assange played a pretty big role in getting Donald Trump elected, so I think there’s a case to be made for “everyone is wrong here”.

Thanks! I tend to agree.

It’s the same way people go from “letting gay people get married” to “this will result in people marrying goats.” It’s the “slippery slope” argument which is lazy and counterproductive, but usually effective because it makes you argue about step 2 rather than having to look at step 1 on its own merits.

I have a PhD in bioinformatics and want to move into a field like this. How can I help? And is partnering with Exxon for this effort selling my soul?

That picture looks like something out of a Pink Floyd movie.

He also played a mean saxophone with Phish. I bet he could jump right back into that with no problem!

I’m sure you are equally as passionate about defending Muslims and other religious minorities, and members of the press, who have their First Amendment rights taken away on a daily basis by the party in power.

That’s good to hear (your second paragraph).

Whenever I read about this kind of thing, I think about all those Evangelicals who voted for Trump, and how they still support him, and how far they’ve strayed from one of the primary purposes of their religion and everything that Jesus Christ taught.

That’s a great question. Remember this kinja discussion though because my official prediction is that he’ll forget about that and impose a new one in six weeks.

Yeah this is what I’m talking about. This Is What He Actually Believes.

To be fair, just because someone was wrong before (when a lot of other people were also wrong) doesn’t mean that if he says the same thing that he’s likely to be wrong again.

This study assumes that no voters will be suppressed and that no voting machines will be hacked or mysteriously switch their votes hoping the voter won’t notice without leaving a paper trail.

If you operate on the assumption that all of humanity is descended from two people and somehow never incurred widespread genetic disease that eventually led to mass sterility...then he’s right! Except for the rape part.

You literally went from “first there will be background checks” to “are you just going to keep going until you ban everything”. That’s the laziest line of reasoning I’ve ever seen. Try harder and maybe take a debate class or something.

Yeah, so when I made that post, I was talking about people like you and how lazy an argument the “slippery slope” reasoning is. Thanks for proving my point.

Yup.

We’ll see!