Putin says Russia prefers Biden to Trump but criticizes current US policy,,

He finds US amusing.

He knows it will only cost him 10% with pedojoe…

And Trump agrees that Biden would be a better President. He said so himself.

Mischaracterizes señor Trump's statement.

You know what? You're right. I was wrong. He doesn't say that Biden would be better.

Trump specifically says that Putin said that Biden should be President and that he, Trump, agrees with Putin.

Nothing at all about better.

Thank you for your kind acknowledgement.

However, I did find another error in your capitulation.

It says nothing at all about 'should be President' either.

El Trump merely agreed that Putin would much rather see Biden as President.

Thank you for continually setting the record straight, feller. If only the leftist libs would listen and learn. I will give whistlelock credit for accepting the truth where most of 'em won't (even when smack in their faces).

Unfortunately, Veebs, (insert applicable gender) was not accepting the truth.

(Insert applicable gender) was being sarcastic.

Oops, there I go again, hoping against hope that a lib will come around. I gave him credit cuz I thought he deserved it. My bad...but I stand by my comment that I appreciate you setting the record straight and may I add in the laughs this time as well re insertion? :)

You may 😄🇺🇸

And remember how in that other thread I said that conservatives have a problem admitting when they're wrong?

An example of that problem, of always having to be right, is right here in this word; "capitulation."

Clearly, conservatives feel that admitting that they were wrong is surrendering. It's giving up. It means that admitting you're wrong is a sign of weakness. And y'all are utterly terrified of being seen as weak.

It must be so exhausting. Why do it? It's okay to be wrong. It's okay to say "oh, I was wrong about that."

Did your dad do this? I bet your dad did this all the time, and you'd complain to your mother about it. And she'd pat your back sympathetically, and say something like "oh, sweety, I know but your dad..." And you probably swore to yourself that you'd never be like that.

And yet, here you are...

Triggered?

Spew your hate speech. Get it all out.

Remember how in that other thread I said I know that you are better than to participate before asking what you thought about mods participating in a plot to harass others, revealing information that should not be disseminated, and spreading misinformation but you never answered?

I post it here again to refresh your memory.

To refresh your recollection.

I sincerely have no idea what that is about and why you keep posting it.

But from context it seems that you feel like you're the target of a vast shadow conspiracy?

And if you feel like I am targeting you for harassment, I want to point out that I don't start conversations with you. You reply to my comments on other poster's content. So.... it's more like you're targeting me.

To be clear, IDGAF if you are.

No.

None of that.

I only wonder why you have not answered the accompanying question, ever.

Remember that time you said you always admit when you are wrong but when I pointed out that you answered a question different than the one I posed you posted 3 or 4 comments arguing with me that it was the question I asked even though I clarified your mistake in understanding the question each time?

To refresh your memory - i asked you to provide the rates of Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) for both:

1) vaccine induced AMI

2) covid induced AMI

and you kept giving me the rates for:

1) AMI in vaccinated individuals.
(not the same as vaccine INDUCED)

2) "naturally occurring" AMI.
(not the same as covid INDUCED).

You even made a follow up post about the 3 super simple steps for admitting one is wrong:

"Admit you are wrong, make changes and move on".

But you did none of those things.

You did then what you are doing now, posting a bunch of hateful nonsense, trying to needle me, to distract from your error and the need to always appear to be right

You wrote the 3 super simple steps!

Why do you not adhere to them?

Others commenting on one's comments
is how this site works.

If you do not wish to engage with certain individuals, super simply do not reply to them.

By not responding, one's feels can remain insulated and isolated in their safe space.

😉 Super duper simple.

For me to be wrong, you would have to present some actual science and data. Stomping your feet and shouting "nuh uh! nuh uh" is not science nor is it data. It's just your feelings.

Again.

What you're asking for is literally the information that has been repeatedly supplied to you. So either you don't understand what you're asking for or you're choosing to deliberately not understand.

I think it's the 2nd one. Which is why you're adding things like induced. Because next it will be something even more farcical and supposedly detail oriented. Like "vaccine induced AMI that happened on a Thursday to men named Robert!!!!"

Go back to the studies I linked in that other thread. Read them. Read them with the intent to understand what they are saying.

People who get covid develope AMI at 3 out of 1000. People who get the vaccine develop AMI at 1 out of a 1000.

You are 3 times more likely to develop AMI if you get covid than if you get the vaccine.

See...still answering a question I did not ask.

Why do you insist in trying to convince me that I asked the question you want to answer?

Because you don't know the answer to the question I asked and that you misunderstood...and continue to purposely " misunderstand" instead of just following your super simple workgroup leadership dimension self developed steps and accept that you made a mistake, make corrections, and move on. But you can't, and that is why.

And that is why.

And this is also ---> Y.

Comment again when you can either answer the question I actually asked or can admit you do not know the answer to the question I actually asked.

This getting boring.

Whistlelock, I declared feller the winner. Time to go home. Give it a rest. See the old lady. Talk to her. She may 'get you'. 😜 Feller doesn't. I don't. Time to move on.

FINAL Update...

RF 202
WL Still batting 0

Adding "induced" really doesn't make any sense. It sounds like you have an answer you want, and you're trying to drive to that answer regardless of what reality tells you.

Okay, let me try rewording this with you.

Vaccine CAUSED (aka "induced") AMI

VS

Virus CAUSED (aka "induced") AMI

**************NOT************

AMI simply occurring in vaccinated individuals

VS

AMI simply occuring, as you put it, naturally.

°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°

It was not my intention to come off like some super superior sesquipedalian scientific sage.

I truly believed you would know what the term INDUCED means.

*!* BONUS POINTS *!*

Bonus points are available if you can say 3x fast:

"Super superior sesquipedalian scientific sage"

💰👈😄👉💰
Good luck !!!!!!

You keep asking the same question. And the only answer is the same answer.

I'm going to try to rephrase your question for you. Maybe you mean, "How are they able to confirm that the vaccine and/or the virus was the driving cause of the AMI and not a result of pre-existing conditions, environment, or genetic predispositions?"

If that's your question, that's a good question. And I have some great news for you. That information is in the study.

The great thing about science-based studies is they're required to provide you with the methods and the evidence so you can check their work (if you're so inclined). When you read the studies, they'll start with the Abstract (which is the question they're looking to answer), then the results, and then the means by which they arrived at that results. Which will include all of their data, all of the other studies, and everything they used. Along with the how & why they used that data.

The peer review process is the other scientists go through the data. They do the math. If they come up with the same answer, it's a thumbs up and it gets published. If enough people can't reproduce the results, too bad.It's a fluke and it won't get published.

They don't just make the numbers up. They contact the patients. They go through their medical history. They follow up with them on specific intervals to confirm what's happening with them. And all of that is available for you in the study.

Go read the study. The questions you want answered are answered within.

You do not understand the question.

You insist on answering a different question of your own creation.

I suspect this is continuing to be done purposely in order to avoid admitting that you do not know the answer.

You refuse to practice what you preach by following your 3 super simple steps.

I have no need to continue this line of conversation with you.

You are WRONG.

For me to be wrong, you would have to present data, evidence, and facts to prove the scientific study I presented as being wrong.

You've done none of that.

You've repeatedly asked the same question. Made no attempts to rephrase it. Made no attempts to clarify your inquiry. Done nothing to further the discussion.

You've simply stomped your feet and said "nuh uh! nuh uh!"

what is the study wrong about? What facts, evidence, and data (that has been peer reviewed by professionals in the same field) that disproves that paper?

Got big feels about your dad, huh? If he's still alive, you should go talk to him and work through it. Or seek out some therapy. Therapy is great for exactly that kind of thing.

Feller wiped up the floor with you and you are back for more? Are you a masochist? Just wondering....😯🤔

It's okay, Veebs.

Even though Swiffer mop pads are disposable, I rinse them out and use them to wipe up the floor again.

Got big feels about word definitions, huh?

I do!

Then take your own advice and visit the word and work it out or seek therapy.

If you could explain how "Putin would rather see Biden as President' and "Putin thinks Biden should be President" are not synonymous, that'd be great.

"Should be" would imply good for America.

"Would rather see" implies good for Russia.

RF 200
WL 0

Once again, we're at the point where you have confused your feelings with facts. Any meaningful differentiation you infer from 'should be' and 'would rather see' is subjective.

Meaning, that difference is brought entirely by you.

To support there being an objective difference between the two, you have to support that from the text itself. As an example, you would have to show in a later portion of the text that the author used the specific phrase in the way you are claiming with the meaning you are claiming being very clear.

You didn't do that. You just put your feelings in there like they're facts.

Updating....
RF 201
WL Still 0

Consistency is important

Incorrect.

The proof is in the language used.

Example:

You SHOULD BE smarter than me.

You WOULD RATHER SEE yourself as smarter than me. I agree.

See, totally different.

Work your steps.

That's a different context. Let's try it again.

Interviewer: Hey, Regularfeller, who would you rather see as the President, Trump or Biden.

Regularfeller: Trump should be President.

Or

Regularfeller: I'd rather see Trump as President.

There is no functional difference between those statements. Any meaning you infer is brought entirely by you.

Your feelings.

😄 you and your feeeeeelings think RATHER and SHOULD are interchangeable?

I would rather skip school.
I should skip school.

X - not the same function

I would rather get drunk than go to work.
I should get drunk instead of going to work.

X - not the same function

I would rather eat greasy deep fried pork.
I should eat greasy deep fried pork.

X - not the same function (& unhealthy)

I would rather make love with my girlfriend instead of my wife.
I should make love with my girlfriend instead of my wife.

X - not the same function (also wrong and hurtful to another's, you're gonna love this, feeeeelings).

You would rather answer a question I did not ask.
You should answer a question I did not ask.

X - not the same function

Putin said he would rather see Biden elected president and I agree.

He would rather see Biden be elected president so he can continue to do as he wishes without interference from a bought and paid for, ineffectual, weak, and predictable adversary.

Shall I go on or is that sufficient for you to bend the knee, capitulate, and practice what you preach by following your 3 super simple steps?

You really need to stop.

I'm starting to think you evicted Trump from living in your mind rent free and moved me in.

I'm flattered but I need my own space.

LMAO!

You keep changing the context by making it a singular option and not a indication of preference. Putin is asked to indicate a preference between 2 options.

Explain how these two statements to not clearly indicate Putin's preference (and are thus synonymous):

1) Putin said he'd rather see Joe Biden as President of the United States.
2) Putin said Joe Biden should be President of the United States.

Both of them clearly communicate his preference. That being Joe Biden as President. Anything beyond indicating a preference is you adding to what Putin said.

And then, let's not forget, Trump agreed with him.

You are WRONG.

Either follow your 3 super simple steps or revise them because they obviously do not work.

No. I'm not. He was asked for a preference. Both sentences clearly communicate his preference.

Anything you add beyond that is a you thing.