You said hundreds and found a handful that were ... already caught? That didn't affect the election??

Hundreds of illegal voters that were already caught, exactly.

While everyone says that's not happening.

Over 6,000 illegals registered to vote in a couple of years, and 400 of them actually voted. So not a handful, try reading comprehension.

No, this isn't what is being said at all.

Yes, people are saying "Trump is trying to stay in power"

That's my best guess at what you're refuting, since I had it in quotes. Otherwise you're just vagueposting on a 4-day old thread. Try being more specific, make a point.

It's probably pure coincidence but this is the second time this week I've seen someone bring up this argument. Weird.

Words don't belong to anyone. That's because they're words. What matters is how people use language and how they understand them.

And american means someonr from usa.

Wrong, American means someone from the continent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas

Prove it.

You were doing so well.

Yes, governmental corruption happens.

No that is not the majority or even common case.

If you remove the power from the federal government, where does it go?

Why is this downvoted? Google is responsible for every literally malicious ad attempting to harm people that they display.

There is a big difference between "these ads have flashing lights and take up half the screen and are annoying" and "this ad is attempting to defraud you".

I read that post a while ago and reading it again now, it's still incredibly pathetic.

The phrase "offensively stupid" comes to mind.

Stupid? One of my best friends, a London native, is thinking of moving back to Seattle. She jokes about needing knife proof vests when cycling in London. Moving BACK to SEATTLE. That's ... that's bad ... really bad. I don't know why anyone willingly lives in Seattle. I did it for two years and I would never go back.

If you get offended by the truth ... maybe the truth isn't the problem. Maybe it's you.

Man, this was a really good response to that type of argument. I'm going to save it for later.

That moment in time was physically painful.

Ideally, yes, but much like guns, we've found it difficult to stop murders by punishing the people who do them. Turns out it's more efficient to (also) reduce access to certain tools.

Reducing access to a weapon/tool behind any variety of roadblocks because you think the weapon/tool is dangerous is not the same as shifting blame off of the person who did the crime. Saying we don't want people to be able to buy guns without limitations or even saying people should not be allowed to make or sell certain kinds of weapons/tools is not the same thing as saying the person who jumped through the hoops (or ducked underneath them) is not liable for the crime they committed using the weapon/tool. It is certainly the case that no one, at the end of the day, claims the gun is to blame for the murder a human carries out with it... some people will claim maybe the humans making or selling the gun share some blame, but it would be a fundamental attribution error to blame the gun itself.