What are you babbling about now?
I said “no diversity of thought” in a discussion of political leanings. I meant “no diversity of political thought” and thought that was implied but saw that you and others didn’t get that so I amended/clarified the statement. You of course thought you had something to run with do you refuse to accept the correction which is ridiculous albeit typical.
To answer your question, no I wasn’t and have not questioned your statement of support for the EC. What I called into question is your belief that this one statement somehow counters the years of shilling for the Democratic Party. Hope that helps.
Question number 2: no I don’t think I’m “implying that” when mentioning the fact that farm land can’t be as densely packed as urban population centers. Thanks m saying there was a reason why the agricultural states wanted a compromise when forming the constitution. They wanted equal representation in one house of Congress and they wanted protection in national elections.
Please share with me the “absurd” comments I’ve made about urban residents. You think it’s “absurd” to suggest that urban population centers lack political diversity? Show me evidence to the contrary. I’ve used NYC elections to support the point. Feel free to show the contrary.
I couldn’t agree more that it is absolutely insufferable for you to continue to throw false narratives against the wall, in desperate hopes that at least one of them will stick. Like this foolishness about backtracking multiple times. I clarified a single statement but never let the truth get in the way of some good lawyering, amirite?
As always, it’s been fun. Im sure I haven’t heard the last yet, but you take care as well.
You’ve had to backtrack twice now... spare me the long-winded diatribe.