But with Trump, they feel like they are winning. Does not matter how much they lose in reality, they beat the others and the others “hate them for winning”. This is all that matters.

Also stochastic terrorism against women health clinics and doctors

And what’s the difference between that and the approach that was taken with Germany after WW1, which was a contribution to the rise of the Nazis?

Windows went from 8 to 10. Why can’t he go from 3 to 5?

Had to Google, the highest number in Germany is apparently 1501 in a street in Cologn. But yes, you are right, streets are usually not long enough to reach such high numbers.

Removed by mod

No it is not. That’s only an answer if one thinks that every sources bias is as bad as any other, which was rejected earlier as “outrages strawman”. Under the assumption that sources can be more or less biased, it is worth questioning the bias and the statement “there’s no such thing as a source with no bias” is a moot point.

Sure buddy. It is still irrelevant. It is not hypocritical to ciritice a source. You don’t have to prove a different point to bring forward criticism. The only question should be “is the criticism valid?” And not “do you have a better point?”

But there is a spectrum. Or are you telling me that every source is as biased as any other?

How is it hypocritical? Either the sources are biased or not. The poster not providing proof for a counterargument is irrelevant. Or do you mean they should provide proof for the original sources being biased?

Hehehe … Log books