Apple News published 97 articles about Trump in its September top stories. Only 1 of the 97 was from a right-leaning outlet, and that article was another hit piece. Do you see the plot now? foxnews.com/politics/republi…

🚨BREAKING: Calls are ramping up nationwide to INVESTIGATE, EXPEL and DEPORT Indian Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D) after she worked with foreign nations to send oil to Communist CUBA!

99% of New Jersey comments oppensed the independent contractor rule that now affects over 1 million workers in New Jersey, why was it ever pushed through!? Now Mikie has pushed this through on Oct 1st 2026 Question was from @thekimkavin

Dude. You've been in this thread for about twenty hours now. Twenty. Hours. And in that time you've managed to commit more logical fallacies than you've made actual arguments. That's honestly impressive. It's like watching a guy try to parallel park for twenty hours and hit every car on the block. You've been chirping in this thread like a smoke alarm with a dying battery at three in the morning, and nobody can figure out which room you're in. So let's do something you clearly skipped in school. Let's grade your work. I've got my red pen. I've got my coffee. I've got nowhere to be. Pull up a desk, front row, where I can keep an eye on you. FALLACY #1: "This is an AI generated reply. U weren't even smart enough to create your own arguments." That's called the genetic fallacy, with a side of ad hominem and a red herring for dessert. You didn't touch one single point I made. Not the missing source on Bernie's polls. Not the question wording. Not Medicare for All support collapsing into the 30s the second people hear it ends private insurance. You skipped all of it, every word, and went straight to "who typed it." But honestly, dude? I'll take it as a compliment. You read my reply and decided it was too logical, too organized, and too grammatically correct to have come from a human being. You looked at clear sentences, cited points, and an argument you couldn't punch a single hole in, and your brain went, "Well, no PERSON could do that." Buddy. That's called writing like a science teacher. Claim. Evidence. Reasoning. Complete sentences. Punctuation in the right places. I make teenagers do it every single day, and some of them even manage it before lunch. If a well-built argument looks like a robot wrote it to you, that says a lot more about the arguments you're used to reading than it does about mine. And going after who typed it instead of what it says? That's like losing a basketball game and complaining about what brand of shoes the other team wore. Buddy, the scoreboard doesn't care about the sneakers. You're running Windows 95 in an argument that needs a working brain. FALLACY #2: "I don't really care about people who are against things that are in their own interest." Oh, this one's a beauty. It's called begging the question, and it's a circle so perfect you could use it to teach geometry. You ASSUMED the exact thing you're supposed to be proving, that Medicare for All is in everybody's interest, and then used that assumption to dismiss anybody who disagrees with it. "Medicare for All is good, so anybody who says it isn't is against their own interest, so I don't have to listen to them, so Medicare for All is good." Round and round we go. You built a merry-go-round and then got dizzy on it. You're a ceiling fan, dude. Lots of spin. Never actually goes anywhere. And honestly, it's a pretty revealing sentence. "I don't care about people who disagree with me." That's not an argument. That's a mood. That's a toddler in the cereal aisle with his arms crossed. You're basically announcing to the whole internet that thinking about the other side is just too much work for you. FALLACY #3: "Medicare for all is in my interest and in the interest of everyone who isn't a big pharma boot licker." Two for the price of one on this one, dude. Buy one fallacy, get one free. First, it's a false dilemma. According to you, there are exactly two kinds of human beings on planet Earth: people who support Medicare for All, and boot-lickers for Big Pharma. That's it. Nobody else exists. Not the doctor who's watched single-payer systems turn "see a specialist" into "see you next spring." Not the working guy who doesn't want his taxes doubled. Not the mom who'd rather pick her own family's plan than take whatever a government office hands her. And not me, dude. The veteran who had his shoulder surgery pushed back at the VA for three years. Three YEARS. I've already stood in the government-run health care line. I know exactly what it feels like. And you want to put everybody else in America in it too. Everybody who disagrees with you gets stuffed into one box with an ugly label slapped on the side. Second, it's poisoning the well. You smeared everybody who disagrees with you BEFORE they ever opened their mouths, so you'd never have to actually listen to them. That's not debating. That's covering your ears and humming the theme song to whatever cartoon you watched this morning. You're a participation trophy that learned how to type. And here's the funny part. You want to talk about Big Pharma? Under Medicare for All, the government becomes Big Pharma's single biggest customer in the history of the world. Every drug. Every patient. One giant check. You're not fighting Big Pharma, dude. You're handing them a lifetime subscription. And look at how the last big government health care plan went. After the Affordable Care Act took full effect in 2014, the biggest insurance companies in the country saw their revenues roughly triple. If you want to see the boot-lickers, look at who wrote THAT bill. If you actually wanted to stick it to the big health care companies, you'd want people holding their own money in a health savings account and shopping around like it's their own dollar. Because it is. But that would take a little critical thinking, and yours is a screen door on a submarine. Technically there. Completely useless. FALLACY #4: "So you are telling me that the people in those countries would rather have their access to their Healthcare taken away to shift to a for-profit health care system like the United States right?" Nobody said that. Go back and read it. I'll wait. Take your time. Sound out the big words. James said care gets worse under universal systems, and that's why so many doctors and nurses come here to practice. He never said one single word about taking anybody's access away. That's a straw man. You couldn't beat his real argument, so you built a fake one out of straw, knocked it over, and then took a victory lap around a field nobody else was standing in. It's also a loaded question. You crammed your conclusion INTO the question so any answer would sound bad. That's the old "have you stopped kicking your dog yet?" trick. It doesn't work on adults, dude. It barely works on middle schoolers. You've got more straw men in this thread than a Kansas cornfield in October. And by the way, James was right. About one in four doctors practicing in the United States trained in another country. They come HERE. Canada's own Fraser Institute tracks how long Canadians wait for care, and in recent years the median wait from a family doctor's referral to actual treatment has been around 30 weeks. Thirty WEEKS. That's seven months. You can go from finding out you're expecting a baby to the third trimester while a Canadian waits to see a specialist. And the same institute tracks Canadians leaving the country every single year to get treated somewhere else. You know who said it best? Canada's own Supreme Court. In 2005, in a case called Chaoulli v. Quebec, the Chief Justice of Canada wrote that "access to a waiting list is not access to health care." That's not me, dude. That's the top judge in CANADA. Talking about CANADA. I spent years as a combat medic and a paramedic. I can tell you from experience that when somebody's hurting, "you're on the list" is not treatment. It's a waiting room with a nicer name. You argue like a GPS that only knows one direction: "make a U-turn." FALLACY #5: "Personal anecdotes don't represent the beliefs of the broad majority of Canadians." Moving the goalposts. Textbook. I'd frame it and hang it on my classroom wall if it weren't so sad. You asked a question that basically meant "who in their right mind would ever choose that?" I gave you a direct answer: real Canadians I know who came here and paid out of pocket instead of waiting on their "free" care. Then, instead of admitting you got your answer, you changed the question. Suddenly it's not "would anybody," it's "the broad majority." Let me teach you a little logic, dude. It's the kind I teach to fifteen-year-olds, so you should be able to keep up. If somebody claims "nobody would ever do X," it only takes ONE example to prove them wrong. One. That's not me "pretending anecdotes represent the majority." That's how you disprove a universal claim. For centuries Europeans said "all swans are white." Then somebody found one black swan in Australia, and that was the end of that sentence. One swan. I gave you a few Canadians. Your swan is black, buddy. You've moved the goalposts so many times the field needs a forklift and a union crew. And notice something else. You keep demanding "the broad majority of Canadians," but YOU never brought a single number about what the broad majority thinks. Not one poll. Not one study. Not one link. Zero. Zilch. Nada. You want me held to a standard you won't even try to meet yourself. That's called special pleading. And shifting the burden of proof. You made the claim. You bring the data. That's how it works in my classroom, and in every classroom that ever existed. It's the intellectual version of a kid who keeps changing the rules of tag halfway through so he can't be "it." You've got the debate skills of a goldfish who forgot the question halfway around the bowl. FALLACY #6: "Stop pretending to think that personal anecdotes represent the beliefs of the broad majority of people." Another straw man. You're really getting your money's worth out of the straw this week. I never said that. Here's what I actually said: "I know some Canadians who came to the USA for healthcare." Some. S-O-M-E. Not "all." Not "most." Not "the broad majority." You're arguing with a guy who doesn't exist, and you're STILL losing to him. That takes talent. You're a fortune cookie with no fortune inside. Crunchy, a little sweet, and completely empty. Now. I'm about to call you a few names. And before you run back to the "ad hominem!" button like it's a fire alarm, let me teach you one more lesson. Free of charge. An ad hominem is when somebody attacks the PERSON instead of the argument, as the REASON the argument is wrong. "You're dumb, so you're wrong." That's a fallacy. That's what YOU did in Fallacy #1, by the way, when you skipped my whole argument and went straight to "you're not smart enough." What I'm doing is completely different. I just spent this entire post taking apart every single thing you said, point by point, with logic, facts, sources, and a Canadian Supreme Court ruling. You're wrong because of Fallacies one through six. The insults aren't the argument. They're the gravy on top of the argument. "You're wrong for these six reasons, and also you're a clown" isn't a fallacy. It's a diagnosis with commentary. You know what arguing with you is like, dude? It's like playing chess with a pigeon. It doesn't matter how good you are at chess. The pigeon's going to knock over every piece, poop all over the board, and strut around like it won. You've knocked over every single piece in this thread. You've definitely left a mess on the board. And you've been strutting for twenty hours. So consider this your fair warning. You are one logical fallacy away from a block. And honestly? I'm betting it won't take you long. But what do I know? I'm only a teacher who grades arguments for a living and a medic who knows the difference between a waiting list and a hospital bed. And I just gave you a full semester of logic for free. Most people have to pay tuition for that. @TPUSA #MAGA #Trump

JUST IN: Biden administration approved 99% of migrant child placement applications in one year, per NY Post

Federal judge stops Education Department from releasing list of foreign sources of funding for Ivy League universities trib.al/gsA3XBQ

Link newjerseymonitor.com/2026/09…