TimHauck

Did they show it at all in this case?

She’s saying they’re men, that being trans is not a real thing. This was the other example I shared earlier. She called being trans a “gimmick.” https://x.com/Riley_Gaines_/status/1861564050024329515 @jerryskids tried arguing that since the post she was replying to was deleted, that it lacked the full context. But no context is needed to acknowledge that calling trans a gimmick means she’s against transgender people. Although to your question Jerry, reading the comments, it’s pretty clear the original post was about Walmart supposedly no longer selling chest binders (so not about sports). I’m guessing the post got deleted after many commenters pointed out that they were in fact still selling them. Riley makes lots of posts about trans folks but not about sports. For example she also retweets just about every story she sees of a trans person committing a crime.

I’m no lawyer Iike @Engorgeous George was, but I’d imagine they can say they already showed it in a situation like that. Did they already show it in this case? The implication from Lander here is they did not (except for the one guy holding a crumpled paper in the air), I imagine if the guy being disappeared had a lawyer he would have asked prior to Lander

I don’t care either, and I believe in God, but I can acknowledge that believing in God denies science.

https://x.com/Riley_Gaines_/status/1808256336922108415

What context?

Is it a fact that God is real? Just trying to determine when it’s okay to deny science and when it’s not.

Sharing evidence of Riley Gaines’s past tweets are facts. She is against trans people as a whole, not just in sports. Do you disagree?

How so?

Not sure why people are celebrating not producing warrants when asked. Slippery slopes…

Maybe I will, I’ll probably be a millionaire. I anticipate we see Trump apologize for this incident.

Your stance is based on “denying science.” I don’t care if someone believes in God (I do) or that Jesus rose from the dead (I’m undecided), but those opinions deny science.

So it was what you meant. That ain’t obstruction

Hey @Meglamaniac I hope this isn’t what you mean. If this is obstruction then we’re all in trouble

Can you share it please?

“WaS hE deTaInEd Or ArReSsTeD?!?11” - @BrahmaBulls, probably

@TBayXXXVII thinks Riley Gaines doesn’t care about them except when they play sports though. Do you believe in God or that Jesus rose from the dead?

Yeah but @BrahmaBulls says he only posts facts. Lol

Why does it matter what she was quoting? She called trans a gimmick, not sure why you need context for that. I mean I think we’re basically agreeing here. My point is she is against trans folks in general, not just in sports - you’re basically just saying she “should” do that to help her point about sports. But no, I don’t like Riley Gaines despite agreeing with her premise that men shouldn’t play women’s sports. Sorry if that triggers you.

I usually actually read the links I post. As well as the links other people post, because they often don’t, and a lot of times the links other people post help prove my point, not theirs ( @Strike and @RLLD for example have done this). Surprised you don’t know “Data Republican.” She supposedly has helped with DOGE, the conservatives on x love her because she likes to respond to Dems passive aggressively and link a bunch of charts and stuff. Some of her stuff is interesting, but she kinda reminds me of “Ethical Skeptic” - she’s clearly smart, but I think she tries to overwhelm people with numbers so that you can’t spot where she’s wrong. Her followers, most of which are far less educated than you, eat it right up. I don’t care enough about this topic to dissect it. I am curious if your answer to my earlier question though.

Calling trans a “gimmick” isn’t “anything of substance”? Be serious. Sure, it’s “in her best interest.” But I don’t want to hear people say nonsense like “she only cares about keeping them out of women’s sports.”

So you’re acknowledging it was dumb for @jerryskids to write that?

I think the viable candidate thing was the bigger problem in 2024. I’m still holding out hope for Roy Cooper

That was peefoam

You literally just said “he’s more of a Walz guy than a Trump guy. He was appointed by and worked for Walz.” I guess you’re just trolling. And he never actually worked for Walz. So much for “only posting facts.”