So no. You don't.
-
-
-
Replying to @mrskeena
It goes back to basic issues of evidence. You've just proven my point but whatev.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
I should know your ACA history-before using ACA as an example of people having different POV on the same thing! Rational.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mrskeena
It MIGHT be advisable to know a tiny bit abt prior evidence claims on stuff you raise as evidentiary claims. Just a little advice.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
So, people don't have different POV on the same event then? Do I need another example? Are the Pats cheaters is a good one too.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mrskeena
Hi. You don't seem to understand! You've just proven ACA evidence matters, not POV. Sorry you're struggling with this. It's hard!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
Okay,I think a lot of historians may disagree,but that is just my point of view. I am sure I am you will tell me I am deluded :)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mrskeena
That predictive data laid out in 2009 proved right in 2016 was just POV? Yes, historians would disavow those facts, just like you!
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
You know I wasn't arguing about ACA but the perception people had of it based on the name it was called, but humble brag a way!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, according to your approach, a bad reality w/fights over perception is better than good reality.
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel @mrskeena
But that is where self-styled "liberals" have taken "liberalism."
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.