I did provide evidence. You know full well the Heritage Foundation is not credible.

That’s not evidence it’s an accusation. Where’s the proof that the article is false? Where’s the proof the author made up the quotes from the Minnesota Department of health? You know full well the article is accurate.

You guys have nothing but lies on top of delusions. No babies are dying on a table. You are just a rape fan inventing fake shit to support control over women.

If there are lies you should be able to find proof of those lies but you’re too busy fantasizing about killing babies to provide proof.

It would be hilarious to see you as a lawyer working with a witness that has previously lied on the stand. “Your witness is not credible, they have accepted money to lie in the past.” “That’s an ad hominem, you cannot do that.”

At least you learned what an ad hominem fallacy is, you’re a little less ignorant now. If you want to treat it like a court case you would need to provide evidence that the author has made up articles in the past, you have not.

You did not provide a source for letting “babies” “die” on a table after “birth.” You provided delusional propaganda where a liar was willing to write that based on weird definitions that nobody but you regressives agree with.

The only source you’ve provided was one which ended up discrediting your claim that abortions are denied when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. You haven’t provided others and instead rely on logical falicies to prove your point.

You additionally are confirmed to support child molesters harming children, rapists harming their victims, and want a rapist in the White House. Disgusting and repugnant.

Crazy rantings of a person who enjoys babies being left to die on a cold hard table.

You don’t understand what an ad hominem is. It absolutely is relevant to the argument whether or not the source is trustworthy. You cannot use a propaganda outlet as a source and then pretend people need to address that as if it is real. If it were an ad hominem you would be able to link to real evidence.

That’s what an ad hominem fallacy is, you are dismissing the article based on the creators not the content.

Post-birth abortions are fictional. Donald is a liar. Donald was caught in an obvious and large lie, one of hundreds he has told. Kamala simply did not lie as blatantly. It was not “three on one,” and it is pathetic to pretend that it was.

More ad hominem falicies, I provided a source that shows abortionists letting babies die on a table after birth.

Why don’t you go generate some AI images of A-list celebrities pretending they like Donald to self-soothe instead of trying to insist that everyone else believe the propaganda which fuels your fear addiction.

The unhinged ranting of a lunatic who can’t provide a source for his claim.

It’s a Heritage Foundation propaganda outlet. We don’t need additional evidence. You need evidence from a credible source. There is no worthwhile discussion to have if you are drinking Kool-Aid from a propaganda outlet.

This logical falicacy is called ad hominem. You don’t have any evidence that the claims are untrue or have even disputed the claims.

I thought you were going to link to the government’s actual records as a source? What happened there? Oh, does it not support whatever fictitious claims your propaganda outlet is making?

Now I have to provide additional evidence because you think there might be a possibility that the claims in the article may be false. How about you provide evidence that they are false.

Talk about strawman. You keep writing “babies.” Disingenuous. Do these fetuses even have brain activity? Link to the official records, let’s discuss things that actually happened instead of your propaganda outlet’s fever dreams.

You’re just as bad with your logical fallacies as you are with science. Per the article, whose claims you have not refuted, the babies were out of the womb, do you think babies can be fetuses after they have been born?

Where is it illegal to save someone’s life? Texas, for one.

Did you RTFA her life was not in danger. She had the risk of developing gestational diabetes, that’s it. Her own doctor never claimed there was a risk to her life.

You are supporting a rapist and supporting the rape-y behavior of forcing women into medical slavery. You also enjoy helping child rapists abuse children by forcing them to continue victimization, like in Ohio. This is very disgusting and disturbing.

More crazy rantings from a person who is in favor of infiantcide.

I’m disputing Daily Signal, no point in reading it. If you have MDH reports you could link that directly.

You’re disputing it but provide no evidence that there are falsehoods.

“Babies,” “left to die,” with “no care.” Kool-Aid.

Just because it’s troubling for you doesn’t make it less true.

Meanwhile you want policies to force unwilling people into slavery carrying a fetus. That’s pretty rape-y, but your leader is a rapist, so no surprise there.

Keeping working those straw man arguments. I have said nothing on my opnion of abortion or what I want. Leaving a baby to die is a horrible act, do you find it acceptable?

What is surprising is you are whining about being left to die with no care but fully supporting people who want to give birth instead bleeding out because they are refused medical care.

Nice try at another straw man. Where in the US are abortions illegal if the life of the mother is threatened?

Reading a Heritage Foundation propaganda outlet and uncritically believing everything in it is drinking Kool-Aid, yes.

Are you disputing the Minnesota Department of Health report?

“Disturbing acts” like proving an unviable fetus with the same terminal care a human would receive, oh no.

Strange you seemed to miss the reports that showed some babies were left to die with no care.

An extra ton of batteries is not going to change the weight that much.

Providing proof that an incident happened, multiple times, is drinking kool-aid? Sounds more like someone had their head in the sand and would rather ignore these disturbing acts.

*Doctors are letting babies who survived abortions die after birth.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/08/06/under-gov-tim-walz-babies-born-alive-in-botched-abortions-were-left-to-die-then-he-removed-reporting-requirements/

The old liberal playbook, anyone who disagrees is racists.

Be honest what’s the longest you can go without thinking about Trump?

China makes more than small cars, they make medium and full sized too. The larger cheap cars pose much more of a threat than small cheap cars. Both US car companies and the Unions don’t want cars from China and their politicians got into line really quick during an election year.

Irrelevant. The issue here is the flaw in your thinking: you have been conditioned to believe that every desperate person who crosses that border illegally is a murderer, a rapist, an arsonist, a thief, a drug dealer, etc. You have been conditioned to think this way by a constant stream of propaganda.

It relivent, illegal alien crime can be prevented by not letting illegal aliens in the country. It doesn’t even matter if the debunked stats are true those crimes could be stopped.

https://cis.org/Report/Misuse-Texas-Data-Understates-Illegal-Immigrant-Criminality

https://cis.org/Report/Misuse-Texas-Data-Understates-Illegal-Immigrant-Criminality

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/staggering-75-percent-of-all-ny-arrests-in-midtown-are-migrants-police-sources-estimate/ar-AA1pV5Hv

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/non-citizens-account-64-percent-all-federal-arrests-justice-department-n1045286

If someone believes that a person who crosses the border without authorization is by definition a criminal and is subject to consequences, that would be understandable if they weren’t also planning to vote a convicted felon into the Whitehouse.

You really should get your TDS looked at before it becomes more debilitating.

Your straw man omitts one critical point, illegal aliens can’t commit crimes if they are not here to commit crimes.

Robertson may have been able crack the squad, Decland Rice has played for both so there is certainly some players that make the team.

American companies want less competition and certainly don’t want to compete against a heavily subsidized vehicle.

I wonder if there’s ever been a push to combine like they do in rugby… every 4th world cup they do a UK team.

I’m assuming the demand is there because the federal government has said they are concerned people might buy so many cheap BYDs it would drive american car companies out of business. Why would they care if noone wanted them?

An electric small car still is a small car, which a Ameridans don’t want the sales numbers show that. Further people seeking cheap cars are typically not homeowners which makes charging a problem so there’s even less of a market for cheap electric cars.

No where is it claimed that Chinese vehicles would drive American car companies out of buisness, the article was discussing how China could use Mexico and nafta to side step terrifs.

Then why do people want a cheap small electric? It being electric changes the whole equation?

Where’s the evidence people want compact electric cars?

I know a ton of people that won’t buy new cars to begin with too, you don’t think the used car crowd loves cheap small cars?

They are used cars for financial reasons not for preference. Further many people purchase a larger 3 year old used vehicle for the same price as a new small one.

Is it possible instead of the demand not being there at all, its being diverted to used automobiles and so new car sales are skewed to more expensive cars and luxury cars?

If small used cars were in demand then wouldn’t they depreciate less? There are fewer used Honda fits then civics yet they depreciate at the same rate. It appears the used car market preference is similar to the new.

The working class does not buy new cars on the regular as far as I know. The median wage in america is what like 50-55k a year.

Median household income is $75k. Though car size preferences don’t seem to change based on income.

The Civic has always sold well and I haven’t seen anything to suggest sales improved as the chassis size increased.

Do you have anything to suggest that keeping the civic small would not have affected sales?

American consumers are given fewer and fewer options, as you illustrate when you note these vehicles all swelling in size.

Americans don’t buy the small car options they have. If Americans preferred small cars they would buy the small cars available to them. The only time Americans buy small cars is for financial reasons. They prefer the larger civic over the fit. Both have similar crash ratings and reliability ratings so buyers are choosing a larger vehicle at a higher cost due to preference for size.

But the Fit effectively competes with the Civic at a lower price point. Dealers don’t want to sell them when Civics move just as fast and guarantee higher returns.

Dealers are not hiding Fits in the hopes of selling a civic, people are just willing to pay for a larger vehicle.