this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2025
-69 points (17.8% liked)
Conservative
458 readers
62 users here now
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Try Looking at an actual graph that does more than an entire term distilled into one number... Some of those don't even look accurate. You might learn something
The numbers must be wrong since they go against your preconceived notions.
There's those reading comprehension skills again.
You claimed the numbers I provided don't look accurate and more granular numbers will prove your point but don't provide any. Seems like you're saying the numbers must be wrong but can't provide any data to back that claim. That almost sounds like you have no data and are going off your preconceived notions.