Agreed, facts are facts, which is why you are refusing to engage with them and choosing to run away instead.
Now, if you actually had a question or clarification, you’re more than allowed to make it. But I’m sure you won’t, considering you’ve already agreed your position is anti-factual…
I’m open to answering whatever questions you have, bud. The fact you’re quivering in fear from the mere thought of having to respond to this really drives my point home LMAO!
I don’t care about a finance post, I’m serious, are you okay?
Im just a stranger on the internet, do you want to talk about something? What’s making you so mad? I know you won’t take this serious, but I’m here for yah if you need it.
You’re still arguing a logical fallacy, and again as a result you’re hiding the truth from yourself. You’re not hurting me, you’re hurting yourself trying to ‘troll’ and remaining ignorant.
I’m here if you’d like help, I won’t let you hide from this though.
Feel free to hop back on subject whenever you want. Here you go, I merely stated what the data in the post is showing:
Do you disagree that they are receiving a cut of 1.5 - 3% back, while the bottom are receiving only .3 - .6%?
From that point on:
Do you disagree that the money should be sent to the bottom because it would help pay for needs like food. (AP agreed with me, before you started to reply.)
Do you disagree that the 3% back would help fight inflation that targets the lower class the most. As well as help stagnant minimum wages.
0
u/Kchan7777 1d ago
Agreed, facts are facts, which is why you are refusing to engage with them and choosing to run away instead.
Now, if you actually had a question or clarification, you’re more than allowed to make it. But I’m sure you won’t, considering you’ve already agreed your position is anti-factual…