dadudemon
He's Libertarian-ish.
He has traction among conservatives, Republicans, and some libertarians.
He doesn't have my position on UHC. But he has my position on what we should do about climate change:
Ehhhhhh, that's my exact position. We should focus on green-renewable energy sources and focus on pollution: not directly on carbon emissions.
He does not have my position on the border wall: he thinks it is a great idea.
Here is an example of PolitiFact being biased:
https://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2019/may/17/dan-crenshaw/are-vast-majority-asylum-claims-without-merit/
The rated his claim completely false when it is mostly true: rejected Asylum Applications are applications that were rejected due to whatever validity or impropriety reasons. Regardless of PF wanting to appeal to the unknown to support their position (a logical fallacy called the argumentum ad ignorantiam). Absolutely bonkers how biased PolitiFact can be at times. If PF was honest, it would conclude, "While it is quite obvious that Crenshaw's claim is true, there are a few minor unknowns in rejected cases that make it impossible to reasonably conclude 80%-90% of Assylum Seekers are rejected. It's very close and it matches with the facts we do know, however, so we rate his claim mostly true."
And his position on marriage:
"The worst thing modern Christianity stands for is anti-homosexual marriage".
Nice!
Talk about Eye-patch guy.
https://i.imgur.com/9PjiTYu.jpg
He has traction among conservatives, Republicans, and some libertarians.
He doesn't have my position on UHC. But he has my position on what we should do about climate change:
Ehhhhhh, that's my exact position. We should focus on green-renewable energy sources and focus on pollution: not directly on carbon emissions.
He does not have my position on the border wall: he thinks it is a great idea.
Here is an example of PolitiFact being biased:
https://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2019/may/17/dan-crenshaw/are-vast-majority-asylum-claims-without-merit/
The rated his claim completely false when it is mostly true: rejected Asylum Applications are applications that were rejected due to whatever validity or impropriety reasons. Regardless of PF wanting to appeal to the unknown to support their position (a logical fallacy called the argumentum ad ignorantiam). Absolutely bonkers how biased PolitiFact can be at times. If PF was honest, it would conclude, "While it is quite obvious that Crenshaw's claim is true, there are a few minor unknowns in rejected cases that make it impossible to reasonably conclude 80%-90% of Assylum Seekers are rejected. It's very close and it matches with the facts we do know, however, so we rate his claim mostly true."
And his position on marriage:
"The worst thing modern Christianity stands for is anti-homosexual marriage".
Nice!
Talk about Eye-patch guy.
https://i.imgur.com/9PjiTYu.jpg
