Both sides arguments are only ever used to deflect from something awful R did, or lessen the value of something good D did.

The moment you see the both sides argument come out you can know immediately that the person is purposefully or obliviously pushing a conservative agenda.

I think this is the point you are implying, but I just wanted to say it explicitly.

They and she will vote exactly the same the next time around anyway, so it really doesn’t matter if they learn the truth or not.

Well that’s it. Case closed. The existence of a heart attack gun in 1968 proves Boeing killed 2 whistleblowers in 2024. Good job gang.

Literally no one has made that statement, including me, the guy who brought up the heart attack gun. Take a breath man.

Does this mean they did it? No.

Does it warrant the reaction folks are having about it? Absolutely yes. (Edit - In light of their current troubles and the fate of the prior whistleblower.)

I stand by that statement, and don’t feel like trying again to connect the dots on the relevancy of my example for you. Whatever you are arguing about is - not the same.

So in other words, very plausible deniability.

https://allthatsinteresting.com/heart-attack-gun

We had that tech in 1968. I’m pretty sure it would be a matter of a phone call and some change from the couch cushions for Boeing to create the recent outcome.

Does this mean they did it? No.

Does it warrant the reaction folks are having about it? Absolutely yes. (Edit - In light of their current troubles and the fate of the prior whistleblower.)