I see “eat the rich” as “use them as fertilizer”.

The article makes no mention of any missile or warhead, only op speaks about that, be careful.

Writing “the 50th vote” instead of “another vote” or even “a 50th vote” implies that specific vote is more important, like reaching a threshold. At least that’s how I see it.

Well at this point you can escalate, since they escalated first after being kicked out. But you don’t start by arresting.

To follow up on this, I never heard about someone switching to leftist ideals after brain damage, always to the right.

You’re reaching a lot in your “theory” trying to attribute logic (however few of it) to the ramblings of a delusional, unintelligent and dementia riddled old man. I do not believe for a second that there’s any logic other than “big number make me feel good”.

And the deception part would require him to understand and accept that he was wrong, which he’s shown to be completely unable to do numerous times.

There’s a big difference between pointing out their strategy and telling people not to react, and all I read here is the pointing out.

Wait, do I understand you correctly? You seem to think that had the US fought against their own Nazis, you wouldn’t have any Nazis in Europe? How does that make sense?

Got it, a xenophobic bigot. I won’t engage further, you’re not worth it. I encourage others to simply block you, as I’m doing right now.

So if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that him being a Muslim makes it inevitable that he will apply Sharia law (or something equivalent) to NYC?

Just say the racist thing you’re only implying, for all of us to see.

Well, the thing is, you just admitted that your initial comment about Firefox being more vulnerable was based on nothing, since you did your research only after. Then you so quickly went over the data you looked for that you only saw that total that seemed to confirm your unfounded bias, where the tables have that very readable color code to them, making 2015 and 2016 really jump to the eye.

Of course, now that the data you found goes against your bias, you just look to discredit it, instead of thinking “you know, maybe this isn’t as clear-cut as I thought it was”.

So no, no charity there. I’ll keel it for those who act in good faith, thank you.

For starters, if I had not called you out, you wouldn’t have provided sources. So my point still stands, your previous message, unsourced, was fear mongering.

Onto your data. Funny that you wrote the total from 2015, not mentioning that 127 of those code execution vulns are from 2015 and 2016… So 8 code exec since 2017, versus 85 for Chrome. I don’t think we can attribute that only to market share.

Either you don’t know how to read a table, or you purposefully ignored that part, perhaps hoping no-one would click on your links?

almost certainly has more vulnerabilities than Chromium browsers

Unless you have real world data that confirms it, this is just fear mongering.

You couldn’t, because there’s no actual study on this, because it does not work. It’s also why you won’t. Troll being a troll, block and move on.