Midterm Election Results

[Astray]

At least use it to light a fat cigar or blunt. Also, I won't be surprised if it happens before 2019.

Definitely as a light, do not try to smoke a $100 rolled blunt. That shit burns too quick and harsh.

Also chemicals.

[Androidpk]

Definitely as a light, do not try to smoke a $100 rolled blunt. That shit burns too quick and harsh.

Also chemicals.

I would laugh at you for doing this.. but waaaay back in the day when I first started I tried to use white lined paper.

[Stumplicker]

I don't care that someone wants to write hidden comments. My whole point is that we should expect and adhere to a higher level of discourse than petty insults. That's a ridiculously low bar, too.

There's your problem right there. You're trying to interact with people who aren't people. If someone solely communicates via insult regardless of what you say, they're not having a conversation with you, so stop trying to have a conversation with them. They might as well be a bot. Put people like that on ignore and you won't even see their posts. Problem solved. If you're complaining instead about people who make points and also insult you, well, welcome to the internet. What were the 1970s like, and how are you able to articulate yourself after so long in a coma?

[Tgo01]

You folks just legitimately can’t argue without insults, can you?

Mister Briarfox person, can you pretty please with sugar on top explain who the "Trump-trolls" are that are angry and distracting?

Also can you pretty pretty pretty please explain which high crimes you think Trump has committed that are so bad that even his most ardent supporters will pretend they never supported him?

Finally can you please grace us with your explanation as to why you want to hold elected officials to the highest of standards yet you don't seem to care at all about a domestic abuser such as Keith Ellison being elected attorney general?

Thanks and God bless!

[BriarFox]

Mister Briarfox person, can you pretty please with sugar on top explain who the "Trump-trolls" are that are angry and distracting?

I'm sure you can fill in those blanks yourself.

Also can you pretty pretty pretty please explain which high crimes you think Trump has committed that are so bad that even his most ardent supporters will pretend they never supported him?

This is a straw-man fallacy. I think Trump is almost certainly corrupt, but I said that the House will need to carefully establish the evidence and make a case for it. Then, I outlined what I see as the likely outcome of that scenario.

Finally can you please grace us with your explanation as to why you want to hold elected officials to the highest of standards yet you don't seem to care at all about a domestic abuser such as Keith Ellison being elected attorney general?

This is also a straw-man fallacy. I never said anything about Ellison and, moreover, would apply the same standards to the entire elected assembly.

Thanks and God bless!

And your tone is supercilious.

Once again, you prove that you can't argue without misinterpreting your opposition and without insults.

[Astray]

I would laugh at you for doing this.. but waaaay back in the day when I first started I tried to use white lined paper.

I know a guy that used wax paper.

Let it sink in.

[Tgo01]

I'm sure you can fill in those blanks yourself.

Oh gosh gee golly, thanks for clearing that one up!

This is a straw-man fallacy. I think Trump is almost certainly corrupt, but I said that the House will need to carefully establish the evidence and make a case for it. Then, I outlined what I see as the likely outcome of that scenario.

So you don't have any specific crime you think Trump committed but you know he's guilty of something and thus you think the Democrats in the House will pursue a good faith investigation into his alleged crimes that you don't know exist? Gee willikers that doesn't sound right.

I never said anything about Ellison

I know that, Mr. Fox, that's why I asked why you care so much about holding our elected officials accountable yet seem to have no problem with Ellison.

[Androidpk]

So you don't have any specific crime you think Trump committed but you know he's guilty of something and thus you think the Democrats in the House will pursue a good faith investigation into his alleged crimes that you don't know exist? Gee willikers that doesn't sound right.

Have you been asleep the past 2 years?

[BriarFox]

So you don't have any specific crime you think Trump committed but you know he's guilty of something and thus you think the Democrats in the House will pursue a good faith investigation into his alleged crimes that you don't know exist? Gee willikers that doesn't sound right.

What I *suspect* is an opportunistic collusion with the Russians, a clear violation of the emoluments clause, obstruction of justice, and a variety of related corruption charges. I hope that the House investigates those avenues thoroughly.

[Tgo01]

What I *suspect* is an opportunistic collusion with the Russians, a clear violation of the emoluments clause, obstruction of justice, and a variety of related corruption charges. I hope that the House investigates those avenues thoroughly.

Isn't Mueller investigating the supposed Russian collusion? Do we really need a House investigation to, ahem, "investigate" that as well? Almost as if the House is just going to do pointless investigations until they "find" something.