This was only a shouting match because you insist that the word "evidence" means "iron clad proof."

That's fine with me. What was your old screenname?

You infer and assume a great deal that wasn't stated or implied in my post at all. You may be confusing me with someone who gives a **** about how the regs want to run their Politics club. I merely noticed that Mason had gotten involved which caught my interest, so then after reading I wanted to add my own opinion and observations. Piss on them all you want.

A blatant lie. Jman said he thought that I engaged in light trolling at times and then said something like who among us hasn't engaged in some light trolling? Wookie said he thought that I generally believe in the positions I argue for but sometimes argue for sport in certain nitty spots. If either mod thought I was an actual troll, someone who argued positions in bad faith I would certainly not be allowed to post in the forum.

So weird! He talks to us exactly the way we talk to everyone! I think I'll highlight that and pretend it proves some point!

Your post was fine.

Weird how you keep dodging questions about who your last login was.

It does! If you were sincere in you write, you might actually try to be better than us, rather than simply blathering on and on and on about how you're better than us while curiously behaving just as badly as you accuse us of being. Seems like your actions speak louder than your words!

Thank you. I thought it was pretty objective myself, and hopefully aided the discussion.

I certainly didn't insist on that. It was more like you guys were putting forth the Steel dossier as evidence and I was arguing that was total garbage evidence. So it didn't have to be iron clad but I was arguing for a standard higher than anonymously sourced FSB agent opposition research. It wasn't that I insisted on iron clad evidence, it was that you were presenting only weak evidence. And "the president is being actively blackmailed/controlled" is an extraordinary claim that should require some pretty strong evidence imo.

It takes a pretty special kind of narcissism to lecture others on the problems with the politics forum, and openly admit you are contributing to those problems, while also admitting no responsibility ("it's your fault I engage with you like this", lmao) and insisting there's no hypocrisy or contradiction there.

I can be "better" than the discussions on this forum by spending time with my family and friends, or working on my business, or being outside enjoying nature, which is how I spend my time. All of your answers are defensive non-sequiturs designed to "get" the interloper. Your views on everything are so rigid that you would never consider taking any alternate views to heart--certainly not political views, nor views about what makes this forum so awful for all the people who have left.

What would aid the discussion is if you would stick around (here or the main forum), provide some examples of cases you think this forum believes something to be self-evidently true which you don't think is the case, and stick around to engage on the issue. Bring some friends - the more the merrier. As long as everyone's willing to debate in good faith and acknowledge basic facts.

Again, here's a list to pick from if you want. Or pick your own issue.

We get "this forum ran off all the conservatives" all the time. But right now it sure seems more to me like "all the conservatives ran away".

While I agree there can be a cliquish. piling-on mentality sometimes (I've been the brunt of it more than a few times), I'm still not sure it's the forum's job to coddle and validate conservatives on issues they aren't willing to engage on in any substantive way. If you just keep repeating "Yeah but I still don't see what the big deal with requiring an ID to vote" after being presented with and essentially ignoring 100 posts of detailed evidence about why Rs are doing this - yeah prepare to receive some snark. I don't think that's out of line.

Start a thread and I'm sure Wookie will make sure there's no cliquish attacks or contentless piling on.

It was either that or content-free snark. But he do that because you do it. No choice.

What is the argument for eliminating content-free snark on the internet as a worthwhile goal, never mind a bar for a forum or discussion to be valuable? It's one thing to make an argument that kinder discourse is preferred. It is another to extrapolate that out to expecting people to stop acting like people when discussing the very most incredibly important and emotional topics. It's like, unrealistic.

This is the wrong thread to rehash the Keeed wars. Keeed, Wookie, and goofy, maybe continue via PM if you want to argue?

Ahhh, that's the good **** I was waiting for, shoot that straight into my veins

Why should anyone else treat the forum and life, in general, any differently than you?

Which was?

Sounds like a microcosm of real world politics at times, where liberals fight to the death and the end absolutely justifies the means, and conservatives are too wussy to fight back.

Thanks for the invite, and I'll stick around and engage sometimes, but I'll wait until I have something to say on a thread rather than bringing up old examples that formed my opinions about the way the forum has been in the past.

This sounds precisely backwards to me. I'd be happy to elaborate on why if you ever want to stick around to discuss (this certainly isn't the thread for it).

I'm working from memory here, but, the part I found to be "trolling" (scare quotes there for a reason) was the argument going sideways over the concept of a "literal agent". As far as I can tell there's no way to even define "literal agent" which is why nobody did (did Putin say Lolz Pee Tapez or did he actually brainwash him to be a manchuriain candidate style sleeper agent) but you still insisted on proof of being a literal agent when the point was that trump is clearly compromised, not what level of agent he was, literal or figurative or otherwise.

Hi Fly!

I definitely had a flirtation with AC-ism as I was getting my undergraduate economics degree in the mid 2000s. Lasted for probably 4-5 years. Would have fit in well if I posted on P back then.

This man is smart.

Gonna see if jman's gonna show off the new banhammer he promises to use with greater frequency.

you don't say

Yeah, clearest example is that conservatives have stacked the Supreme Court for our lifetimes despite winning the popular vote in a Presidential Election only ONCE in the last THIRTY YEARS. Pretty unreal the amount of power conservatives have given the strength of their hand.

That would be an interesting discussion for sure. Each side arguing that the other one doesn't play fair.