Trump's SCOTUS

[Speaker to Animals]

That's great but Trump replacing Scalia is no change. We need the liberal ones to die soon so they can be replaced and actually have a chance of outlawing abortion.

Have you seen Ginsberg talk lately?

She's a really nice lady (who mistakenly supports evil), but she is getting really old in terms of mental faculties.

[StCapps]

Really, all you do is make yourself look foolish. I know me far better than you do, and anyone who reads this forum knows I'm not a liar. I've spent my entire adult life believing that one party should never be given too much power. While my presidential voting record would show mostly Republicans, I usually went blue team for other government positions, like Senator & Representative. My personal sweet spot is party in WH gets the House and opposition gets the Senate. SCOTUS is optimal at 5:4, and I always hope there's at least one swing vote in there. I've believed this my whole life, so why on earth would I hold a position like you claim? Answer? I didn't. I don't. Never have. Never will.

Kath can only see the nuance in her own position but cannot see the nuance in the position of those who disagree with her worst criticisms of Trump. To Kath it's obvious that clubby can't read her mind but she can obviously read everyone elses. You can try and tell her she's mistaken and she'll call you a liar because she is so sure that her impression of your opinion is always correct, yet she loves to bitch when people do that to her and assume the same.

If you are sick of being misconstrued as a Democrat sycophant then it's probably not a good idea to go around pretending everyone who does so is some Trump sycophant. Protip.

[K@th]

If you are sick of being misconstrued as a Democrat sycophant then it's probably not a good idea to go around pretending everyone who does so is some Trump sycophant. Protip.

So it's all in my head that you were solidly pro-Trump throughout the campaign? You were not? I know you weren't pro-Hillary. Were you arguing Johnson the whole time? Stein?

[StCapps]

So it's all in my head that you were solidly pro-Trump throughout the campaign? You were not? I know you weren't pro-Hillary. Were you arguing Johnson the whole time? Stein?

I thought Trump was the best candidate with a chance to win this campaign cycle, but that had a lot to do with the competition he faced setting the bar real low. When I feel he fucks up, I call him on it, simple as that. That is not the opinion of some Trump sycophant no matter how much you wish to pretend that it is, that really was all in your head. I keep trying to tell you, but you just refuse to believe me because you consider your current assessment of my views to be infallible, when it's really kind of hard to be further off the mark.

[K@th]

]I thought Trump was the best candidate with a chance to win this campaign cycle, but that had a lot to do with the competition he faced setting the bar real low. That is not the opinion of some Trump sycophant no matter how much you wish to pretend that it is.

I have a very clear recollection of you defending every moronic thing the man said during the campaign with your own personal interpretation of what he was saying, as if you had direct insight that his saying X really meant something else.

It seems most of these arguments in his defense started with something along the lines of "well, that was him just doing ______. What he really meant was ______. It's just him being outrageous so later he will sound more reasonable."

That wasn't you?

[StCapps]

I have a very clear recollection of you defending every moronic thing the man said during the campaign with your own personal interpretation of what he was saying, as if you had direct insight that his saying X really meant something else.

That's a faulty recollection, about as faulty as it gets.

It seems most of these arguments in his defense started with something along the lines of "well, that was him just doing ______. What he really meant was ______. It's just him being outrageous so later he will sound more reasonable."

That wasn't you?

Defending Trump against your worst criticisms in such a manner isn't defending every moronic thing he says, not even close. You just pick your battles with Trump poorly quite often, and you don't want to consider the possibility that this is the case, so instead you simply write my opinion off as extremely biased because you think this is the only kind of person who would think that you choose your battles against Trump poorly.

[K@th]

Defending Trump against your worst criticisms in such a manner isn't defending every moronic thing he says, not even close. You just pick your battles poorly quite often, and you don't want to consider the possibility that this is the case so instead you simply write my opinion off as extremely biased because of it.

I'm over here genuinely trying to understand if I've been unfair to you and you haven't said anything but insult me in return.

So you're saying I'm wrong; you never defended the moronic things Trump said by explaining that he meant something else and would sound more reasonable later. I believe you called it "opening offer."

This was you or not?

[StCapps]

I'm over here genuinely trying to understand if I've been unfair to you and you haven't said anything but insult me in return.

So you're saying I'm wrong; you never defended the moronic things Trump said by explaining that he meant something else and would sound more reasonable later. I believe you called it "opening offer."

This was you or not?

Just because you consider something Trump said to be moronic doesn't mean that it is. Just because you and I often disagree on which statements Trump has made that were moronic, that doesn't mean that every time I point out his use of outrageous opening offer tactics that I'm excusing moronic statements.

If you are genuinely trying to understand if you've been unfair to me, then you won't take insults of your ridiculous assumptions about me as personal insults. Your assumptions about my opinion of Trump are more insulting than my criticisms of your assumptions of my assumptions, so you can stop playing victim at any point in time.

[K@th]

If you are genuinely trying to understand if you've been unfair to me, then you won't take insults of your ridiculous assumptions about me as personal insults.

This forum is still alive. I can spend an hour and go find you insulting me all over the place. I'll take you at your word that you were never in camp Trump, but I remain skeptical that my memory is that flawed.

[StCapps]

This forum is still alive. I can spend an hour and go find you insulting me all over the place. I'll take you at your word that you were never in camp Trump, but I remain skeptical that my memory is that flawed.

It is. Your memory is god awful on this and your assumption that it isn't is causing you to be anti-Trump reactionary because you feel you have to counter balance a non-existent group of Trump sycophants that are all in your head.

You aren't counter balancing anything, you are jumping off the deep end because you can't take that your dumbest assumptions are being criticized, without being personally insulted somehow. I can see lashing out against claims you are Democrat nuthugger, but you don't have to do that by resorting to exact tactics that you decry so heavily by calling everyone who disagrees with you a Trump nuthugger, whether they call you a Democrat nuthugger or not.