Wrong. Trolling a forum is beneficial to no one. Time shouldn’t have to be wasted refuting crap that the OP knows isn’t true. It was clickbait, and it is against the TOS.
2 Likes
It’s a good OP, asks a valid question. Its click bait because it is interesting, a good question.
Whether he asked in jest or earnest is not trolling as it remains a good question. I clicked it. I’m satisfied. If leftists want speech to end, they can cork their own mouths. We’d all like that.
Posting a thread with a bogus title is not acceptable etiquette, but you yourself have been known to do that many of times, so I can’t say I’m surprised you would defend the practice.
The thread title should have been. Why hasn’t Trump fired Sessions?
See how easy that was?
See how easy it was to state that in a reply?
Of course you couldn’t do that without smearing me. Talk about TOS.
I didn’t smear you, I stated a known fact.
That’s delusionary as will be proved when you fail to list the times I did that, precisely which titles were bogus.
Trolling would involve intent. Not my intent to troll, the title is a hypothetical of what headlines would be if we had a president whose words made any kind of sense.
We disagree on a lot, but not on this. This is an interesting thread, and it wouldn’t exist without your OP. Good job.
But it was exceptionally misleading. It should not have been written that way. And I’m of the mind this thread should have been deleted. Look at how many posts have refuted your OP.
1 Like
That’s where the refutation belongs, in replies. Not in a moderator gaging speech. Why visit a discussion board, if you crave someone gag you.
Find a mate who’ll do that 24/7, they’re out there.
exceptionally misleading title, yes. If exceptional misleading is a violation, the thread should be deleted.
Incredible, the moment I agree with you, you have to take the opposing position.
no we both agree that the OP was magnificent in its brilliance.
Then you should be able to document that information rather readily.
It was, many clicked and the discussion was good. Good job. I see the moderator parenthetically made the boo boo that hurt so many, go away.
Do you have a link on this one? I hadn’t read that.
On Hannity last night it was discussion recusal is only when criminal charges create conflict of interest. There are no criminal charges being investigated, collusion is not a crime. He shouldn’t have recused himself.
No. An AG recusing himself due to his role in a campaign, and of which said campaign is being investigated for potential crimes, is not only appropriate, but the only right thing to have been done. The conflict of interest lies in the fact he was a potential witness to potential crimes that are being investigated.
By the way, how do you feel about Trump fully funding Planned Parenthood? I remember you saying you’d walk away from the man if he ever did that again, after the first time he did it. And unsurprisingly he did it again. Yet, here you are. A continued loyal Trump defender and supporter. Weird.
Must like Trump himself, those that support him rarely keep their word either.
1 Like
