Word of the day: quisling: a citizen or politician of an occupied country who collaborates with an enemy occupying force – or more generally as a synonym for traitor or collaborator.
Fun! So what citizen or politican are you referring to? Jill Stein? Because of this article or the rioters? Or both? I don’t think I would refer to any of them as traitors. Idiots, maybe, but nah, not traitors.
Friend, I think with you and I, it’s just best if I don’t reply to you. No matter what I say, I think it’s going to frustrate you. So I’ll just pass on discussing things with you.
Your words, correct? And yet you then reply to me just moments later. Troll.
How did I “significantly change” the comment? I asked you if you were talking about jill stein. Then on further thought, I realized that you might be referring to the rioters if it wasn’t Jill, so added that on.
That’s not a significant change, friend. You need to relax. There’s not some vast conspiracy going on.
Now that I have replied to you again, because I answered your question, are you gonna accuse me of being a troll again?
Fun! So what citizen or politican are you referring to?
I replied and then you added all the rest. Poor etiquette to change something that someone has replied to without noting the edit. And you didn’t even bother to correct the misspelling
Plus your reply to me had nothing to do with my reply–either before or after the clarification. You didn’t reference my comment at all. All you did was quote me from an earlier comment when I mentioned that I’m gonna refrain from answering you.
Then you called me a troll.
So were you referring to Jill Stein or the rioters?
You’re sealioning again bud. You said you wouldn’t reply to me in a separate thread, you then replied to me, and I called you on it. As usual, you can’t stick to the subject at hand. Are you going to address the fact that you edited your response right after I replied, and that you do this frequently?
You do know folks can see when you’ve edited a comment after posting, right? In fact, as of right now you’ve edited four of your last seven comments after posting. If that’s not a sign that you should slow down and think before commenting, I don’t know what is.
And did you just find out how to take screen caps? You seem to be doing this a lot lately like it proves something when all it shows is that you edited your post and downvoted my comments
My guess would be Stein herself (for collaborating with Russians, even tho that’s not exactly what a “useful idiot” does).
Anyways, Stein’s actual take is more reasonable:
When I look at January 6 it was dangerous, people broke laws, they should be held accountable for breaking laws
it was a serious and problematic event,
whether the sentences were reasonable, I would have to dive more into the weeds than I have done.
Basically she would have to individually review to ensure sentences are not unduly long, harsh, etc. And there’s no commitment to actually pardon anyone, it may be no more than a check that due process was followed and punishment is not cruel and unusual, etc. (Of course, this is a politician using the usual vague words, etc.)
In fact, there’s to commitment to actually do the review, this was just in response to being asked if she thought the sentences were fair - “i don’t know, i’d have to get into the weeds to see if they were or not” perhaps with an implied “and i can’t be bothered to do that”.
Word of the day: quisling: a citizen or politician of an occupied country who collaborates with an enemy occupying force – or more generally as a synonym for traitor or collaborator.
Fun! So what citizen or politican are you referring to? Jill Stein? Because of this article or the rioters? Or both? I don’t think I would refer to any of them as traitors. Idiots, maybe, but nah, not traitors.
Your words, correct? And yet you then reply to me just moments later. Troll.
Ok, I thought your most recent comment was interesting. Geesh. A wee bit of an over-reaction there.
Interesting how you also significantly changed the comment I replied to, without noting how you changed it.
How did I “significantly change” the comment? I asked you if you were talking about jill stein. Then on further thought, I realized that you might be referring to the rioters if it wasn’t Jill, so added that on.
That’s not a significant change, friend. You need to relax. There’s not some vast conspiracy going on.
Now that I have replied to you again, because I answered your question, are you gonna accuse me of being a troll again?
Because I can stop responding if you want me to.
Your initial reply was just the first sentence:
I replied and then you added all the rest. Poor etiquette to change something that someone has replied to without noting the edit. And you didn’t even bother to correct the misspelling
Plus your reply to me had nothing to do with my reply–either before or after the clarification. You didn’t reference my comment at all. All you did was quote me from an earlier comment when I mentioned that I’m gonna refrain from answering you.
Then you called me a troll.
So were you referring to Jill Stein or the rioters?
You’re sealioning again bud. You said you wouldn’t reply to me in a separate thread, you then replied to me, and I called you on it. As usual, you can’t stick to the subject at hand. Are you going to address the fact that you edited your response right after I replied, and that you do this frequently?
You do know folks can see when you’ve edited a comment after posting, right? In fact, as of right now you’ve edited four of your last seven comments after posting. If that’s not a sign that you should slow down and think before commenting, I don’t know what is.
And did you just find out how to take screen caps? You seem to be doing this a lot lately like it proves something when all it shows is that you edited your post and downvoted my comment
sEdit: see, like that 👆
My guess would be Stein herself (for collaborating with Russians, even tho that’s not exactly what a “useful idiot” does).
Anyways, Stein’s actual take is more reasonable:
Basically she would have to individually review to ensure sentences are not unduly long, harsh, etc. And there’s no commitment to actually pardon anyone, it may be no more than a check that due process was followed and punishment is not cruel and unusual, etc. (Of course, this is a politician using the usual vague words, etc.)
In fact, there’s to commitment to actually do the review, this was just in response to being asked if she thought the sentences were fair - “i don’t know, i’d have to get into the weeds to see if they were or not” perhaps with an implied “and i can’t be bothered to do that”.
Makes sense.