jakee

No one thinks of you that way. Why do you think they contain anything to be discerned? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Um, nah. For it to be cryptic, it would have to have a meaning. Qanon stuff is straight made up nonsense. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Funny, but remember that was $1Bn in holdings and four children, not just the Don. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

No, it's not. You know when you can remember getting to bed, and you know when you've woken up and don't know where you are or how you got there. "Did you ever do XYZ while you were black out drunk?" could be a paradoxical question (assuming your friends, family or the police didn't tell you later what you did). "Did you ever get blackout drunk?" is not a paradoxical question. They could state if that person told them they didn't remember something (like in the email quoted), or if they were talking to them about the events of the evening and they had no idea what was being referred to. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

"I see him as the instrument needed to dismantle the machinations, suppression and intolerable demands of the left." That's what you posted, Ron. A direct attack on the people you're now whining about attacking you. To describe your original post as simply about Trump's leadership is blatantly dishonest. The question (again) is whether you're lying to us or to yourself as well. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

No, attack is. And attack the people that don't share them. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

What you just 'shared' contained an attack. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Who are you lying to, us or yourself? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I thought there were no events? And I thought they weren’t even there when the events weren’t happening? Now he doesn’t want to talk about how he wasn’t aware of the events when they didn’t happen? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

"Yesterday, we heard compelling testimony from Dr. Ford, as well as a persuasive response from Judge Kavanaugh. I wish that I could express the confidence that some of my colleagues have conveyed about what either did or did not happen in the early 1980s, but I left the hearing yesterday with as much doubt as certainty," Flake said. "What I do know is that our system of justice affords a presumption of innocence to the accused, absent corroborating evidence. That is what binds us to the rule of law. While some may argue that a different standard should apply regarding the Senate's advice and consent responsibilities, I believe that the constitution's provisions of fairness and due process apply here as well." Un-fucking-believable! The SC is an office which is both the ultimate guardian of the nations laws, and in some ways the de-facto guardian of its morality as well. He is arguing that he should vote into office someone who he believes could be a serial sexual assaulter. His responsibility here should not be to protect the nominee but to protect the nation. There can be no justification for moving forward if there is any doubt that the nominee isn't completely innocent. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

So what happens if the Republicans can force through his confirmation and then this thing does explode into a large scale scandal. Is there an impeachment process for SC justices? Or was it simply assumed that no-one would be stupid enough to nominate a judge who needed impeaching Do you want to have an ideagasm?

He does now. But he doesn’t have a job anymore. If he’s medically unable to return to work, how long can he keep paying for? It’s that lack of awareness regarding planning for the future that qualifies you to be a supporter of the current administration. It continues to amaze me that the US system where health insurance as an employment benefit is the de facto standard leaves so many in a position where their healthcare coverage only works when they’re sick enough to need treatment but not to sick to prevent them working. In what way is that ok? It didn’t say that. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Right. The other guy was casting doubt on her story because she isn't pursuing criminal charges. I suggested some pausible reasons as to why someone would not want to pursue charges for a historical sexual assault while still making it public. I did not, nor would I ever, declare which course of action a victim of such an assault should take, or offer an opinion on whether the course of action she is taking is right or wrong. Is there any part of that you have a problem with? I was thinking of the effort it would take on her part and the potential personal toll it could take in return for a very small chance of success. It's a much bigger undertaking than what she's doing now. Either decision is quite understandable. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I'm not sure of the relevance to this particuar case. if your post is directed at me, I think you've misinterpreted something or missed the context of what I was saying. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Ok, cool. In that case - how do you prove it? At this point, what is the realistic chance of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that something criminal happened? Besides, people move on. She may well think that what happened is no longer worth pursuing criminal punishment for, or that it would serve no useful purpose. Let’s face it, thinking that it justifies criminal proceedings after all this time is quite a high bar to pass. Thinking that it should disqualify him from being one of the 9 most important guardians of the nation’s laws is a much, much lower one. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

The statute of limitations? What would be the point? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I'm sorry, but if you think that's unusual then you're incredibly naive Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Damn. His own family endorses the other guy because they think he's an overt racist... and he'll still almost certainly be re-elected Do you want to have an ideagasm?

It’s a bit of wordplay that missed the punchline. Two wrongs don’t make a right but three lefts will. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Not if your career is writing about that kind of stuff. People like Kerouac and Bukowski did pretty damn well out of it. I'm guessing they were far better writers than this creep, though Do you want to have an ideagasm?

These days, no-one should be getting frustrated by Rush's posts. Some years ago he would attempt to use genuine reasoned arguments, only to dance around, misdirect from and ultimately refuse to recognise any flaws in those arguments. That could be quite frustrating. Now, all he does is post the latest Breitbart talking point and claim you're a brainwashed MSM sheeple for disgareeing with it. And that's on a good day. How does anyone get frustrated when they know he'll never engage on a higher level than that? That's like banging your head against a brick wall, then getting frustrated it doesn't fall over. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

He's not trying to set a trend or simply create a controversy, and he's not being financially rewarded on a scale remotely approaching what he would be earning if he'd swallowed his principles and gone along with society's expectations. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Why are you disrespecting a veteran? What should be done to you because of it? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Considering she's the Teflon Don where nothing sticks, absolutely nothing. What do you think should stick? What specific crimes do you think she committed? Bear in mind that if you refuse to answer that question again, you're going to look kinda silly. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

So you don't think Trump should be indicted for his crimes because Clifford hsn't been indicted for extortion? Even though you acknowledge that it's at least partly up to Trump to press charges? You've just invented a very strange paradox! So then, if that's your only objection, presumably you would support an indictment of Trump for those numerous financial crimes if Clifford was indicted for extortion? You haven't disagreed with the notion that Trump committed crimes in the course of paying off Clifford. Now, do you really believe it's crazy to think it's more important to hold the President of the USA to account for his crimes than to hold a random hooker to account for hers? Do you want to have an ideagasm?