*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

Who is blaming and punishing. All she did was ask a question. Try not to go full banana on filling in the blanks yourself here.

What did you call me? Dude. I thought we were cool.


You changed the subject here:

I believe it has something to do with the appearance of impropriety being nearly as bad as impropriety itself.

My response was to that statement, in abstract.

Back onto your original topic, if you don't agree that her tone was pre-loaded with conclusions, then what would you call it?

Poor example, since it's easy to check my computer and see I was really looking at adult porn.

I don't need to check your computer. One of your douchebag neighbors said you were probably a pedo, so you appear to be a pedo.
Case closed.

Your entire point was that appearance of impropriety is close enough.

Fine, she's a nasty person by not offering him some milk and cookies and smiling sweetly at him.

I never said nasty. I said childish. I said combative tone.
I said it's understandable why any adult would clam up when faced with her tone.

I don't understand your hyperbole, here.
Milk and cookies?
That's nothing near my point.

I wonder if I've disrespected you in some way? If so it was unintentional. I apologize.
If not, please don't intentionally mischaracterize my points into paper tigers.

FFS, it's a confirmation hearing, not a dinner with your grandma.

My point exactly. Grandma can be as childish as she likes and we'll all love her just the same.

A representative of the people acting the fool like that is a whole different story.

And I still want to see him answer the question.

Me, too.
There's only a dearth of information at this point.

[Poopadoop]

What did you call me? Dude. I thought we were cool.

lol well thanks for your leniency, i appreciate that it's a bananable offense.

You changed the subject here:

I believe it has something to do with the appearance of impropriety being nearly as bad as impropriety itself.

My response was to that statement, in abstract.

Ok then. I agree with you it's an unfair thing to assume guilt through the appearance of impropriety. But it's something that anyone in a position of responsibility has to take seriously. So when K pretends to be dumb on the issue I don't see that as exculpatory, but rather as suspicious.

Of course it's not correct to automatically assume that if he spoke to one of Trump's lawyer 'former associates' (or whatever banana wants us to call them) it was part of some corrupt plan. But it's also not correct to assume it was completely innocuous. Surely you agree there?

And yea, you can say Harris was behaving badly by your standards of decorum. I certainly don't talk to people that way. But this is a setting where people are naturally confrontational and trying to trip the candidates up. That seems to be their job, judging by the way they act. I don't think this is anything peculiar to Harris.

[MadMojoMonkey]

lol well thanks for your leniency, i appreciate that it's a bananable offense.

Hehe. Not ban-worthy, but you cut me deep.

Ok then. I agree with you it's an unfair thing to assume guilt through the appearance of impropriety. But it's something that anyone in a position of responsibility has to take seriously. So when K pretends to be dumb on the issue I don't see that as exculpatory, but rather as suspicious.

Of course it's not correct to automatically assume that if he spoke to one of Trump's lawyer 'former associates' (or whatever banana wants us to call them) it was part of some corrupt plan. But it's also not correct to assume it was completely innocuous. Surely you agree there?

And yea, you can say Harris was behaving badly by your standards of decorum. I certainly don't talk to people that way. But this is a setting where people are naturally confrontational and trying to trip the candidates up. That seems to be their job, judging by the way they act. I don't think this is anything peculiar to Harris.

All right, sounds like we're on the same page in all this.