in my eyes a distinction without a difference.
It's not what I would do. But there is still a distiction. For example there are third party candidates that would benefit from such action.
Look, it was a simple thing. A freeper says others are so bad they would VOTE for Hillary. The freeper says that to denigrate and attack her fellow freepers. I made a simple request -- show me where they said it. The freeper declined to do so, and nobody has since found one.
You can talk all you want about "distinctions without a difference", but when the topic was "people who said they would vote for Hillary", there is no "distinction" to be differentiated -- don't point to people who said they would NOT vote for Hillary.
Obviously, TitanAFC and others don't think the distinction is without a difference, or they wouldn't go to such lengths to say they would work against Rudy but not vote for Hillary.
BTW, this response and others like it, many from rudy people, is exactly what I’m talking about when I said I’m tired of having to watch over my shoulder for attacks from the foxhole.
A freeper accused other freepers of saying they would “vote for hillary”. I simply asked who they were. And I’ve had to spend over a half hour of posting since that time defending my question and the fact that nobody has answered it.
It’s a waste of my time. My question was a simple one — back up your claims.
Apparently some people think they can make claims without evidence, and then ridicule others for wanting the proof. It’s tiresome.