Simply not true. I, and others, have made specific and substantive arguments about various elements of the eligibility question. They are usually shouted down with insults, but they are still there.
I plead you tell this gent to have a good day and let him post his rants all he wants to...he just keeps repeating the same garbage...my 11 year old quits when I ignore him and I assume the attention span is the same here.
Kevmo: And yet, none of our claims to credibility are disputed. They’re usually met with an argument from silence
mlo: Simply not true. I, and others, have made specific and substantive arguments about various elements of the eligibility question.
***Then I challenge you to a debating duel. We open a thread on the credibility of the certifiGate issue. The winner gets to keep posting on these threads, the loser must stay off until January 21. The loser posts a keyword of “kevmohasTinfoilHat” or “mloIsATroll” , respectively, on every CertifiGate thread from tomorrow onward. Certifigate threads are those with the keyword Certifigate. I’ve been maintaining that keyword for the most part.
How do we determine a winner? JimRob says either this is a valid constitutional issue or it’s a tinfoil hat conspiracy issue. If he says nothing, we both continue on as we have been, Status Quo Ante Bellum. If Jimrob says something up the middle, splitting the baby, then it looks again like Status Quo. So far, as far as I can tell, JimRob has just said the issue is “interesting”.
Anyone else who logs onto such a thread will be absolutely polite or the comment will be asked to be removed.
If you want to explore having a different arbiter than JimRob, let’s look around. I would trust someone like Alamo Girl.
What do you say?