Jump to content

The Senate Impeachment Trial of DJT


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, jzk said:

The Senate can convict just for not liking Trump.  But you are the one pretending the issue on the table is "incitement."

In a perfect world 'being a cunt' would be a felony. You would now be doing 15 consecutive life sentences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Oh well, the USA once again chooses to further diminish it's standing in the eyes of the rest of the world.  So be it.

I don't know where to start.  People are dying each day because Trump fucked up.  He refused to face the reality of Covid.  Worst President ever, full stop.  I know I will never spend a nickel at any

Indeed it won't. There are a lot of voices (many people are saying) calling for criminal prosecution after the Republican Senate bows down to Mad King Donald. https://www.thedailybeast.com/forg

Posted Images

7 hours ago, Fakenews said:

So your defense of Trump is he conspired to overthrow our democracy via an insurrection rather than incited the crowd to insurrection.

Not sure that helps him it’s sedition either way.

 

 

Is there a case that he did such?  No one is making it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ishmael said:

He doesn't have to defend himself. He can send a letter declining the invitation and the Trumpuglicans will decline to convict because he's not there to defend himself.

A distinct possibility 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

“Our country has had enough,” he told those who went on to stage the violent siege of the Capitol.

“We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal.”

— “We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

— “We want to go back, and we want to get this right because we’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed, and we’re not going to stand for that.”

— “Nobody knows what the hell is going on. There’s never been anything like this. We will not let them silence your voices. We’re not going to let it happen. Not going to let it happen.” The crowd repeatedly chanted “Fight for Trump!” “Thank you,” Trump said

“But just remember this,” he went on. “You’re stronger, you’re smarter. You’ve got more going than anybody, and they try and demean everybody having to do with us, and you’re the real people. You’re the people that built this nation. You’re not the people that tore down our nation.”

—“We will not be intimidated into accepting the hoaxes and the lies that we’ve been forced to believe over the past several weeks.”

He told his refuted stories of “ballot harvesting” and thousands of dead people voting.

—“And we got to get rid of the weak congresspeople, the ones that aren’t any good, the Liz Cheneys of the world, we got to get rid of them. We got to get rid of them.”

File under common political red meat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mark K said:

 I think it unlikely Trump wanted more than a vigorous protest in front of the capitol myself. But for what reason did he want that protest Dog? He told all those people that Pence, a VP, had the power to overturn an election, and that office has no such power. This was a falsehood, a gross misdemeanor. He even allowed his lawyer to tell the people to seek trial by combat. Seems clear the intent was to overturn the election. Holding a rally to try to interfere with the core basis for our system of government?  There's his connection.  

Then you agree with me that the charge of incitement to insurrection is weak?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all fine until a capital cop gets beaten to death. While defending the nation against an insane mob of deranged, lunatics, goaded on by a failed leader of state.

After that you still give him a pass? Then you are also an insane idiot, deranged, lunatic, goaded on by a failed leader of state.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dog said:

Then you agree with me that the charge of incitement to insurrection is weak?

The charge of incitement to insurrection is non existent.  

Trump has every right to claim the election was stolen and muster up as much support in his favor as he can.  And he can whip the supporters up in a frenzy to protest the stolen election and march on the capital, and "fight" for what is right.  "Fight" is a term very commonly used by politicians.  

Of course, by doing so, Trump probably cost the Republicans the Senate.  But that doesn't equal insurrection.

The Democrats are using this opportunity to try to silence opposition political speech.  This is nothing more than a political power move.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rastro said:

 

Nothing in that amounts to incitement, and certainly not conspiracy.

I am glad to see Trump go.  He was getting ready to put a world of hurt onto the China import business.  But he did not incite the riot at the capitol.

  • Downvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jzk said:

Nothing in that amounts to incitement, and certainly not conspiracy.

I am glad to see Trump go.  He was getting ready to put a world of hurt onto the China import business.  But he did not incite the riot at the capitol.

How do you not have a shit load more downvotes?

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

How do you not have a shit load more downvotes?

Maybe because a lot of us have him on ignore and don’t see his shit

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

He should represent Himself pro se. Think of the ratings! Who wouldn’t want to watch the Pride of the GOP, Donald J. Trump (hallowed be His name) owning the libs on that stage?! If the slimey lawyers won’t present bullshit and conspiracy theories [for free], let the Master show the mortals how it’s done. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

He should represent Himself pro se. 

He'll figure out a way to bill himself and then take a tax deduction for professional services.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hobie1616 said:

He'll figure out a way to bill himself and then take a tax deduction for professional services.

I don’t support him and I’m glad to see him out of office, but everyone who has ever questioned him in any way is stupid and wrong. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

He should represent Himself pro se. Think of the ratings! Who wouldn’t want to watch the Pride of the GOP, Donald J. Trump (hallowed be His name) owning the libs on that stage?! If the slimey lawyers won’t present bullshit and conspiracy theories [for free], let the Master show the mortals how it’s done. 

Think of the Ratings! It would be the bigliest television event ever!

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

It'll be fun if he ends up with a legal aid lawyer.

He won't end up w/ a legal aid lawyer. He's got too much money/assets. He'll have to fire sale some property that isn't already owned by someone else and come up with some cash, or equity. Willie Nelson paid one of his attorneys with his gold records. (I know this for a fact, because he was my attorney too, and I saw the gold records on the wall of his office.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Especially since to qualify for legal aid he will have to prove he is indigent. 

Somebody better explain that word to him so he doesn't try and prove he is indigenous. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dog said:

Then you agree with me that the charge of incitement to insurrection is weak?

No. It's strong. He should be banned from holding office ever again. Elections are the core of our system, the system of peaceful transitions of power. Trump both refuses to acknowledge the results and organizes protests against them. Mitch was exactly right, those people were lied to and incited. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mark K said:

No. It's strong. He should be banned from holding office ever again. Elections are the core of our system and he both refuses to acknowledge the results and organizes protests against them. Mitch was exactly right, those people were lied to and incited. 

When you say “lied to”, are you saying that as if it a bad thing or a good thing? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

When you say “lied to”, are you saying that as if it a bad thing or a good thing? 

  I think it's turning out to be bad. Saw Chief Squatting Bull is all pissed off about not getting a pardon. He thinks he was been bullshitted. If Trump can't even maintain the loyalty of patriots like that, Trump's in deep doo doo. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mark K said:

  I think it's turning out to be bad. Saw Chief Squatting Bull is all pissed off about not getting a pardon. He thinks he was been bullshitted. If Trump can't even maintain the loyalty of patriots like that, Trump's in deep doo doo. 

 

And who might that be, praytell, please?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mark K said:

I think it's turning out to be bad. Saw Chief Squatting Bull is all pissed off about not getting a pardon. He thinks he was been bullshitted. If Trump can't even maintain the loyalty of patriots like that, Trump's in deep doo doo. 

Whenever someone demonstrates a simple logical syllogism with respect to Shitstain's supporters and then says ipso facto abracadabra ta dah they will do thus! I am reminded of all of the other times that the Deplorables have not done thus when faced with similar logical syllogisms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Whenever someone demonstrates a simple logical syllogism with respect to Shitstain's supporters and then says ipso facto abracadabra ta dah they will do thus! I am reminded of all of the other times that the Deplorables have not done thus when faced with similar logical syllogisms.

True, but for Squat, he will be unable to rationalize away the unfairness his prison cell fate that of Steve Bannon's. He has already seen The Light. Albeit probably during his body cavity search.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jzk said:

Nothing in that amounts to incitement, and certainly not conspiracy.

I am glad to see Trump go.  He was getting ready to put a world of hurt onto the China import business.  But he did not incite the riot at the capitol.

jzklovesTrump.png

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jzk said:

A badge of honor on this clown forum.

 

yea, all the libs just pull shit out of their asses here, none of it makes any sense. weird place. you only come here to set the record straight (as opposed to the abuse you get here). 

 

 

but seriously, you're one of those human turds. they're everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time I see this pic I have the same thought;

How fucked up would you have to be to think "Yeah, those are people I want to be with".

image.thumb.png.02e3f4d02ddac81a7f30683a16a1da35.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2021 at 5:38 AM, Bus Driver said:

 

This would suggest the President may have been aware.

January 5 Meeting at Trump International Hotel Could Hold the Key to the January 6 Insurrection

Well after dark on January 5, 2021—just 15 hours before an insurrection against the United States government incited by the President of the United States—Nebraska Republican Charles W. Herbster, at the time the National Chairman of the Agriculture and Rural Advisory Committee for the Trump administration, attended a private meeting of Trump family members, Trump administration officials, Trump campaign advisers, January 6 organizers, and at least one member of the United States Senate at Trump International Hotel in Washington.

 

 

Given it came out that they raised $500k, mostly from the Publix trust-funder is say, yeah, they planned it

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Every time I see this pic I have the same thought;

How fucked up would you have to be to think "Yeah, those are people I want to be with".

image.thumb.png.02e3f4d02ddac81a7f30683a16a1da35.png

Bingo.  Go to a trump rally.  Look around yourself and see who you are in bed with.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Dog said:

Then you agree with me that the charge of incitement to insurrection is weak?

Then you agree with me that anyone who does not want a conviction for anyone associated with an attempted takeover of the gpvernment, is s fucking criminal as well.

You Doggy are a fucking criminal.

But video evidence ... it's a deep fake right?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what we have been dealing with here for decades, it's just got worse.

Even when you have video evidence in the mainstream media, according to the bullshitters, it never happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, rastro said:

Even when you have video evidence in the mainstream media, according to the bullshitters, it never happened.

Well, as we are fond of asking here in the upper hemisphere . . 

"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes ??" 

image.jpeg.e274cade05ce8315b3612666ba434f96.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Mark K said:

No. It's strong. He should be banned from holding office ever again. Elections are the core of our system, the system of peaceful transitions of power. Trump both refuses to acknowledge the results and organizes protests against them. Mitch was exactly right, those people were lied to and incited. 

Odd, you think the case for incitement to insurrection is strong but you also said "I think it unlikely Trump wanted more than a vigorous protest in front of the capitol myself".

Refusing to accept election results is hardly a crime or uncommon (if it was Stacy Abrams would be guilty) and we can't disqualify a citizen who has not been convicted of a crime from holding public office. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

@Dog is still thinking impeachment is only a criminal proceeding.

Sigh.

Just proves ya can’t teach an old dumb dog new tricks.

How can any one reading what I actually say conclude that I see this trial as anything other than blatantly political?

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Dog said:

Refusing to accept election results is hardly a crime or uncommon

Same thing happened as recently as 2016 and of course there was Gore vs, Bush in 2000, Kennedy vs. Nixon 1960, The timing of the hostage release Regan vs. Carter 1980 etc. etc. Winning is everything and the ends justify the means.    

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Dog said:

How can any one reading what I actually say conclude that I see this trial as anything other than blatantly political?

Ohmigod, are you just figuring this out?

Dumbass.

It is a process scripted and carried out by politicians, and you’re shocked to realize that politics enters into it?

The alleged crimes involving disrupting our system of politics and using political powers to set the stage for a grander political crime. The punishment under consideration is the former prez not being able to run for political office.

Yea. You could say this blatantly political. And some of Trumps political allies agree that it’s well deserved in order to uphold our system of politics.

You see, some of us consider American democracy, our system of politics, something worth defending. You want to allow Republicans to destroy our democratic institutions in service to one man. We want to preserve democracy.

 

Nothing personal, it’s just politics.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Venom said:

Same thing happened as recently as 2016 and of course there was Gore vs, Bush in 2000, Kennedy vs. Nixon 1960, The timing of the hostage release Regan vs. Carter 1980 etc. etc. Winning is everything and the ends justify the means.    

I am unaware of instances in 2016 where Hillary Clinton whined for months about a stolen election, refused to accept the outcome, filed scores of lawsuits (with no evidence), and encouraged a crowd to go to the Capitol and "fight like hell".  

Same with 2000 and Al Gore

Care to provide cites?

 

Of course you don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phillysailor said:

Ohmigod, are you just figuring this out?

 

I didn't just figure it out as any one who has been paying attention would know.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Dog said:

I didn't just figure it out as any one who has been paying attention would know.

 

We know

You just keep lying about everything, that's within your skill set. Much much easier than "figuring stuff out"

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

We know

You just keep lying about everything, that's within your skill set. Much much easier than "figuring stuff out"

- DSK

Throwing stones is a lot easer than making a defensible case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Dog said:

Throwing stones is a lot easer than making a defensible case.

Especially when the case is indefensible

But calling a liar a liar is not "throwing stones," is it? I guess if you have zero regard for fact, it seems to be.

4 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Yet you keep on slinging stones :rolleyes:

When _was_ the last time you made “a defensible case?”

Dog actually told the truth the other day. Several of us commented favorably. But it doesn't look like he's really turning over a new leaf, it might have been an accident or maybe a touch of fever

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Especially when the case is indefensible

But calling a liar a liar is not "throwing stones," is it? I guess if you have zero regard for fact, it seems to be.

Dog actually told the truth the other day. Several of us commented favorably. But it doesn't look like he's really turning over a new leaf, it might have been an accident or maybe a touch of fever

- DSK

If you accidentally tell the truth, thinking that it's a lie, is it really telling the truth?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Defendant Bullshitter, you are charged with driving 60 mph in a 20 mph school zone. How do you plead?

The light was yellow your Honor.  

Bullshitters: clearly the light was yellow.  Storm the courthouse and beat a policeman's head in with a fire extinguisher to show that blue lives matter and antifa is violent!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Especially when the case is indefensible

But calling a liar a liar is not "throwing stones," is it? I guess if you have zero regard for fact, it seems to be.

Dog actually told the truth the other day. Several of us commented favorably. But it doesn't look like he's really turning over a new leaf, it might have been an accident or maybe a touch of fever

- DSK

You appear to get off on calling other people liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dog said:

You appear to get off on calling other people liars.

Actually, no. It makes me sad. You must have a lot of unhappiness in your life to be so hostile to reality

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Actually, no. It makes me sad. You must have a lot of unhappiness in your life to be so hostile to reality

- DSK

Or something wired wrong in that tiny skull.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dog said:

I don't believe that.

Funny. You usually believe bullshit, and doubt the truth.... It's twice in two days you've flipped.... Are you on new drugs?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2021 at 7:15 PM, Fakenews said:

He enjoys hearing himself argue ridiculous points but eventually the risk of being a social piracy has to weigh heavily on a decision like that.

 A Social piracy?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

I am unaware of instances in 2016 where Hillary Clinton whined for months about a stolen election, refused to accept the outcome, filed scores of lawsuits (with no evidence), and encouraged a crowd to go to the Capitol and "fight like hell".

Try looking over on QAnon, Newsmax or OAN.  She was probably the instigator of this whole thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jules said:
7 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

I am unaware of instances in 2016 where Hillary Clinton whined for months about a stolen election, refused to accept the outcome, filed scores of lawsuits (with no evidence), and encouraged a crowd to go to the Capitol and "fight like hell".

Try looking over on QAnon, Newsmax or OAN.  She was probably the instigator of this whole thing.

Isn't it funny how @Venom is quick to level the allegation, then goes silent when asked to back it up with something from a fact-based reality?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Slow on the uptake?  Bus Driver pointed out my gaffe a day ago.

It usually only takes a couple of seconds for my children to recognize that I drifted beyond my depth.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Slow on the uptake?  Bus Driver pointed out my gaffe a day ago.

Well, unlike most here...... I do not live on PA breathlessly waiting for the next post to appear.  Just sayin.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Well, unlike most here...... I do not live on PA breathlessly waiting for the next post to appear.  Just sayin.  

Apparently because you’re too busy posting yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fakenews said:

Apparently because you’re too busy posting yourself.

No Gayston, yesterday (the "day ago" you refer to) when you said I missed your "butt piracy" comment, I was out on a long desert hike on a brilliant clear day with perfect temps.  Got up pretty close to a herd of antelope, my GSD "puppy" got to chase a coyote, and all in all it was a brilliant day.  I never even touched this den of filth for the day and certainly didn't miss it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Dog said:

Odd, you think the case for incitement to insurrection is strong but you also said "I think it unlikely Trump wanted more than a vigorous protest in front of the capitol myself".

Refusing to accept election results is hardly a crime or uncommon (if it was Stacy Abrams would be guilty) and we can't disqualify a citizen who has not been convicted of a crime from holding public office. 

It seems odd to anyone who can't imagine professional incompetence can be criminal. I assure you it can be. He's a POTUS, if he didn't know that leading people to believe absurdities leads to them committing atrocities, he's a fucking moron. At this level being a fucking moron, when it results in people getting killed, is a high crime and/or misdemeanor. There is no need for a criminal prosecution for one to be impeached. Why did he let it go on for two hours after it started? There can be only one reason. Whether or not he planned on it happening after it did he loved it. If you think such a man should not be banned from holding high office ever again please say so. 

  

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

I am unaware of instances in 2016 where Hillary Clinton whined for months about a stolen election, refused to accept the outcome, filed scores of lawsuits (with no evidence), and encouraged a crowd to go to the Capitol and "fight like hell".  

Same with 2000 and Al Gore

Care to provide cites?

Of course you don't.

You've been pissing yourself whining about Russia for the last four years! That's well documented. :D

Yes, many believe the Gore won the 2000 election, it went as far as  Florida Supreme Court

Are you drunk? 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mark K said:

It seems odd to anyone who can't imagine professional incompetence can be criminal. I assure you it can be. He's a POTUS, if he didn't know that leading people to believe absurdities leads to them committing atrocities, he's a fucking moron. At this level being a fucking moron, when it results in people getting killed, is a high crime and/or misdemeanor. There is no need for a criminal prosecution for one to be impeached. Why did he let it go on for two hours after it started? There can be only one reason. Whether or not he planned on it happening after it did he loved it. If you think such a man should not be banned from holding high office ever again please say so. 

  

The assault on the capital was planned starting in early November. The people who planned and conducted the attack are the ones responsible for it.

Contesting  election results is constitutionally protected free speech, ask Stacy Abrams.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This just in from the newest right wing talking points - inciting a riot should not longer be a crime as long as you did help plan the event.

*Breaking News* Enabling that crime by paying for the means for the people to get there should also not be a crime.  

In other news, lying to investigators should no longer be a crime, because they forced you to do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Venom said:
22 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

I am unaware of instances in 2016 where Hillary Clinton whined for months about a stolen election, refused to accept the outcome, filed scores of lawsuits (with no evidence), and encouraged a crowd to go to the Capitol and "fight like hell".  

Same with 2000 and Al Gore

Care to provide cites?

Of course you don't.

You've been pissing yourself whining about Russia for the last four years! That's well documented. :D

Yes, many believe the Gore won the 2000 election, it went as far as  Florida Supreme Court

Are you drunk? 

If you are trying to compare the case brought to the Supreme Court in 2000 to the events os 2020, you have seriously lost your fucking mind.

The case went to the SCOTUS at the request of the Bush campaign.

And, as expected, you offered nothing to support your allegation regarding 2016.

You're worse than Dog.  Far, far worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bus Driver said:

If you are trying to compare the case brought to the Supreme Court in 2000 to the events os 2020, you have seriously lost your fucking mind.

The case went to the SCOTUS at the request of the Bush campaign.

And, as expected, you offered nothing to support your allegation regarding 2016.

You're worse than Dog.  Far, far worse.

Can't you please just not quote him?  He hasn't added a single substantive post to this website since he joined, in this incarnation or in any of his previous screen names.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Grrr... said:

Can't you please just not quote him?  He hasn't added a single substantive post to this website since he joined, in this incarnation or in any of his previous screen names.

It's really hard to keep track of all the people you and others don't want quoted.

Should there be a policy of "no quoting", so you and others don't have to scroll by?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

It's really hard to keep track of all the people you and others don't want quoted.

Should there be a policy of "no quoting", so you and others don't have to scroll by?

Yes please.  That would help.  :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Grrr... said:
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

It's really hard to keep track of all the people you and others don't want quoted.

Should there be a policy of "no quoting", so you and others don't have to scroll by?

Yes please.  That would help.  :lol:

Is it too much to ask for a comprehensive list of all posters who offend your, and others', sensibilities?

Maybe get the Ed to pin it at the top of PA?

TIA

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Is it too much to ask for a comprehensive list of all posters who offend your, and others', sensibilities?

Maybe get the Ed to pin it at the top of PA?

TIA

That would be even better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Is it too much to ask for a comprehensive list of all posters who offend your, and others', sensibilities?

Maybe get the Ed to pin it at the top of PA?

TIA

Ignore the crazy posters that don't agree with you at your own risk.  It is important to know their views.  These people walk among you (and likely are armed).

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, bridhb said:
42 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Is it too much to ask for a comprehensive list of all posters who offend your, and others', sensibilities?

Maybe get the Ed to pin it at the top of PA?

TIA

Ignore the crazy posters that don't agree with you at your own risk.  It is important to know their views.  These people walk among you (and likely are armed).

I am hesitant to place anyone on my "Ignore" list - mainly for the reason you just stated.

To get that honor, you have to really be an asshole and go after me, or those close to me, in a truly nasty way.

Funny enough, I just looked and I have exactly one poster on my list - Venom.  And yet, I still see his posts.  Is the Ignore feature broken?

Screen Shot 2021-02-02 at 10.13.41 AM.png

Link to post
Share on other sites