AJ Phillips:

But you already made your point and then you felt the need to make it again with shock value.

If time was so valuable why add the shock value? It does not add anything to you point. So your argument about time doesn't make sense.
Neither does your argument about brevity since you made the same point twice.

"That is it is alright to support someone who bragged about sexually assault, but not alright for me to even suggest it in sarcasm."

So if what they did was wrong why would you want to even suggest doing it sarcastically? It doesn't make sense to condemn a particular behaviour and then repeat that behaviour even in a sarcastic why. There was no need for a sarcastic retort at all. Sarcasm adds nothing to your point either.You simply have to say that you think their behaviour was wrong.

You still have not given a good reason why you said what you did. So far we have had shock value, had to catch a plane and now sarcasm.

No, phanto. Actually, I didn’t.

<<But you already made your point and then you felt the need to make it again with shock value.>>

There were two points there. I made each one once. The first was about Trump's ability to inspire bullying. The second one, you're still trying desperately to not understand and imply an insincerity or guilt that isn't there.

You're not very good at this whole debating thing, are you?

<<If time was so valuable why add the shock value?>>

For the sake of brevity.

<<It does not add anything to you point.>>

For someone who didn't see that TWO points had been made there? Sure.

<<So if what they did was wrong why would you want to even suggest doing it sarcastically?>>

To make a point. (See my previous posts.)

<<It doesn't make sense to condemn a particular behaviour and then repeat that behaviour even in a sarcastic [way].>>

Just as well I didn’t then, eh? I’d be fronting a judge in no time.

<<You still have not given a good reason why you said what you did.>>

Actually, I have. So how about you quit playing games and address them?

AJ Phillips:

"<<You still have not given a good reason why you said what you did.>>

Actually, I have. So how about you quit playing games and address them?"

Actually, you haven't.

Have too, phanto.

Brevity.

Your argument against brevity relied on the mistaken belief that I had only made one point. Now that I've brought to your attention the fact that there were two points made by myself, your argument falls flat.

So, actually, I have.

So there.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Again with your accusation of" Left whinge blogs."

And here I was attempting to have a serious discussion
with you.

Silly me.

As for what Trump's Cabinet or the Republican leadership in
Congress will or won't do. You have not way of knowing.
We shall have to wait and see. Although -
history has shown that actions have been taken regarding
American Presidents in the past due to certain
circumstances. The possibility does exist whether you
care to admit it or not.

Foxy,

There is also a possibility that my single lotto ticket will win the jackpot and the odds are similar.

1- it has never be done,
2- it is put in place for a president that is genuinely incapacitated not just a dick, and can be overturned by the supreme court if he is not medically unfit.
3- It needs Trump's hand picked VP and a majority of his hand picked department heads to kick off the process, all of whom will be fired if the coup fails. (and probably fired by Trump's replacement)
4- It needs confirmation by a 2/3 majority in a Republican congress within 21 days.

So my point is that the chance that a lot of people with a vested interest in keeping Trump in office are going to mutiny and run the huge risk of destroying their careers, is pure fantasy.