SectionC3

Is this an official Rule #2 request?

Rule #2 as to my "issue." Hoax. I don't like lies. It just so happens that the vast majority of lies here are told by conservatives. Kind of like your Irish law lie from back in the day. Hoaxer. I didn't call you a liar. Yet. Hoaxer.

Stare decisis. Binding precedent. Not an issue of constitutionality. Happy Monday, hoaxer.

MLB is the key to the whole deal for us. Right on.

Nobody said Janis is unconstitutional. Except you. Hoaxer.

If you're so concerned about legality and following the law, perhaps you should complain about the recent Janus decision and Trump's unconstitutional border wall funding scheme. Hoaxx.

Changed my mind. You’re too easily triggered to be my financial adviser. I prefer a bit more steadiness in that role. But thank you for your interest.

Hoax. I simply challenge lies. Which happen to be told by many conservatives here,

Such a sour mood you’re in. If I was you, I’d relax a bit. Life is too short to be triggered by randos on the Internet.

Hoax. Big thanks for admitting that I triggered you!

You seem to have been triggered. Sad.

Sounds like I triggered you. Sorry about that!

Nope. This is where the links are called inapt because they deal principally with absentee balloting. At issue is in-person balloting. So just another @Alaska Darin hoax here. Maybe he’ll be smiling at you from his balcony later today.

Not really. I don’t remember what it is, but I recall it being uninteresting. I think you called me a name of some sort, which prompted me to merely gloss over whatever else it was that you wrote.

Could be a lot of money flowing into Maine CD2 at the end of this thing. Donnie is going to need every EC vote he can get his greasy little fingers on. AZ numbers are borderline shocking. And Collins looks like she’s pretty close to toast. Gonna be a lot of ads that show her with Trump as we wind this thing down.

Are you a grumpy goat today? You seem unhappy. And a little misogynistic. Sad. Hmmm . . . Make me a pitch. What would you do with my money?

You’re a literalist when it suits you, and a generalist of convenience. But at least you admit that you want to be my financial adviser. That’s a step in the right direction.

Hoax. There could be more than two candidates. Jill Stein, Ralph Nader, Gary Johnson, and KanYe West say hi. And you want to be my financial adviser. Biden is not the issue. Trump is the issue. Trump has expressed his belief that women should be “grab[bed] [by] the *****.” This allegation is consistent with that practice. Discuss.

Hoax. You said you don’t believe in voter fraud. You did not say, and still haven’t said, that you will not commit such fraud to support your Trumpian agenda. Sad!

I have no idea what that gibberish is supposed to mean. But I know that you haven’t denied that you would commit voter fraud to support your trump agenda. Sad! Also, get ready to clutch your pearls. Big crowd outside of planned parenthood today. They could be getting prophylactics. Sinners, one and all of them!

Unfortunately you contradicted that position earlier. You’re like a weathervane on this issue. A supporter of the rule of law, but only to the extent it’s convenient. And the reality is, although you profess not to “believe in voter fraud,” all indications are that you still would commit that fraud to support multiple Trumpian candidates for the same, single seat. You had your chance to deny it, and you chose to do otherwise. Sad.

You’ve taken the phrase out of the context in which you used it. If you meant something other than you are willing to commit voter fraud to support Trump and a different candidate for the same office who supports Trump’s position, then you should have said as much. Unfortunately, based on what you actually said, you are predisposed to commit voter fraud. And that is sad.

Hoax. Those are your own words. You are thinking about committing voter fraud. And you say you support the rule of law. Sad. See above. Fake news. You said you would vote for two candidates who stand for what you believe Trump to support.

Nice! Attack the accuser. I’ve been waiting for this one! What she said couldn’t possibly be true because she’s a woman! Or because she implicated Trump, who would never do such a thing as grab someone by the *****!

Wouldn’t that make it less likely to be a hoax? If she’s not model-worthy, then she probably would be in the Don’s league. Don is not a model, and if she was model-worthy she probably would be out of his league then, right? So you wouldn’t commit voter fraud? Just making sure. Because you said if there’s another candidate you would vote for them, “too.” Implying, of course, that you would vote for both Trump and the other candidate. And you think you’re part of the rule of law party. Sad.