Alan Zweibel

Actually, if you're talking about a mass denial of reality, how about the majority of Republicans who believe the 2000 elections were stolen? And then there was QAnon before that. Or how about the deranged obsession with Barack Obama's place of birth?

Who do you mean by "they"? The specific persons charged with the crimes mentioned above? If they are convicted, sure, my answer is yes they're terrorists. If they are acquitted, will they still be terrorists to you? But if you're not referring to those people, then the question you're asking is what's called a loaded question. A common example of such a question is 'When did you stop beating your wife?" It's a question based on implicit assumptions that may be dubious or even false. It's a transparent rhetorical ploy and not one I'm going to fall for.

Because unless any possible criminal activities by any party, including Trump, took place within the period of time prescribed by the statute of limitations, then the Justice dept would have no grounds to pursue an investigation, much less release the documents.

No, no, maybe you are. See, anyone can make remarks just as childish as yours.

Among other transgressions, the University represented that students would be taught by skilled, highly successful people in the real estate business. That wasn't the case. At any rate, Trump had to disgorge all the fees his scam had earned him.

Can you give us some idea of what "evenually" might signify in this case ? Would it be after the midterms? After the 2028 elections? Just before the heat death of the universe?

Well, even if he was implicated, if the possible crimes fell outside of the statute of limitations, then the Justice dept wouldn't release them in the ordinary course of events.

Well, the penalties are long gone, and Obamacare has expanded its base tremendously since. As for the other point you raised, you managed to be wrong about that too, What got called the Obamaphone by rightwing ignoramuses, is actually the Lifeline phone program which was launched during the Presidency of America's first Marxist president, Ronald Reagan. Under the Presidency of America's 2nd Marxist president, George W. Bush, the program was expanded to include cell phones.

People like you who hate Coca-Cola also hate America. And given that I don't know where you are at any given moment, it's impossible for me to attempt to stay away from you. I think it's inevitable that through some screwy improbably event,our life paths will cross, we'll find ourselves in some life threatening predicament, and by the end of our adventure we'll be the best of friends. And it will be turned into a major motion picture. It will succeed wildly at the box office. It's not yet clear to me how the sequel will fare. But there definitely will be one.

No, it's just about my love for Coca-Cola.

So, I guess Trump's so-called attempt to repeal Obamacare and his denunciation of John McCain for voting against it, was also a cynical ploy?

If brown is good enough for the 2 best tasting drinks in the world, coffee and Coca-Cola, then it's good enough for the entire human race, too.

They didn't take it up because it was killed by the DINO Joe Lieberman. If Republicans had voted the way Democrats did it would have overwhelmingly passed.

I don't know which Republican senators are up for re-election but I know that many Republicans in the House are nervous about what a "no" vote would mean for their chances for re-election.

Among the right a common trope is the "homosexual agenda". The belief that gay people are trying to turn straight men gay. Is that the goal here? Or are you part of a leftist plot to hasten the decline of the white majority in America by supporting a massive increase in immigration? I'm definitely down with that latter plan. I hope I live to see the day when 90% of young Americans sport complexions that are some shade of cocoa. Bring on the race mixing!!!

Kaking unproveable claims about your experience? Just another meretricious way of making it personal. You're anonymous. I'm anonymous. Such personal claims are valueless as evidence or argument.

It's clear why you are asking this. Such a blanket denunciation would mean that I accept the reality of antifa as an overarching organization. Also, it would imply that I consider this alleged organization to be a serious threat to the social order and not a very minor menace magnified to support right wing overreach. And finally, it would be to accept the allegation that they are being financed in some conspiratorial way. Now, if you want me to denounce people who have been convicted of violent acts and call themselves antifa, I've got no problem with that. Or even to provisionally denounce them in the event they get convicted.

New Jersey hasn't been part of the UK for well over 200 years.

Maybe reasserting something seems to you like some sort of evidence or rational argument. But it's just another indication that you've got nothing.

But you apparently, are that clueless. What relevance does my alleged importance have to do with the content of what i've written.

And now you're mind reading. The last resort of the intellectually exhausted.

I can't wait to see in the charging documents that Antifa is "An ambiguous conspiratorial criminal enterprise." You should be writing comedy. A phrase like that would be laughed right out of court.

Wrapping yourself in the flag again?

You should save up that mention as evidence. Because it's pretty much all there is. Unless you can produce something via a link.

thanks for the non-responsive answer.