Where I grew up, please was generally not considered arrogant. Perhaps it means something different where you're from, but I chose the word please to ask it as a request.

The truth is shown in your never-ending list of conspiracy conjectures. It was not removed.

To use just one example, your favorite conspiracy has been investigated upwards of a half dozen times. It has been investigated by multiple branches of the federal government, including by branches and subcommittees that are stacked with members of your political party. It has been investigated by multiple independent media groups as well. Yet you insist that something terrible and sinister occurred and you want immediate removal of the POTUS because of your instinct. You Have shown that investigations will not meet your demands, which indicates that a fair trial wouldn't, either as it would not remove the POTUS. Hence you have shown plainly that you are more than willing to jump straight to extralegal.

Why are your assumptions always to be presumed valid and mine always to be presumed garbage? What would it take to get you to assume otherwise?

You just told me you were trolling me instead of honestly presenting for a discussion.

Occurs any time you present someone else's work as your own. You corrected for it later, but what you initially did was plagiarism.

When you openly show disdain for a public figure and willingness to discard the law entirely to remove them, you are endorsing the full spectrum of what that can lead to. You admit that your conspiracies are posted with the intent of bringing about an early end to the administration, and you admit that you don't see the law as something you (or anyone else) should need to follow in your desire to remove the POTUS (or any other politician with a D after their name).

And you can't even be consistent with that story. Jesus Christ on roller skates, you fucking suck blue whale at this.

Indeed, any time you use any term that is connected to communism, it is safe to assume you have no idea what you're talking about and are likely trolling.

Falsely accused you of what, pray tell?

What? You said earlier today

And yet here you brought up this operation multiple times but you want me to interpret it as you trolling. I'm used to you expecting the two of us to operate under different rules, but here you are operating under completely opposing rules.

Please, sir, enlighten us - and don't just channel your inner pudge like you just did. If you aren't sharing your anti-POTUS conspiracy conjectures in the hopes of removing him from office, then what is your reason for sharing them? Why compile such an extensive list if you aren't trying to force him from office?

And don't pretend that you actually want to do that within the confines of the law. You've already demonstrated clearly the contrary.

Then by your own criteria, you have not been sincere in a very, very, long time.

Seriously, I offered specific points and questions at the start of this discussion. You have responded to none of them.

Where did I partake in trolling? If anything I allowed myself to be trolled by responding to your off-topic remarks. If i bring up the same points again, will you respond to them?

So then did you, or did you not, want to discuss Operation Choke Point? You brought it up. I admit to having not been familiar with it before you bringing it up. If you would like, we can discuss.

The last phone I rooted only had rooting tools available in Chinese. It seems to have worked, but ...

To be fair, the name "Operation Choke Point" sounds like something you would have made up for one of your conspiracy conjectures. I hadn't heard of before now, likely due to the fact that all it has done so far is excite conspiracy conjecturists like yourself.

A solution in search of a drone, in search of a problem

(too long to fit in the subject line)

You have advocated for a long list of conspiracy theories. Benghazi is the one you bring up the most often, followed by your IRS conspiracy theory. You have shouted about a great number beyond those two though.

Although if we really want to get pedantic, none of them should be called conspiracy theories because they really lack the evidence that would support them being called theory. Really you support a great number of conspiracy conjectures that you hope will lead to the prompt extralegal removal of the POTUS.

I attempted to open a debate on the matter in my first post in this JE discussion and you immediately rejected the debate without providing any points to support the original thesis of your JE. I didn't write in this JE to discuss you or me, I wrote it in to discuss what you wrote about. You rejected that for reasons that you never specified.