It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Yes, but what higher behavioral conduct? At what point is the conduct, ‘Bad,’ enough to qualify as a high crime or misdemeanor? Interpretation, interpretation, interpretation. As with, ‘High crimes and misdemeanors,’ ‘Higher behavioral conduct,’ is in the mind of the person being asked. That is to say, it can mean whatever the hell you want it to mean. I say, want because you could have two substantially similar but not exactly the same (otherwise one would have to admit academic dishonesty) allegations and a person can see it as failure to meet higher behavioral conduct for one person, but not the other person, depending on how they feel about each person.

It’s so ill-defined and is so much seeing what one wants to see and interpreting things the way one wishes, wants and chooses to interpret them that makes me nauseous. Articles of Impeachment that not a single Republican voted if favor of and, I believe, only two Democrats voted against both while a third voted against one of them.

Why, what a bipartisan and impartial process we have here. What an effort to look at the facts as objectively as possible. Way to come together on this one.

The only thing that this did was further the divide, but not just between the Representatives and Senators, (they’re unimportant anyway) but between the rank-and-file party members and supporters of one party or another. All of the major television media outlets should be made to put, “Entertainment,” and the end of their monikers. Fox News and Entertainment. Fox Business News and Entertainment. Cable News Network Entertainment (CNNE). Microsoft National Broadcasting Channel Entertainment (MSNBCE). You get the point.

But, you know, I understand that you have to keep the lights on. Impartial breakdowns of meanings and thoughtful and calm debate isn’t going to pay the bills.

“Donald Trump is dividing this country.” “The radical left is dividing this country.” Both statements are false. We’re dividing ourselves and making the various, ‘News,’ outlets a profit while doing it.

Ummm…first off, I don’t think Carleas hates anyone. I’ve spoken with Carleas and he can certainly speak for himself, but given his proposition that Donald Trump has diminished capacity, I’d imagine that Carleas would feel pity for him in any other context. Secondly, if harboring deep-seeded hatred for others was impeachable, they’d have Donald Trump dead-to-rights.

Yeah, I would LOVE to see an amendment related to anything even have a fighting chance of getting through right now. Welcome to true bipartisanship. Although, I guess that two-thirds thing was a good idea for the same reasons.

That’s a good summary of the left you wrote there, that’s going to be sure to bridge the divide both here and out in the world. Nice work.

Imagine being one of the only people who actually still wants to understand why people on both sides think about an individual issue the way that they do…I’ve got to tell you, it’s a pretty lonely existence for someone with an interest in the social sciences. It’s either the echo chamber or the battlefield for those on both sides, nobody really has any interest in talking to me.

Are you implying that this is only happening on that side? I also find it borderline laughable that you think this is, “Unconscious, unaware manipulation,” dude…people LOVE echo chambers. Churches wouldn’t be financially viable if they didn’t. Don’t give the media undue credit for being collectively intelligent enough to successfully manipulate anyone who isn’t outwardly seeking to be, “Manipulated.” They just want money.

Politics in this era has become professional wrestling, except half the fans perceive one combatant as the face while the other half perceive the same as a heel and vice versa. Bret Hart v. Stone Cold Steve Austin somewhere in Canada, perhaps? They also sit on different sides of the arena, except for those who prefer to get into fights in the parking lot.

I’m going to puke.

“Cabal,” implies that it is something a lot less obvious than what it actually is, which is this:

1.) Rich person or corporation.

2.) Rich person or corporation want make more money.

3.) Rich person or corporation creates news entertainment channel.

4.) Rich person or corporation espouses political views that rich person or corporation likes.

5.) Rich person or corporation make more money.

So, in the limited sample size of the major U.S. news media outlets, more of the rich people or corporations happen to lean more liberally than they do conservatively. That’s not a cabal.

Fox News isn’t anymore rogue than an army private who unfailingly obeys the orders of his superiors. They do literally the same thing, the only exception is that rich person or corporation likes the politics of the other side instead.

For Christ sake, how, “Alternative,” can you be when you’re the #1 watched news station in the country? They’re the 90’s Britney Spears of news stations. Why? Fortunately for them, the reason why is because the politics that the rich person or corporation would like to see espoused are not being promoted also by any major competitors. Also, their market trends older, (which means more likely to get this via television rather than Internet) so I guess that also helps.

I mean, do you really believe that Fox News is unfailingly objective or objective even the majority of the time? Do you think that they even would want to be? If you actually believe that they are, congratulations, you’re one of the marks.

Oh but You’d be surprised

I certainly hope so!

At least Your admission nullifies Your earlier supposition that there is no one willing to listen to You!

Even a hope is worth fodder to entertain a possible realization of some kind of progress from a perceivable impasse !

I certainly agree that the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” is in need of detailed definition. And an amendment to the Constitution could easily do that. The issue is one of how to get the Americans to get it done.

I am thinking that, for one congressional session, let their Republicans take the House while maintaining the Senate. I don’t suggest that because I think that the Republicans are good guys that do everything right but rather because I can envision 4 things emanating from such a situation. This is the prime time for a pivotal event for the world, not merely the USA.

I imagine the very first concern addressed by a Republican House would be the prevention of this kind of impeachment sham from becoming commonplace. They would have to make an amendment that would define more precisely what is and is not what is impeachable. By that action two things will emerge.

First, the temptation to rush into an impeachment scandal will be thwarted because definitive lines will have been drawn dictating any possibility of success. Secondly, new presidents will tailor their behavior to meet the required standard. Even Mr Trump would behave within the guidelines if they had been well defined. So by this action, presidential behavior (demeanor) will be shaped as well as House impulses.

The third thing that will occur is that division within the Republican party will be reestablished. Currently the socialist/democrat agenda has consolidated the Republican party by forming a very conspicuous and totally unacceptable adversary. Once the adversary is removed, focus will return to inter-party competition in both parties as they rethink their relation to the socialists.

By the next congressional session, business could return to usual. The Democrat party will be the new hope for the people. The socialists will still be trying to insidiously undermine their nation. And the Republican party will lose at least one of the branches. Everything back to normal.

Again, I certainly agree that the US media must be brought to account and confined to better behavior. Again, a unified Republican Congress is likely to do that (a 4th thing that would happen).

I hesitate to blame the citizens as long as there is a media propaganda cabal controlling their worldview. Do you blame the Chinese or Iranian people who believe their leaders are all saintly? Or do you blame their leaders for controlling their media? People have no choice but to accept what they see. And when they see only one side of an issue, they would have to be exceptional people with plenty of investigation time on their hands to discover the true boundaries of their bubble of belief.

Individuals rarely have time to investigate the truth even if they had the wits. The responsibility falls on the media. And you are right, entertainment must be clearly separated from journalism. Again, requiring a unified Congress. The socialists would never agree.

The socialist/democrat party would be fighting against all of those concerns extremely hard because it would seal the fate of their hegemony and domination dreams. People would die in the struggle.

I think that you are being appropriately gracious as a friend. More objectively what I believe is that no one spews out such a long list of unspecific, unsupported accusations without strong emotion being behind it. But he cannot change what has happened to him and I wouldn’t take the responsibility of trying to change it. So he will never change (“never Trumper”).

Kind of you to say. Thank you.

Wait, did I write that? Or someone just reading my mind?

Anything in bold is a response and italics a quote from Obsrvr524:

[i]I certainly agree that the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” is in need of detailed definition. And an amendment to the Constitution could easily do that. The issue is one of how to get the Americans to get it done.

I am thinking that, for one congressional session, let their Republicans take the House while maintaining the Senate. I don’t suggest that because I think that the Republicans are good guys that do everything right but rather because I can envision 4 things emanating from such a situation. This is the prime time for a pivotal event for the world, not merely the USA.

I imagine the very first concern addressed by a Republican House would be the prevention of this kind of impeachment sham from becoming commonplace. They would have to make an amendment that would define more precisely what is and is not what is impeachable. By that action two things will emerge.

First, the temptation to rush into an impeachment scandal will be thwarted because definitive lines will have been drawn dictating any possibility of success. Secondly, new presidents will tailor their behavior to meet the required standard. Even Mr Trump would behave within the guidelines if they had been well defined. So by this action, presidential behavior (demeanor) will be shaped as well as House impulses.

The third thing that will occur is that division within the Republican party will be reestablished. Currently the socialist/democrat agenda has consolidated the Republican party by forming a very conspicuous and totally unacceptable adversary. Once the adversary is removed, focus will return to inter-party competition in both parties as they rethink their relation to the socialists.

By the next congressional session, business could return to usual. The Democrat party will be the new hope for the people. The socialists will still be trying to insidiously undermine their nation. And the Republican party will lose at least one of the branches. Everything back to normal.[/i]

[b]I do not believe that any such amendment would happen because:

1.) It would require both sides to willingly (at least, in part) agree upon something.

AND:

2.) Look how hot politics is these days! Politicians are the new celebrities. Why would they want to make this harder to have happen again? They don’t just have political power, they have star power!

I believe that the Republicans DID control both the House and the Senate in the session prior to this one. I believe the Democrats also did the same at one point post-Clinton, but prior to Trump. Nothing changed after the trial that failed to remove Clinton from office or Johnson before him. Nixon certainly would have been impeached and removed, but that’s why he resigned.

I do not believe that any need has been created, from their perspective, to do what we are suggesting. The current ambiguity involved is REALLY good for, “Business.”[/b]

[i]
Again, I certainly agree that the US media must be brought to account and confined to better behavior. Again, a unified Republican Congress is likely to do that (a 4th thing that would happen).

I hesitate to blame the citizens as long as there is a media propaganda cabal controlling their worldview. Do you blame the Chinese or Iranian people who believe their leaders are all saintly? Or do you blame their leaders for controlling their media? People have no choice but to accept what they see. And when they see only one side of an issue, they would have to be exceptional people with plenty of investigation time on their hands to discover the true boundaries of their bubble of belief.

Individuals rarely have time to investigate the truth even if they had the wits. The responsibility falls on the media. And you are right, entertainment must be clearly separated from journalism. Again, requiring a unified Congress. The socialists would never agree.

The socialist/democrat party would be fighting against all of those concerns extremely hard because it would seal the fate of their hegemony and domination dreams. People would die in the struggle. [/i]

[b]Maybe, but I’m just reporting the news rather than hoping to make it. Discussing what I think is rather than what I think ought be because what I think ought be is completely immaterial and is of interest to nobody.

The media is not going to be brought to account to report more impartially in any meaningful way because that would be very bad for business. It would take all of the attention off of politics and that would be felt in the pocketbooks of both the news stations themselves and on the campaign finance balance sheets. Impartiality does not make money. Simple. Doesn’t make any names, either.

There is no cabal. The citizens are being given what they want. “Change the channel to 34, Bessie!” This so-called, “Cabal,” is easy enough to avoid if one really wants to. I avoid it, for the most part. If enough people were to avoid it, then it would go away, or maybe just become something else.

This isn’t media control, it’s pandering to your target market. Maybe that’s true even in those countries, I’m not there to know and also don’t care.

To the rest, I reiterate that it is good for business for all parties involved. Speaker of the House, 2020: Nancy Pelosi. Speaker of the House, 2004: Hell if I know. [/b]

I think that you are being appropriately gracious as a friend. More objectively what I believe is that no one spews out such a long list of unspecific, unsupported accusations without strong emotion being behind it. But he cannot change what has happened to him and I wouldn’t take the responsibility of trying to change it. So he will never change (“never Trumper”).

My claim is that he does not hate Donald Trump. My claim is not that there is not strong emotion behind what he is saying, I wouldn’t know if there is or is not. Hell, I think he may well hate the situation as he sees the situation, (maybe, maybe not) I just don’t think that he hates Trump on any personal level.

I agree with you here, but my point is that the whistleblower’s testimony isn’t necessary to answer those questions. Every allegation that prompted the investigation has been corroborated by other witnesses who have testified publicly, or by the White House itself in releasing the memo describing what was discussed.

I think I am making a pedantic distinction, and I’m not sure anything turns on it. But I will note that every member of Congress has a chance to vote on either impeachment or removal, and no member of the Supreme Court has that opportunity. Only one member of the Supreme Court plays any role, and he does so as an arbiter. He might be able to influence the outcome by biased referreeing, but I would not go so far as to call that “representation”.

The reaction of the career officers who witnessed it call this into doubt. Civil servants and presidential lawyers who listened to the call immediately recognized it as unacceptable. DoD officials found the withholding of aid very unusual and several of them believed it was illegal at the time. I think it’s fine not to know going in whether or not this is business as usual, but we also need to update our priors in light of evidence and expert analysis. At this poin, believing that it’s no big deal is untenable.

I think the actual reason was that a list of reasons is not poetic: it’s cumbersome and mechanical, and the Founders cared more about style than precision. For a legal document, the Constitution is strikingly florrid. The contracts I work on for piddly little transactions have much more explict language, they are boring and dry and often longer than the Constitution, but they are very, very precise. The Constitution isn’t like that, it’s written for a popular audience, meant to sound grand and elegant.

This is related to my “legitimacy” argument: a well-drafted contract would make a terrible founding document, not because it’s not clear and precise, but because it wouldn’t be read by the public or quoted in grand proncouncements. A poem makes a better founding document in practice.

Faithful execution of the office requires good faith reporting of facts. It’s true that certain lies may be permissible (e.g. lying about military maneuvers that make citizens safer), but Trumps lying is not of that kind.

This came up earlier in this thread, where Urwrong made a similar argument. He later conceded that arresting a candidate on false charges with the intent to change the ourcome would count as electoral interference. But then your argument still applies: voters can ignore the arrest, can vote how the like despite it. So are you taking a stronger position here and saying that even that would not be foreign interference in an election?

I think you are very very obviously not replying to my points.

Trump solicited foreigh hacking of his opponent, suggested that she should be assassinated, called for violence at his rallies, threatened nuclear war, backed out of agreements, and has left many positions within the executive branch empty.

I mean, I’ve specified and supported my accusations, to which you didn’t respond. If you find fault, let’s hear it.

Obsrvr, do you actually feel that you want to understand why people believe what they believe?

Your worries about the left are a caricature of a fringe element in US politics. Biden is leading in Democratic polling, are you really suggesting that Biden if looking to dismantle the Constitution, cause chaos, etc. etc.? It’s not realistic to think that the Biden-supporting part of the Democratic party, which is at least the plurality and probably the majority, is anything like the left as you describe it.

As an observer, I know better. But from your perspective it should be a bit puzzling as to why the mainstream networks in the US speak the exact same words on all channels every time anything interesting happens. They then fade together only to simultaneously promoted another exact verbiage. They have been doing that for decades it seems. They are in lock-step, never seriously disagreeing, always using the exact same words (a hypnosis technique of repetition and ambiance). What is your rationalization for that?

False.

You made the accusation. Support it (one at a time).

Quotes in bold are from Carleas:

I agree with you here, but my point is that the whistleblower’s testimony isn’t necessary to answer those questions. Every allegation that prompted the investigation has been corroborated by other witnesses who have testified publicly, or by the White House itself in releasing the memo describing what was discussed.

When it comes to Question 3: Does it rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, I think that the testimony is relevant. I want to hear what every single person has to say, and perhaps more importantly, how they are saying it as it would have an impact on my decision-making in this regard. Unlike most politicians, Trump is not a lawyer. I also think that he does not consult lawyers when sometimes he should. The reason why is because lawyers know when it is important to speak in a measured way, how to speak in a measured way…and Trump, you know, doesn’t. I think there are politicians who could convey the same thing that Trump does and get away with it, if for no other reason, because Trump speaks in an extremely direct way.

I also kind of separate explicit quid pro quo from implicit quid pro quo, because the latter is just how most business is done. I think I also separate actual successful quid pro quo from, for lack of a better term, attempted quid pro quo. I think the two things might rise to different levels, in my mind.

I think I am making a pedantic distinction, and I’m not sure anything turns on it. But I will note that every member of Congress has a chance to vote on either impeachment or removal, and no member of the Supreme Court has that opportunity. Only one member of the Supreme Court plays any role, and he does so as an arbiter. He might be able to influence the outcome by biased referreeing, but I would not go so far as to call that “representation”.

I agree with everything said. As you point out, I don’t think it’s central to anything, anyway.

The reaction of the career officers who witnessed it call this into doubt. Civil servants and presidential lawyers who listened to the call immediately recognized it as unacceptable. DoD officials found the withholding of aid very unusual and several of them believed it was illegal at the time. I think it’s fine not to know going in whether or not this is business as usual, but we also need to update our priors in light of evidence and expert analysis. At this poin, believing that it’s no big deal is untenable.

I guess I should have been more clear. I had always assumed that this thing sort of thing happens all the time and that it was not a big deal. I believe it is a big deal now because of the person in question. I believe it would be a big deal in the future because to do otherwise would be academically and politically dishonest. I believe it has become a big deal.

Much less do I think such a thing would have been seen as grounds for impeachment with most, but perhaps not all, prior presidents.

[b]I think the actual reason was that a list of reasons is not poetic: it’s cumbersome and mechanical, and the Founders cared more about style than precision. For a legal document, the Constitution is strikingly florrid. The contracts I work on for piddly little transactions have much more explict language, they are boring and dry and often longer than the Constitution, but they are very, very precise. The Constitution isn’t like that, it’s written for a popular audience, meant to sound grand and elegant.

This is related to my “legitimacy” argument: a well-drafted contract would make a terrible founding document, not because it’s not clear and precise, but because it wouldn’t be read by the public or quoted in grand proncouncements. A poem makes a better founding document in practice.
[/b]

In that case, it is my opinion that the Constitution should have been cumbersome and mechanical. Laws are meant to be cumbersome and mechanical, most bills go dozens to hundreds of pages. You have the SCOTUS, which theoretically exists only to settle legal matters with the Constitution as a guide to doing so, with the small problem that the Constitution doesn’t say anything.

If the Founders had aspirations to be playwrights, then they should have pursued that occupation instead.

Faithful execution of the office requires good faith reporting of facts. It’s true that certain lies may be permissible (e.g. lying about military maneuvers that make citizens safer), but Trumps lying is not of that kind.

The Constitution speaks nothing of good faith reporting of facts. If faithful execution of office was simply interpreted as, “Do what you think is best for the country,” you can do that whilst also lying. You could lie because you think that the country believing the lie is better than what the truth is.

This came up earlier in this thread, where Urwrong made a similar argument. He later conceded that arresting a candidate on false charges with the intent to change the ourcome would count as electoral interference. But then your argument still applies: voters can ignore the arrest, can vote how the like despite it. So are you taking a stronger position here and saying that even that would not be foreign interference in an election?

1.) That’s not what happened. Trump asked them to announce an investigation into the Bidens. To my understanding, he didn’t even ask them to actually conduct an investigation, just to say that they were.

2.) Trump would not be the one to arrest Biden and Biden would not be arrested in this country, even if arrest were the case.

But, if one President actually orders a political opponent to be thrown in jail on not only false charges, but charges that the President knows to be false, then yes, that would be foreign interference.

I should force you to rationalize describing Fox News as, “Alternative,” and, “Rogue,” before answering your question.

I suppose my, “Rationalization,” is twofold:

1.) No, they don’t.

2.) They would do more to prevent access to alternative forms of media. They would more seriously restrict the internet, for one thing. Perhaps require some sort of Government clearance to even access internet.

Follow. The. Money. What is your rationalization for thinking that the mainstream networks (which, I assume, you would not include Fox News in…even though they definitely are) are not all about that sweet, sweet cash?

Until recently, those were the words of the mainstream anchors. They still use them when referring to Rush Limbaugh and others.

Then you haven’t been watching very closely.

Google, Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter are doing exactly that and have been called to Congress to explain themselves. The mainstream cabal doesn’t have total control … yet. They still have to play the game of “it’s just corporations competing for money”.

And yet still they seem to have no real competition between them. They use the exact same words at the exact same time and always in the exact same political direction. They are exposed for anyone bothering to observe. Even Ted Koppel proclaimed that they are unified and biased and that actual journalism is dead. And Fox is a cable network.

The money leads to socialist/democrat agenda. George Soros ring any bells? Bill Gates? Mark Zuckerberg? Sergey Brin? Michael Bloomberg?

Just because someone is making money using a corporation, doesn’t mean they are capitalists. It merely means that the battle has yet to be won.

Saying it doesn’t make it true. They might be the, “Alternative major news network,” which is just to say the one that doesn’t lean left. I believe Limbaugh has the #1 radio program in the country, right? He’s Christina Aguilera to Fox News’ Britney Spears.

I guess I have to grant you that much. I most certainly haven’t. I don’t mind the news, don’t misunderstand, it’s just that none of those things are the news.

No, what those companies do is partially control the narrative on platforms that they themselves own. It’s no different than a hardware store in Peoria, Illinois putting a, “Make America Great Again,” poster in the window…the store just has a much smaller window. I do not dispute that they control the narrative on their own platforms, though.

What do you mean, “No real competition?” Fox is #1 because it has less meaningful competition. Do you mean competition in terms of different messaging? They don’t have competition for that because they are competing for the same target market, except MSNBC, which targets more left than something like CNN. CNN is the channel for you if you want to watch left-leaning media whilst convincing yourself that you are watching moderate and impartial media.

Anyway, they say some of the same things because they have the same target market. They just want to be perceived as better at saying those things than are the other guys.

Marketing 101. News, in its current state, is fundamentally no different than any other product.

The money way well lead to that agenda, but that’s only because that is the political agenda of the majority of the owners/operators of those news outlets. I’ve said that already.

That happens to be illegal in the US. They have been given “utility status”, meaning that they are to ONLY provide for communication. Any tampering with content, especially in a bias capacity takes away their utility status and puts them into “media status”. They are allowed to ban for abuse, but that is it. They claim to Congress that they have no bias whatsoever (a clear lie), but their excuse is that an “algorithm” dictates who to ban or shadow ban. That excuse is met with a capitulating, complacent, “Oh, okay. There must be nothing we can do then” by the left wing representatives.

Whoa. I think you might need to brush up a bit on US media. Fox stands alone against the 5 major US leftist media broadcast outlets; MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN plus the newspaper sources; New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Bloomberg, and many others. Recently the Epoch Times has joined forces with the conservatives.

But Fox doesn’t merely get higher ratings. It is also rated as most trustable by the general population (accounting for its higher ratings when anything important occurs), despite the extreme liberal propaganda machine. CNN has become so biased that its ratings have fallen almost off of the chart. Bezos was caught on tape commanding his reporters to report only Trump negativity (similar with Bloomberg). Actual journalism is not allowed.

They are not just “saying the same things”. If they were reporting the exact truth, they would be just saying the same things. Instead, they are saying the exact same words in unison. When the “quid quo pro” issue arose, it was understandable that they all used that same term. But when the DNC discovered that it wasn’t selling well, they ALL, simultaneously changed to “extortion” then to “bribery”. They settled on “bribery” because that is the word used in the Constitution. They were and remain in sync throughout and have for a long time. I think since before I was born.

That is NOT genuine independent news reporting. That is collaborating. And via secret agreement, is called “a cabal”. And is anti-trust illegal in the US. They WILL be broken up or they will conquer the USA into socialism.

Peek outside your bubble of belief for a moment.

Okay, so you have a company operating within the fringes of legality to promote its interests. Is that what you’re suggesting? If so, good, we did Marketing 101 earlier and now we are into Business Management 101. Some businesses operate within the confines of laws and regulations more strictly than others, of course.

You’ll excuse me for not taking the time to list every major news channel. I didn’t discuss newspapers because we weren’t talking about newspapers.

You’ll also forgive me for not giving a sweet fuck what the general population considers most trustworthy. Is that the same general population that believes that the God of Abraham is more likely to be the case than not? Yeah, that’s not going to hold a ton of water with me for anything except a statistical talking point, which is itself fine, I like statistics.

Speaking of, the poll that I assume you are referencing pertained to channels that those polled watched three, or more, times per week. Newsflash: People tend to watch the news stations that they trust the most. I’m shocked. Astounded. You could knock me over with a feather right now.

I made no claim of actual journalism taking place at any of these outlets. If forced to make a claim, I would make a claim to the contrary.

They are literally saying the same exact words verbatim? Are you sure that they are not saying substantially similar things with the exact same keywords? I could buy that. I would expect sources that fundamentally agree with one another to say substantially similar things with the same keywords. I guess you don’t watch sports channels that often if you think this is in any way unique. Do the sports stations also have a cabal?

I made no claim that they do independent genuine news reporting. I believe that my claim was the precise opposite. I believe I said something like:

[b]

[/b]

It’s news based entertainment. They aren’t selling news, they are selling a skewed and biased version of the news to people who are more than happy to buy it with their eyes, ears and time. Every segment, or at least most, is not straight reporting…it’s also an advertising effort to keep people watching.

So, you propose that the agreement is so secret that a random dude posting on a sub-forum on a niche message board knows about it, but most other people do not?

It seems that you are trying to mount an indefensible position without a target. Did you have a saleable point?

I have made my point. If my position is indefensible, then let’s see you prove it wrong or, at a minimum, inconsistent.

The gentleman speaker ‘pavlonianmodel146’ yields, and the gentleman speaker ‘obsrvr524’ is given four minutes and thirty seconds.

And what point was that?

You made statements. I made statements in opposition to your statements. Start there and then come back to me, I see no need to repeat myself.