monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

In moments like these you reveal your apparently deep-seated prejudices and fixed ideas about things you can neither prove nor disprove. (things which you habitually later deny) .

you missed the essential point.

I often get the impression that your concept of "disciplined discourse" is merely an effort to force your interlocutor to accept your frame of reference and your terms for acceptable arguments in any discussion.

Democrat Blames OWN PARTY For Rise in Anti-Semitism

Perhaps the most honest reaction to the anti-Semitic attack came from a member of the Democratic Party. Former New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind said what most pundits are afraid to say, that anti-Semitism originates with members of Mr. Hikind’s own party, the Democrats:

Hikind is correct. Antisemitism is coming from the Democratic Party and the left. Even more than the Democrats and leftists who are anti-Semitic, feeding the hatred is the fact that Democrats and leftists who are not anti-Semitic cowardly refuse to expose and/or fight the Antisemitism rampant in their ranks.

Dov Hikind is correct. But I will take it further. Any Jew who votes for a Democratic is showing either a total lack of knowledge or no concern for Antisemitism. Because with their votes, they are feeding the Antisemitism of the Democratic Party.

A Texas judge has ordered Alex Jones and his Infowars hoax website to pay more than $100,000 in court costs and legal fees, marking the latest court victory for a Sandy Hook family suing Jones for his promotion of conspiracy theories about the 2012 elementary-school shooting.

Jones and Infowars are being sued by Neil Heslin, whose 6-year-old son was killed in the Newtown, Connecticut, shooting. On Dec. 20, Travis County Judge Scott Jenkins granted a motion for sanctions and legal expenses against Jones and Infowars, ordering them to pay $65,825 for ignoring a court order about providing documents and witnesses. In another ruling issued that same day in Heslin’s case, Jenkins denied an Infowars motion to dismiss the case and ordered Jones and Infowars to pay an additional $34,323.80, for a combined total of $100,148.80 levied against Jones and Infowars in a single day.

Added to an earlier October order against Infowars, Jones and his outlet have been ordered to pay $126,023.80 over the case, even before it reaches trial.

An honest Democrat...

In 1997, Hikind was indicted by the U.S. Attorney for allegedly receiving $40,000 in funding from the Council of Jewish Organizations of Borough Park (COJO) in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars in state grant money. Hikind was acquitted, while his co-defendant, an official of the organization, Rabbi Elimelech Naiman, was found guilty. The former operations director of COJO, Paul Chernick, pled guilty in a plea agreement.

In 2013, Hikind was alleged to have routinely failed to disclose payments he received from Maimonides Hospital for advertising on his syndicated show.[29] The payments were subsequently investigated by Governor Andrew Cuomo's aborted Moreland Commission. Hikind was accused of arranging jobs in government for friends and family members.

...stranger things have happened.

Hikind wore blackface during the 2013 Purim celebration.

Happy New Year, Alex.

Nolte: Rachel Maddow’s Lawyer Responds to OAN Lawsuit with ‘Alex Jones Defense’

Maddow lawyer Theodore J. “Ted” Boutrous Jr. argued that the liberal host was clearly offering up her “own unique expression” of her views to capture what she saw as the “ridiculous” nature of the undisputed facts.

“Her comment, therefore, is a quintessential statement ‘of rhetorical hyperbole, incapable of being proved true or false,’” he said.

There he is, straight up admitting she engages in “rhetorical hyperbole, incapable of being proved true or false.”

Good grief, she’s the primetime star of a NEWS network!

So what we have here is the biggest “star” at NBC News essentially using the same defense as Alex Jones.

Hikind wore blackface during the 2013 Purim celebration.

Quote:

I often get the impression that your concept of "disciplined discourse" is merely an effort to force your interlocutor to accept your frame of reference and your terms for acceptable arguments in any discussion.

Sure. But only in aid of discourse that is more worthwhile for all involved. For example, claims ought to be attended by evidence for them. Terms used ought to be clarified. Discussions ought not to fly off in irrelevant directions. There's nothing oppressive in such demands though more is demanded, certainly.

I just gave you two rather simple questions to help clarify what you'd said and what you think. You've answered neither of them. Why would you avoid that? I truly don't get it. If you have the confidence in your convictions, why would you not wish to argue them as clearly and cogently as possible?

If I had ANY experience of your adherence to these prescriptions I might take you seriously.

David Fahrenthold
@Fahrenthold
We have now talked to 49 undocumented immigrants who worked for
@realdonaldtrump
. They worked at 11 different properties, doing everything from hauling grapes for Trump wine to ironing Trump’s own underclothes.
Even while @realdonaldtrump
was attacking immigrants just like them.

We have now talked to 49 undocumented immigrants

You know better than that.

that it is easy for a lying President to make conspiracy theories believable and real.