So what did we learn from the Rittenhouse trial?

@SubstantialKick No nation on earth can even find twelve women that agree on everything.

@SubstantialKick No one is required to agree on anything... in a democracy.

@MarkPaul We are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

@MarkPaul Democracy = compromise/accountability; diplomacy. 🖕🤣

@MarkPaul We should all agree on some basic ethics, like, it's never OK to commit election fraud. Right?

@IronHamster Or, to claim election fraud when none exists because none can be proven... right?

@MarkPaul Like Hillary did in 2016 and Gore did in 2000?

@IronHamster And, like that fat idiot in 2020... oh what's his name... you know who I mean... he was impeached twice. What's his name? 👂

@MarkPaul The guy that was needlessly and unjustifiably impeached by corrupt Democrats that refuse to hold Biden accountable for ACTUALLY doing what they accused Trump of?

@IronHamster But we should all agree that claiming election fraud when none exists and none can be proven is wrong, right? And, that claiming the nuclear threat from North Korea is eliminated when no nuclear weapons have been eliminated is wrong, right? And, that COVID isn't real when you know it is real is wrong, right? And, who was supposed to pay for "the wall?"

Can we agree that neither of you is going to change the mind of the other and that this back and forth is pointless?

@SW-User Yeah. It's like trying to tell a shoplifter that stealing is wrong.

@SW-User Are you kidding me? Haven't you seen the compelling evidence he has presented. I'm about ready to change my mind... you know... based on the evidence.

@MarkPaul Change your mind or don't. He can change his mind or refuse as well. Either way the world is still left in the same condition it was in before you two began arguing and has neither changed for the better or the worse up to this point in your argument and the back and forth still remains pointless.

@SW-User You remind me of me when a fight is about to break out in a bar. I always get between the opponents and keep them from hurting each other until I get two bucks from everyone watching.

@SW-User So, you're suggesting there should be 0.0 discussion because discussing anything where people don't agree is pointless and who wants to discuss things anyway. It makes me wonder though... why are you on a site like this? I suppose you just want to prevent people from discussing things on a public forum Internet website... as a public service, perhaps? So, you're a do-gooder.

@IronHamster I'm the guy getting in between the opponents saying "Its a colossal waste of time and energy to keep doing this" lol

@MarkPaul No. EofI is just pointing out that when I argue with an idiot some folks only see an idiot fight, so it's totally fucking pointless to talk sense into the senseless.

@MarkPaul No, I am not saying things can't be discussed, I'm saying that arguing the same point over and over in an attempt to change your opponent's mind so that you get to have your view validated or seem like its the only correct one, is pointless. Neither opponent will change their minds and their opinions still remain just that, opinions. In some cases its wiser to agree to disagree and move onto another discussion elsewhere.

@SW-User You mean that's how you like to do it and you want to mandate everyone do what you do. Thanks for sharing and clarifying your perspective, but that's not how I operate. I hope you can accept that.

@MarkPaul I made what's called an observation and expressed it. There's a galaxy of difference between an observation and a mandate.

@SW-User You seemed fairly adamant that your so called "observation expression" was how you think everyone should operate. Again, I don't intend to operate that way. I hope you can accept that.

@MarkPaul
Did I tell you how you should or should not operate on here?

@SW-User You asked me to agree to your premise setting the table to mandate how everyone should behave. I don't intend to have you dictate my behaviour. Are we clear?