Echinoderm

Stewart's line about how can another administration be more absurd than the Bush administration dated surprisingly badly.

Does it want the hose again?

This sounds like a good way to turn an ally against them.

Does Trump have any leverage on Kavanaugh? He played close to the line with the rules to get him appointed for life, but choosing a person likely to be ideologically symathetic is more of a mutually beneficial arrangement than a favour.

It feels like the best way to get someone who is in a secure position of power like that offside is to tell them they have to do what you say or that they owe you. Kavanaugh can just as easily say Trump is disqualified, and never be told he owes anyone again.

Are you a bot? Because that was a rambling word-salad with no discernible point.

A certain portion of the population seems to already deify anything Trump says.

It depends on what the author was actually trying to say. I've never pretended to know what their intention was, and they haven't added any further commentary to let us know.

You asked why the comment was getting downvoted. I responded with how the comment could be interpreted in a way that warrants downvotes.

You seem to have taken that proposed explanation very personally for some reason.

Way too harsh there.

What if someone wants to be a cripple? Wouldn’t healing them ruin their self esteem?

Your earlier comment was not "what if someone wants to role-play a cripple?" If it was meant to mean that, I don't understand the relevance of healing hurting their self esteem. Whose self-esteem? The player's, or the character's?

The response made sense by querying why would a character want to be crippled, not why a player would find it interesting to do so.

I just got here, but I'd guess it's because their comment reads like they are saying "no, facists aren't the bad guys, both sides show contempt for the weak sometimes!" It's a false balance fallacy.

I'm not sure if that was the intention, or it was just unfortunately worded.

Personally, I've always been partial to Nikola Tesla's alternating current.

Oh, he absolutely should be told to shut his mouth.

The point is the courts have to be a lot more careful about circumscribing a right that has quite strong existing protections versus something that does not.

That's not comparing the same thing. Beating the crap out of someone is inherently illegal, free speech is not.