ILikePie5

I microdose LSD. Sometimes I just get messages from the realm of the divine. I can't help that shrooms elves told me you were scum. Maybe the elves lied to me, but they usually are right. I'm down for a supa lynch. Let's see if we can get others on board, and I doubt grey parrot cares about my opinion on who to VIG, particularly when he seems that favor conservative actions using the VIG

I don't know man. I want a lynch DP1. Certainly willing to go pie or supa. I keep flipping as to each one I prefer. Supa even admits to reading the thread but couldn't be bothered to make a half hearted shit post when he was reading through. 

I refuse to claim off the accusation of lurking. As an fyi, I responded to your question at 2:40, you were spamming useless emojis. Am i supposed to analyze every single emoji

I think Binger is lean town. Compared to his scum play he is much more aggressive, and I think that is town

VTL Pie

I'm not lurking, I answered a question and got a haircut and didn't respond because nothing new was added. Pie is buddying incorrect logic.

I like maximizing town directed kills, but I understand why people are usually conservative with vigs. 

Take your shot every night. I know this is controversial but my philosophy is to maximize the ration of town directed vs scum directed kills

Vig

Let's lynch supa. He is active just answering two of our questions but ignoring the game

SUPADUDZ's THIRD of PIE is lol is PIe's SCUM tell

Picking fights with the new guy is notably anti-town.

SUPADUDZ's FIRST LAW of PiE states that Pie is only active in games where he is SCUM or power role.  Since this game looks VANILLA heavy, Pie is likely SCUM.

I am very bothered by how pie's responses to my accusation seem to imply he knows I am town. 

Read Pie's last to messages to me. How does he know I am town falsely accusing him with no evidence and not scum falsely accusing because I don't care about evidence? 

For on pie

My vote is still on chris though but hard fos

I am not your typical liberal. I am also openly elitest. Most of us are not open about it. Too many of my comrades apologize for their elitest ways, but imagine what state the country would be in, if we had allowed plebs to run the economy instead of Keynesians

Also I am just tossing this out. I think Pie and Chris are scum, based on my gut. I know it is probably a stupid assumption this early on, by I am working under the assumption pie and Chris are scum until proven otherwise.

I'd expect many of the senators to change their minds on the bill eventually if they are debating the bill for a long time in DC.  If they can get a majority vote in one way or another, then the bill becomes law.

The democrats when Trump had the house and the senate wouldn't have the votes to make a filibuster.  They all may vote no on a tax cut, but all of the GOP would vote yes on the tax cut.  The dems can't do anything about it since they don't have the votes.  What is a filibuster?

Ill claim if needed.

Easy out is saying you are entitled to sexually harass someone or defend Trump for doing it because another user on a wevsite believes reality has simulated origins.

You want to do character claims and popcorn this. If you are familiar with the terminology

Whiteflame will be hard to figure out, because he acts like a robot in my opinion. 

Why supa? I was thinking of pressuring whiteflame or Lunatic early. Supa crossed my mind too, but what is your philosophy here?

The rules state to avoid name calling. Just to let you know

More like supa cool

A person receiving government welfare cannot be ungrateful yet still deserve the welfare?

Note that this prompt has nothing to do with need.

So this is a No? Sorry but I'm specifically looking for yes or no answers with a justification.

So far your response is the only one in this thread that is rooted in rational thought.

To the original prompt,

Yes or no?

When Donald Trump was President, there was a time when he had the house and the senate.  Trump could have enacted a bunch of right wing legislation and the democrats couldn't stop them since they wouldn't have the votes.

And when the people said that they didn't consent?

Furthermore, I have talked to guys and girls that I find sexually attractive, that doesn't mean I want to f*ck them. Typically it's only people I'm attracted to personalities, but then I don't care much about sex.

Um... if you admit to doing it, then it is indeed legally responsive, and unless he can demonstrate that it was just "hot air" it is an assumption to say that it was. And yes, I have been in a locker room, and no people didn't randomly admit to sexually assaulting people. 

Then give me evidence of both, I was only discussing Trump - what is the evidence that both have committed sexual assualt 

Give me precise evidence of everything he did, then I'll answer. I would do it myself, but I am currently busy.

He... word for word, said, he would grab females by their genitals, that is literally textbook sexual assault - though its funny how predictable your response is.

queue the video montage of the 0.01% of liberals who said somewhere on tape “believe all women”*

So.. are you just ignoring the fact that Trump admitted to committing sexual assault, and his only defence was "I never claimed to be a perfect person"?

Well, I seem to remember Oba'a saying something like "There comes a time when you have earned enough pudding."