Many Democrats are that because it's what everyone at the union house is . . .
and they are not NAZIs, they are just locals.
Today is a day for supporters of the President to be magnaminous and assure those in distress that it's all going to be OK.
I can disagree about politics, but that doesn't mean I like to see a guy who is a concern fag wigging out about nothing.
so we need to share the love today.
we all agreed that you weren't going to post this crap anymore, about 'consensus'.
Eeveryone else already decided that is bullshit.
except for the consensus that there can be no consensus.
but you already knew that. you only posted this to troll for a response.
the consensus of no consensus, which is the only one possible here, also has an obvious collorary: as there can be no 'consensus' there also, thus, can be no 'cracking' of the board.
that narrative is only used (and obviously I'm speaking in a tense of feigned expert, to ape the way that these one posters or shill team discord farmers speak in the 'expert' or 'no-it-all' tense of 'braggart', a subdialect of 'chan-culture' comm-word dividors (and shevling, or cubbies).
so the cubbies do their commchat skat-talk drip-drop of chatterous nonsensical operative noun placement with verbs (and prepositions) that are designed to be used by the repeaters in the audience, so that they will either say or feel what the post directs, even if the post is not even truthful, but just opinion or outright misinformation.
so they want a 'dvided' board, so they wrote a play about it. And they did this drama production over the last few months.
but, as there can be no real consensus, there also thus can be no 'board cracking'
I'm being sarcastic.
'we all agreed' and then to say that is impossible is supposed to be humorous irony.
not forcing but doing a bit that shows the hilarity of the idea of a consensus here.
another aspect of this place is that if someone insists that it be 'such', very many others will say 'unt ahh'