>>3053924 (lb)

What’s the advantage in engaging with you, since you seem to have preselected matters you want to use to support your pretext?

Incidentally, matters you seem to think are cardinal dogmas of /qr/ belief are nothing of the kind. There are no cardinal matters of belief here, unless they be a general agreement that much of our world has been turned into a cesspit of systemic corruption by or with the connivance of those entrusted with representing the common people.

Your preselected topics might have some importance, or they might not. You, however, have no context within which to make any such determinations, and you’re unlikely to develop that contextual understanding because you’ve already revealed your conclusions.

But if you want to explore a questionable aspect of No Name’s demise, go ask John Kasich why he used the words “put to death” during an interview on tv. If you are indeed a “journalist,” why do you think that no subsequent retraction, clarification, or comment has been made in respect of his rather eyebrow raising language?

Rather than adopt the a priori position that any suggestion of criminality in high places meriting extraordinary treatment is ludicrous, why not ask why Sen Graham quizzed Kavanaugh about the laws of war and system of military justice during a SC confirmation hearing? Are you aware of how peculiar, even unprecedented, that line of questioning might be considered within the setting?