So apparently Chuck Schumer still has not posted anything about the Comey indictment

[Ilikepurple]

53. Assuming your conclusion in your premise then denigrating my understanding is not really an argument.

It’s no very clear that OP was finding a reason to complain. It was just an observation that was also probably a criticism. In your analysis, are all criticisms merely finding reasons to complain. I don’t know what we are doing here if not to be critical of the issues in US politics. It’s also as if you think any criticism of Democratic leader messaging constitutes ignorance of other issues. Weaponization of the Justice Department is a serious issue that matters. It’s okay to question silence. There may be a tactical reason for Schumer’s silence or maybe OP is mistaken and Schumer has spoken out about that. If you made either of those points, they would be salient, but instead you chose to discount it with a term I rarely hear outside of attempts to silence other democratic voices. “Purity test” is a loved term because some believe its utterance is itself an argument and others use it as signal to the like minded.

Your argument is basically criticism of Democrats is a purity test regardless the form it takes, unless it’s criticism of other democrats who are critical of the party leaders. Criticism in itself is not a test. It’s often not evaluative of anything other than a specific thought or action. Criticism is generally given so someone can correct their understanding before a test. It’s also how represent Government works.

Also, I’m guessing you know that I, along with most on this board, probably read enough news to know some of the important issues of the day. If some of those are “real” and some are not according to your judgment, it might be good to enlighten us. Your response is unnecessarily dismissive and not much better than “if you don’t know, I’m not going to tell you.” I’m amazed how many argumentative comments are not backed by actual arguments.