That's where your wrong, it's not my job to make a case to those that will not change there stance regardless of what the facts are. If you choose to ignore it that's your choice and not my problemSo, I challenge you to stand behind the implications of what you say, and make the case that this actually has some specific impact on some particular important thing that someone might care about. Your response is to accuse me of being someone who will never change my stance regardless of the facts.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Because the facts that I have laid out make the case for me, there is no point going further down that path. , that's not my job. You can choose not to accept the facts that's your right.
I think you're both being a little willfully obstinante. He's asking you why it is important who the president invites to the white house. Al Sharpton isn't the first guy with legal troubles that has been asked to dinner, and democrats and republicans have done similar things in the past.
The real question is, will it matter? And if you're saying yes it matters, the logical follow up is 'why'?
It seems to me that you're saying it matters because the president shouldn't associate with such people. Not because of any real-world tangible complications, but as a matter of decorum.