I think you’re a little confused and haven’t been following along my friend.
This was in my first reply to you:
You’re arguing with someone who supports your main point.
So no one was insisting that an incorrect statement from a person MUST be a lie. Why do you insist that they did?
A bit of a side note, but I suspect that the uppermost consideration in Rudy’s mind right now is much the same as that of most other Trumpists who supported his election lies, namely, staying out of jail. This probably informs much of what he says and does as the entire house of cards collapses and the Orange One himself becomes fearful of consequences for the first time in his contemptible existence.
I’m not sure I’m following you. I was responding to your later post that contained this:
"…Your insistence that he honestly believed his claims but was simply incorrect is being made despite the fact that he has lied repeatedly on the subject…
…He was 100% without question lying. He has suffered massive legal problems because of his propensity to lie, and he will continue to do so. He will face them in this case as well, because others as aren’t willing to cover their eyes and ignore everything as you seem to be."
In addition to my earlier response, you seem to be making two other claims. One is that since he lied before he must be lying now. The other is that he did, in fact, lie multiple times before. While the first point would logically increase the likelihood that he lied, it does not mean he did so. But I’m not aware that he “lied repeatedly on the subject”. It is my opinion that he truly believed there was fraud and was calling it out. And, as I have been saying, being wrong does not equate to lying.
Great to have you back. Enjoy your dinner
Thanks.
I think that’s right.
No you’re not following me, clearly. It’s very simple.
I agree with you that he didn’t admit he was lying. But clearly he’s lying.
Those two things are not contradictions unless you subscribe to the insane notion that a habitual liar is not lying about something unless they admit that they’re lying.
No, I did not say that. I am saying that if someone is lying repeatedly about a subject, then it’s unreasonable to assume they are suddenly being honest absent evidence.
I… I can’t even. This is like someone saying they’ve never heard of the ocean.
This is from 2 years ago. I’m not going to dig up countless cites.
Here is how he treats this crap.
“It’s not my job in a fast-moving case to go out and investigate every piece of evidence that’s given to me,” Giuliani added. “Otherwise, you’re never going to write a story. You’re never going to come to a conclusion.”
Do you get it? He doesn’t care about claims being true or not. He just makes shit up. This is what he said under oath. He claims that there is definitive proof but has no idea if it’s true or not, because he doesn’t bother to check and it isn’t important that it’s true as long as he’s putting out the idea that there was election fraud. That’s lying. He has admitted for years that he lied.
He admitted in court, repeatedly, that he had no evidence of the fraud he loudly proclaimed outside. Lawsuit after lawsuit failed and was thrown out for an utter lack of evidence, yet he persisted in yammering about electoral fraud and accusing innocent pollworkers of committing it. Your choice: he’s senile, the stupidest MF ever spawned, or a liar.
ETA: Or perpetually drunk out of his mind.
The correct answer is
(E) All of the above
Got it. Thanks for the clarification. We’ll have to agree to disagree that RG is an habitual liar. He might be habitually wrong, but that’s not the same as habitually lying.
One thing being ignored in this thread is that just because someone might retract a statement in a court of law because they can’t substantiate it doesn’t mean that the statement is a lie, or even that is is factually incorrect. It simply mean that the person can’t meet the burden of proof at that particular point in time.
You are obviously a liar. Now, I can’t substantiate that, but that doesn’t mean I’m lying or that it is factually incorrect, I just can’t meet the burden of proof at this particular point in time.
As the person being called a liar, is it safe to assume that you are okay with that?
Moderating:
It’s not allowed in this forum to call a person a liar, even in attempting to make a point about lying. Please do not do this again.
I thought it painfully obvious that it was hypothetical. Apparently not. My apologies.
You’re not arguing moderation in this thread, are you? Please take my point and leave it at that. You still accused him of lying, and it’s not allowed, even under a hypothetical – which I think I made clear.
I haven’t been around for a good while and was wondering if the rule about calling a poster a liar had changed, and was about to message a mod. No need now. Thanks.
TriPolar, At this point, don’t you think it asking a mod to change your headline would be a good idea. Ironically, your statement/headline is itself a lie. Unless, of course, you can supply a cite to substantiate it.
Moderating:
The moderation for Disinfectus in this thread is not a basis for you to attack the OP’s thread title. You’re arguing semantics, and at this point, you’re baiting him. Stop now.
Mod has stepped in. I’m done with this nonsense.
Did Rudy know he was speaking of things that were not true? Possibly but quite likely not in my opinion. Rudy is like my half wit brother in law who reposts things on Facebook like “Joe Biden is using the Ukraine war to launder money.” How that works when money isn’t changing hands matters not to him. What matters is that if he sees a post that smears Biden, he shares it. So Giuliani listens to all the conspiracy theories and shares every single one to pour gasoline on the fire. Does he believe it? I have no idea and neither does he. He simply repeats whatever nonsense he is told without thinking.
Morally, I think it’s reprehensible to spread misinformation without trying to confirm it. If someone tells me Mrs. Jones is a prostitute and I spread that rumor without trying to confirm it, she has every right to sue me for defamation (unless of course she is indeed a prostitute). Maybe he believed the story, maybe he didn’t. But either way, he spread it and should be held to account.
Well, that’s exactly what he admitted:
“My recollection, he said, ‘We’ve got lots of theories, we just don’t have the evidence,’” Bowers told the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack at Tuesday’s hearing.