No, you’re an intellectually bankrupt loser who is falling back on semantics because you have nothing substantive to contribute.
Thanks for the clarification.
Not a problem. Got a problem with anything else, I’ll be glad to try and help you out.
But I draw the line at these semantic disputes. Someone says something perhaps a bit imprecise and you know good and well what he means and have no response, so you fall back on quibbling over the precise definition of the term used, then you’re on your own. Or maybe alone with FYL, see how that suits you.
Followed by the 800th handwave. Am I sensing a pattern?
You made the dishonest claim that I posted selective quotations from an article, despite the fact that as anyone can scroll up and see, I didn’t post any quotations from the article at all. I posted a link to the article in its entirety. This isn’t difficult to understand provided one isn’t intentionally trying to misunderstand it.
Your “imprecision” was not a bug, it was a feature. It was a dishonest attempt to misrepresent me. You weren’t “imprecise”. You were “lying”.
You played the semantics card first. So to speak.
Possibly. What happened with the other 799 big news items? How many of them panned out? How about keeping track of this to see if anything comes of it? No, when this fizzles out you’ll have moved on to something else.
Hey, I heard that Jim Comey was recently seen blowing his nose in the same manner that he did before the last Big News was released. Tick, tick … Boom!
The difference between you quoting part of the article or paraphrasing part of it is not germane to the point I was making, or to the point you were.
To the contrary, you were being a bit dishonest yourself.
While it’s true that investigators are looking into some suspicious money transfers at the time of the election, this is part of a broader pattern of suspicious payments that stretch back 10 years or so, as I pointed out. That latter fact makes the notion that the election-timed ones relate to Trump-Russia collusion less likely than would be the case if the only suspicious transfers were the election-timed ones. So naturally you omitted that part of the story, so as to give your “very important” claim more credibility than it would otherwise have had. (I say “naturally” because this has been your pattern throughout this and related threads.)
When I pointed out that you were omitting important context, you had no substantive response, so you needed to fall back to harping on whether the word “quote” was used imprecisely, despite the fact that this did not make the slightest difference one way or the other to the point I was making. As noted earlier, this type of semantic gamesmanship is the refuge of the intellectually bankrupt scoundrel, who can’t forthrightly defend his position in an honest and substantive manner.
I prefer to let ongoing investigations go on until they are complete, rather than declare what the final result is with every news release related to it. But that’s just me. We will see what comes of all of this, when the investigation is complete and the results are made public. Any declarations of certainty on either side prior to that are foolhardy in my opinion.
To be fair, I’m not sure that I’ve seen you contribute anything beyond engaging in sophistry. I suspect that, in your mind, you’re just correcting ignorance by pointing out things that you believe that people are overlooking - and in some cases that may be a correct - but on the whole, it does seem more like you’re doing it mostly in the aim of diverting your own attention away from the forest, by focusing on each and every tree and trying to come up with reasons to doubt its existence.
I do appreciate your statement that I’m the best poster in these threads. On the counter, though, you are not and you’d do better to read more, post less, and trust that most of the people you’re responding to are aware that they’re simplifying in their descriptions of things they have read.
Well I disagree with you about this (as about much else connected to this matter). C’est la vie.
Nonetheless, notwithstanding this post, my earlier statement stands, and I think you are one of the best posters posting to these threads, and - in marked contrast to most of the other regular posters - your comments tend to be substantive and worth reading.
Aren’t you two tired yet?
Not really. It doesn’t speak specifically to collusion at all. It does suggest that Russian attempts to influence US politics have been going on for some time, but I don’t think anyone disputes that. If anything, it increases the likelihood that they actively influenced the 2016 election.
So then, given that all the evidence points in that direction, the next questions involve who knew about it and when.
I’m not sure if when you said “influence US politics” you really mean “influence US elections”. If so, then I don’t agree that it suggests that, unless you can show that these payments are timed to match US elections. There could be any number of things that the Russians are up to beyond influencing US elections.
If you really just meant “influence US politics” then I don’t know if I agree about that either (i.e. that it’s shown from these payments) but it’s irrelevant because it seems pretty obvious that all countries try to influence each others’ politics in areas of interest to them.
So, to be clear you’re faulting me for being incorrect about the things that you’re assuming that I intended to write, but didn’t.
Bannon apparently confirmed that he discussed the Trump Jr. collusion meeting with White House officials.
This is interesting considering Bannon previously claimed that:
“Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad s***, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately.”
This indicates that Bannon knew about the meeting, yet did not follow his own advice and did not call the FBI immediately.
Note the presence of a link to the entire article, and not selected quotes.
No, to the contrary. I think you wrote exactly what you intended to write and omitted what you intended to omit.
The reason you intended to omit the things you omitted is that this enabled you to present a misleading picture, in which the pattern of suspicious Russian payments seems obviously related to the 2016 election.
So what you’re saying is you’re faulting him for being incorrect about the things that he didn’t write, which which you think (completely without evidence) were deliberately omitted for malicious and deceptive reasons.
F-P, the weight of all that water you’re carrying for DJT is obviously causing physical and mental discomfort. You may wish to give it a break for a few days, let your body and mind recoup.
Or give us a break for a few days, hey?
Consider that you’re seeing things that aren’t there. I can say for certain that you are.