I get it, there are so many instances that you can’t figure out which one to choose! It all makes sense.
I have no issue with Beto getting ridiculed, and several posters in that thread did just that. That’s not what HD was doing, of course, so I have no idea why you brought it up. After you bring those cites (choose one from the many, many thousands you have in mind), maybe you can explain your comment here.
Or don’t! Just fuck off to your own Pit thread instead of white-knighting a poster who is too chickenshit to come to the Pit.
Russian troll factories do not give a single solitary shit about the SDMB. I would give even odds whether or not they are even aware of it. They have too much to do on Facebook and Twitter to worry about a tiny dying message board.
The SDMB makes its own trolls, better and cheaper than you can buy in Russia.
People believe a lot of things. Doesn’t make them true. I don’t know that board, but i know this one, and it’s obviously just not worth the paid trolls’ time.
Hey, octopus, you fetid pool of dung, although you are on my ignore list, others quoted you so I could see your mad linguistic skills. Do yourself a favor and learn when to use the third person plural form of the verb be.
The whole “quid pro quo” lifeline that Trump supporters are grasping is dumb. (Yes, there was a quid pro quo.) But even if there wasn’t. Even if there WASN’T, the so-called president of the US asking a foreign government, not the FBI, to investigate an American (political rival no less) for personal political gain is an impeachable action.
ETA: In my opinion, even if you left out the “for personal political gain” It’s still a violation of the oath of office, a violation of American principles, and impeachable.
Holy fuck. As if Zelensky didn’t know exactly what he had to do if he wanted to see that military assistance materialize. I’m not sure if HD can be that stupid, or if he can be that much of a troll, or if he really is that much of an asshole. I think all three.
I tend to agree with ThelmaLou most of the time that Ditka is not worth engaging. He is so boringly transparent. However, there are times when I feel it’s necessary, and today is one of those times.
The entire Trump cabal is hanging its hat on the “no quid pro quo!” argument, and when I see people getting sucked into this disingenuous line of discussion, I feel the need to point out that “quid pro quo” is not required for either the crime or for impeachment – only the “quid.” To allow Ditka’s line of thinking to propagate is to allow Trumpians to control the narrative. This we cannot do.
Ditka follows a very predictable way of engaging. He will always try to define the framework within which he wishes to have the discussion. (Guys!! What about the quid pro quo? What about the crime?) Bricker used to do this, too, although with a little more finesse than Ditka.
As noted above, Ditka usually accomplishes the hijack with his “what-about, what-about, what-about-bout-bout?” tactic as represented above (hummed in my mind to the William Tell Overture).
Try not to fall for it. If you’re going to engage him, make sure you do it on an accurate basis and not his dishonest reframing of any narrative. In other words, make sure you don’t become another turd in his Trumpian kitty litter box.
I hate to give him credit of any kind, but he’s really good at pulling people into his distorted world view. That makes him dangerous, and sometimes worth arguing against.
Ditka himself is a lost cause. But others are reading and forming opinions. It is to them I feel we must direct our discussions.
