No, his point is very clear. He’s just bad at hiding it and /or making us think it is something else.
But you have no side to the “debate”. Trump has taken that from you. Your side lies. Constantly. Daily. By the minute. And they lie to hurt people.
Therefore, any cite from a right wing source, especially one from Individual-1 himself (as in post 241) is, quite rightly looked at from that lens. There is no debate anymore, Ditka: we can refuse to debate citations coming from known liars, even if the known liar is the President of the United States. Your cite? It’s rubbish.
Your side lies and they do so to hurt people and I… and tens of millions… refuse to give such ideas merit by debating them.
IDGAF. Do you understand that? If you “refuse to debate” and leave my points to remain uncontested for everyone who is less partisan than you who comes along and reads this thread, I’m totally good with that.
When “factual accuracy” stops being so “partisan” for your team, I’ll be glad to debate. Until then, your people… especially in the White House… speak evil to commit evil.
You cited a fucking Trump press release, man. Give it like five minutes, your point will be refuted by Trump on his fucking twitter feed.
So you’re saying you plan on hiding behind this sidetrack for the rest of the thread, rather than directly responding to what is said?
To “what was said” in the post that received that response? HAHAHA! HAHAHA! Hahahahahaha!
No, I don’t feel the need to respond further to such a juvenile and fact-free post that it could have been written by BPC.
If there are other posts that I feel I have a response for or want to share my thoughts on, yes, I’ll respond to those directly.
Do you feel a neutral, unpartisan person would find Trump to be a credible source of anything?
It doesn’t take being less partisan to take anything Trump does as a good faith action, it takes being firmly partisan in his direction.
What, should I put more effort into pointing out that the guy citing a Trump press release is either intentionally or unintentionally spreading nonsensical and dishonest propaganda? I figure at this point anything beyond “you’re wrong” is kinda wasted effort.
And the first bullet point of that press release was
which is objectively false.
A press release is a pretty weak cite for starters, but when it leads off like that, its value as a cite drops to zero.
No, and neither should anyone else.
Seriously, what’s so hard about ignoring them? Why not let posters like that just drop their partisan “gotchas” into the thread and the rest of us keep on topic? Instead, it becomes thirty posts of inane drivel, trying to get through to someone who didn’t come here to be educated, and is just trying to disrupt the discussion?
And thanks to those of us who can’t let a falsehood lay there unchallenged (over and over), they’re succeeding.
Have you considered that the $1.6 billion and the $1 are not actually the same thing, and Pelosi and Schumer are actually in agreement with each other?
That’ll earn you a warning for insults, Hurricane Ditka. Don’t do it again.
“Aliens are shooting mind control rays into our heads to control us every day. If you refuse to debate this point with me, it means that I win and I am right.”
I’m reminded of the guy who argued that the Bush administration wasn’t torturing people; his proof was that the Bush administration said it wasn’t torturing people.
I did consider it, but I’m pretty sure they’re both talking about money for steel bollard physical barriers on the southern border. Do you think they’re talking about different things?
No. However, you constantly refuse to acknowledge a simple truth, Pelosi was talking about the entire $5 billion wall in an off-the-cuff comment. She was not talking about the $1.6 billion proposal the includes a partial wall along with more personnel, more technology, etc. to which she has already agreed. Latching onto a single remark in a microphone-in-her-face quickie question while ignoring her actual thoughts and actions throughout this kerfuffle is a clear sign that you are refusing to discuss the matter in good faith. It is about as useful as one of your opponents simply repeating that the whole issue boils down to Trump declaring that he would accept the mantle of a shutdown–something that is closer to factual.
ProTip: When one cites the guy who cost an online betting site $250k because their over/under for the number of lies said by him in an 8-minute speech was too low @ 3.5, the rest of the argument better be rock-solid.
ProTip2: But, wait, it can’t because it’s based on a lie.
Yes. As I understand it, the funding approved in the Senate bill for 2019 is for the same purpose as the funds were approved for border security in 2018, which Pelosi and Schumer both voted for.
Stupid’s forever but ignorance can be fixed. Then there’s willful ignorance…