Mueller's Patton the back (investigation thread v. 22)

[Falsedawn]

I won't say always but he generally includes some small measure of personal input.

You post these shitstain sources with no comment for one reason. I won't elaborate because it's a waste of my time trying to prove a point to the likes of you on this subject but it's enough for me to know you're a full on troll. Saves me time.

This is also the guy who tried to tell a lawyer that he didn't know anything about the law.

 

[waiguoren]

Hmm. I'm asking what writers you read regularly and disagree with regularly.

I disagree with everyone I read. Here are some political types I read sometimes:

Jonathan Chait
Paul Krugman
Mark Penn
Susan Page
Tucker Carlson
Robert Reich
....

Haha.

Yeah. There's more too.

I think you're pushing the trolling too far with this kind of thing. Not plausible enough to get a bite.

That is my sincerely held belief. You're inferring motivations again. That's a bad habit of yours. Carry on.

 

[Andy Capp]

Typically it's less than a sentence. I'll start adding less than a sentence to my "copy pasta "and I'm sure you'll be satisfied.





Right, the president's attorney is a "shitstain source". You seem like a very balanced guy.



<{ByeHomer}>

See? No one is this bad at logic.

Edit:

I disagree with everyone I read.

Not surprised if the above is indicative of your ability to reason.

 

[ShadowRun]

How come this POS doesn’t have an active investigation and receives half of a mil ?

 

[waiguoren]

This is also the guy who tried to tell a lawyer that he didn't know anything about the law.

No, I just pointed out that he made an elementary error.

But go on, libel away!

 

[waiguoren]

See? No one is this bad at logic.

I posted the comments of the president's attorney. You said my posting came from a "shitstain source". You can do better. I believe in you.

 

[Falsedawn]

No, I just pointed out that he made an elementary error.

But go on, libel away!

For it to be libel, it has to be false.

You're an unbiased person.

That's libel.

 

[waiguoren]

For it to be libel, it has to be false.

You're an unbiased person.

That's libel.

You said that I told a lawyer he "didn't know anything about the law."

That never happened.

Are you honorable enough to admit fault?

 

[Limbo Pete]

If you're characterizing your own writing as "blasting", you might have an over-inflated view of yourself.



Ignoring views from the opposing side...in my view, this will limit your intellectual growth.

Also, you should start putting your political predictions up against other posters. That will give you a true understanding of your status. Many, such as @Limbo Pete, are too scared to take that first step. That's why I have more respect for @HomerThompson and @Jack V Savage .

 

[Falsedawn]

You said that I told a lawyer he "didn't know anything about the law."

That never happened.

Are you honorable enough to admit fault?

Hey, let's bet on it

 

[waiguoren]

Hey, let's bet on it

Prediction confirmed.

 

[waiguoren]

 

[Andy Capp]

I posted the comments of the president's attorney. You said my posting came from a "shitstain source". You can do better. I believe in you.

Ok, maybe you really are just dumb or have poor reading comprehension, which would also explain your comment about not agreeing with anything you read, so I'll spell it out for you in terms even you can understand.

I said,

When you use shit sources with shit credibility, they're ignored and your credibility also becomes shit.

So, ignored means disregarded out of hand, that is, the person who comes across your post doesn't even check what the content is because it comes from Faux News. And the more you post Faux News and the Daily Caller and Breitbart, the more likely you are to be ignored no matter what the content of your posts. See how that works now?

Yet, although I didn't know it was the President's lawyer who was commenting, definitely, I would characterize anyone who would choose to work for him as a shitstain (except as defense in a criminal case-that's a necessary evil.)

 

[Strychnine]

So gerrymandering is responsible for the fact that it only takes 26% of the voting public to elect a president?

Hillary Clinton also got 26%.

This has nothing to do with gerrymandering. It has to do with turnout.

So, even though HRC got more votes than President Trump and he still won, Gerrymandering had nothing to do with it.


Ok.

 

[waiguoren]

So, ignored means disregarded out of hand, that is, the person who comes across your post doesn't even check what the content is because it comes from Faux News.

If some people (like you) do that, and assuming your goal is to fully understand the Mueller investigation, then they are being irrational. The platform/network is irrelevant. The actual source, as I already pointed out to you, is the person speaking and giving his views. In the most recent case, it was John Dowd, former attorney to Donald Trump.

TLDR: distinguish between "platform" and "source" and you will get closer to reality.

And the more you post Faux News and the Daily Caller and Breitbart, the more likely you are to be ignored no matter what the content of your posts

Only for people with closed minds. Even you, I believe, can open your mind to information from sources (NOT platforms) you disagree with.

Yet, although I didn't know it was the President's lawyer who was commenting, definitely, I would characterize anyone who would choose to work for him as a shitstain (except as defense in a criminal case-that's a necessary evil.)

This could be the crux of the issue. Perhaps you have such hatred for Trump that you disregard anything and everything that anyone ever associated with Trump has to say. That would be something you should work on.

 

[waiguoren]

So, even though HRC got more votes than President Trump and he still won, Gerrymandering had nothing to do with it.


Ok.

That completely went over your head.

This started because someone was complaining that it only takes 26% of the vote of the eligible population to get elected president.

Well, if everyone were forced to vote, it would take around 45%. Gerrymandering has nothing to do with the discrepancy. The discrepancy is caused by the fact that about 40% of eligible voters don't vote at all.

 

[Strychnine]

That completely went over your head.

This started because someone was complaining that it only takes 26% of the vote of the eligible population to get elected president.

Well, if everyone were forced to vote, it would take around 45%. Gerrymandering has nothing to do with the discrepancy. The discrepancy is caused by the fact that about 40% of eligible voters don't vote at all.

Spoiler

 

[waiguoren]

Spoiler

high quality response. In depth, and well-thought out. Would read again.

 

[Andy Capp]

If some people (like you) do that, and assuming your goal is to fully understand the Mueller investigation, then they are being irrational. The platform/network is irrelevant. The actual source, as I already pointed out to you, is the person speaking and giving his views. In the most recent case, it was John Dowd, former attorney to Donald Trump.

TLDR: distinguish between "platform" and "source" and you will get closer to reality.



Only for people with closed minds. Even you, I believe, can open your mind to information from sources (NOT platforms) you disagree with.



This could be the crux of the issue. Perhaps you have such hatred for Trump that you disregard anything and everything that anyone ever associated with Trump has to say. That would be something you should work on.

I go to lots of different sources for my information. My mind is plenty open. But I will not go near those who are regularly shown to manufacture falsehoods. Your reading comprehension is obviously shit, as is your ability to reason, so I don't expect you to understand the false equivalency you're trying to concoct, but you can stop talking down to your betters any time now.

 

[Andy Capp]

Further to the above post, @waiguoren, or you can admit you're trolling and I'll stop calling you stupid and pretentious.