Russia! Russia!! Russia!!!

[heydaralon]

The Democrats and Mueller have repeatedly said that the Russians hacked their investigation into Trump's complicity with Russian hacking. But my question is: How do we know that this conclusion, that the Russian's hacked the hacking probe, was not also hacked? How do we know that Mueller found no complicity, but the Russians simply hacked that and changed the text to say that it was hacked?

I will not rest until we know the ip addresses of every twitter bot the Russians used to get tens of millions of Americans to vote for Trump. I will not leave a single stone unturned until we determine that Russians are not behind the fucking traffic jam on I4 I deal with every fucking morning. They must have hacked into the asphalt and caused this fucking shitshow that makes me late even when I leave my goddamn house well over an hour before my shift starts.

[clubgop]

He literally worked for the communist party in Chicago, genius.

Only thing I could find googling Sanders, chicago and communist party was that he joined the Young People's Socialist League at one point, which, as I said before, was notably anti-communist and anti soviet union.

Same as being a diehard revolutionary, really. He’s a threat to Murka.

After all that cover he has given you when baby dirty dick has fallen down the intellectual well, you should have a better defense.

[JohnDonne]

Nothing's rough about watching you make a fool of yourself.
The word you're searching for is 'pedestrian'.
adjective
1. lacking inspiration or excitement; dull.

"Man, JD just flailing away, tossing word soup at everyone, making no sense whatsoever, that's rough"

"No. That's pedestrian. Same uninspired, dull, people-who-are-not-clever-pretending-to-be bullshit that it always was"

"True"

"Sometimes folks like DBtrek don't understand heady abstract concepts like "fallacy" or the difference between "explicit" and "implicit" arguments."

See, that was an observation with an implicit argument hidden inside.

The implication is that you're stupid.

Here's an example of an explicit argument:

"DBtrek is a stupid coward for hiding behind his fake observation and thinking he'd get away with it."

Hope that helps.

[JohnDonne]

JD, he worked for the communist party. He worked for a communist front. He is on video hanging with communists. He made similar trips to Nicaragua and Cuba.

Are you trolling us as a pretend retard or are you really this fucking stupid?

Just be honest for once in your life. NOBODY is buying your act.

Your points were addressed in full. You say he worked for a front for the soviet union please name the organization and actually prove it was a communist front, instead of repeating your debunked points and trying to create a guilt by association.

Personally I think it's quite possible he was a communist sympathizer, but that is not the same thing as working for the soviets.

[clubgop]

The Democrats and Mueller have repeatedly said that the Russians hacked their investigation into Trump's complicity with Russian hacking. But my question is: How do we know that this conclusion, that the Russian's hacked the hacking probe, was not also hacked? How do we know that Mueller found no complicity, but the Russians simply hacked that and changed the text to say that it was hacked?

I will not rest until we know the ip addresses of every twitter bot the Russians used to get tens of millions of Americans to vote for Trump. I will not leave a single stone unturned until we determine that Russians are not behind the fucking traffic jam on I4 I deal with every fucking morning. They must have hacked into the asphalt and caused this fucking shitshow that makes me late even when I leave my goddamn house well over an hour before my shift starts.

So what you are saying is JD is a Russian bot. Makes sense.

[DBTrek]

"Sometimes folks like DBtrek don't understand heady abstract concepts like "fallacy" or the difference between "explicit" and "implicit" arguments."

See, that was an observation with an implicit argument hidden inside.

The implication is that you're stupid.

Here's an example of an explicit argument:

"DBtrek is a stupid coward for hiding behind his fake observation and thinking he'd get away with it."

Hope that helps.

Crickey lad, you really can’t see that even if your bizarre theory were true, “you’re stupid” is also an observation, not an argument?

I hardly need to interrupt you by saying “you’re stupid” when you’re in the middle of an exhaustive demonstration of that very point. Rather, my goal was to inspire within you some sort of self-awareness that might cause you to question why you believe one theory so easily with scant evidence, and resist another with considerably more evidence so strongly.

Odd, don’t you think? Seems a very opposite reaction from what one would expect from someone guided by evidence and reason.

[C-Mag]

"Sometimes folks like DBtrek don't understand heady abstract concepts like "fallacy" or the difference between "explicit" and "implicit" arguments."

See, that was an observation with an implicit argument hidden inside.

DB has given me fits for years. His inability to understand the Nuances of arguments like yours are really frustrated for the enlightened.

[JohnDonne]

"Sometimes folks like DBtrek don't understand heady abstract concepts like "fallacy" or the difference between "explicit" and "implicit" arguments."

See, that was an observation with an implicit argument hidden inside.

The implication is that you're stupid.

Here's an example of an explicit argument:

"DBtrek is a stupid coward for hiding behind his fake observation and thinking he'd get away with it."

Hope that helps.

Crickey lad, you really can’t see that even if your bizarre theory were true, “you’re stupid” is also an observation, not an argument?

I hardly need to interrupt you by saying “you’re stupid” when you’re in the middle of an exhaustive demonstration of that very point. Rather, my goal was to inspire within you some sort of self-awareness that might cause you to question why you believe one theory so easily with scant evidence, and resist another with considerably more evidence so strongly.

Odd, don’t you think? Seems a very opposite reaction from what one would expect from someone guided by evidence and reason.

Dude.....stop.

It's not only saying you're stupid, it's positing the fact that you don't understand things as the reason that you're stupid. Case in p......Nevermind




Your inspiring message:

Broad statements about "watch this person" - CLEARLY A THREAT
"Shirtless Cavorting and merrymaking with actual USSR Communists - EVERYBODY DOES IT LULZ"

The implication of that message is that I'm dishonest because I support "bad" evidence in one situation but not "good" evidence in another.

Therefore you implied that the video of Bernie visiting the soviet union is good evidence that he was working for them.

My response was that without more proof the evidence amounts to guilt by association.

We both know the rest.

[Fife]

Psssst . . .

(Don't look now; but Bernie is a goddam rotten-to-the-core Soviet commie.)

[DBTrek]

JD still trying to make an observation an argument so he doesn’t look dumb for yelling “logical fallacy” at an inappropriate time.

I observed you reached conclusions of guilt on NO evidence, and conclusions of innocence where some evidence exists, without really assessing the evidence.

No argument made. No place for a logical fallacy to hide. Just straight observation.

Maybe if you try to creatively deny your error a fourth time it will work out better for you. What’s the definition of insanity again?