Twice in this topic you have taken comments out of context. That you have to do that shows the weakness of your arguments.
OMG!!! The reason I "take words out of context" is to save bandwidth. Is it really necessary to include an entire comment in quotes???? And ... I select the most salient part of the comment as a focal point.
I do not do what conservatives do and select only the parts which reflect your narrative and ignore the facts which actually refute the conservative argument.
You find it difficult to converse with conservatives is because they don't kowtow to your BS arguments.
No. Actually conservatives reject the arguments because they reject the facts or the interpretation, neither of which is predicated on BS.
Many sets of facts may be interpreted in different ways. A prime example is the Constitution. So lets examine a set of facts for the BSiness of my argument.
In 2016 the FBI was more than aware the Russians were meddling in the US election. Some of it was brute force and some very nuanced which only came to light after several years of forensic work. Early in 2016 the FBI received reports regarding two people associated with the Trump campaign who had connections to Russia and claimed Russia had "dirt" on Sec Clinton/DNC.
So I don;t have a question at this point but I do have a responsibility to investigate. Only after an investigation begins does the FBI become aware Russians are stumbling into each other and into Trump campaign workers.
Now at this point I have a question. If you don't have a question, then I may conclude you are a Russian asset, hoping no one notices. My question is, is the Trump campaign in bed with the Russians? If Sec Clinton had Russians, Iranians, Chinese, or Canadians all over her campaign I would have had the same question.
So why are you not concerned??? Do you believe Putin over the IC???? or maybe whatever Mr trump says is the only "truth" you believe?
But let's continue.
Mueller issues a report which says he could not find enough evidence to determine if there was a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians ... and ... he concludes Mr Trump entered into a campaign of obstruction to limit or end the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
I would cite the definition of obstruction but I suspect you would reject every definition as irrelevant or I suspect you would say what Mr Trump did was not obstruction. If we allow what I suspect you believe, then if I were anyone convicted of obstruction I would file an appeal based on an argument you got from Mr Trump.
But let's look at the current Ukraine call. Do I need to cite the whole call? After all I would hate to take anything out of context.
The crux of the call and the only part which is of concern is the discussion of aid to Ukraine and the immediate pivot to a favor regarding a political rival.
So, do you believe when gangsters enter into a quid pro quo they use the words quid pro quo? or do you think they implicitly understand the capo when he says he has an offer you can't refuse? So give me an example of what a quid pro quo would look like. Strange but when they interviewed Rep McCarthy the other day and he didn't know what was in the call memo the interviewer had an opportunity to ask if the word Rep McCarthy said was not in the memo was used would it be evidence of quid pro quo, and when he would say yes, then show him the actual memo with the word.
You see I would agree it would be a difficult to a nonexistent case to make if Mr Trump suggested Ukraine stop all corruption .... full stop. But that is not what happened.
I know for you ... well I don't know what kind of pretzel you have to contort yourself into to defend the call, but I think I have seen all the surrogates on the circuit making fools of themselves already. Space aliens
Now let's go back to Mueller. As can be seen Mr Trump has no problem enlisting the aid of foreign governments to find dirt on his political rival in the 2020 election, so I have to wonder, is this something new or just a continuing pattern from 2016??? Now if that question did not come to your mind, then I have to wonder about your objectivity.
using sarcasm ... IS an attempt to refute them.
OMG ... out of context but certainly the most salient feature.
Sarcasm has never refuted anything. It is used to make a point. The point being ... go back and rethink your argument!!!!
You have not seen the unethical behavior of the DNC either because you didn't look for it or you are a strong supporter of Clinton.
As usual you are wrong.
First I was never a Sec Clinton supporter. I didn't like any Democrat candidate. My fav was a Republican who didn't run. However I did vote for Sec Clinton as I recognized Mr Trump for what he was and is, a danger to America. My hope at the time was Republicans would hold the reins and keep him from destroying America.
About the DNC activities in 2016 :: Brazzile should not have communicated with the Clinton campaign. The question leak was so obvious I have to wonder if Brazzile thought the campaign was too stupid to know what questions would be asked. Not like it was a secret gotcha question, but still.
Regarding what you see as unethical the super delegate thing ... sorry but that is the way the party machine operates. Everyone entering the campaign knows it and if they don't (like me in 1972) then shame on them for being naive.
So how about all the states not allowing primary challengers against Mr Trump? Rigged election .... anyone ... rigged
