Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela

paulsurovell said:


dave23 said:
They are evidence, not proof.
No, I'm not surprised that you think that Mueller could have simply made it all up.
 dave23's concept of evidence:

 Classic gallopin!  



HI HO SILLLLLLLVVVVVER!


dave23 said:
Were that not so stupid I might be offended.

 A dave23 soulmate on evidence:


paulsurovell said:


drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

I am fairly certain that I have never suggested that Mr. Surovell "cited Trump's statements as proof of anything."  Since he says otherwise, and as a result accused me of "ethical problems" associated with that, I look forward to his further explanation, elaboration and explication of said writing by me.
From a couple of days ago. In response to my statement that the Russia investigation is a hoax:

nohero
Sep 22, 2018 at 8:55am

Trump is trying to discredit the investigation by saying it's a "hoax", so he'll keep a base of support for any action he takes to terminate it.  HIs claim that it's a "hoax" is based on the fact that Mueller proceeds in a responsible fashion.  Trump is basically "weaponizing" Mueller's integrity against him.  Anybody who adopts Trump's argument is just helping Trump in that enterprise.
paul, this is a (deliberate?) misreading of what nohero said. This is not even close to "cited Trump's statements as proof of anything."
nohero is saying that:
a. trump said argument x
b. paul also says argument x
c. consequently, paul is helping trump by pushing the same argument

It's not hard. Mostly just takes honesty.
Trump says Assad gassed innocent civilians.
@nohero says Assad gassed innocent civilians.

@nohero has adopted Trump's argument.
@nohero is helping Trump.

 Nice to see that when challenged that his "ethical problems" accusation against me was "a deliberate misreading" of what I wrote, Mr. Surovell didn't refute that, dropped the argument, and moved on to a "whataboutism".  It's not a very good "whataboutism", but it would be silly to carry on a discussion about it.

I'm glad we cleared up that whole other accusation, however.


Nohero,

Just curious, do your hands hurt?  I can't imagine that they don't get achy from slapping him silly every two hours.     


OUCH.   With a cherry on top.


sbenois said:
Nohero,
Just curious, do your hands hurt?  I can't imagine that they don't get achy from slapping him silly every two hours.     


OUCH.   With a cherry on top.

 Thanks, but as you can see I waited a whole day to recuperate before jumping back in.  Happy to see others pick up the cudgel, however.


nohero said:


paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

I am fairly certain that I have never suggested that Mr. Surovell "cited Trump's statements as proof of anything."  Since he says otherwise, and as a result accused me of "ethical problems" associated with that, I look forward to his further explanation, elaboration and explication of said writing by me.
From a couple of days ago. In response to my statement that the Russia investigation is a hoax:

nohero
Sep 22, 2018 at 8:55am

Trump is trying to discredit the investigation by saying it's a "hoax", so he'll keep a base of support for any action he takes to terminate it.  HIs claim that it's a "hoax" is based on the fact that Mueller proceeds in a responsible fashion.  Trump is basically "weaponizing" Mueller's integrity against him.  Anybody who adopts Trump's argument is just helping Trump in that enterprise.
paul, this is a (deliberate?) misreading of what nohero said. This is not even close to "cited Trump's statements as proof of anything."
nohero is saying that:
a. trump said argument x
b. paul also says argument x
c. consequently, paul is helping trump by pushing the same argument

It's not hard. Mostly just takes honesty.
Trump says Assad gassed innocent civilians.
@nohero says Assad gassed innocent civilians.

@nohero has adopted Trump's argument.
@nohero is helping Trump.
 Nice to see that when challenged that his "ethical problems" accusation against me was "a deliberate misreading" of what I wrote, Mr. Surovell didn't refute that, dropped the argument, and moved on to a "whataboutism".  It's not a very good "whataboutism", but it would be silly to carry on a discussion about it.
I'm glad we cleared up that whole other accusation, however.
 

Just a demonstration of @nohero smear-logic.


nohero said:


sbenois said:
Nohero,
Just curious, do your hands hurt?  I can't imagine that they don't get achy from slapping him silly every two hours.     


OUCH.   With a cherry on top.
 Thanks, but as you can see I waited a whole day to recuperate before jumping back in.  Happy to see others pick up the cudgel, however.

 We haven't yet heard from the "other" (singular) to the demonstration of @nohero smear-logic.


All it really demonstrates is that by continuing to talk about anything Trump says, you help Trump. You're amplifying the narrative he wants you to amplify, and you're doing it for free.

It's how Russians converted so many people with such little money and effort.


ridski said:
All it really demonstrates is that by continuing to talk about anything Trump says, you help Trump. You're amplifying the narrative he wants you to amplify, and you're doing it for free.
It's how Russians converted so many people with such little money and effort.

 Trump talked about water being wet the other day.


paulsurovell said:


ridski said:
All it really demonstrates is that by continuing to talk about anything Trump says, you help Trump. You're amplifying the narrative he wants you to amplify, and you're doing it for free.
It's how Russians converted so many people with such little money and effort.
 Trump talked about water being wet the other day.

 Trump talked about Hurricane Florence being tremendously big and tremendously wet. Sure we laughed, but in a few months we'll remark how wet it was in comparison to the wetness of other tropical cyclones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wettest_tropical_cyclones_in_the_United_States

So, if we agreed with Trump, we were simply amplifying the narrative the National Weather Service wanted us to amplify, and we were doing it for free.

It's how the Russians converted so many people with such little money and effort.


ridski said:


paulsurovell said:

ridski said:
All it really demonstrates is that by continuing to talk about anything Trump says, you help Trump. You're amplifying the narrative he wants you to amplify, and you're doing it for free.
It's how Russians converted so many people with such little money and effort.
 Trump talked about water being wet the other day.
 Trump talked about Hurricane Florence being tremendously big and tremendously wet. Sure we laughed, but in a few months we'll remark how wet it was in comparison to the wetness of other tropical cyclones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wettest_tropical_cyclones_in_the_United_States
So, if we agreed with Trump, we were simply amplifying the narrative the National Weather Service wanted us to amplify, and we were doing it for free.
It's how the Russians converted so many people with such little money and effort.

 Watch out for those Russian converts.

Edited to Add: Re: NWS example:

So if everything I've said about Russiagate is based on sources other than Trump, it would be wrong to say I've adopted Trump's arguments?


nohero said:


sbenois said:
Nohero,
Just curious, do your hands hurt?  I can't imagine that they don't get achy from slapping him silly every two hours.     


OUCH.   With a cherry on top.
 Thanks, but as you can see I waited a whole day to recuperate before jumping back in.  Happy to see others pick up the cudgel, however.

 Do you take vitamins?


paulsurovell said:


dave23 said:
Were that not so stupid I might be offended.
 A dave23 soulmate on evidence:

You don't understand the concept of evidence vs proof. I get it. And if you don't like the evidence presented, you hurl dim-witted invective.


paulsurovell said:


ridski said:


paulsurovell said:

ridski said:
All it really demonstrates is that by continuing to talk about anything Trump says, you help Trump. You're amplifying the narrative he wants you to amplify, and you're doing it for free.
It's how Russians converted so many people with such little money and effort.
 Trump talked about water being wet the other day.
 Trump talked about Hurricane Florence being tremendously big and tremendously wet. Sure we laughed, but in a few months we'll remark how wet it was in comparison to the wetness of other tropical cyclones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wettest_tropical_cyclones_in_the_United_States
So, if we agreed with Trump, we were simply amplifying the narrative the National Weather Service wanted us to amplify, and we were doing it for free.
It's how the Russians converted so many people with such little money and effort.
 Watch out for those Russian converts.
Edited to Add: Re: NWS example:
So if everything I've said about Russiagate is based on sources other than Trump, it would be wrong to say I've adopted Trump's arguments?

 No. When you stated Trump said water is wet you were lying, he said this is one of the wettest hurricanes ever seen. He’s repeating what he was told by NWS, but he doesn’t understand it, so it came across as a stupid thing to say, but really what he said was correct. In the Carolinas, there are still rivers creating from this storm.

People are willing to amplify what they believe is true. Like the lie the the President said “water is wet.” It’s how the Russians converted so many people with such little money effort..


ridski said:


No. When you stated Trump said water is wet you were lying,.

You mean like when @dave23 said I was lying when I said Steele was hired by Hillary and the DNC through Fusion GPS?


Trump, at the UN, shows fealty to Putin, afraid of Russian kompromat:

Reliance on a single foreign supplier can leave a nation vulnerable to extortion and intimidation. That is why we congratulate European states, such as Poland, for leading the construction of a Baltic pipeline so that nations are not dependent on Russia to meet their energy needs. Germany will become totally dependent on Russian energy if it does not immediately change course.


paulsurovell said:


ridski said:
No. When you stated Trump said water is wet you were lying,.

You mean like when @dave23 said I was lying when I said Steele was hired by Hillary and the DNC through Fusion GPS?

 Hillary asked for Steele? Or her campaign hired Fusion (after the GOP did)?


paulsurovell said:


ridski said:
No. When you stated Trump said water is wet you were lying,.
You mean like when @dave23 said I was lying when I said Steele was hired by Hillary and the DNC through Fusion GPS?

What you said was that Clinton paid for the dossier. That wasn’t a lie. “Hired by Hillary and the DNC,” while also not a lie, is like saying I hired the anesthesiologist for my cataract surgery.

“Trump talked about water being wet” is like saying I just talked about operating on Niagara Falls.

So, no, none of them are alike.

ETA: Cross-posted with Mr. 23.


DaveSchmidt said:


paulsurovell said:


ridski said:
No. When you stated Trump said water is wet you were lying,.
You mean like when @dave23 said I was lying when I said Steele was hired by Hillary and the DNC through Fusion GPS?
What you said was that Clinton paid for the dossier. That wasn’t a lie. “Hired by Hillary and the DNC,” while also not a lie, is like saying I hired the anesthesiologist for my cataract surgery.
“Trump talked about water being wet” is like saying I just talked about operating on Niagara Falls.
So, no, none of them are alike.
ETA: Cross-posted with Mr. 23.
 

You're missing the forest for the trees . . . from the standpoint of wood.


dave23 said:


paulsurovell said:

ridski said:
No. When you stated Trump said water is wet you were lying,.
You mean like when @dave23 said I was lying when I said Steele was hired by Hillary and the DNC through Fusion GPS?
 Hillary asked for Steele? Or her campaign hired Fusion (after the GOP did)?

 No and Yes.

But before you start parsing yourself into a pretzel, let's look at what you're hiding from:


paulsurovell said:

You're missing the forest for the trees . . . from the standpoint of wood.

I might be. And you might be making a forest out of a little bark.


paulsurovell said:


ridski said:
No. When you stated Trump said water is wet you were lying,.

You mean like when @dave23 said I was lying when I said Steele was hired by Hillary and the DNC through Fusion GPS?

 No, I mean when you said Trump said water was wet, when he was describing a hurricane and not the stuff that comes out of the faucet.


paulsurovell said:


dave23 said:



paulsurovell said:

ridski said:
No. When you stated Trump said water is wet you were lying,.
You mean like when @dave23 said I was lying when I said Steele was hired by Hillary and the DNC through Fusion GPS?
 Hillary asked for Steele? Or her campaign hired Fusion (after the GOP did)?
 No and Yes.
But before you start parsing yourself into a pretzel, let's look at what you're hiding from:

 Not so much. Fusion was hired by the GOP then hired by the DNC and Hillary's campaign. Not so complex.


ridski said:


paulsurovell said:

ridski said:
No. When you stated Trump said water is wet you were lying,.
You mean like when @dave23 said I was lying when I said Steele was hired by Hillary and the DNC through Fusion GPS?
 No, I mean when you said Trump said water was wet, when he was describing a hurricane and not the stuff that comes out of the faucet.

 . . . from the standpoint of water.


dave23 said:


paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:



paulsurovell said:

ridski said:
No. When you stated Trump said water is wet you were lying,.
You mean like when @dave23 said I was lying when I said Steele was hired by Hillary and the DNC through Fusion GPS?
 Hillary asked for Steele? Or her campaign hired Fusion (after the GOP did)?
 No and Yes.
But before you start parsing yourself into a pretzel, let's look at what you're hiding from:
 Not so much. Fusion was hired by the GOP then hired by the DNC and Hillary's campaign. Not so complex.

 You said that the DNC "picked up" the dossier from conservative groups. That's a lie.


I was referring, of course, to the background check by Fusion begun by the GOP. I was not talking a physical manifesto to be handed off secretly in an underground garage by shady figures in overcoats.

Stick to strange claims about water and paranoid ruminations about Mueller creating the Russian indictments from his imagination.


paulsurovell said:


ridski said:

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:
No. When you stated Trump said water is wet you were lying,.
You mean like when @dave23 said I was lying when I said Steele was hired by Hillary and the DNC through Fusion GPS?
 No, I mean when you said Trump said water was wet, when he was describing a hurricane and not the stuff that comes out of the faucet.
 . . . from the standpoint of water.

 You really think he said "water is wet"?


ridski said:


paulsurovell said:

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:
No. When you stated Trump said water is wet you were lying,.
You mean like when @dave23 said I was lying when I said Steele was hired by Hillary and the DNC through Fusion GPS?
 No, I mean when you said Trump said water was wet, when he was describing a hurricane and not the stuff that comes out of the faucet.
 . . . from the standpoint of water.
 You really think he said "water is wet"?

Kind of.


FWIW, I think an inadvertent redundancy can have that effect. If I say “wettest ... from the standpoint of water,” it sounds like I’m clarifying that wettest means water, and vice versa. 

At least, that’s why I assumed Trump’s remark generated snickering.


paulsurovell said:


ridski said:  You really think he said "water is wet"?
Kind of.

 Mr. Ridski - You failed to realize that when Mr. Surovell made the claim, he was talking about how someone else described what Trump said.  It's your fault, obviously, that you didn't know that.  It's what he does.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Sponsored Business

Find Business

Advertise here!