monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Are you that dense?

Look it up yourself.

If you have even a scintilla of evidence to support your wild-ass claims, haul it out.

The nature of the demoperv party:

Neither you nor the NYT reporter has actually seen this purported Comey memo. At present, no one knows for certain that it even exists, let alone what it's content might be. You know this and yet your insist on pressing forward with the BS assertion that it is proven fact.

Quote:

two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president

More absolute proof!

InfraBlue wrote:

Your opinion is duly noted. However, these directives are further indications of gross impropriety by President Trump, and may be seen as efforts to influence or impede an investigation.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Well, obviously they may be seen as efforts to influence or impede an investigation since you clearly see them that way.

There you go. As obvious as you see them as an attempt for authorities to announce that there was no evidence of guilt because of an assumption of innocence.

Assumptions go several ways, not just yours.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Crop circles may also be seen as evidence that earth has been visited by aliens from outer space.

Well, that was a rather facile strawman, even for your standards.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

The leap from asking officials to state there is no evidence of collusion to an effort to impede an investigation is based on wishful thinking.

Much like your own assumption based on the begged question of innocence.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

If one or both of them complied with the request, how would that have influenced or impeded any outstanding investigation? Clearly you believe there was collusion so you are making the assumption that his request involved a lie. On what do you base that assumption?

These allegations are specifically about impeding or influencing an investigation. These allegations are not about possible collusion. The truth of the statements may have been immaterial to the fact that they were solicited in the face of an investigation that had yet to determine collusion.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

Sure, assumptions can be made from these allegations. One thing that is not an assumption about this report is that Trump directly instructed these officials to make statements to the public that they felt were inappropriate. These instuctions raise the obvious question as to why he would instruct these officials to make these public announcements. This leads to the assumption that you've brought up.

Sure assumptions can be made that George Bush ordered the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11. Your logic is terribly twisted.[/quote wrote:

And yours is yet another ridiculoulsy facile strawman.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Requests to state there is no evidence of collusion (You've chosen to convert request to instruct) are not difficult to fathom. He knows he didn't collude and he's not aware of collusion by his campaign staff and he wants the American people to know that there is no evidence to support such charges. Is that really that difficult for you to comprehend? It doesn't at all lead to the assumption that he is lying (unless you've abandoned reason in favor of pronouncing him guilty).

I am presenting assumptions about these matters as you have done. The difference is that yours are based on the begged quesion that "Trump knows that he did not collude."

Is it really that difficult for you to comprehend that?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

No matter how much you would like to believe otherwise, the report is an allegation not a recitation of fact. When the two officials issue a public statement or testify before congress that Trump asked them to state there was no evidence, then you will have some real meat upon which to chew.

Now you're making assumptions about what I believe to base another still another strawman agaist which to flail. A more fitting name for you is Flail d'Abuzz.

Flail d'Abuzz wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

Ok. Conversely, however, if you were were under a highly publicized investigation that impacted your daily life and were a guilty weasle, you'd probably love for authorities to announce that there was no evidence of your guilt, and you would have no hesitation to ask them to make such an announcement, surely.

Sure, but why do you think it is more likely that he is a guilty weasel? If you can imagine why someone in his position would request such statements (whether guilty or not) that should be the end of it, and yet you want to stretch it to evidence of obstruction of justice.

As I've previously stated, I've presented assumptions--like you have done--about the investigation into collusion and reports of interference thereof.

It's like playing a game, something like "what if" with you. These games can be carried out till the cows come home, so to speak.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

Ok. It it could be seen as an attempt to interfere with or impede the investigation, however.

We've covered this already. A lot can be seen and much of it is nonsense.

According to your belief.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

That something can be seen is not proof of anything.

That's correct, sir.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

Oh, there's a lot to sink my cuspids into already, seeing as how Trump is like an infant who's been given a razor blade to play with inflicting upon himself a thousand cuts.

Really? And precisely what is there other than unproven allegations and innuendo? Trump's habit of shooting himself in the foot with stupid comments is hardly evidence of his being guilty of anything other than a lack of impulse control. Try finding a prosecutor who is willing to charge him for that.

I wasn't addressing guilt, I was addressing your assertion that, "this is all speculation, exaggeration, and innuendo intended to bleed Trump out through a thousand cuts," and the spectacle of an infantile geriatric who is his own worst enemy.

Brennan don't do evidence.

Blue, he don't do logic, eh, Finn?

Maybe I shouldn't have said "he." Women have something of a reputation for often letting extreme emotion overwhelm logical analysis and lucidity. I wonder if Blue is female, eh?

Does it appear to you that left leaning posters are frequently more angry than right leaning posters?

Has this changed pre/post election?

Montana reporter accuses New York Times reporter of stealing Greg Gianforte citation


A reporter for the Bozeman Chronicle in Montana accused a New York Times reporter of taking information from her Twitter account and claiming he found it on his own.

Whitney Bermes reports on courts for the Bozeman Chronicle, and on Thursday, she posted a photo on Twitter of the citation given to House Republican candidate Greg Gianforte.

Soon after that, New York Times reporter Jonathan Martin tweeted that he "obtained" a copy of the citation.

But Bermes quickly accused Martin of stealing it from her Twitter feed without any attribution.

Other tweets were sent showing the two pictures side by side, showing that they have the same shadow over the citation, an indication that they seem to be the same picture.

Heh, have you read Layman's posts?

Ya sayin I'm angry, Gent? Naw, not really. I just tend to call a spade a spade, that's all.

You alleged the use of a "strawman" at least 3 times in that post, Blue, each time incorrectly, demonstrating your lack of understanding of logical fallacies.

A "strawman" argument is indeed fallacious, inasmuch as it imputes to an opponent a position he does not hold. However that is clearly NOT what Finn did.

Finn simply used a version of the (logically sound) "reductio ad absurdum" argument.

His (quite valid) point was that the mere fact that a disingenous cheese-eating sophist can interpret ("see") things in a distorted way does not in any way logically support the argument being made. He reduced such an obviously fallacious assumption to the "absurd" conclusion that would follow if one adopted it as valid, thereby exposing it for what it is: sophistry.

Give it up, Blue. Aint no use pretending that you understand logic. That pig don't fly.