Because you’re about twice my age, not half of it, so stop crying. Last chance.

The difference is that I said, "what you cited as evidence doesn't make it look like that to me.  Why did you think it made it look like that to you?"  And your answer was DEAD SILENCE. 

Your position is bankrupt, founded apparently on nothing but imagination—or at least, you have yet to show otherwise. 

How am I supposed to know your really that age, and how do you really know how old I am? Now we're back to the factual evidence part again, and no, I'm not asking for proof of your age, because it's the internet and I'm sure not offering proof of mine. I'll assume your how old you say you are though.

The fact that you totally disregard that the other sides position was no stronger than mine in this case, especially since it was initially up to them to prove their side and never did, just shows me that your not open enough and willing to look at both sides objectively. If you've chosen a side and aren't budging, then there's no point in arguing with you because it would be pointless. I should also mention that trying to insult someone to get them to do what you want only works if they are really weak. Otherwise a mature person will simply brush you off for acting like that without justification.

Last chance at what? Trying to get you to understand? Seems like that never was an option to begin with.

Read the rest and find out. That was because I couldn't find factual hard evidence that proved to myself beyond a reasonable doubt and so I supplied what I could, and the evidence offered by the other side didn't factually prove their claim either. Since it was made clear to me that anything but solid direct evidence was acceptable, other evidence that was indirect to the specific talking point couldn't be used to back up the lacking evidence already submitted. Therefore we were both stuck at a point where neither of us could take the subject any further without bending the rules, which isn't a good idea because then things can get sloppy and incoherent, and the odds of anyone agreeing after that is unlikely.

Based on what I've explained so far I really don't know how much more clear I could be about it. If you still think I'm wrong then that's fine, good for you, but while I apparently have yet to prove to you that I'm right, which I'm not worried about, you've yet to come even close to proving to me that I'm wrong. You point out that I haven't added any evidence to further my claim, but neither did the other side, and for good reason, so who's really 'bankrupt'? Trying to convince me otherwise isn't going to happen because I understand what occurred and I know what your getting at but I don't agree. 

You're continuing to misunderstand.  I am not saying your evidence failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.  I am saying that your evidence failed to even faintly suggest to me that it was the littlest bit more likely that Mueller's team leaked info than that the White House leaked it or the goddamn Tooth Fairy leaked it.  You outright refuse to explain what about that evidence was so persuasive to you.  You claimed that the evidence you cited contained "Plenty of reasons that sure make it look like there have been plenty of leaks from Muellers team" but you can't even point to one specific thing in any of the articles.  But I'm supposed to read all of them and read your fucking mind while I'm at it. 

This leads me to suspect that you came at the situation with a preconceived notion of the conclusion and made it your mission to scrape up any evidence you possibly could to support it, while lowering your standard from "evidence Mueller leaked info" to "evidence info was leaked that Mueller had access to, therefore his team must have leaked it and not another group that had both access and a history of leaking".  All this without taking the slightest step back to look at whether the balance of evidence might be cause to re-evaluate your conclusion or at least re-evaluate your confidence level in your conclusion. 

I'm not suggesting the people on the opposite side from you don't also have biases and preconceived notions.  But I'm suggesting that you are letting your bias outweigh the pursuit of truth. 

You are correct, I did state his team has been airtight.  So you are looking for me to provide proof that his team has not been airtight.  My proof is the same as I claimed.  You cannot find not one single incident where anyone from Mueller team has leaked any information.  Hell, I doubt you can even find any person on Mueller team who is alleged to have leaked any information.  The reason I know this is because just like you, I do my homework as well. The burden of proof on my part is that there isn't anything out there. 

Since you could not find anything that has showed that even come close to proving someone from Mueller team has leaked information, I am not even sure why you keep arguing this point.

Your claim is that Mueller team has leaked information but the links you provided did not even come close to even pointing one finger at anyone within Mueller team.  Instead all there was is information of leaks on information that was not exclusive to anything gained from Mueller investigation.  You would have maybe something to stand on if you could even find something along the lines where only Mueller team was the only people with this information but you cannot even do that.  You are basically making a conclusion that there is leaks so something must be coming from Mueller team because you feel it to be true.  In reality, you have absolutely nothing that even come close to proving your feelings and you arguing about it isn't going to make your point any more right.

There is no draw, 

1. Because I looked at your profile, and it said you were 34.  About twice my age, not half. See how easy it is for me to provide a source that contains relevant information that supports my position?

2. Well, I did not expect you to torpedo your last chance by ousting yourself as a possible serial bullshitter who may have lied about your age on your own profile, but here we are.  Guess there’s no reason to believe anything you say on any subject now.  Awesome.

bye!

I provided links, and then made a point, but I did not say something like, 'these links and only these links specifically, are the reason I believe this is the case'. If you want to assume what I actually said means what you think it means, then go ahead, assume away. That of course doesn't change the fact that it was evidence provided, evidence that you do not agree with, and also evidence you skimmed through. I also find it ironic that you joined the conversation during the 'excuses' period, only to then offer your own excuses of why you didn't want, or need to, go over everything. You really think if your not going to go to the effort of completely trying to understand where I am coming from, and just offer excuses to get around it, that I should go out of my way to completely cater to where your coming from? I can't help but wonder if your simply taking someone else's word for it, which isn't acceptable, because if it is, then you might as well just assume that's my stance on the matter which makes it just then. Correct?

If you go to a garage and tell them you want certain things done and parts replaced on your vehicle, period, and when you come back they explain they only did half the work because some parts didn't need replacing yet and they know this because they checked since they are qualified, are you telling me you would pay full price for all the time wasted checking and analyzing and be ok with the situation? You provided a "to do" list and they never followed it. You didn't ask for an assessment of your vehicles condition, you asked for certain things to be replaced. You would either complain and demand they finish the job and toss the hours they wasted checking, or you would never come back to that garage.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and made clear there was a 'to do' list provided, and you still refused to finish it. So your 'garage' has lost my 'business'. Understand?

Your proof was theories and beliefs. Again, that's not worthy evidence and I don't consider it proof by any means. Are you trying to say if I only used one link then it would have been more acceptable since we both would have offered one useless piece of evidence? I already mentioned Muellers team has already lost individuals due to leaks, just not specific to the Cohen and Manafort case, but that apparently doesn't hold any influence over whether the leaks came from Muellers team apparently, since it's not directly pertaining to this case. You keep pointing to his team and exclusive information, but just because the information wasn't exclusive to just them, that means to you that his team couldn't have leaked it? Your evidence was theories and beliefs. You already accused me prior to believing in theories which apparently doesn't count, so why should I take your claim and evidence anymore seriously than my own? Why am I still at it, when you've already explained your set on the fact that it's not a draw? Strength in numbers?

When two gunslingers face off and both empty their chambers and hit nothing but air, it's considered a draw. Trying to explain that your bullet was closer to hitting the other individual than theirs was to hitting you, doesn't count for squat. That may also get you labelled a cry baby, but not to worry, I've already been given that label. Luckily for me, you don't believe in labels.

Your reasoning for how you knew how old I was, proves to me further that you don't understand what hard factual evidence is, or at least you didn't until now. You also didn't completely understand burden of proof either, so trying to argue with me when your clearly arguing points you don't completely understand, is a lost cause. So because I made a point about how you can't soundly believe everything you read on the internet, especially if it doesn't have solid backing, you take that as gospel that I must be lying? So if what I purpose doesn't fit your viewpoint, you require indisputable evidence, but if what I purpose works to your advantage, you'll just take my word for it? 

Keep shoring up that wall.

Your analogy is flawed, a little like your brain.  It's easy enough to fix the analogy, though.  Let's say you brought in a car and told me that all four brakes are completely trashed and need replacing.  I look at it and call you back, saying that I checked the front brakes and they're in perfect condition.  Are you sure you brought me the right car?  There are a few options for you at that point: 
1.  I must have made a mistake, please check the back brakes. 
2.  You're wrong, the front brakes are actually trashed. 
3.  I don't care if they are in perfect condition, replace them anyway. 

#3 doesn't apply because the analogy isn't a 100% match to our situation.  More on this later.  #1 fails because you have never acknowledged that the links I read didn't support your claim.  And as for #2, you've deliberately refused to go with that one. 

Going back to the first paragraph, I never claimed that the contents of the links were what convinced YOU.  In fact, I pretty much said the opposite!  Please pay more attention.  Even if you're a troll, please try to be a higher-quality one.  Anyway, what I said was that (a) YOU claimed that the contents of the links would give a reasonable person good cause to believe Mueller's team was the source of the leaks; and (b) the claim I just described in (a) is wrong (based on analyzing the first two links, and taking the first two as representative of all four, which you haven't disputed). 

Besides, if I said I read ALL FOUR of the links and they ALL were as unsupportive of your position as the first two were, what about your response to my claim would really change?  You'd still brush me off and refuse to answer the objection.  Which is why I didn't waste the time.  I'm not on a fucking scavenger hunt here.  You don't get to say, "here's 100 links, go read them, 10 of them have relevant information", and expect to be seen as the reasonable one. 

"You really think if your not going to go to the effort of completely trying to understand where I am coming from, and just offer excuses to get around it, that I should go out of my way to completely cater to where your coming from?" 
That's a pretty bold twisting of the facts.  It's like you hand me a book and say, "this cookbook explains the dinner I made last night", and I read the first twenty pages, flip through the rest of the book, and say "this is a mystery novel."  Am I really unqualified to comment on whether it's a cookbook or a mystery novel just because I didn't read the whole thing cover to cover?  It it really unreasonable of me to ask you to explain how it's a cookbook before I finish reading? 

You're not paying me.  The only thing I'm asking you to pay is to pay attention to me, and you're asking me to pay attention to you.  If you're really trying to use that analogy to set yourself up as being the one in charge because you're the paying customer, then fuck off.  Maybe that's not how you meant it, but if that's the case then you need to pay attention to your own words. 

Incorrect. In your analogy I have no idea if the brakes are any good or not when I bring the vehicle in, and I'm leaving it entirely up to the garage. In mine, I know I want them changed based on the condition. There are people who aren't certified mechanics who can make this decision for themselves, and there are certified mechanics who shouldn't ever be trusted with any vehicle that travels down a highway. Just because you can't, doesn't mean someone else can't either. This applies to basically anything and everything. The reason for you to change the analogy to the way you presented it, would be based on the assumption that everything I provided was simply copy and paste, which isn't the case as I've mentioned.

In your version of the analogy, the mechanic calls to let me know I'm wrong and that the brakes are fine, and yet I know based on their condition, I want them changed regardless, period. Just because that mechanic doesn't think the breaks need to be changed, doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't be changed. You mention #1, which I did say my evidence isn't completely 100% indisputable, which is why more would be needed to make backing up my claim worthwhile, so when I would ask for the 'back breaks' to be checked, based on your example, the mechanic refuses to because even though they didn't check them, their just going to assume there fine. That could very well lead to a car crash, which as per how you've been handling this, seems to be headed that way.

You asked me to explain the links because you didn't agree based on what you read, but if you didn't think that's what convinced me, why would you want to know what about them convinced me enough to use them? So who's trolling? I didn't claim that, which I explained already, and you still don't seem to agree with that, so that's fine, think whatever you want. I did dispute it. I said read them all. You refuse to. That's fine. If basing your knowledge of everything is based on 50% of the whole, then good luck. I'll give a great example of what happens in those scenarios. The left only paid attention to the left, and because of it, the right has the power and Trump is President.

Well considering you've made it clear your not going to read them, I guess we'll never know. Giving you the benefit of the doubt again, as generous as I am, I'll tell you if you had read them and disagreed, I would respect your decision and explain again, neither side seems to have strong enough evidence to make a case, so what's the problem with that? I do get to say that, because why else would I offer them, and you also can read some or all, agree or disagree, call me names, or heck, you could have even not bothered jumping into the conversation at all, and yet you chose to, so here we are. I don't make your choices, you do. How about the fact that kids get sent to school for a quarter of their life, only to ever require a small portion of that knowledge at best? Should everyone pull their kids out of school since their just wasting time? This is a political topic so the expectation coming into it should be that there will be a disagreement and likely it will end that way. If it doesn't and ends in agreement, or agreeing to disagree, then I'd consider that things going well.

It has nothing to do with whether or not your qualified. To assume you or I were a lawyer or member of government wouldn't make much sense since not only would it be unlikely, but the odds are pretty good they would be knowledgeable enough make us both look like fools, or they would come right out and mention their basic background. What your saying is you want me, who offered you a cookbook, to admit it's a mystery novel, just because that's what you think it is, even though what I've already told you is that it is a cookbook, just not a very good one, that has a few items missing from the recipe that couldn't be added to the meal because the rules say the meal must be made a certain way?

I already made the payment argument, and your side said that didn't matter, and you didn't correct them, so I'm not touching that one. I've paid attention, and yet after explaining the same thing over, in different ways, you still don't get it or just don't agree. The same seems to be true from your side. It seemed clear to me already that this was very well a scenario where we should probably agree to disagree, yet you don't seem to be able to accept anything less than you 'winning' and me 'losing', and you know where I stand on that.

I know people who support Trump pretty much dismissed Cohen as having nothing but you really have to think what this man has done for Trump over all the years he has worked for him and the inner knowledge of every suspect dealing Trump has done in the present as well as in the past.  The fact he decided to tap Trump during some of their calls tells you how much this man really did not trust Trump.  It would be interesting if we ever get all the dirt he has dropped.  Now you have Manafort singing like a canary you just wonder how worse can it get.  You can believe after these two start to spill their guts, others who are thinking "Man I better get my deal now before they knock on my door" are already packing their bags.  Its not just the collusion or Russia situation now in play, its all the dirty dealings that can come up if not now after Trump leaves office.