By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
EricHiggin on 18 September 2018
Edit Thread
Final-Fan said:
EricHiggin said:

They don't prove beyond a doubt Cohen and Manafort, but they do point out questionable behavior regardless, and you pretend like the rest doesn't matter, only the one specific point made. Your the one using Trump and all his lies over time to justify specific points here and now, which don't include those past lies apparently, so why can't I? Excuses much?

I read two of your links, and it seems like you're trying to use a "where there's smoke there's fire" argument, only you can't even say the smoke is coming from Muller, just that smoke exists somewhere in the world.  Not really compelling to anyone who isn't desperate to see Muller in the wrong. 

For example, hypothetically, if you proved conclusively that "either the White House or Muller leaked stuff", and Trump's White House has been proven in the past to leak like a sieve, you can't reasonably expect us to believe that it's evidence Muller leaked stuff. 

Again, you are coming at this with a whole boatload of assumptions that just aren't a reasonable starting point. 

You read some of it, and are making a decision based on that, and not everything? That's how poor decisions get made. Great starting point...

The point I was making was that what was being used against me, 'Trump is a liar', not only isn't what the Cohen and Manafort case is about, but that using 'Trump is a liar', means applying every single time he's ever lied to make a point, like saying 'where there once was smoke, there must eventually be another fire'. Which ironically is what your saying, that I'm saying. So neither argument has all that much merit then, which I pointed out. If indirect evidence isn't worth admitting, neither of our points are useful since we aren't focusing on what applies directly and specifically to the case. I could throw out more indirect references to why Mueller himself doesn't exactly have the cleanest track record, but it'll either end up more 'conspiracy theory', or just another 'excuse', based on what evidence is deemed "admissible" in this conversation so I'm told.

The fact of the matter is the direction has gone considerably off topic. I started out by joining an existing talking point about how the Stormy payment may or may not be a problem for Trump himself, and somehow I'm now defending the case against Cohen and Manafort, and Muellers team and it's integrity. As for whether or not Trump is a liar, I thought that was already covered in the first few posts of this particular conversation. I didn't expect joining a contained battle would turn into a world war. When it comes to Trump though I guess, every battle, no matter how minor, must be turned into a war by his foes to completely destroy him. No wonder why the right typically stays so silent and keeps to the shadows.