Trump's Personal Lawyer And Campaign Manager Both Going To Prison

[EricHiggin]

SuaveSocialist said:

EricHiggin said:

Why are you still asking me if I'm still crying

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

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.

Final-Fan said:

EricHiggin said:

This is what was said on the other side, "seems to be", and this is what I said in my reply, "make it look like".

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. 

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.