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

[Final-Fan]

EricHiggin said:

Final-Fan said:

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. 

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. 

Last edited by Final-Fan - on 21 September 2018