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

[EricHiggin]

Final-Fan said:

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. 

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?

Machiavellian said:

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, 

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.

SuaveSocialist said:

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!

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.

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 21 September 2018