Reply With Quote
..
This is a sure-fire way to identify bull conspiracy theories.
Works with 9-11 truthers.
Works with asshats who think evolution is a lie
Works with moon landing deniers.
The overall pattern is pretty clear. If you can't state a specific, testable theory, you are not being honest.
Cosmored, NBADan, Parker2112, PopTech, all failed on this. Wild Cobra runs the f*** away from it, when you ask him to explain how exactly all the worlds climate scientists are "in on it".
I think at some level, they know what they are saying is bull , but don't want to admit it, least of all to themselves.
(edit)
I have shamelessly borrowed this bit in RL, and have found it useful in improving my own thinking. Thanks.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 08-02-2017 at 03:31 PM. Reason: spelling
..
Last edited by RandomGuy; 08-02-2017 at 03:30 PM. Reason: ..
Trump Is Now Personally Implicated in a Coverup—Although We Still Can't Be Sure What He's Hiding
He is in
so far over his head with this job, and
so lacking in both temperament and knowledge,
that there was always the chance that he simply stumbled into this coverup without really understanding the stakes.
But the latest blockbuster Washington Post story about the president’s personal involvement in crafting Donald Trump Jr.’s statement to the press regarding the now-famous meeting in June 2016 — the one with a lawyer advertised as an emissary of the Russian government, to talk about its program to help Trump defeat Hillary Clinton —
makes it impossible for anyone to maintain that he didn’t understand how deeply his campaign was implicated.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-pol...-sure-what-hes
no problem. Thank you for being me and letting me congratulate myself on this message board.
I don't understand what people think they are getting away with when they do this. I obviously have no problem saying what I think happened and, since I'm not an expert on any of this and more than likely don't have all the information, I could be proved wrong and could be convinced of something else. That's what happens on discussion boards.
The Steele dossier is a very important piece of evidence, just not the evidence you are hoping for. The Steele dossier ties the DNC to Fusion GPS, which ties the DNC to hired Russian agents. I don't think special counsel Mueller is working on what you think he's working on, quite the opposite.
Chumpdumper is a little that doesn't like to put his takes on the line, how about you and I make a friendly avatar bet. Winner chooses losers avatar, you determine the length of the terms.
I win if anyone from the Obama administration/DNC or tied to the DNC is indicted by Mueller's investigation.
You win if anyone from Trump's team or tied to his team is indicted by Mueller's investigation.
Bonus bet if you so choose: 2x the length of the terms if Wasserman Schultz is indicted for her actions while at the DNC
Damn
I don't know why you go in the same circles. The only thing I find interesting is if TSA is a part of one of the trolling farms or just a random moron troll. That is not very interesting either.
He is like Kelly Anne Conway if she was petty, childish, stupid, and lacked self control. Why entertain that?
Can someone quote Lumpkins I don't have scripts on
With No Cameras Or Media Present, Trump Hides While Signing Russia Sanctions Bill
Other presidents would have made sure to sign the Russia sanctions bill in front of the media to send a clear message that Russian election would not be tolerated, but Trump chose to sign the bill with no formal announcement or media present to keep the whole thing quiet.
http://www.politicususa.com/2017/08/02/cameras-media-present-trump-hides-signing-russia-sanctions-bill.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&ut m_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politicu s+USA+%29
Trash signalling to his $100Ms-dirty-money benefactor and BFF Vlad that he was forced to sign in spite of deep love and respect for Vlad.
iow, "Please understand, dear Vladdy, nothing personal, xxx ooo, Donny"
You have 100,000+ posts of playing the same game, I was somewhat shocked you passed on something new.
det word choice.
Well, you can see the post count goes up when I have to ask someone what he really thinks over and over again and he never actually says what he really thinks.
Maybe you could just say what you really think and save the repe ion.
You seem to be the only one here that runs into this sort of problem.
The only time I ever really play games with predictions was when I volunteered for a DARPA study on crowd predictions. I was pretty good, and would have finished in the top ten out of a few thousand, if I had it not been for one of my predictions that went way south when something happened and I didn't update it.
Your theory on what Mueller is working on will be borne out, or not with time. I think you are way wrong, and will make fun of you with great glee if it doesn't pan out.
I generally do not gamble. I have been in one casino in my life, played ONE hand of blackjack, won it, and had a steak dinner, with the intention to never go in one again, unless it is for a show.
I guess if you are set on it, I don't mind putting "TSA is the greatest, smartest, most capable poster of all time on ST, whose critical thinking skills are above reproach" in my siggy, right at the top.
Locked loaded and ready for the bet RandomGuy just waiting for your approval
I find that few people are all that interested in that question and don't ask it.
I am genuinely interested in what you really think is going on here. You don't seem to be stupid and your conclusion is completely different from mine. I admit my default Occam's Razor reasoning looks pretty lazy, but there is a reason it has such a cool name. I think that someone had to do a lot of work to come to the conclusions you seem to have reached, so yeah -- I'm asking about it and I'm not afraid to ask you about it multiple times. I'm never going to understand your point of view here if you refuse to explain it.
The baffling part is why you refuse.
This is going to get confusing.
TSA posts things that I generally don't run across in my normal information flows, that challenge my underlying operating assumptions.
That is good for me, as well as the opportunity to identify flaws in thinking and reasoning, as with many self-styled "conservative" or libertarian thinkers.
Your choices here are a false dichotomy. It is possible that both could occur.I win if anyone from the Obama administration/DNC or tied to the DNC is indicted by Mueller's investigation.
You win if anyone from Trump's team or tied to his team is indicted by Mueller's investigation.
Who wins then?
No, I run into that same problem with you tbh
It would technically be a draw. We would then move on to see if anyone serves jail time. If no one serves jail time we will move on to who is fined the most.
You are Chumplite this should not come as a shock.
You don't do logic. It's as simple as that.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
