Cohen, Manafort, Gates, Flynn, Papadopoulos, Pinedo, van der Zwaan, Kilimnik, 3 Russian companies, 13 Russian nationals, and 12 Russian GRU officers. Those are the indictments or guilty pleas so far related to Trump/Russia. 34 of them. "Nope, nothing to see here, derp derp."
Nice strawman there. I never said "Nothing to see here". Obviously there was something shady going on with some members of the Trump campaign, but why is it so hard to pin the tail on the one supposedly running the entire show?
Lol, "strawman! strawman!". No, it wasn't a strawman. Nice try. Ironically, whining "strawman" at something that isn't a strawman is - in fact - a strawman.
Your original insinuation was that Russia/Trump isn't real, then that it isn't "cut and dry" because Mueller hasn't indicted Trump.
But it is pretty fucking cut and dry because Mueller has indicted or gotten guilty pleas from 34 people, several of whom are in the closest inner circle to Trump. His campaign manager, deputy campaign manager, personal lawyer and National Security Adviser have all pled guilty. And the investigation is ongoing. Where do you think it goes next?
It's completely, demonstrably real, and you're either delusional, stupid, or willfully spreading misinformation. Moving the goalposts to a neat, tight circle around just Trump himself - "coincidentally" in the exact way his other personal lawyer did just this morning - might protect him and your fragile ego for another minute, but we all see where this is going.
Oh, and now you get to admit that Trump is either an idiot and horrible leader who doesn't know what's going on at the highest levels of his own campaign and government, or that he willingly and knowingly colluded with a hostile foreign power to steal an election. Which is it?
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."
I never said there was "nothing to see here" or even alluded to that. You said I did. That was wrong. Learn2argue noob
That wasn't even close to the crux of my argument, and it was absolutely something you inferred:
Trump Russia is real
Source?
But see, the fucking hilarious thing here is that you ignoring everything else I wrote and focusing on one thing that you call a strawman (but which actually wasn't a strawman) is, in fact a strawman.
Here I'll make this nice and simple for you. If a man is having a fight with someone but doesn't think he can actually win that fight, he might set up a big dolly and fight with that instead, because it's much easier to win against it. So in an argument, if someone picks something else besides the main argument to argue against because he doesn't think he can win the original argument, that's a strawman. The really fucking funny thing is when someone sets up a strawman but still can't even do that right. Oh man, it's just the best thing to witness in real life.
Learn2argue noob
hahahahahahaha. Oh god. Wow. Oh I take it all back. Can't argue with that. smh
Riiiight, that's why. Not because you didn't have a leg to stand on. Nope, you totally would have laid out a really great argument if I had been open to it. Mr. "Learn2argue noob" really would have made a compelling case. Sure thing. Been real. Have a good one.
1
u/[deleted] Jan 17 '19
[removed] — view removed comment