Would cities burn if Trump and Republicans colluded with social media to win?

[Fueri]

No, it isn't. I did intentionally present the portion of the facts that support the point I'm trying to make. If you haven't been paying attention, this was the point I was trying to make:

Now, you claim that the follow up matters, but it doesn't. Nothing in the follow up change the fact that Trump's White House did have posts removed from Twitter. That's not a lie of omission since the rest of the information isn't relevant.

I don't have to tell you what you believe. You told me yourself. Given that we have proof that Trump's White House censored speech, the question is whether you're going to say shit about it.

So far you're just whining about me mentioning it.

Yes, and the entire point is that you did not present the full context.

The follow up very much matters. This was posted on twitter, which limits characters per post. Not posting all of the relevant posts is the same thing as pulling one sentence out of a paragraph and then claiming that is the only relevant information in said paragraph.

We see that shit all the time. It is disingenuous and dishonest. You've been called on it and all you can say is the facts don't actually matter. lol. It's ridiculous.

 

[Marener]

The follow up very much matters

You keep saying this, but never make an argument for why it matters.

You should, because otherwise you have nothing relevant to say.

 

[Fueri]

You keep saying this, but never make an argument for why it matters.

You should, because otherwise you have nothing relevant to say.

Yes, I have. Your reading skills are no better than your logic, apparently.
It was in my very first post responding to your intentionally slanted nonsense.

 

[Marener]

Yes, I have. Your reading skills are no better than your logic, apparently.
It was in my very first post responding to your intentionally slanted nonsense.

Yes, your first post where you attempted to move the goalposts (which you later denied doing)

Your assertion (or Taibbi's assertion which you are claiming matters) that one side does it more than the other changes nothing about the fact that my original statement is 100% accurate.

Trump's White House colluded with Twitter to censor people. That's just a fact. Nothing you've claimed "matters" changes it. You're just trying to deflect from this fact, because as I rightly called in my initial post, you won't say shit about it.

And you haven't!

 

[Fueri]

Yes, your first post where you attempted to move the goalposts (which you later denied doing)

Your assertion (or Taibbi's assertion which you are claiming matters) that one side does it more than the other changes nothing about the fact that my original statement is 100% accurate.

Trump's White House colluded with Twitter to censor people. That's just a fact. Nothing you've claimed "matters" changes it. You're just trying to deflect from this fact, because as I rightly called in my initial post, you won't say shit about it.

And you haven't!

I have already stated I do not support this coming from either side of the fence.

how did I move the goalposts of YOUR post. JFC.

You didn't present the entire set of facts and you did so to present a slanted, and hence untruthful argument. At least own it.

 

[Marener]

I have already stated I do not support this coming from either side of the fence.

how did I move the goalposts of YOUR post. JFC.

You didn't present the entire set of facts and you did so to present a slanted, and hence untruthful argument. At least own it.

There's nothing untruthful about stating that Trump's White House colluded with Twitter to censor people.

It's accurate.

It's also accurate to say none of you will say shit about it because you've yet to acknowledge that it's even true and instead make an argument that keeps shifting goalposts and then pretending you aren't doing so.

 

[Fueri]

There's nothing untruthful about stating that Trump's White House colluded with Twitter to censor people.

It's accurate.

It's also accurate to say none of you will say shit about it because you've yet to acknowledge that it's even true and instead make an argument that keeps shifting goalposts and then pretending you aren't doing so.

Weird then that I've said, now 3 times, that this is wrong, no matter who does it. And yet you keep making the same statement. lol.

That statement is a small portion of the facts presented. Plain and simple.

You seize on it as if it is some coup de grace, likely because it strokes your confirmation bias, but it is a naked and fallacious attempt to simply whitewash over the rest of what was presented.

 

[Marener]

Weird then that I've said, now 3 times, that this is wrong, no matter who does it

Nowhere in that statement do you even acknowledge that Trump’s White House did this.

 

[Fueri]

Nowhere in that statement do you even acknowledge that Trump’s White House did this.

My statement was, and is, unequivocal.

 

[Unkotare]

Republicans didn't even bother with a platform. Supporting Trump was good enough for them.

More empty, hyper partisan drone bullshit.

 

[Marener]

My statement was, and is, unequivocal.

Your statement omits the fact that Trump’s White House did just that.

It’s a lie by omission. Right?

 

[Lastamender]

How would Democrats handle the situation if the tables were turned?
Have any Democrats openly condemned those who participated yet?

I can't see through the smoke or concentrate with all the sirens. Does that answer your question?

 

[Lastamender]

Your statement omits the fact that Trump’s White House did just that.

It’s a lie by omission. Right?

Lies by omission is all the MSM has done since Obama took office.

 

[Fueri]

Your statement omits the fact that Trump’s White House did just that.

It’s a lie by omission. Right?

It was never disputed. It is in your post. It was not, therefore, 'omitted.' Good grief.

Lying, weaseling, and now outright trolling- or just so illogical that the result is nearly the same thing.

That's the trifecta. Congratulations, you win the Booby Prize.

 

[Marener]

It was never disputed. It is in your post. It was not, therefore, 'omitted.' Good grief.

Lying, weaseling, and now outright trolling- or just so illogical that the result is nearly the same thing.

That's the trifecta. Congratulations, you win the Booby Prize.

If it wasn’t in your post, then it was omitted. Your statement says nothing about Trump, which means that I am still correct. You won’t say shit about him doing it.

Everyone who accuses Dems of doing this, apparently by your standard they’re lying by omission. After all, you accused me of lying by omission when I accuse Trump of doing so.

 

[Marener]

Lies by omission is all the MSM has done since Obama took office.

Ah, yet another volunteer to prove my point.

None of you are going to say shit about it.

 

[Fueri]

If it wasn’t in your post, then it was omitted. Your statement says nothing about Trump, which means that I am still correct. You won’t say shit about him doing it.

Everyone who accuses Dems of doing this, apparently by your standard they’re lying by omission. After all, you accused me of lying by omission when I accuse Trump of doing so.

If I didn't post it, it was omitted, even though it was already there and not disputed.

That's utter nonsense, even for you.

 

[Marener]

If I didn't post it, it was omitted, even though it was already there and not disputed.

That's utter nonsense, even for you.

You haven’t “disputed it” but you refuse to acknowledge it.

Your statement is vague in that it fails to mention who is doing it. It condemns no one.

It’s weaseling out of the truth. Just like I said, you won’t say shit about it.

 

[Fueri]

You haven’t “disputed it” but you refuse to acknowledge it.

Your statement is vague in that it fails to mention who is doing it. It condemns no one.

It’s weaseling out of the truth. Just like I said, you won’t say shit about it

My statement is as comprehensive as it is unequivocal.

You are just trolling at this point, as there is no logic in any of this at this point.


That's ok, though. Just know that you can sleep easy knowing that Trumpy Bear loves you despite your lack of anything resembling logic.

::Head Pat::

 

[Marener]

My statement is as comprehensive as it is unequivocal.

You are just trolling at this point, as there is no logic in any of this at this point.


That's ok, though. Just know that you can sleep easy knowing that Trumpy Bear loves you despite your lack of anything resembling logic.

::Head Pat::

Your statement condemned no one because it mentions no one.

All the time and you still can’t say anything about Trump, exactly as I predicted.

Man, I know you guys like the back of my hand.