*** The Official CUCKposting thread ***

[Poopadoop]

Wp

I didn't insult you, I countered your argument. But from this it seems you can't tell the difference.

[BananaStand]

I didn't insult you, I countered your argument. But from this it seems you can't tell the difference.

Sorry, I must be unclear on the definition of "insult". You referred to my argument as "propaganda" (as if yours isn't, lol), and likened me to one of the worst human rights violators in history. What do you call that?

Dismissing an argument is not the same as "countering". Try again.

[Poopadoop]

Sorry, I must be unclear on the definition of "insult". You referred to my argument as "propaganda" (as if yours isn't, lol), and likened me to one of the worst human rights violators in history. What do you call that?

Dismissing an argument is not the same as "countering". Try again.

I didn't liken you to anything. I likened the latest Fox-inspired explanation for why Trump fired Comey to a propaganda technique where one floods the situation with alternative facts in order to confuse people.

Calling your argument all kinds of shit is not the same as calling you all kinds of shit. I don't know why you try to personalize everything. Basically, in your little world, it seems anyone who doesn't agree with you is insulting you.

I guess that's where you get the idea that calling people names is a solid debating strategy.

[BananaStand]

I didn't liken you to anything. I likened the latest Fox-inspired explanation for why Trump fired Comey to a propaganda technique where one floods the situation with alternative facts in order to confuse people.

Calling your argument all kinds of shit is not the same as calling you all kinds of shit. I don't know why you try to personalize everything. Basically, in your little world, it seems anyone who doesn't agree with you is insulting you.

I guess that's where you get the idea that calling people names is a solid debating strategy.

Deflecting isn't countering either

[Poopadoop]

Deflecting isn't countering either

That's right it isn't. What's your point?

'cause mine is that we get fed a number of different stories, and as time goes on the alternate facts pile up. I pointed out how this a known propaganda technique.

Why should we take this story any more seriously than the other three or four offered before? Why provide so many different explanations in the first place?

[BananaStand]

Why should we take this story any more seriously than the other three or four offered before?

You're exaggerating. There were only two explanations for firing Comey. And they are not mutually exclusive. Just because Trump had two good reasons for firing Comey, doesn't mean that his story is inconsistent.

[Poopadoop]

You're exaggerating. There were only two explanations for firing Comey. And they are not mutually exclusive. Just because Trump had two good reasons for firing Comey, doesn't mean that his story is inconsistent.

if anything, I'm under-xagerating.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-...reasons-2017-5

That was just in the first week. Now we have the latest offering, and we're supposed to buy that. Ok, assuming that Comey was corrupt and that was the reason all along, why have all these conflicting stories about why he was fired?

At best, it suggests a WH that isn't even on the same page from the top down about even the most basic information; at worst it stinks of a deliberate spreading of misinformation.

[spoonitnow]

Deflecting isn't countering either

When you wrestle with a pig, you both get muddy, but the pig likes it.

[Savy]

When you wrestle with a pig, you both get muddy, but the pig likes it.

Watching the rumble tonight?

[spoonitnow]

Watching the rumble tonight?

Yeah. Women over the top rope LOL

I put the over/under on injuries just from that match at 5.5.

[BananaStand]

Trump said. “And, in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.’”

Democrats see that quote as a smoking gun. Trump admitted to firing Comey to stifle the Russia investigation.

or......alternate theory.......

If Trump did not collude with Russia, then Trump would know for sure, that an investigation would yield nothing. He would also know, for sure that no evidence of collusion exists. Therefore, Trump could conclude that Comey is conducting a politically motivated investigation with no evidence. Fire-able offense.

Then...two days later, a highly respected bi-partisan deputy attorney general made an extensive written recommendation to fire Comey based on an overwhelming lack of public confidence related to his bungling of the Hillary investigation.

A freshman communications student can tell you that the latter plays better as an "official message".

And then later, a jubilant, bombastic, and egotistical Trump couldn't help but drop a brag about HE made the decision himself based on his own evaluation of Comey's incompetence.

I'm not seeing a crime there.

The left's alternate theory is that Trump got lucky that Rosenstein wrote that memo because Trump had already made up his mind to obstruct justice. Then, in an interview with CNN Trump had a brain fart and accidentally confessed. C'mon. He's not dumb!!!