Donald Trump running for president

youngandfree said:
Invalid Link Removed

Quotes attributed to General Mattis were refuted by James Mattis. What part don't you understand?
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for the book to be released because I can actually read and don't need others to tell me what it says. I'm pretty confident that I'll understand all of it.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Back when you took a break from sucking Trump's **** to tell us how this time was different than all the other times it looked like North Korea might do something.
Click to expand...

Good to see you're back to your old tricks. You must have had withdrawals for the last few weeks I haven't been posting much. You want to talk **** about someone making an observation and giving an opinion, then jump to putting words in my mouth claiming I said something I didn't. When did I put a deadline on NK in any post I made about it?
 
youngandfree said:
Good to see you're back to your old tricks. You must have had withdrawals for the last few weeks I haven't been posting much. You want to talk **** about someone making an observation and giving an opinion, then jump to putting words in my mouth claiming I said something I didn't. When did I put a deadline on NK in any post I made about it?
Click to expand...

See my first answer to your question. Spoiler alert: keep asking the same question and get the same answer.
 
youngandfree said:
Remember when well respected Dan Rather got caught lying?
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the George W Bush/Killian thing? What does Dan Rather have to do with Woodward's book? Are you saying because one person in the universe lied one time (ot admitting that Dan Rather actually lied) then this other person must be lying to?
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Are you referring to the George W Bush/Killian thing? What does Dan Rather have to do with Woodward's book? Are you saying because one person in the universe lied one time (ot admitting that Dan Rather actually lied) then this other person must be lying to?
Click to expand...

Your statement implies that because Woodward broke Watergate he wouldn't lie or be partisan.
 
youngandfree said:
Your statement that because Woodward broke Watergate implies that he wouldn't lie or be partisan.
Click to expand...

Based on history and facts, he is less likely to be lying than Trump is. You have somebody who has a long record of honest reporting, including a very significant story involving wrongdoing of a past President, and then you have somebody who continues to get caught in lies. You're choosing to believe the second one. I never said Woodward is incapable of lying, but the odds are on his side. You're making your choice based on bias. This is the part where you try and change the subject or go crying to tattle on me again.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Based on history and facts, he is less likely to be lying than Trump is. You have somebody who has a long record of honest reporting, including a very significant story involving wrongdoing of a past President, and then you have somebody who continues to get caught in lies. You're choosing to believe the second one. I never said Woodward is incapable of lying, but the odds are on his side. You're making your choice based on bias. This is the part where you try and change the subject or go crying to tattle on me again.
Click to expand...
Him being more credible than Trump isn't really the issue. YF hasn't said he believes Trump over Woodward (although, he almost certainly does); his argument thus far is that Gen. Mattis refutes statements attributed to him by Woodward, which calls into question all of the claims Woodward makes.

So this post is completely off base. The real issue here is whether you believe Jim Mattis or Woodward, Trump has little to do with it.
 
jimbuick said:
Him being more credible than Trump isn't really the issue. YF hasn't said he believes Trump over Woodward (although, he almost certainly does); his argument thus far is that Gen. Mattis refutes statements attributed to him by Woodward, which calls into question all of the claims Woodward makes.

So this post is completely off base. The real issue here is whether you believe Jim Mattis or Woodward, Trump has little to do with it.
Click to expand...

Trump has little to do with the book about Trump?
 
jimbuick said:
Trump has little to do with YF's argument about Woodward's book's credibility.
Click to expand...

And Dan Rather does? My post was "off base" but you're cool with that one. The book is about Trump. The book that isn't released until the 11th and won't be read by ****tard. He said the book was fake based on what the media has told him. Of course Mattis denied what he said and of course his word means something to you as a vet. I don't have reason to think Mattis is lying other than the fact that he chooses to defend a liar. If he's willing to risk his reputation on Trump, that's his business. But the book is about Trump. That's how this conversation began. If you want to follow his tangents, that's your business, but I'm staying on point.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
And Dan Rather does? My post was "off base" but you're cool with that one. The book is about Trump. The book that isn't released until the 11th and won't be read by ****tard. He said the book was fake based on what the media has told him. Of course Mattis denied what he said and of course his word means something to you as a vet. I don't have reason to think Mattis is lying other than the fact that he chooses to defend a liar. If he's willing to risk his reputation on Trump, that's his business. But the book is about Trump. That's how this conversation began. If you want to follow his tangents, that's your business, but I'm staying on point.
Click to expand...
Dan Rather has quite a lot to do with YF's argument, yes. It is pretty obviously used as a counterpoint to your example about Woodward being credible due to past reporting. In this context, it is quite relevant, although, not incredibly persuasive.

As far as I can tell, YF hasn't mentioned a single time that the Woodward book is BS because of anything about Trump. That is why your post is clearly off-base. What he has said is that multiple people refute statements that Woodward has attributed to them, and the one he sourced was James Mattis.

I'm not saying you have to take Mattis' word over Woodward's, but I am saying that that is the choice his argument gave you. Mattis vs. Woodward, *not* Trump vs. Woodward.
 
jimbuick said:
Dan Rather has quite a lot to do with YF's argument, yes. It is pretty obviously used as a counterpoint to your example about Woodward being credible due to past reporting. In this context, it is quite relevant, although, not incredibly persuasive.

As far as I can tell, YF hasn't mentioned a single time that the Woodward book is BS because of anything about Trump. That is why your post is clearly off-base. What he has said is that multiple people refute statements that Woodward has attributed to them, and the one he sourced was James Mattis.

I'm not saying you have to take Mattis' word over Woodward's, but I am saying that that is the choice his argument gave you. Mattis vs. Woodward, *not* Trump vs. Woodward.
Click to expand...

Using that logic, one could easily say that if any military person ever has lied, then Mattis must be lying too. That's the same as holding Woodward responsible for Rather's actions, of which he hasn't yet explained. Since you're here as his spokesperson, why don't you tell the class what Dan Rather lied about.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Using that logic, one could easily say that if any military person ever has lied, then Mattis must be lying too. That's the same as holding Woodward responsible for Rather's actions, of which he hasn't yet explained. Since you're here as his spokesperson, why don't you tell the class what Dan Rather lied about.
Click to expand...
By your logic, if Mattis has ever told the truth in the past then he must be telling the truth now. It is an equally flawed position.



No idea what he is referring to about Rather.
 
jimbuick said:
By your logic, if Mattis has ever told the truth in the past then he must be telling the truth now. It is an equally flawed position.



No idea what he is referring to about Rather.
Click to expand...

He claimed the book was "fake", so the burden of proof is on him to show that. You jumped in here and double downed on Dan Rather and now you're walkinh it back. If you two want to believe that all reporters are liars unless they report positively on Trump, that's your choice, but I'm going to ask for actual evidence.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
He claimed the book was "fake", so the burden of proof is on him to show that. You jumped in here and double downed on Dan Rather and now you're walkinh it back. If you two want to believe that all reporters are liars unless they report positively on Trump, that's your choice, but I'm going to ask for actual evidence.
Click to expand...

You claimed I said NK would have no nukes by now, but the burden of proof is on you to back that up, which you can't do.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
He claimed the book was "fake", so the burden of proof is on him to show that. You jumped in here and double downed on Dan Rather and now you're walkinh it back. If you two want to believe that all reporters are liars unless they report positively on Trump, that's your choice, but I'm going to ask for actual evidence.
Click to expand...
He claimed the book was BS because Woodward attributes statements to people, namely Mattis, that are refuted by those people. That is support for his argument.

I didn't say a damn thing about Rather being a liar or any of the other BS in this post. Don't you dare try to put words in my mouth just because you can't read.
 
jimbuick said:
Dan Rather has quite a lot to do with YF's argument, yes. It is pretty obviously used as a counterpoint to your example about Woodward being credible due to past reporting. In this context, it is quite relevant, although, not incredibly persuasive.
Click to expand...

jimbuick said:
I didn't say a damn thing about Rather being a liar or any of the other BS in this post. Don't you dare try to put words in my mouth just because you can't read.
Click to expand...

He said Dan Rather was a liar. You jumped in here and said he was right to use him in his argument. Care to explain then what you meant? And if you want to get personal, we can do that too.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
He said Dan Rather was a liar. You jumped in here and said he was right to use him in his argument. Care to explain then what you meant? And if you want to get personal, we can do that too.
Click to expand...
No, I didn't. As you quoted, I said he had a lot to do with YF's argument because it was clearly being used as a counterpoint in said argument. Nowhere did I say it was a strong counterpoint; in fact, as you quoted, I stated quite clearly that it is not a persuasive counterpoint.
 
jimbuick said:
No, I didn't. As you quoted, I said he had a lot to do with YF's argument because it was clearly being used as a counterpoint in said argument. Nowhere did I say it was a strong counterpoint; in fact, as you quoted, I stated quite clearly that it is not a persuasive counterpoint.
Click to expand...

So then you're telling me what I already know. Yes, Dan Rather has a lot to do with his argument because this is what he does, he shouts out random unrelated crap in his autistic rage. He's Brick from Anchorman. If you don't agree with his example, why defend it?
 
Aleksandar37 said:
So then you're telling me what I already know. Yes, Dan Rather has a lot to do with his argument because this is what he does, he shouts out random unrelated crap in his autistic rage. He's Brick from Anchorman. If you don't agree with his example, why defend it?
Click to expand...

I didn't. What I posted was this:

jimbuick said:
Him [Woodward] being more credible than Trump isn't really the issue. YF hasn't said he believes Trump over Woodward (although, he almost certainly does); his argument thus far is that Gen. Mattis refutes statements attributed to him by Woodward, which calls into question all of the claims Woodward makes. [emphasis added]

So this post is completely off base. The real issue here is whether you believe Jim Mattis or Woodward, Trump has little to do with it.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mention Dan Rather at all. You are the one who decided to rope that statement in when my post had nothing to do with him.
 
jimbuick said:
Dan Rather has quite a lot to do with YF's argument, yes. It is pretty obviously used as a counterpoint to your example about Woodward being credible due to past reporting. In this context, it is quite relevant, although, not incredibly persuasive.
Click to expand...

You're cherry picking the conversation. Go back to the beginning. He calls the book fake. I make a statement about believing Woodward over who the book is about: Trump. Then, he states the parts about others and Mattis and tosses in Dan Rather for good measure. Then you came in telling me that my statement was "off base". He brought up Mattis and Rather. You said Rather was "quite relevant". If you're annoyed that we're now talking about Dan Rather, join the club.
 
Ok, I went back to the beginning to see where he said the book is BS because Trump denies it. Spoiler alert: I didn't find it.
youngandfree said:
The same person that made up the fake **** Woodward is peddling. So I'm going with Woodward wrote the Op Ed.
Click to expand...
He calls it BS with no reasoning why.
Aleksandar37 said:
Yeah, let's call one of the guys that broke Watergate a liar rather than the guy who repeatedly gets caught lying. Oh, and how did you get a copy of the book before release?
Click to expand...
You lean on Woodward's past to establish him as a credible reporter. Ask how he read a book pre-release.
youngandfree said:
Half the book has been printed in the press for the last week. And it's been refuted by multiple people.
Click to expand...
He says it's claims have been refuted.
Aleksandar37 said:
It's been refuted by people like yourself who haven't read it. You've simply been told that it's anti-Trump, so it must be false. But you're non-partisan, right?
Click to expand...
You say it is only refuted by Trump fanboys.
youngandfree said:
Invalid Link Removed

Quotes attributed to General Mattis were refuted by James Mattis. What part don't you understand?
Click to expand...
He gives an example where quotes are attributed to Mattis by Woodward and Mattis refutes them.
youngandfree said:
Remember when well respected Dan Rather got caught lying?
Click to expand...
He brings this up as a (poor) counterpoint to your previous establishment of Woodward's credibility.
Aleksandar37 said:
Are you referring to the George W Bush/Killian thing? What does Dan Rather have to do with Woodward's book? Are you saying because one person in the universe lied one time (ot admitting that Dan Rather actually lied) then this other person must be lying to?
Click to expand...
You ask him about it.
youngandfree said:
Your statement implies that because Woodward broke Watergate he wouldn't lie or be partisan.
Click to expand...
He explains how he views it as a relevant counterpoint.
Aleksandar37 said:
Based on history and facts, he is less likely to be lying than Trump is. You have somebody who has a long record of honest reporting, including a very significant story involving wrongdoing of a past President, and then you have somebody who continues to get caught in lies. You're choosing to believe the second one. I never said Woodward is incapable of lying, but the odds are on his side. You're making your choice based on bias. This is the part where you try and change the subject or go crying to tattle on me again.
Click to expand...
The statement I responded to. You state that Woodward is more credible than Trump, so you are inclined to believe Woodward. I point out that his argument has not been about who is more credible between Woodward and Trump, but, instead, is about who is more credible between Mattis and Woodward since Mattis is the person who refutes (some of) Woodward's claims.
 
jimbuick said:
You state that Woodward is more credible than Trump, so you are inclined to believe Woodward. I point out that his argument has not been about who is more credible between Woodward and Trump, but, instead, is about who is more credible between Mattis and Woodward since Mattis is the person who refutes (some of) Woodward's claims.
Click to expand...

And so does Trump. What is your question or point? You haven't done anything except try to clarify what he said, but then don't want me to assume you agree with what he is saying.
 
What is my point? I thought I made it quite clear, and it seems only you have issues understanding it.

Here it is again:
jimbuick said:
Him being more credible than Trump isn't really the issue. YF hasn't said he believes Trump over Woodward (although, he almost certainly does); his argument thus far is that Gen. Mattis refutes statements attributed to him by Woodward, which calls into question all of the claims Woodward makes.

So this post is completely off base. The real issue here is whether you believe Jim Mattis or Woodward, Trump has little to do with it.
Click to expand...
Your post (which the above quote is a response to) was off-base. It did not respond to YF's argument in any way. That is the point of my post that states that quite clearly.

All I've done is point out that you haven't adequately addressed his position.
 
jimbuick said:
What is my point? I thought I made it quite clear, and it seems only you have issues understanding it.

Here it is again:Your post (which the above quote is a response to) was off-base. It did not respond to YF's argument in any way. That is the point of my post that states that quite clearly.

All I've done is point out that you haven't adequately addressed his position.
Click to expand...

Last ****ing time I'm asking to keep it not personal. He claimed a book that he hasn't read is fake and said "multiple people" have refuted it. I chose one of those people who the book is primarily about: Trump (this still before he names anybody). You're saying that I "did not respond to YF's argument in any way" because I didn't directly address one of several posts that came after his claim that the book is fake. You also tried to explain to me why Dan Rather is relevant even though you said that you don't agree with the example and don't even seem to know why he used that example, but can't understand why that might be confusing to me. How are you able to tell me it's relevant when you don't know what he is referring to? Rather than assuming on any of this, I ask for clarification and get told that I can't read and have issues understanding.

As for Mattis vs Woodward, I plan on actually reading the book when it is released. Hypothetical **** is a waste of time.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Last ****ing time I'm asking to keep it not personal. He claimed a book that he hasn't read is fake and said "multiple people" have refuted it. I chose one of those people who the book is primarily about: Trump (this still before he names anybody). You're saying that I "did not respond to YF's argument in any way" because I didn't directly address one of several posts that came after his claim that the book is fake.
Click to expand...

The post that I responded to came well after he provided Mattis as an example of someone who refutes Woodward's claim. You failed to address that and instead double down on your "Trump fanboy" position.

You also tried to explain to me why Dan Rather is relevant even though you said that you don't agree with the example and don't even seem to know why he used that example, but can't understand why that might be confusing to me. How are you able to tell me it's relevant when you don't know what he is referring to?
Click to expand...

Did I now? Show me where that happened.

At no time did I try to explain his reasoning for Rather's inclusion. You asked me why I responded to your post instead of his. Do you remember that?

I simply stated that his post was on topic because it was a direct counterpoint to your claim about Woodward'a credibility while your post was not a counterpoint to anything he had said.

I have been incredibly clear about this.

Rather than assuming on any of this, I ask for clarification and get told that I can't read and have issues understanding.

As for Mattis vs Woodward, I plan on actually reading the book when it is released. Hypothetical **** is a waste of time.
Click to expand...
Why don't you carefully read back through the last page and see if any of that happened before or after you repeatedly strawmanned my posts and accused me of being some "fake-news" hollering Trump fanboy whilst simultaneously putting words into my mouth.

Don't cry about what you see as "making it personal" when you sling around **** like that.
 
jimbuick said:
Why don't you carefully read back through the last page and see if any of that happened before or after you repeatedly strawmanned my posts and accused me of being some "fake-news" hollering Trump fanboy whilst simultaneously putting words into my mouth.

Don't cry about what you see as "making it personal" when you sling around **** like that.
Click to expand...

I never thought you were a Trump fanboy.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
lol, when did I say that? It seems like it has been a while.
Click to expand...
It was. I wanted to know if anyone has talked about this glorious incident, so I searched the thread for “Spartacus,” and your half-a-year-old post is all that came up, but I thought it was too perfect not to reply to, since nothing about this hilarity makes any sense anyway.
 
jimbuick said:
So not only can you not read, but you can't even remember the BS that you post? Solid.
Click to expand...

No, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt earlier, but it's clear that you had no intention but to argue with me, so that's what you get. Where's all this aggression coming from, man? Things not good at home? You two arguing again? Sending hugs xoxo
 
Aleksandar37 said:
No, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt earlier, but it's clear that you had no intention but to argue with me, so that's what you get. Where's all this aggression coming from, man? Things not good at home? You two arguing again? Sending hugs xoxo
Click to expand...
I have been more than courteous towards you. If there is any aggression here it is, and always has been, from you. Been drinking again, bud?
 
This thread is brutal.
I've been coming back to this thread on and off for a little while, and have been tempted to post several-several times, but it occurred to me. You guys are professional arguers. I mean, you must be getting paid to beat each other up right? It's not worth it. So, I did post a somewhat humorous meme and got no response.

Maybe I'm just lucky, and you don't get paid to argue with an amateur... lol.

I'd like to ask a question.
What do you guys gain by using such angry words with one another? What purpose is this serving? If you say, it's the money or therapy...

Carry on.
I'll just sit back and try to learn... something.
 
justhere4comm said:
This thread is brutal.
I've been coming back to this thread on and off for a little while, and have been tempted to post several-several times, but it occurred to me. You guys are professional arguers. I mean, you must be getting paid to beat each other up right? It's not worth it. So, I did post a somewhat humorous meme and got no response.

Maybe I'm just lucky, and you don't get paid to argue with an amateur... lol.

I'd like to ask a question.
What do you guys gain by using such angry words with one another? What purpose is this serving? If you say, it's the money or therapy...

Carry on.
I'll just sit back and try to learn... something.
Click to expand...

I responded to you and somebody actually did post Spartacus/Booker memes the other day.
 
jimbuick said:
Asking me not to make it personal after you already made it personal doesn't carry much weight.
Click to expand...

Then grow a pair of balls and tell me how I personally insulted you instead of this trolling bull****. I would have apologized and we could have moved on. And yes, I had some great bourbon on Friday night. You also drink, what's your point?
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Then grow a pair of balls and tell me how I personally insulted you instead of this trolling bull****. I would have apologized and we could have moved on. And yes, I had some great bourbon on Friday night. You also drink, what's your point?
Click to expand...
I already did and your response, if you check back, was "read it however the **** you want" (paraphrased).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top