3 Members and 30 Guests are viewing this topic.
That's not a legitimate argument, and neither are you.
I'm an argument? A typo is a fallacy?
He doesn't like you.
Is that you or Jackstar?
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
Where is that in the report?
It has nothing to do with the report. Not sure what special website they're getting that from.
Coincidently, the date of this intelligence report is 20 June 2016
Remember the golden rule of negotiating: He who has the gold makes the rules.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 21, 2013
Remember the golden rule of negotiating: He who has the gold makes the rules.
#1) #2) You misspelled a word. DISQUALIFIED.
You're wrong if you believe1. What we had came from /pol.2. That I was Buzzfeed's source.Try again, boys.— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) January 11, 2017
You're wrong if you believe1. What we had came from /pol.2. That I was Buzzfeed's source.Try again, boys.
1. The anon didn't contact Wilson and say "hi, I'm from 4chan's /pol/ board". He created a fictitious GOP #nevertrump identity.2. Anon passed the bullshit story to Wilson who then passed it onto a "veteran spy" (presumed to be Evan McMullin - former cia operative) who then passed it on to John McCain who then passed it on to various intelligence agencies from where it was then leaked to the media/Buzzfeed. So Wilson is correct in that he isn't Buzzfeed's source.
Perhaps the 4chan story as published by Buzzfeed is actually a Trump false flag.
How predictable. You naively assume it's the Democrats. If even elements of this story are true, it could become just the tool the GOP needs to extract Trump from their team. Many of them still see Trump as a nuisance and potentially obstructive to their agenda.
Other people who would believe it, and have the B-52s on the way to Moscow, are John McCain and Lindsey Graham.