Good to know. This probably isn't the right thread on it, but I'd be interested in knowing why you support Gabbard.
I will always favor the candidate with a strong anti-war stance and someone who I feel is telling the truth. Gabbard is, which is why she's getting no support (and active resistance) from the Left. Trump originally ran on a platform of non-intervention but then changed his tune recently, unfortunately.
As for the 'Trump supporter' label, it comes when you defend him so ferociously. Blindly in fact, if you aren't willing to look at the facts presented and build an assessment from that as opposed to your predetermined views. As much as the left blindly attacks Trump despite a lack of supporting facts or proof, Trump supporters have an equal reputation for ignoring reality and not taking a moment to consider and wonder about the underlying reality.
See I disagree. I can criticize Trump on so many things which I often do. But just because I ferociously defend him against specific lies (and unproven accusations from provably corrupt officials), that in no way makes me a blind supporter. Many people are feining outrage in order to try and demonize/remove him, I don't play their games of buying into their outrage, especially when it's evident that it's hypocritical and they refuse the anwer my difficult questions.
She constantly attacks me personally but I'm used to it. I view it as evading the core of what I'm saying. Attack may be a strong word, but she uses my character to discredit my arguments.
She is pointing out how close minded you are, which is an evident fact you re-enforce when you won't consider the information already provided, when you won't even read for yourself the report that 'exonerates' Trump. Its not that you are right or wrong it is that you make no argument, or even an honest attempt to address these facts (note: if you read them, considered them, you may find you can actually use them to support your arguments, just sayin'). Your mind was set 2y ago, when you so correctly predicted this is where we would be. Your mind hasn't, and can't be changed - strengthened in it's view, or open to a different view - the way you are approaching this.
I disagree, my mind is always flexible. But I had my original hunch and then everything that subsequently happened reinforced it.
My argument is that the Mueller report turned up no further indictments to anyone on the Trump team, and all the other indictments either did not involve Trump and had nothing to do with the claim of Russian collusion. If we can agree on that, then we're mostly on the same page, if someone disagrees with that then we have a debate but all we can do is wait and see, or you can present a summarized argument that you've gleamed from the Mueller report.
However, that also assumes the other person will hear you out, consider what you've presented (including supporting facts); which JG has shown he will not do.
Why do you keep saying this? I've said repeatedly I want to hear what people have got. "Go read the report" is not an argument. I don't refuse to engage anyone if they haven't read the trove of government documents that I've read. I'm more than happy to summarize what they say and if someone asks for a reference I can direct them as to where to find it. (Also to be fair, my post that offered the most rebuttals to many claims was removed).
As such, there is no need to find evidence he won't hear.
That's exactly what I'm asking for. It seems that some of us have different definitions of what we consider evidence. You know I get a bit of flack for speculating sometimes but that's really what is happening here. The Trump/Russia accusations were literally
a conspiracy theory. But because it was state-sanctioned and pushed so hard by the media, a lot of people took it seriously. Meanwhile I'm talking about the origins of the investigation (a massive scandal that invalidates the entire thing) and that gets called a conspiracy theory. Ironic.
They are warranted in the sense that you pretend to debate, but there is no debate when you are repeating the same points over and over rather than putting them forth and letting them sit until someone is brave enough to take them on.
OK that's a fair assessment. But look at it from my POV, it's frustrating when you're explaining something and people just ignore it when it's so relevant, or they just assume that you're lying or pushing an agenda. My agenda is truth, I'm on the brink of withdrawing support from Trump so that should say a lot. But I'm still going to argue for what really happened for the special counsel to even have begun this investigation. Do you know the term "fruit from the poisonous tree"? Well we've got a poisonous tree and no fruit was even found! Then I've still got people telling me there's fruit all over the place. I can't see it. I'm open. Show me the fruit.
That's easy when your mind was set 2y ago.
My mind is never set it's always open and observing. And unless I eventually see something that contradicts my original story, I stick to it. I remember pretty well what happened. Trump was accused of colluding with the Russian government to influence the elections. Their biggest piece of "evidence" then was the Russians hacking the DNC. Remember "17 intelligence agencies all agree that Russians hacked the DNC's emails". Yeah they all agreed with a report written by a private company hired by the DNC (Crowdstrike). I read the report and it said fuck-all. The CIA said they were "highly confident", the NSA said they were "moderately confident" in a report not even produced by the government. Then I watched how 17 intelligences went to 3 intelligence agencies which went down to a select few people from these agencies. But back then, that was "evidence" for a lot of people, imo because the media and certain politicians pushed it. And that was just one dishonest incident along the way. So if I just see lie after lie of course my story isn't going to change, and if it's not a lie it's a dishonest exaggeration. Like many people believed (and probably still do believe) that
Russia significantly altered the results of the election. Last I heard they found a group spending $4,700 on FB advertising. If you think that's significant, or are even super outraged by that - then I'm going to call that person uniformed, ignorant or pushing an agenda - and what I mean there is not being proportionately outraged at the United States for interefering into others' affairs).
