Ah, yes. It was "people familiar with the numbers". Who those people are, you don't say.
Actually, no, it's on them to prove it's true. It's not on me to prove it's untrue. That's not how debate works.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Senate Report: Kremlin Used NRA To Help Funnel Money To Trump Campaign
- Thread starter floridafan
- Start date
Ah, yes. It was "people familiar with the numbers". Who those people are, you don't say.
Actually, no, it's on them to prove it's true. It's not on me to prove it's untrue. That's not how debate works.
If you will trouble to read my original question, only one individual is named.
You're trolling. You knew exactly who you were referring to. You're not even good at trolling; you're an amateur.
First of all, it wasn't the NRA that stated that gun group membership spiked, was it?
So Legion here exercises a form of trolling called "sea-lioning".
Sea lioning (also spelled sealioning and sea-lioning) is a type of Internet trolling which consists of bad-faith requests for evidence, or repeated questions, the purpose of which is not clarification or elucidation, but rather an attempt to derail a discussion or to wear down the patience of one's opponent.
Wait a second...I asked you for specifics in order to satisfy this false request of yours, and you suddenly clam up? Try not to be vague when you say things.
How have I supposedly "clammed up"?
Let's review:
Why does the NRA accept foreign donations?
Ask them. I'll understand if you don't.
I have; they refuse to answer.
You did? When was this?
Last week.
Prove it. I'll understand if you can't.
How would you like me to prove it?
Anyway you can that's verifiable. I'll understand if you can't, of course.
Now, what is confusing to you?
So Legion here exercises a form of trolling called "sea-lioning". Sea lioning (also spelled sealioning and sea-lioning) is a type of Internet trolling which consists of bad-faith requests for evidence, or repeated questions, the purpose of which is not clarification or elucidation, but rather an attempt to derail a discussion or to wear down the patience of one's opponent.
Bad faith? Says who?
You're trolling. You knew exactly who you were referring to. You're not even good at trolling; you're an amateur.
So you say.
Ah, yes. It was "people familiar with the numbers". Who those people are, you don't say.
I don't say because they aren't named.
Are they?
Actually, no, it's on them to prove it's true. It's not on me to prove it's untrue. That's not how debate works.
Find them and ask them to prove that their statements are true.
I'll understand if you can't, naturally.
How have I supposedly "clammed up"?
For one, you left out my response to your last quote there. Was that deliberate? Were you trying to pretend the discussion ended? It's obvious why you do that; you don't want to come to terms with the fact that you're full of shit.
You asked me to verify, and when I asked you specifically what you mean by that, you didn't answer. You actually completely avoided the question entirely. The reason is obvious; you're full of shit.
Sea lioning (also spelled sealioning and sea-lioning) is a type of Internet trolling which consists of bad-faith requests for evidence, or repeated questions, the purpose of which is not clarification or elucidation, but rather an attempt to derail a discussion or to wear down the patience of one's opponent.
Bad faith? Says who?
Case in point.
I don't say because they aren't named.
Why aren't they named? An "unnamed source"? Which could be nobody, right?
Find them and ask them to prove that their statements are true.
You're the one who posted it; you're responsible for it. It was your post, dude. Take some personal responsibility for yourself. I'll understand if you can't, naturally.
Case in point.
How so?
Why aren't they named? An "unnamed source"? Which could be nobody, right?
Ask the journalist who wrote the report.
An "unnamed source"? Which could be nobody, right?
It's possible. Are you saying that Time fabricates news?
You're the one who posted it; you're responsible for it. It was your post, dude. Take some personal responsibility for yourself. I'll understand if you can't, naturally.
No, it's not my "responsibility". If I quote Putin, I'm not responsible for proving what he says is true. If you quote Trump, you aren't responsible for backing up his statements.
Unless you can prove the report is false, you have nothing substantial beyond your suspicions.
Another Trump collusion.
Is that so?
Prove it.
I'll understand if you can't.
Controlled Opposition
Note my apathy
In yet another weird coinkidink where somehow Russians managed to connect with the Trump campaign of 2016, we find the NRA in the middle. A Russia/Trump sandwich with the nasty gun PR lobbying group in the center. Interesting.
How do we know this? Well, the Daily Beast is reporting that the Senate Judiciary Committee reported on Wednesday that documents "suggest the Kremlin used the NRA to offer the campaign a back channel to Moscow—including a potential meeting between Trump and Vladimir Putin—and might have secretly funded Trump’s campaign."
WHOA. This is big news, if true. As we all know, foreign governments cannot contribute in any way to United States elections. Like, zero. Not a penny.
If true, this is a huge problem for the NRA, especially since they spent a record $30 million on the Trump campaign. How much of that money came from Russia (or Qatar or China or some other company trying to curry favor with Donald Trump and the Trump Organization)?
https://crooksandliars.com/2018/05/senate-report-kremlin-used-nra-help-funnel
The word, "suggest" stands out.
Ask the journalist who wrote the report.
You're the one who posted it. Are you saying you're posting things that you haven't fully vetted? Why would you do that?
No, it's not my "responsibility"
Wrong. You are personally responsible for your actions.
If I quote Putin, I'm not responsible for proving what he says is true.
You are if you're using that quote in your argument or to support your case.
You don't really like personal responsibility, do you? What an entitled brat.
If you quote Trump, you aren't responsible for backing up his statements.
If I'm quoting Trump, chances are it's to debunk his untruthful statements.
You're using untruthful statements to support your argument.
And you're trying to abscond responsibility for doing so.
That's because your parents didn't do a good job raising you; they didn't teach you that you're responsible for your actions.
The word, "suggest" stands out.
Looks like interpretation and speculation to me.