Question for libs, dems and/or snowflakes...

[Cancel 2018.1]

Try this, moron.

If this were English composition writing class I was grading I'd deduct for use of unoriginal, overused wording that has little meaning.

Provide an example of any "if" that has ever actually occurred.

Why? Use of the word if implies a hypothetical situation (not a hypothesis).
Try this, dumber. Try answering one question I've posed to you in this thread.

 

[Owl'd You're Up!]

So I can assume from this statement that you don't consider the wikileaks emails from the DNC and Podesta that were published were harmless and therefore did not influence the outcome of the election, similar to the hacked and published emails by Macron. That would explain why dims are silent abut DNC corruption. But it doesn't explain dims saying they did influence the outcome.. hrc seems to think so. But then again she had a lot of lame excuses on her excuses tour.

Oh, for pity's sake!

The most damning pieces of evidence unearthed were:

1. Donna spilling the beans on a debate in Flint, Michigan, revealing there might be a question about poisoned water in, yep, Flint, Michigan. Big eff'n surprise.

2. There was some talk about using Bernie's faith (or lack thereof) against him. No one was ever able to point to a single instance of same actually being used.

So, all you have, in the end, is, in the DNC, comprising a bunch of political animals, there is politics going on, folks expressing strong preferences. I guess, that warrants the allegation of "corruption" once you've beaten both Pope Francis and Jesus Christ in a morality contest.

But yeah, that was the basis for marching orders issued in Rightardia, click-bait on every rightarded "news" site for weeks, collective hyperventilation about unprecedented corruption at the DNC ensuing. So yes, that was all fairly minor in substance, entirely inconsequential as an issue, and fairly damaging as to Hillary's electoral prospects, even though her participation also was never established.

I mean, really, were you born yesterday?

 

[domer76]

If this were English composition writing class I was grading I'd deduct for use of unoriginal, overused wording that has little meaning. Why? Use of the word if implies a hypothetical situation (not a hypothesis).
Try this, dumber. Try answering one question I've posed to you in this thread.

Hypothesis contrary to fact. Logical fallacy.

Still waiting for the "if" that has actually occurred.

 

[Cancel 2018.1]

Hypothesis contrary to fact. Logical fallacy.

You obviously don't know what a hypothesis is. None was stated or queried.

Still waiting for the "if" that has actually occurred.

Don't hold your breath. You really don't know the difference between 'hypothesis' and 'hypothetical', do you? Dictionaries are freely available.
And you've become boringly redundant. We've already been thru both of the above .

 

[Cancel 2018.1]

Oh, for pity's sake!

The most damning pieces of evidence unearthed were:

1. Donna spilling the beans on a debate in Flint, Michigan, revealing there might be a question about poisoned water in, yep, Flint, Michigan. Big eff'n surprise.

2. There was some talk about using Bernie's faith (or lack thereof) against him. No one was ever able to point to a single instance of same actually being used.

So, all you have, in the end, is, in the DNC, comprising a bunch of political animals, there is politics going on, folks expressing strong preferences. I guess, that warrants the allegation of "corruption" once you've beaten both Pope Francis and Jesus Christ in a morality contest.

But yeah, that was the basis for marching orders issued in Rightardia, click-bait on every rightarded "news" site for weeks, collective hyperventilation about unprecedented corruption at the DNC ensuing. So yes, that was all fairly minor in substance, entirely inconsequential as an issue, and fairly damaging as to Hillary's electoral prospects, even though her participation also was never established.

I mean, really, were you born yesterday?

I've already exonerated you, owl. You basically say the emails were not damaging. I believe you. So they were not damaging to hrc, as she and others from the right and left have claimed. That's the reason for the silence from the left. Now go away and tell your sidekick here to answer one of my questions.

 

[Owl'd You're Up!]

I've already exonerated you, owl. You basically say the emails were not damaging. I believe you. So they were not damaging to hrc, as she and others from the right and left have claimed. That's the reason for the silence from the left. Now go away and tell your sidekick here to answer one of my questions.

Did you misplace your glasses?

So yes, that was all fairly minor in substance, entirely inconsequential as an issue, and fairly damaging as to Hillary's electoral prospects, even though her participation also was never established.​

I don't have a sidekick, I don't speak for "the left", much less for the caricature thereof you'd like to paint, and I take no responsibility for anything other than my own produce. Lastly, you are seriously overestimating your influence if you actually think it's for you to "exonerate" anyone, and you certainly are not in a position to exonerate me.

 

[evince]

If the emails from the DNC and Podesta exposed by Wikileaks had been proven to be sourced from say, a dem watchdog group looking to clean up the DNC's act or from Bernie bros, or say from G.B or Canada (our staunchest allies) would you behave differently or still put your heads in the sand? So far I've heard nothing from dems about doing anything to hold their leaders responsible for their blatant corruption not to speak of open racism.

Repubs, right leaners, independents, tea partiers, stormfronters, and libertarians please refrain from commenting for about a day. I really only want to see responses, if any , from the left.

I predict very few responses or 'yeah but Trump colluded blah blah', or I will be personally attacked. Almost guaranteed if TTQ responds she'll call me a racist for posting this.
BAC has already started a thread about the need for dem introspection , no real need for him to respond, but of course I welcome his comments.

Bernie was not a dem

there is no crime idiot


there is no there there cock muncher

 

[Cancel 2018.1]

Did you misplace your glasses?

So yes, that was all fairly minor in substance, entirely inconsequential as an issue, and fairly damaging as to Hillary's electoral prospects,​

"fairly minor in substance, entirely inconsequential as an issue" and "fairly damaging as to Hillary's electoral prospects" seem to me to contradict each other.

even though her participation also was never established.

Huh? Participation in what???

I don't have a sidekick, I don't speak for "the left", much less for the caricature thereof you'd like to paint, and I take no responsibility for anything other than my own produce.

Sorry. Until now you and dumber were the only two to participate.

Lastly, you are seriously overestimating your influence if you actually think it's for you to "exonerate" anyone, and you certainly are not in a position to exonerate me.

Ok, I don't exonerate you. You've stated your case as to why dims , not Bernie bros, were silent about how the DNC tried to influence the nom in favor of a seriously flawed hrc. I accept that.​

 

[Cancel 2018.1]

Bernie was not a dem

I know. I never did understand why he was allowed to run as one.

there is no crime idiot

I know. Look up 'crime' and corruption'. There's a difference.

 

[domer76]

You obviously don't know what a hypothesis is. None was stated or queried.
Don't hold your breath. You really don't know the difference between 'hypothesis' and 'hypothetical', do you? Dictionaries are freely available.
And you've become boringly redundant. We've already been thru both of the above .

Call it what you want, fool. This was your concocted premise.

"If the emails from the DNC and Podesta exposed by Wikileaks had been proven to be sourced from say, a dem watchdog group...."

They weren't, were they? You concocted that scenario and proceeded from there.

I'll school you here, cretin.

"This fallacy consists of offering a poorly supported claim about what might have happened in the past or future if circumstances or conditions were other than they actually were or are. The fallacy also involves treating hypothetical situations as if they were fact.

 

[Owl'd You're Up!]

"fairly minor in substance, entirely inconsequential as an issue" and "fairly damaging as to Hillary's electoral prospects" seem to me to contradict each other.

Is that really so unclear?

A man couldn't get home in time, and so, believing no one is watching, he peed in some corner, is being filmed and watched by a giggling child. All hell breaks loose because he's accused of exposing himself, he loses job, wife, home, and kills himself.

You could say, what he's done was "fairly minor in substance, entirely inconsequential as an issue" and fairly damaging to the man's life.

Clearer now?

 

[Cancel 2018.1]

Call it what you want, fool. This was your concocted premise.

"If the emails from the DNC and Podesta exposed by Wikileaks had been proven to be sourced from say, a dem watchdog group...."

They weren't, were they?

Of course not. I made the query because the silence from dims was deafening when those emails were exposed. And then I hear from hrc on her excuses tour that was one of the 38 reasons she lost. I hear two differnt thigs: 1. the emails were harmless and 2. the emails harmed her.

I'll school you here, cretin.

"This fallacy consists of offering a poorly supported claim about what might have happened in the past or future if circumstances or conditions were other than they actually were or are.

I know that already. Problem is I made no claim. I asked questions.

The fallacy also involves treating hypothetical situations as if they were fact.

Again I made no claim. I asked a question. There's a big difference between making a claim and asking questions (which of course you won't answer, even the one without hypothetical situations. (Look up the definitions of hypothesis and hypothetical before answering please. I'm getting bored with your repeated ignorance.)

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Is that really so unclear?

A man couldn't get home in time, and so, believing no one is watching, he peed in some corner, is being filmed and watched by a giggling child. All hell breaks loose because he's accused of exposing himself, he loses job, wife, home, and kills himself.

You could say, what he's done was "fairly minor in substance, entirely inconsequential as an issue" and fairly damaging to the man's life.

Clearer now?

sounds quite consequential if he was arrested, lost his wife, etc.......be that as it may, conspiring to promote one candidate over another in a national election would be of greater consequence than one man peeing in a corner.........

 

[Cancel 2018.1]

Is that really so unclear?

A man couldn't get home in time, and so, believing no one is watching, he peed in some corner, is being filmed and watched by a giggling child. All hell breaks loose because he's accused of exposing himself, he loses job, wife, home, and kills himself.

You could say, what he's done was "fairly minor in substance, entirely inconsequential as an issue" and fairly damaging to the man's life.

Clearer now?

Yes, thanks. That did clarify your statement.
Another comparison was when Romney made that statement about 47% takers or something like that.
And repubs did an autopsy after the election. hrc went on an excuses tour. See the difference? Introspection vs. excuses.

 

[Cancel 2018.1]

sounds quite consequential if he was arrested, lost his wife, etc.......be that as it may, conspiring to promote one candidate over another in a national election would be of greater consequence than one man peeing in a corner.........

Thanks for joining the conversation prophet. You hit the nail on the head in what I bolded. The Romney 47% statement was nothing compared to what you just said and at least repubs did some introspection. Dims... violent protests against free speech, excuses tour, hollywierds calling for assassination or beheading, trannies assaulting police horses with knives. The behavior from the left has been like nothing I would have ever imagined.

 

[Owl'd You're Up!]

Yes, thanks. That did clarify your statement.
Another comparison was when Romney made that statement about 47% takers or something like that.
And repubs did an autopsy after the election. hrc went on an excuses tour. See the difference? Introspection vs. excuses.

Heavens, Romney let himself be seen as having contempt for close to half of Americans. As far as I have seen, he's never personally, publicly admitted to any fault that cost him the election.

Hillary took personal responsibility, but not in any specific way. And why should she? All she'd get in return is Rightardia collectively jumping on her for every single specific issue, "even she said so!!!"

Yeah, "introspection": There was this infamous "autopsy", most notably recommending reaching out to minorities. Any guesses as to what happened to it? Exactly, it went straight to the waste basket, all but forgotten, because the GOP knows perfectly well that without fishing in muddy waters, pandering to racists, White nationalists, and the alt-right, they'd never again win a national election, and that doesn't work all that well while reaching out to minorities. "Introspection" like that.

Again, were you born yesterday?

 

[domer76]

Of course not. I made the query because the silence from dims was deafening when those emails were exposed. And then I hear from hrc on her excuses tour that was one of the 38 reasons she lost. I hear two differnt thigs: 1. the emails were harmless and 2. the emails harmed her.
I know that already. Problem is I made no claim. I asked questions. Again I made no claim. I asked a question. There's a big difference between making a claim and asking questions (which of course you won't answer, even the one without hypothetical situations. (Look up the definitions of hypothesis and hypothetical before answering please. I'm getting bored with your repeated ignorance.)

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact.

Own it, twit.

 

[Cancel 2018.1]

Heavens, Romney let himself be seen as having contempt for close to half of Americans. As far as I have seen, he's never personally, publicly admitted to any fault that cost him the election.

Hillary took personal responsibility, but not in any specific way. And why should she? All she'd get in return is Rightardia collectively jumping on her for every single specific issue, "even she said so!!!"

Yeah, "introspection": There was this infamous "autopsy", most notably recommending reaching out to minorities. Any guesses as to what happened to it? Exactly, it went straight to the waste basket, all but forgotten, because the GOP knows perfectly well that without fishing in muddy waters, pandering to racists, White nationalists, and the alt-right, they'd never again win a national election, and that doesn't work all that well while reaching out to minorities. "Introspection" like that.

Again, were you born yesterday?

You answered the question, sort of. Be gone.

 

[Cancel 2018.1]

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact.

Own it, twit.

You didn't look up the definitions. Now you've turned the corner from ignorance to willful ignorance. Now I'm really bored with your repeated ignorance. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[evince]

I know. I never did understand why he was allowed to run as one.
I know. Look up 'crime' and corruption'. There's a difference.

how was anything corrupt fucktard