Presidential Debate 2020

#2,001
#2,001
NorthDallas40 said:
No I’ll categorically state they both sucked and won’t attempt to throw partisan shade for one as you did AFTER it had to be pulled out of you. Is it that hard?
Click to expand...

No. My opinion is that while Biden didn’t do a good job, he at least held serve and wasn’t an utter embarrassment. He made a few comments that will most likely cause him to lose a few votes from the extreme left.

Trump, however, was an utter embarrassment. He likely lost votes from the moderate voters, voters he desperately needs. The only people he riled up was his already toxic base. If the whole point of these debates is to win votes, he failed terribly. It might as well have been a Trump rally in Alabama.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN Ribs and Ashevolle
#2,003
#2,003
GoBigOrangeUT said:
No. My opinion is that while Biden didn’t do a good job, he at least held serve and wasn’t an utter embarrassment. He made a few comments that will most likely cause him to lose a few votes from the extreme left.

Trump, however, was an utter embarrassment. He likely lost votes from the moderate voters, voters he desperately needs. The only people he riled up was his already toxic base. If the whole point of these debates is to win votes, he failed terribly. It might as well have been a Trump rally in Alabama.
Click to expand...
Ok so you are just being partisan then. Got it glad we cleared that up.
 
#2,004
#2,004
NorthDallas40 said:
Your evidence: ultimately the investigation did not establish collusion occurred.

You: But that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen!

You’re being stupid or willfully obtuse pick one I don’t care which.
Click to expand...

That’s not what it says, and I’ve already explained to you what it says. The report explains what it says and what that means.

You’re illiterate or willfully obtuse. Pick one. I don’t care which.
 
#2,007
#2,007
Sandman 423 said:
Do you mean facts like these?

Startling report suggests COVID-19 may have first appeared in 2012

https://nypost.com/2020/08/15/covid-19-first-appeared-in-chinese-miners-in-2012-scientists/

Inside the Global Quest to Trace the Origins of COVID-19—and Predict Where It Will Go Next
Click to expand...

Did you even read the articles? The 2nd article just reports what the first one says.

But more importantly, it explicitly states that it is a “proposed theory”. One that hasn’t been proven. I’m not sure if you know this, but that doesn’t confirm the virus has been around since 2012. So again, did you even read the articles?

And the third article, while an interesting read, makes no mention of COVID being around since 2012.

So I pose this question - what “facts” exactly do you think you’re presenting here?
 
#2,010
#2,010
RockyTop85 said:
That’s not what it says, and I’ve already explained to you what it says. The report explains what it says and what that means.

You’re illiterate or willfully obtuse. Pick one. I don’t care which.
Click to expand...
The report: the details don’t establish collusion occurred

You: but if you lower the bar far enough we can imply the details establish collusion occurred!

Stupid or willfully obtuse. Pick one pettifogger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#2,011
#2,011
MarcoVol said:
Did you even read the articles? The 2nd article just reports what the first one says.

But more importantly, it explicitly states that it is a “proposed theory”. One that hasn’t been proven. I’m not sure if you know this, but that doesn’t confirm the virus has been around since 2012. So again, did you even read the articles?

And the third article, while an interesting read, makes no mention of COVID being around since 2012.

So I pose this question - what “facts” exactly do you think you’re presenting here?
Click to expand...
First. I always read the articles. It is one of my pet peeves around here.
Second. There is more evidence than the Pangolin/civet theory that you are stating as fact.
 
#2,013
#2,013
NorthDallas40 said:
The report: the details don’t establish collusion occurred

You: but if you lower the bar far enough we can imply the details establish collusion occurred!

Stupid or willfully obtuse. Pick one pettifogger.
Click to expand...

Repeating it does not magically make it appear in the report. Maybe there’s a third option: illiterate and obtuse.
 
#2,014
#2,014
RockyTop85 said:
Repeating it does not magically make it appear in the report. Maybe there’s a third option: illiterate and obtuse.
Click to expand...
By your own words you implied collusion occurred in an earlier post it just didn’t meet the legal standards. Moving the goal post now?

Stupid or willfully obtuse pick.
 
#2,015
#2,015
NorthDallas40 said:
By your own words you implied collusion occurred in an earlier post it just didn’t meet the legal standards. Moving the goal post now?

Stupid or willfully obtuse pick.
Click to expand...

There is no legal standard for collusion. I told you that. The report told you that.

So we’ve established illiterate beyond any shadow of a doubt. Care to go for obtuse as well?
 
#2,017
#2,017
RockyTop85 said:
There is no legal standard for collusion. I told you that. The report told you that.

So we’ve established illiterate beyond any shadow of a doubt. Care to go for obtuse as well?
Click to expand...
So if you lower the bar far enough...!
RockyTop85 said:
I suppose it could be because you’re smart enough to realize that “unless politicians tell me it’s true, it isn’t proven,” is about the dumbest possible burden of proof, but since that’s about the only standard by which it isn’t proven, that’s all you’ve got so you have to try to move the goalposts.
Click to expand...

Stupid or willfully obtuse pick.
 
#2,023
#2,023
NorthDallas40 said:
So if you lower the bar far enough...!


Stupid or willfully obtuse pick.
Click to expand...

Arguing that my refusal to rely on politicians to tell me what to think is a “lowering of the bar” would seem to settle the question of whether you’re being obtuse. I apologize for limiting your choices, earlier. Both was the correct choice. Way to not settle for an incomplete list of options.
 
Last edited:
#2,024
#2,024
RockyTop85 said:
Arguing that my refusal to rely on politicians to tell me what to think is a “lowering of the bar” would seem to settle the question of whether you’re being obtuse. I apologize for limiting your choices, earlier. Both was the correct choice. Way to not settle for an incomplete list of options.
Click to expand...
Stupid or willfully obtuse pettifogger.

This is exactly the same BS you got busted on last time. “Yeah but if I define my scenario as thus then clearly I’ve supported my supposition”. LMFAO

Pick pettifogger.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top