Don't worry, this is not confusing Ricter. Tsingy is employing several rhetorical tactics to sidestep the larger issue, mundanely: 1. Demanding an Impossibly Narrow Standard He insists that unless someone was explicitly convicted of election interference, the entire investigation is irrelevant. This ignores the reality that investigations often uncover other crimes (see: Al Capone’s tax evasion). 2. Strawmanning Bringing up the “pee tape” as if it was the core of the case against Trump is a deliberate misrepresentation. The primary concerns were Russian interference and coordination efforts, not salacious rumors. 3. Mocking Instead of Engaging Well it's ET I guess.
I've not established equivalency because - in this case - you're saying Flynn was guilty of election interference, yet only you are saying he did it. You're not telling me how he did it, showing me anything of evidence, and he wasn't convicted of it. He wasn't even charged with it. If your intent is to show he was a criminal, fine. But we can't use Flynn in the same conversation as 60 minutes, so there's no way for me (or you) to claim it is the same or not the same as the 60 minutes discussion. You might as well pick someone like Charles Manson. I can show you people accused of election interference and no other crime, and show how the left called for them to get locked up, and that's the only comparison I'm attempting to make. And in that case and in this one, they are both wrong to do so.
If Tsingy is honest, he’d have to acknowledge that Musk’s reaction is a step beyond anything he’s criticizing. If he doubles down, he’s just proving he’s arguing in bad faith.
Honestly, this is like sitting at a cafe discussing something with a friend (Ricter) while someone four tables down (you), sitting alone, continues to interject nonsense and screeches.
Just making some notes. Tsingy is now saying he’s only comparing cases where someone was accused of election interference and nothing else. That’s a conveniently narrow definition that allows him to ignore the broader reality. It’s a rhetorical trick to sidestep uncomfortable facts.
I'd like to amend my statement to add that the person four tables down is talking to himself. You using my name in the third person is for what purpose? Do you think anyone here is listening to you? I don't even read these posts. But I am running out of gifs.
Okay, I yield the floor. But can we both agree: 1. Harris is the worst. 2. If Trump becomes worse, see #1... ?
We can absolutely agree with both of those statements. Have a good night, buddy. I'm out, but don't worry, Bugenhagen will spend more time writing about me in the third person, I'm sure. In the small chance you might be interested in what he has to say (which I doubt). Rent free, baby!
Sorry, I was just out complaining about too loud mariachi music. We can agree, Tsingy is growing more and more similar to Jem in his tricks. It's about how the argument makes him feel. He will throw the same rhetorical shit at the wall as long as it takes. Wondering if he has a Postit to remember to always use the same ones. And apologies @Ricter, Tsing likes to rule inconvenient things as inadmisible so I continued to be inconvenient. I was just playing Donny.