Vraith wrote:
It's not circular, itls pretty linear. I'm "assuming" he fired him because of the investigations because he SAID he fired him because of the investigations. I'm assuming there are crimes to uncover because crimes HAVE been uncovered. It may be wrong, but it isn't unreasonable or circular.
Trump did not say that he fired Comey because of the investigations. This is one of those Leftist myths that you guys like to tell each other, similar to, "Trump said all Mexicans are rapists."
If you'd provided the quote with a link we could have debated exactly what he said. But, as always,
that burden falls on me:
He [Rosenstein] made a recommendation, he's highly respected, very good guy, very smart guy. The Democrats like him, the Republicans like him. He made a recommendation. But regardless of [the] recommendation, I was going to fire Comey. Knowing there was no good time to do it!
And in fact when I decided to just do it I said to myself, I said, "You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won."
And the reason they should've won it is, the Electoral College is almost impossible for a Republican to win, it's very hard, because you start off at such a disadvantage. So everybody was thinking they should have won the election. This was an excuse for having lost an election.
Just because Trump is verbalizing an internal dialog that the had with himself while he made the decision to fire Comey doesn't mean that's why he fired Comey. For instance, I'm sure lots of you were having thoughts about Cail when you decided to ban him that weren't *the* reasons for your decision to ban him (such as, "fuck him" or "I hate that motherfucker" or "I hope he rots in hell"). "When" does not equal "because."
Later in the article, it says this:
When Holt then pressed Trump on the topic, he maintained that he wanted the investigation "to be absolutely done properly." Since he was concerned the firing would "confuse people," he went on, perhaps he would even "lengthen" the investigation:
Look, let me tell you, as far as I'm concerned I want that thing [the Russia investigation] to be absolutely done properly. When I did this now I said, "I probably, maybe, will confuse people, maybe I'll expand that, you know, I'll lengthen the time" - because it should be over with, in my opinion it should've been over with a long time ago, because all it is is an excuse. But I said to myself, "I might even lengthen out the investigation."
So why would Trump want the investigation to be done properly if he fired Comey because of the investigation? The investigation never stopped, you might have noticed. If firing Comey was a way to stop this investigation, why would Trump let it continue?
Trump thinks in non sequiturs. One thing reminds him of another thing and he just says it. But that's not the same as him saying one is the cause of the other.
For this, and many other reasons, I have no confidence in your ability to determine what is or is not a fact. You once claimed Rasmussen was off by a ridiculously large margin in predicting the last election, and when I checked, they were the only ones accurately predict the exact percentage point spread between Hillary and Trump (in a 4 way race). You brushed off that point as if you were still right! So you don't even have an error-correction instinct in your fact-checking.
Which is why I think this little fable is utter bullshit:
Vraith wrote:
Those numbers are pretty easy to see. You could do it yourself. Pick a couple speeches and a day or two worth of twitter. Count the fact-claims. Check how many are true.
When I did it, the total was nearly 100%...HIGHER than what I said, bu there's room for error, so I gave him a break.
I "assume" he's doing it on purpose, because many of them he repeats over, and over, and over, EVEN THOUGH they've been shown to be untrue.
Dude---I fucking almost ALWAYS do the damn math.
When I don't I fucking say "Guestimate" "I suspect" "Seems like about"
You went to all the trouble to check every fact claim in one of Trump's speeches, and then kept that to yourself? You did all that work and then didn't post the results? Right. I don't believe for a second that this occurred. But if it did, I expect that your "facts" you found were very much like "Trump admitted he fired Comey because of the investigation." That's an interpretation, not a fact, and I think you have a hard time telling the difference. You believe what you want to be true, and utterly dismiss any evidence which contradicts this belief.
Now, for circular reasoning: Trump committed a crime because Trump committed a crime. The form of your argument is circular. Yes, you are talking about two different crimes (obstruction of justice vs whatever crime he was trying to hide). But the point is that you think he's guilty because you think he's guilty. Ultimately, your assumption rests on nothing else than that. You can't infer that Trump committed a crime because other people did. There has never been any evidence that he committed a crime himself. But you assume it as your starting point, and build everything else from there, including that he can't fire his own employees without that also being a crime, and then chastising us for not believing it, too.
Why don't we just wait and see before we make up our minds and chastising people for disagreeing? Like I said, the investigation continued. These questions will be answered.
Vraith wrote:
You are free to check it. In this case, I just told you how, above.
Thanks for the help, but I've known how to count things for about as long as I can remember, so I'm good.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
) than from the
