OFFICIAL: Donald Trump thread.

[travestyny]

Dude, the only one trying to have it both ways is you. The damn report clearly, even as you quoted, says "no evidence", but you're trying desperately to spin that into, "well, he's NOT not guilty"

Say what???? When did I say that? lmao. I've said from the beginning exactly what I meant. That there was no exoneration.

You are the one that's on record backtracking suddenly

There is no exoneration...

....it is appropriate to say Trump was exonerated.

If that aint double talk, I don't know what is.

Realistically, Trump should have used the word aquittal rather than exonerate.

But here's where we are today. No charges, no impeachment, no collusion. Call it whatever else you want ,bud.

And don't forget, no exoneration I'm simply enjoying the show.

[GGG Gloveking]

Say what???? When did I say that? lmao. I've said from the beginning exactly what I meant. That there was no exoneration.

You are the one that's on record backtracking suddenly







If that aint double talk, I don't know what is.




And don't forget, no exoneration I'm simply enjoying the show.

Would you care to quote those sentences in their entirety for context, or just cut and splice bits and pieces to fit your semantics narrative?

And I know you like to say, "well I didnt say that". The thing is, when you say there isn't something, then you're saying the opposite exists. For example, if I say "there is no light", I'm not directly saying "it's dark", but by the implication of there being no light, I essentially am saying that it's dark.

I'm getting tired of playing semantics.

[travestyny]

Would you care to quote those sentences in their entirety for context, or just cut and splice bits and pieces to fit your semantics narrative?

Your explanation didn't make sense the first time. Why clutter the board with it again?

And I know you like to say, "well I didnt say that". The thing is, when you say there isn't something, then you're saying the opposite exists. For example, if I say "there is no light", I'm not directly saying "it's dark", but by the implication of there being no light, I essentially am saying that it's dark.

I'm getting tired of playing semantics.

lol. Man, are you really still trying to go with this?

Maybe it can be summed up as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Does that make it clearer?

[GGG Gloveking]

Your explanation didn't make sense the first time. Why clutter the board with it again?



lol. Man, are you really still trying to go with this?

Maybe it can be summed up as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Does that make it clearer?

Why wouldn't it make sense? It's like this. I'm standing here dry and you throw a pail of water at me and miss. Did I "dry off"? No, because I was never wet to begin with, but at the same time I'm still dry.

And "absense if evidence ..." is cool for a philosophical debate, but you can't convict or impeach someone on a philosophical idea. But since you like the phrase, here's some good reading into whether or not the phrase is logically sound, or if it's a fallaceous argument.

http://wiki.c2.com/?AbsenceOfEvidenc...denceOfAbsence

[bigjavi973]

Um...no it doesn't. Was it an exoneration or not???? It isn't a trick question. lol


Either way you look at it, you come out with the same damn answer.

was there a trial with a judge and lawyers?

[Motorcity Cobra]

I will never understand why they lie so much. Especially over small db stuff. I'll never get it

Laura Ingraham tells her viewers not to believe what they just heard Donald Trump say. pic.twitter.com/xVdQCSnhkQ

— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) June 7, 2019

[travestyny]

Why wouldn't it make sense? It's like this. I'm standing here dry and you throw a pail of water at me and miss. Did I "dry off"? No, because I was never wet to begin with, but at the same time I'm still dry.

And "absense if evidence ..." is cool for a philosophical debate, but you can't convict or impeach someone on a philosophical idea. But since you like the phrase, here's some good reading into whether or not the phrase is logically sound, or if it's a fallaceous argument.

http://wiki.c2.com/?AbsenceOfEvidenc...denceOfAbsence

Completely missing the point yet again, I see.


You just said yourself that Trump should have said "acquittal."

Realistically, Trump should have used the word aquittal rather than exonerate.

Now let me ask you. Is that the equivalent of an exoneration, or anything like it?

With great difficulty. In our system, an acquittal is not an exoneration — it simply means that the state has failed to persuade jurors of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

https://news.northeastern.edu/2011/07/06/caseyanthony/

Are you starting to understand this now, or are you still lost? No one was saying it's not an exoneration simply because there wasn't a trial. That's obvious. Why would Muller bother saying there was no exoneration if all he meant was that there was no official trial? Instead of playing the defend Trump at all costs routine, try reality.

[bigjavi973]

That there was no exoneration.

so you saying he is guilty of something?

[travestyny]

was there a trial with a judge and lawyers?

No. So there was no exoneration. But the question we are trying to figure out is whether Mueller said the report is not an exoneration because there was no trial with a judge and lawyers.

I have not heard that argument once in this whole controversy. I just happen to be hearing it here from those who are trying to reconcile in their head exactly what Mueller said...that there was no exoneration

[travestyny]

so you saying he is guilty of something?

When did I say that? I have never stated that he was guilty of anything. I'm an unbiased party looking at the evidence. Those that are claiming he was exonerated seem to be the biased ones with an agenda.