News of the Day

[userque]

... Aitrus, you're not allowed to cite facts without being torn to shreds by liberals for not hating trump to their standards. It's a weird world we live in. Crack a beer and watch the sunset, not the news.

Since you fail to name who you are referring to, I'll respond in case I'm included in that group, if it's a group.

Please identify where I've torn Aitrus to shreds.
Please identify where I've claimed to be a liberal.

[userque]

userque, you seem to want me to focus on what Trump said,

Absolutely not true. I started by asking you to cite where the media spun.

It was you that went elsewhere, you always do. I'm simply responding to your subsequent claims.

but that's not the point of the debate.

The original point is a question or assertion(s). I asked you to cite the spin. That was the original. Rather than simply reciting the spin, you made additional points. Points that I did not accept at face value, hence: where we are now. Where anyone that debates you fully will end up. Exponential expansion of the debate.

Don't get me wrong; I appreciate it. Never met the likes of someone that can type as fast and as much as you! You 'forced' me to restart a project I've been wanting to do for years ... being able to efficiently keep track of the facts/circumstances within witness testimony/affidavits without using third party software.

I've finally figured it out. And for that, I thank you!

No matter how muddy you make the waters, I'll keep up.

The debate is the reaction of the media.

The debate was that originally. The debate becomes whatever we want it to be. When you continue to make debatable allegations. They become part of the debate if I disagree with them.

I have no idea if the man was being sarcastic - I'm not a mind reader, and neither is anybody else.

Believing whether another is telling the truth does not involve being a mind reader. I'll rephrase the question at the end of this post.

You mentioned earlier that you thought I was trying to get you to answer a certain way. Not at all true. That's not the technique.

I don't have to get one to admit something, showing the judge, jury, or observers one's evasiveness normally suffices.

The inability of one to answer a simple question speaks volumes, and inferences are properly made.

However, the real issue is fact that the media locked in on comments that - as TomlinsTE pointed out (and that I tried to say, but he said it better) - could only be taken incorrectly by those looking to "spin" what he said, or who are so idiotic that they'll believe anything (like drinking fish tank cleaner). There are far, far bigger issues at stake, yet the media focuses on inane off-hand comments as if it's yet another sign that our elected leader is leading us toward another apocalypse, when nothing is further from the truth.

Again, that was my original issue. You brought in other issues. The real issues are whatever we decide to debate.

So, I'll rephrase this simply question. A question that we all have answered in our own minds:

Do you believe Trump was being truthful when he claimed he was being sarcastic?

[bloobs]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/gov-hogan ... oronavirus

Don't shoot the messenger

[userque]

Hackers Claim To Have Trump’s Dirty Laundry And Demand $42 Million To Keep Quiet
https://www.forbes.com/sites/daveywinde ... 5fcf3437d1