|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 5, 2024 23:34:30 GMT
Oh, is that what they were? Alternate electors? Do people usually go to jail for being alternates? Yeah, you're under a spell.
People go to jail for all kinds of things that others disagree are crimes. Smoking a joint for example. Refusing to goto war for another.
What's my belief on this?
And why are you still manufacturing strawmen in response to what I said? It's getting embarrassing at this point.
Queshank
Oh ok. Lawfare. Got it. LOL |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 5, 2024 23:37:03 GMT
What does the term "across the board" mean to you, exactly?
What does the term "buy us time" mean to you, exactly?
Queshank
Look at that. So eager to change the subject. I would want to change the subject too if I was cornered and had to defend the idea that the 20% across the board tariff proposal only applied to China, or companies with slave labor. That's fact-free wishful thinking at it's best. A true rhetorician would have found a better frame. |
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,500
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 5, 2024 23:38:46 GMT
People go to jail for all kinds of things that others disagree are crimes. Smoking a joint for example. Refusing to goto war for another.
What's my belief on this?
And why are you still manufacturing strawmen in response to what I said? It's getting embarrassing at this point.
Queshank
Oh ok. Lawfare. Got it. LOL
Is it?
I suppose.
I mean I don't think we can deny Navalny being put in prison was a form of lawfare. And yet ... supporters of the establishment there considered it supporting the rule of law.
Queshank
|
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,500
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 5, 2024 23:48:30 GMT
What does the term "buy us time" mean to you, exactly?
Queshank
Look at that. So eager to change the subject. I would want to change the subject too if I was cornered and had to defend the idea that the 20% across the board tariff proposal only applied to China, or companies with slave labor. That's fact-free wishful thinking at it's best. A true rhetorician would have found a better frame. AHAHAHAHA
Physician heal thyself.
How many times now have I called you out for changing the subject in this thread? Let's count. Now revisit the rhetoric I used for the fun of this for your lesson in reality.
A vote for Trump is buying us 4 additional years of time for more "randos on the Internet" to wake up to reality and save America from itself.
Did I even say anything about MAGA? I've been watching you guys reinterpret what people say on the fly so long now it's just funny anymore. Kind of like how you and FIddler reinterpret CNN and the NY Times et al as a "MAGA echo chamber" when it suits you to do so.
Queshank
That's one.
But I ask you again. Where did MAGA come into this? What did I even say about MAGA that you had to bring it up and start hyperventilating about it? No I'm not serious about your talking point hyperventilations. I'm serious about what I said and what I'm talking about. You're just another zombie regurgitating the talking points and unable to even understand a political conversation that doesn't trade in those talking points. That's what you interpret as "unserious" and "dishonest." Stupidly.
Queshank
That's two. I'm still waiting for you to address my actual argument. Isn't it weird that you won't? Nah. It's not at all weird when you've watched it play out for 8 years (to the day) Queshank And three.
Wow. This is a short thread.
And why are you still manufacturing strawmen in response to what I said? It's getting embarrassing at this point. Queshank Four! Jesus even I'm amazed.
I suppose if you've got nothing but hyperventilating about campaign rhetoric you would want to change the subject.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 5, 2024 23:50:37 GMT
You're really bad at this, bro. How long have you been debating politics? Is this really where you're at in your development after *all* of the practice?
|
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,500
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 5, 2024 23:52:59 GMT
You're really bad at this, bro. How long have you been debating politics? Is this really where you're at in your development after *all* of the practice?
At what point were you going to tie your response to me into what I had to say?
Remember I promised you a lesson in rhetoric. Here we are.
And trust me. I've been watching you lose your shit for about 15 years. You always really start to look dumb when you try to insult to cover for your failings when you get angry. Just stop. It's so pathetic lol.
Queshank
|
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 25,957
|
Post by petep on Nov 5, 2024 23:55:31 GMT
You're really bad at this, bro. How long have you been debating politics? Is this really where you're at in your development after *all* of the practice?
At what point were you going to tie your response to me into what I had to say?
Remember I promised you a lesson in rhetoric. Here we are.
And trust me. I've been watching you lose your shit for about 15 years. You always really start to look dumb when you try to insult to cover for your failings when you get angry. Just stop. It's so pathetic lol.
Queshank
Wait. Who is rinseprius. Another leftist who changed his name like wads. What was his / her / they name before the transition. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 6, 2024 0:01:02 GMT
You're really bad at this, bro. How long have you been debating politics? Is this really where you're at in your development after *all* of the practice?
At what point were you going to tie your response to me into what I had to say?
Remember I promised you a lesson in rhetoric. Here we are.
And trust me. I've been watching you lose your shit for about 15 years. You always really start to look dumb when you try to insult to cover for your failings when you get angry. Just stop. It's so pathetic lol.
Queshank
You've had two lines of argument shredded with basic facts. Whatever lesson in rhetoric you planned, it's deficient for the task at hand. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 6, 2024 0:01:37 GMT
Oh ok. Lawfare. Got it. LOL
Is it?
I suppose.
I mean I don't think we can deny Navalny being put in prison was a form of lawfare. And yet ... supporters of the establishment there considered it supporting the rule of law.
Queshank
^ MAGA fever-dream BS. |
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,500
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 6, 2024 0:07:34 GMT
At what point were you going to tie your response to me into what I had to say?
Remember I promised you a lesson in rhetoric. Here we are.
And trust me. I've been watching you lose your shit for about 15 years. You always really start to look dumb when you try to insult to cover for your failings when you get angry. Just stop. It's so pathetic lol.
Queshank
You've had two lines of argument shredded with basic facts. Whatever lesson in rhetoric you planned, it's deficient for the task at hand.
Have I?
"Facts" as determined by journalists at the Guardian?
In a line of conversation I've been mocking you in the entire time for completely reinterpreting my own argument? I'm not sure if you think you're being clever by avoiding it, or if you're just so stupid you don't realize it's what you've been doing.
I haven't had either of my arguments "shredded by basic facts." The fact that you think they can be is laughable. The fact that I don't even care about either issue and haven't indicated support for either is just the cherry on top. What is it you even think you're arguing? Do you know? Or do you have talking points you need to hit and you're just charging on ahead whether it's relevant or not?
Queshank
|
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,500
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 6, 2024 0:08:43 GMT
Is it?
I suppose.
I mean I don't think we can deny Navalny being put in prison was a form of lawfare. And yet ... supporters of the establishment there considered it supporting the rule of law.
Queshank
^ MAGA fever-dream BS.
And yet it's a fact.
Navalny being put in prison was a form of lawfare. Do you disagree?
Do you also disagree that the Russian government and its supporters consider it supporting the rule of law?
What the fuck do you think you're even arguing man? Take a break. Take a breath. Revisit. Make sense.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 6, 2024 0:10:22 GMT
You've had two lines of argument shredded with basic facts. Whatever lesson in rhetoric you planned, it's deficient for the task at hand.
Have I?
"Facts" as determined by journalists at the Guardian?
In a line of conversation I've been mocking you in the entire time for completely reinterpreting my own argument? I'm not sure if you think you're being clever by avoiding it, or if you're just so stupid you don't realize it's what you've been doing.
I haven't had either of my arguments "shredded by basic facts." The fact that you think they can be is laughable. The fact that I don't even care about either issue and haven't indicated support for either is just the cherry on top. What is it you even think you're arguing? Do you know? Or do you have talking points you need to hit and you're just charging on ahead whether it's relevant or not?
Queshank
That's your fatal flaw.. too busy mocking and discussing issues you don't care about... not enough focus on actual facts and arguments. That's the "unfocused" criticism I made earlier. |
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,500
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 6, 2024 0:10:34 GMT
Towards Liberty ...
What do you think?
Is the war in Ukraine worth it because it helped prop up our economy?
Or is the broken window fallacy still valid?
Your opposition to fair trade as opposed to free trade being on record .. just how far are you willing to go to pad rich peoples' ROIs?
Queshank
|
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,500
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 6, 2024 0:11:29 GMT
Have I?
"Facts" as determined by journalists at the Guardian?
In a line of conversation I've been mocking you in the entire time for completely reinterpreting my own argument? I'm not sure if you think you're being clever by avoiding it, or if you're just so stupid you don't realize it's what you've been doing.
I haven't had either of my arguments "shredded by basic facts." The fact that you think they can be is laughable. The fact that I don't even care about either issue and haven't indicated support for either is just the cherry on top. What is it you even think you're arguing? Do you know? Or do you have talking points you need to hit and you're just charging on ahead whether it's relevant or not?
Queshank
That's your fatal flaw.. too busy mocking and discussing issues you don't care about... not enough focus on actual facts and arguments. That's the "unfocused" criticism I made earlier.
lol
I've made my argument. You responded to it with distractions and irrelevancies and have spent the past 3 threads trying to cover for your own distraction.
Unfocused? Physician heal thyself.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 6, 2024 0:13:24 GMT
And yet it's a fact.
Navalny being put in prison was a form of lawfare. Do you disagree?
Do you also disagree that the Russian government and its supporters consider it supporting the rule of law?
What the fuck do you think you're even arguing man? Take a break. Take a breath. Revisit. Make sense.
Queshank
Whatever point you have about this new subject.. the rule of law in Russia... it's wide the mark as it concerns the conversation we were having about the rule of law here.
The fact of the matter is the courts found your 1960 election argument wanting and people are in jail because of it. You can scream corruption! Lawfare! But it just makes you look like a clown. A MAGA clown. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 6, 2024 0:14:17 GMT
That's your fatal flaw.. too busy mocking and discussing issues you don't care about... not enough focus on actual facts and arguments. That's the "unfocused" criticism I made earlier.
lol
I've made my argument. You responded to it with distractions and irrelevancies and have spent the past 3 threads trying to cover for your own distraction.
Unfocused? Physician heal thyself.
Queshank
I've seen your arguments. Unimpressed to say the least. It's just unfocused bluster and bravado. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 6, 2024 0:16:07 GMT
Towards Liberty ...
What do you think?
Is the war in Ukraine worth it because it helped prop up our economy?
Or is the broken window fallacy still valid?
Your opposition to fair trade as opposed to free trade being on record .. just how far are you willing to go to pad rich peoples' ROIs?
Queshank
Oh look, the rhetorician wants to change the subject again. |
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,500
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 6, 2024 0:18:32 GMT
And yet it's a fact.
Navalny being put in prison was a form of lawfare. Do you disagree?
Do you also disagree that the Russian government and its supporters consider it supporting the rule of law?
What the fuck do you think you're even arguing man? Take a break. Take a breath. Revisit. Make sense.
Queshank
Whatever point you have about this new subject.. the rule of law in Russia... it's wide the mark as it concerns the conversation we were having about the rule of law here.
The fact of the matter is the courts found your 1960 election argument wanting and people are in jail because of it. You can scream corruption! Lawfare! But it just makes you look like a clown. A MAGA clown.
No it's not at all wide of the mark. It's an illustration for you that people's perceptions are what govern their opinions on "rule of law." Your argument that you support the "rule of law" carries no persuasive weight because there's literally nobody operating in politics right now that believes they're against the rule of law. And that really is the pivot on each of those subjects you've raised as a criticism of people who oppose strengthening the national security apparatus W and Cheney created's stranglehold on the American bureaucracy. And if legislators are to be believed ... on the American legislative process as well.
Belief.
The rule of law is the rule of law. The fact that you're even acknowledging "rule of law" means something different to the Russian people than it means to the people of the US is a tacit acknowledgement of the point I'm making.
The courts have found a lot of things. Are the courts infallible? Or is there a process still going on? Was Trump right that the Central Park 5 were guilty and that's the end of it? The courts found it to be so. Since you want to limit the scope of "rule of law" to the United States specifically.
Queshank
|
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,500
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 6, 2024 0:19:35 GMT
Towards Liberty ...
What do you think?
Is the war in Ukraine worth it because it helped prop up our economy?
Or is the broken window fallacy still valid?
Your opposition to fair trade as opposed to free trade being on record .. just how far are you willing to go to pad rich peoples' ROIs?
Queshank
Oh look, the rhetorician wants to change the subject again.
Nah just a third line of conversation to add to the new one you started that you HAVE to stay on or you'll lose your footing.
And a way to answer petep's question for him.
Queshank
|
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,500
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 6, 2024 0:20:29 GMT
lol
I've made my argument. You responded to it with distractions and irrelevancies and have spent the past 3 threads trying to cover for your own distraction.
Unfocused? Physician heal thyself.
Queshank
I've seen your arguments. Unimpressed to say the least. It's just unfocused bluster and bravado.
You haven't even addressed it yet. lol
Should we go for 5?
Queshank
|
|
