More dangerous than Trump are the "boxes of rocks" that support and believe him

[iceberg]

Prissy liberal blowhards vent their hatred of Trump voters, got it. Anything else OP?

he's never had anything but anger, hate and an overabundance of powerpoint templates.

 

[Tehon]

Yet Florine disputes those facts, and it seems you do too, yet Florine openly attests to having propagated content that even the IRA acknowledges they created.

That is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

The Russians indicted are under no obligation to protest their indictment nor does their lack of doing so prove their guilt.

 

[impuretrash]

Just because she's inarticulate doesn't mean she's stupid or anti-intellectual. This thread is mean, and CNN knew exactly what they were doing when they ambushed that lady.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Just because she's inarticulate doesn't mean she's stupid or anti-intellectual. This thread is mean, and CNN knew exactly what they were doing when they ambushed that lady.

No, she articulated her stupidity very well.

 

[blackhawk]

The mystery of why Hillary lost deepens.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Just because she's inarticulate doesn't mean she's stupid or anti-intellectual. This thread is mean, and CNN knew exactly what they were doing when they ambushed that lady.

No, she articulated her stupidity very well.

As if there's not plenty of video evidence supporting the notion that black people in America are basically retarded.

No need to go all supremacist, loser.

The thread is simply pointing out how easy it was to fool these people and that they don't even understand why it is important.

It's a great example for those who keep asking if it affected the election.

 

[whitehall]

I would submit that the incredible hatred illustrated by the left is far, far, off the freaking charts more dangerous than the support for the duly elected President of the United States. You almost gotta laugh that the laws preventing gun ownership for the mentally disturbed that the left is pushing for would probably include themselves and the Hollywood crazies who threatened the President with everything from assault to arson and murder.

 

[impuretrash]

Just because she's inarticulate doesn't mean she's stupid or anti-intellectual. This thread is mean, and CNN knew exactly what they were doing when they ambushed that lady.

No, she articulated her stupidity very well.

As if there's not plenty of video evidence supporting the notion that black people in America are basically retarded.

No need to go all supremacist, loser.

The thread is simply pointing out how easy it was to fool these people and that they don't even understand why it is important.

It's a great example for those who keep asking if it affected the election.

You're the loser who "went all supremacist" first. Pointing out your superiority to this Florine person, and suggesting that people with low IQ's should be purged in some way.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Just because she's inarticulate doesn't mean she's stupid or anti-intellectual. This thread is mean, and CNN knew exactly what they were doing when they ambushed that lady.

No, she articulated her stupidity very well.

As if there's not plenty of video evidence supporting the notion that black people in America are basically retarded.

No need to go all supremacist, loser.

The thread is simply pointing out how easy it was to fool these people and that they don't even understand why it is important.

It's a great example for those who keep asking if it affected the election.

You're the loser who "went all supremacist" first. Pointing out your superiority to this Florine person, and suggesting that people with low IQ's should be purged in some way.

I suggested no such thing, dope.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Yet Florine disputes those facts, and it seems you do too, yet Florine openly attests to having propagated content that even the IRA acknowledges they created.

That is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

The Russians indicted are under no obligation to protest their indictment nor does their lack of doing so prove their guilt.

Dude, with that absurd pair of remarks, you have exhausted my patience with you, so if what I write and link to below doesn't get the point over to you, don't bother responding to this post.

By your remarks above, I can tell:

• You think things that are existential must be proven. I don't know why you or that woman think that, but I can tell you do think it. I've stated already that what is existential does not need to be proven and you yet seem incapable of distinguishing between what is existential and what is allegedly existential. I don't have a different way to put it; so I have to acquiesce to your simply not being able to "get" that, but maybe this well help.
  • Federal Indictments: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions - Burnham & Gorokhov, PLLC
• You don't understand the nature of the indictment that was filed, which truly is a shame as the OP contains a link to the indictment. In the indictment of the Russians, the actus rei would not be criminal were an American to have done exactly the same things in exactly the same methods. Quite simply, the only thing that makes that indictment possible is the fact that the defendants are Russians.
  • Is it that you cannot tell what elements of the indictment are facts that have already been confirmed?
• You don't understand the structure of a logical argument. There is no appeal to ignorance in the passage you quoted because there is, in the passage you quoted, no argument. That you have asserted that there is a fallacy in a statement that does not have a premise(s) and a conclusion is part of what informs me that you also don't understand the indictment and the nature of the U.S. federal prosecution process.
  • What Is an Argument?
    
  • Elements of argumentation
  • Structure of Arguments

What you've quoted from me are three statements, none of which is a conclusion, found in one sentence:

• Fact --> Florine disputes the existential facts.
• Fact --> Florine attests to having propagated IRA content.
• Fact --> The IRA acknowledges they created the content Florine propagated.

One can't even call the statement premises because the sentence in which they are found isn't an argument. That doesn't mean there is no argument. Here is the argument.

Premises -- all five of them are existential facts.

1. The IRA is a Russian organization staffed by Russians.
2. The IRA owned and operated the Facebook page "Being Patriotic."
3. The content the IRA placed on the "Being Patriotic" website was political in nature.
4. The content the IRA placed on the "Being Patriotic" website pertained to the U.S. 2016 election.
5. Florine propagated content from the Facebook page "Being Patriotic."

Conclusion:

• Florine, during the 2016 campaign, propagated Russian sourced/created political messages.

What has any of that to do with the actual conspiracy charges filed? The facts above are the ones that make possible the conspiracy charge because foreigners aren't allowed to participate in the federal political/electoral process; thus the criminality arises from the IRA/"Being Patriotic" entities and employees not disclosing that they are in fact Russians, not Americans. (That they didn't disclose their status as Russians is what absolves Florine and other Americans from being charged as conspirators.)

As I stated earlier, Florine disputes the existential fact that the IRA/"Being Patriotic" was a Russian "owned/operated" organization. Watch the video and you'll hear her expressly say that "Being Patriotic's" personnel were not Russians.​

 

[EvilCat Breath]

It is up to the left to go house to house looking for anti left Trump supporters, drag them out and hang them from the nearest tree. You are absolutely invited to get started ASAP. It's getting boring waiting for the left to grow a spine.

 

[Tehon]

Yet Florine disputes those facts, and it seems you do too, yet Florine openly attests to having propagated content that even the IRA acknowledges they created.

That is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

The Russians indicted are under no obligation to protest their indictment nor does their lack of doing so prove their guilt.

Dude, with that absurd pair of remarks, you have exhausted my patience with you, so if what I write and link to below doesn't get the point over to you, don't bother responding to this post.

By your remarks above, I can tell:

• You think things that are existential must be proven. I don't know why you or that woman think that, but I can tell you do think it. I've stated already that what is existential does not need to be proven and you yet seem incapable of distinguishing between what is existential and what is allegedly existential. I don't have a different way to put it; so I have to acquiesce to your simply not being able to "get" that, but maybe this well help.
  • Federal Indictments: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions - Burnham & Gorokhov, PLLC
• You don't understand the nature of the indictment that was filed, which truly is a shame as the OP contains a link to the indictment. In the indictment of the Russians, the actus rei would not be criminal were an American to have done exactly the same things in exactly the same methods. Quite simply, the only thing that makes that indictment possible is the fact that the defendants are Russians.
  • Is it that you cannot tell what elements of the indictment are facts that have already been confirmed?
• You don't understand the structure of a logical argument. There is no appeal to ignorance in the passage you quoted because there is, in the passage you quoted, no argument. That you have asserted that there is a fallacy in a statement that does not have a premise(s) and a conclusion is part of what informs me that you also don't understand the indictment and the nature of the U.S. federal prosecution process.
  • What Is an Argument?
    
  • Elements of argumentation
  • Structure of Arguments

What you've quoted from me are three statements, none of which is a conclusion, found in one sentence:

• Fact --> Florine disputes the existential facts.
• Fact --> Florine attests to having propagated IRA content.
• Fact --> The IRA acknowledges they created the content Florine propagated.

One can't even call the statement premises because the sentence in which they are found isn't an argument. That doesn't mean there is no argument. Here is the argument.

Premises -- all five of them are existential facts.

1. The IRA is a Russian organization staffed by Russians.
2. The IRA owned and operated the Facebook page "Being Patriotic."
3. The content the IRA placed on the "Being Patriotic" website was political in nature.
4. The content the IRA placed on the "Being Patriotic" website pertained to the U.S. 2016 election.
5. Florine propagated content from the Facebook page "Being Patriotic."

Conclusion:

• Florine, during the 2016 campaign, propagated Russian sourced/created political messages.

What has any of that to do with the actual conspiracy charges filed? The facts above are the ones that make possible the conspiracy charge because foreigners aren't allowed to participate in the federal political/electoral process; thus the criminality arises from the IRA/"Being Patriotic" entities and employees not disclosing that they are in fact Russians, not Americans. (That they didn't disclose their status as Russians is what absolves Florine and other Americans from being charged as conspirators.)

As I stated earlier, Florine disputes the existential fact that the IRA/"Being Patriotic" was a Russian "owned/operated" organization. Watch the video and you'll hear her expressly say that "Being Patriotic's" personnel were not Russians.​

TL;DR