JD Vance is using Ryan Wesley Routh as a political weapon and doing it in a fallacious way!

[Luckyone]

As I suspected, you’re nothing but a troll. In your other thread you said it brings you pleasure to get under people’s skin, now you’re doing it again.

Like I said in the other thread, a very juvenile approach to a conversation.

Let me set this straight. I like to get under the skin of people that don't debate and are blind clones of Trump (in other words - Trolls themselves). It really boils down to "when in Rome, do as the Romans do................or another explanation, get down to the same level of the other person so the fight is even).

Otherwise, I have no desire to get under anyone's skin. I like to debate and communicate and not be an orator (troll) like you are.

 

[Luckyone]

W

What about the Biden/harris sticker on the back of his truck?

what does this mean? who has a Biden/Harris sticker on the back of his truck and then, how does that apply to what Vance did?

Do you not believe the left has told lies to sway political opinion?

Sure, but maybe 1 for every 10 that the Right has told.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You Trumpers are carbon copies of INCOMPETENT Trump

Harris goaded Trump in the debate and he responded the same way you guys are responding to my OP's, in a way that made him look weak, a loser, a liar, and totally incompetent, the same way you look here.

This is way too easy.

You do insult, debase, and attempt to negate what I say but you are unable to do so and it simply for one very SIMPLE reason. Data, statistics, and facts cannot be beat and that is what I deliver and you have no ability to combat them as lies fail when facing that scenario.

I have one suggestion (piece of advice) that I am going to give you.

Put me on ignore. That is the only way that you can claim victory. If you do that, I "may" get tired of coming here and posting truth. Then again, maybe not because even if I don't get replies, I still get pleasure from posting reality. Mother Nature will bless me for doing so.

Nonetheless, thanks for the enjoyment you bring to me every single time you post such ignorant replies.

By the way, there is one other option available to you............debate with facts, data, and statistics. If you do that, we ALL win even if we disagree. Knowledge should be what we all seek. It certainly is what I seek.

Having said all of the above, bring it on!

Data, statistics, and facts cannot be beat and that is what I deliver and you have no ability to combat them as lies fail when facing that scenario.

But your OP is not based on facts. You took two media actions, and formed an opinion. It’s your opinion that Vance is using it as a political weapon.

One could just as easily say that Vance was suggesting (rightly) that the left needs to tone down the rhetoric. I agree, from what I’ve heard (I listen to a lot of left wing progressive radio), the left are by far the most active in terms of rhetoric..it’s not even close.

By the way, there is one other option available to you............debate with facts, data, and statistics. If you do that, we ALL win even if we disagree

But people here do that, you just choose to ignore their facts, because apparently, your facts are the only valid ones?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Let me set this straight. I like to get under the skin of people that don't debate and are blind clones of Trump (in other words - Trolls themselves). It really boils down to "when in Rome, do as the Romans do................or another explanation, get down to the same level of the other person so the fight is even).

Otherwise, I have no desire to get under anyone's skin. I like to debate and communicate and not be an orator (troll) like you are.

It really boils down to "when in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Ah, so you’re no better than those you claim to detest..got it.

I like to get under the skin of people that don't debate and are blind clones of Trump

Oh, I know, I get it. You just like to troll people who disagree with you…we’ve all noticed.

Otherwise, I have no desire to get under anyone's skin.

Obviously you do, this is (at least) twice now that you have demonstrated pleasure at the thought of attempting to get a rise out of people. It’s pretty obvious by the tone of your posts what you like to do.

I like to debate and communicate and not be an orator (troll) like you are.

Have we not been debating? It’s just that you don’t like my answers. That’s ok, I don’t expect people to agree with me. I just say what I have to say, and if people accept it, fine, if not, fine.

Trust me, nobody on this forum is convincing anyone of anything. Like I said before, this is just a playground for partisan people who like to argue. No minds are being changed here lol.

 

[Luckyone]

But your OP is not based on facts. You took two media actions, and formed an opinion. It’s your opinion that Vance is using it as a political weapon.

One could just as easily say that Vance was suggesting (rightly) that the left needs to tone down the rhetoric. I agree, from what I’ve heard (I listen to a lot of left wing progressive radio), the left are by far the most active in terms of rhetoric..it’s not even close.



But people here do that, you just choose to ignore their facts, because apparently, your facts are the only valid ones?

You continue to make statements without proving them. My feeling is that you are wrong but given that deal with statistics, data and facts, I did a search on Google and Bing of who provides the most rhetoric and the funny thing is that I could not find one single article that addresses which party does the most. As such, until you PROVE that your statement is correct, I will not discuss this issue.

I do know that everything I provide is factual.

Vance did OMIT information about the issue. He mentioned (and keyed) on what supports the right and did not provide all the information (as I did). My OP provided all the information available and I provided it as investigated. The fact he did not, makes it a correct evaluation of what it meant. You do not leave data out that makes the evaluation of Routh being mentally ill, rather than making a political statement.

As such, your post is BS. Prove your words.

 

[Concerned American]

You continue to make statements without proving them.

Your posts conspicuously lack links to any proof consistently. Hmm. LIAR.

 

[Luckyone]

Ah, so you’re no better than those you claim to detest..got it.

I am not here to prove that I am better than anyone. That is not my objective. My objective is to provide data, statistics and facts. Having said that, when people do not accept the data, statistics and and facts and doubt them but don't prove them wrong (other than through words), then it becomes a different scenario in which, the only thing that can be obtained from the conversation is either anger or pleasure. I do like or approve of anger as I do not believe it is a positive in life, so the only option left is stop the conversation or get some pleasure out of it. That decision is simple, pleasure is always better than nothing (leaving the conversation).

Oh, I know, I get it. You just like to troll people who disagree with you…we’ve all noticed.

WRONG. I do not dislike disagreement. In fact, I greatly revel in it as it means I have to do research on the topic and gain knowledge. Knowledge is what I seek. There is no knowledge gained by being right. Knowledge is gained when proven wrong as now you know more than you did before.

What I dislike is when the other side does not provide facts to support their opposite view. Words do not provide knowledge as anyone can say anything they want.

Obviously you do, this is (at least) twice now that you have demonstrated pleasure at the thought of attempting to get a rise out of people. It’s pretty obvious by the tone of your posts what you like to do.

No, pleasure is not what I seek. Unfortunately on this message board, 90% of the people that post here are biased talkers that talk, talk, talk and provide nothing in the way of information or knowledge. That means that the only thing left is pleasure. I prefer gaining knowledge to having pleasure.

Have we not been debating? It’s just that you don’t like my answers. That’s ok, I don’t expect people to agree with me. I just say what I have to say, and if people accept it, fine, if not, fine.

No, we are not debating, at least you are not debating. Here are 3 rules/guidelines of what a debate is

• If a speaker makes a statement, they must be able to provide evidence or reasons to support the statement.
• Facts presented in a debate must be accurate.
• Speakers may not bring up new points in a rebuttal speech.

You have not done that.

Trust me, nobody on this forum is convincing anyone of anything. Like I said before, this is just a playground for partisan people who like to argue. No minds are being changed here lol.

I do not doubt that for a second. But as I have stated before, my objective is not to win a debate or to prove my side. My objective is to deliver data, statistics, and facts no matter is they are accepted or not. It is my objective in life for the simple reason of doing what is right. I cannot force other people to accept facts, data, and statistics so my objective is not to convince others but just to provide the knowledge and information.

By the way, it is my OPINION that you will not accept this information I provided here and you will come back with another retort that gives an opinionated (no facts) answer.

 

[Dragonlady]

Well Routh just got the worse news of his life... DeSantis is taking over the investigation and taking it away from the people who are trying to prosecute and jail Trump and will prosecute Routh on felony state charges... so Garland and his corrupt DOJ can't save him.... this dumb **** is going to a Florida state prison....

DeSantis can't investigate his way out of a wet paper bag. Federal charges take precedence.

 

[Concerned American]

• If a speaker makes a statement, they must be able to provide evidence or reasons to support the statement.
• Facts presented in a debate must be accurate.

Please follow your own guidelines. You don't seem real big on supporting anything with proof, data or facts. You sound like a democrat. Espouse all sorts of commendable traits while practicing none.

 

[ThisIsMe]

what does this mean? who has a Biden/Harris sticker on the back of his truck and then, how does that apply to what Vance did?


Sure, but maybe 1 for every 10 that the Right has told.

Sure, but maybe 1 for every 10 that the Right has told.

I disagree, I think the left wins the contest of who lies the most, but I’m sure you’ll disagree as well

 

[Auld Phart]

View attachment 1014662



I disagree, I think the left wins the contest of who lies the most, but I’m sure you’ll disagree as well

if he does


he's lying

 

[ThisIsMe]

You continue to make statements without proving them. My feeling is that you are wrong but given that deal with statistics, data and facts, I did a search on Google and Bing of who provides the most rhetoric and the funny thing is that I could not find one single article that addresses which party does the most. As such, until you PROVE that your statement is correct, I will not discuss this issue.

I do know that everything I provide is factual.

Vance did OMIT information about the issue. He mentioned (and keyed) on what supports the right and did not provide all the information (as I did). My OP provided all the information available and I provided it as investigated. The fact he did not, makes it a correct evaluation of what it meant. You do not leave data out that makes the evaluation of Routh being mentally ill, rather than making a political statement.

As such, your post is BS. Prove your words.

You continue to make statements without proving them. My feeling is that you are wrong but given that deal with statistics, data and facts, I did a search on Google and Bing of who provides the most rhetoric and the funny thing is that I could not find one single article that addresses which party does the most. As such, until you PROVE that your statement is correct, I will not discuss this issue.

That’s because it’s an opinion based off of watching left and right wing news, radio shows, and posts here on usmb. Obviously you’ll not find a search result in bing or google because it’s a subjective thing. I base it off of my own observations.

Your OP is an opinion, nothing more. You took two statements by Vance and formed an opinion on them. I’m sure others will have a completely different opinion of what he was trying to convey. The video you posted tells you what he was saying, the left needs to tone down the rhetoric, and the Twitter post you quoted explains why. If a person donated to Republicans 19 times…the left would call them a Republican. Also, looking back at the statements that the left has made since Trump became president, there has been a lot of rhetoric around violence against Trump. These things are just facts and are part of public record.

 

[Luckyone]

That’s because it’s an opinion based off of watching left and right wing news, radio shows, and posts here on usmb. Obviously you’ll not find a search result in bing or google because it’s a subjective thing. I base it off of my own observations.

Your OP is an opinion, nothing more. You took two statements by Vance and formed an opinion on them. I’m sure others will have a completely different opinion of what he was trying to convey. The video you posted tells you what he was saying, the left needs to tone down the rhetoric, and the Twitter post you quoted explains why. If a person donated to Republicans 19 times…the left would call them a Republican. Also, looking back at the statements that the left has made since Trump became president, there has been a lot of rhetoric around violence against Trump. These things are just facts and are part of public record.

Once again, you offer you own personal opinion (which is strongly biased), Nonetheless, I provided actual video and statements (which even you mention) to prove my point. You are not "debating" but orating.

 

[Luckyone]

View attachment 1014662



I disagree, I think the left wins the contest of who lies the most, but I’m sure you’ll disagree as well

There is no doubt that the shooter is presently for Biden/Harris. My post was about the fact that he "previously" was for Trump and likely changed his mind after seeing what Trump was bringing to the country.

Given that he was on both sides, it suggests that he is not a "die hard" Democrat (much like me). Having said all of that, the point I made in the OP is that his actions were more likely to be of a mental sickness scenario than a political scenario,

 

[ThisIsMe]

I am not here to prove that I am better than anyone. That is not my objective. My objective is to provide data, statistics and facts. Having said that, when people do not accept the data, statistics and and facts and doubt them but don't prove them wrong (other than through words), then it becomes a different scenario in which, the only thing that can be obtained from the conversation is either anger or pleasure. I do like or approve of anger as I do not believe it is a positive in life, so the only option left is stop the conversation or get some pleasure out of it. That decision is simple, pleasure is always better than nothing (leaving the conversation).


WRONG. I do not dislike disagreement. In fact, I greatly revel in it as it means I have to do research on the topic and gain knowledge. Knowledge is what I seek. There is no knowledge gained by being right. Knowledge is gained when proven wrong as now you know more than you did before.

What I dislike is when the other side does not provide facts to support their opposite view. Words do not provide knowledge as anyone can say anything they want.


No, pleasure is not what I seek. Unfortunately on this message board, 90% of the people that post here are biased talkers that talk, talk, talk and provide nothing in the way of information or knowledge. That means that the only thing left is pleasure. I prefer gaining knowledge to having pleasure.


No, we are not debating, at least you are not debating. Here are 3 rules/guidelines of what a debate is

• If a speaker makes a statement, they must be able to provide evidence or reasons to support the statement.
• Facts presented in a debate must be accurate.
• Speakers may not bring up new points in a rebuttal speech.

You have not done that.


I do not doubt that for a second. But as I have stated before, my objective is not to win a debate or to prove my side. My objective is to deliver data, statistics, and facts no matter is they are accepted or not. It is my objective in life for the simple reason of doing what is right. I cannot force other people to accept facts, data, and statistics so my objective is not to convince others but just to provide the knowledge and information.

By the way, it is my OPINION that you will not accept this information I provided here and you will come back with another retort that gives an opinionated (no facts) answer.

I am not here to prove that I am better than anyone. That is not my objective

Ok, it’s just that your tone would suggest otherwise. But if you say it’s not, then fine.

My objective is to provide data, statistics and facts

You haven’t provided any facts in this thread, you’ve provided two pieces of data, on which you formed an opinion.

Having said that, when people do not accept the data, statistics and and facts and doubt them but don't prove them wrong (other than through words)

I accept that you have provided data, as shown by the two things you have posted, but no facts have been presented, only opinion.

the only thing that can be obtained from the conversation is either anger or pleasure.

Why does it have to be anger or pleasure? There isn’t any middle ground? People’s responses either anger you or give you pleasure? How about just, neutral? That’s also a thing.

There is no knowledge gained by being right. Knowledge is gained when proven wrong as now you know more than you did before.

Incorrect, you haven’t proven anything, you’ve just given us an opinion. You don’t have anything to show that Vance used routh as a political weapon. All Vance did was give examples of why the left should tone down the rhetoric.

No, pleasure is not what I seek.

Then apparently, it comes easy to you because this is the second thread in just a few days where you appear to be in glee about getting under someone skin, telling them “you’re making my day”. That would indicate someone who enjoys the feeling of seeing someone else agitated…am
I wrong? Do you words not convey that sentiment?

• If a speaker makes a statement, they must be able to provide evidence or reasons to support the statement.

But the evidence you provide doesn’t support the statement, it just shows you have an opinion on Vance’s words, and opinion that I, and many others differ with

• Facts presented in a debate must be accurate.

I disagree with your facts, I do not believe they are, in fact, facts.

• Speakers may not bring up new points in a rebuttal speech.

? Are you trying to bring up debate rules for structured debate settings? Um..this is not a symposium debate…this is just a forum debate, and technically, if we’re being honest, it’s not a “debate” it’s just a discussion.

However…I haven’t introduced any new points, I have just argued the points you have brought up.

So, having said that, we have been “debating”.

My objective is to deliver data, statistics, and facts no matter is they are accepted or not.

And when you provide facts, we can analyze them and provide a response, but you have only given opinion in this thread. Your assertion that Vance is weaponizing routh is not fact, it’s opinion.

I cannot force other people to accept facts, data, and statistics so my objective is not to convince others but just to provide the knowledge and information.

I can respect you wanting to provide informsrion, it’s just that you have to be willing to accept that maybe your opinion is not always right? For example, in this thread, you have claimed something that I don’t find to be true, and you haven’t provided any facts, just 2 pieces of data, around which you formed an opinion. I don’t believe any knowledge is to be gained in that.

Now, if you can provide proof that Vance is weaponizing routh, such as rhetorical statements used to call for actions of violence or retaliation of some sort, then we’d have something to go on, as of now, all he has done is suggest toning down the rhetoric.

By the way, it is my OPINION that you will not accept this information I provided here and you will come back with another retort that gives an opinionated (no facts) answer.

Your opinion is partially correct. I do not accept what you have claimed as fact, and I have come back with a response, but mine is factual. It is factual in that you have only provided an opinion, and you haven’t proven that Vance is weaponizing the routh situation. That is a true statement.

 

[Luckyone]

Ok, it’s just that your tone would suggest otherwise. But if you say it’s not, then fine.



You haven’t provided any facts in this thread, you’ve provided two pieces of data, on which you formed an opinion.




I accept that you have provided data, as shown by the two things you have posted, but no facts have been presented, only opinion.



Why does it have to be anger or pleasure? There isn’t any middle ground? People’s responses either anger you or give you pleasure? How about just, neutral? That’s also a thing.



Incorrect, you haven’t proven anything, you’ve just given us an opinion. You don’t have anything to show that Vance used routh as a political weapon. All Vance did was give examples of why the left should tone down the rhetoric.



Then apparently, it comes easy to you because this is the second thread in just a few days where you appear to be in glee about getting under someone skin, telling them “you’re making my day”. That would indicate someone who enjoys the feeling of seeing someone else agitated…am
I wrong? Do you words not convey that sentiment?



But the evidence you provide doesn’t support the statement, it just shows you have an opinion on Vance’s words, and opinion that I, and many others differ with



I disagree with your facts, I do not believe they are, in fact, facts.



? Are you trying to bring up debate rules for structured debate settings? Um..this is not a symposium debate…this is just a forum debate, and technically, if we’re being honest, it’s not a “debate” it’s just a discussion.

However…I haven’t introduced any new points, I have just argued the points you have brought up.

So, having said that, we have been “debating”.



And when you provide facts, we can analyze them and provide a response, but you have only given opinion in this thread. Your assertion that Vance is weaponizing routh is not fact, it’s opinion.



I can respect you wanting to provide informsrion, it’s just that you have to be willing to accept that maybe your opinion is not always right? For example, in this thread, you have claimed something that I don’t find to be true, and you haven’t provided any facts, just 2 pieces of data, around which you formed an opinion. I don’t believe any knowledge is to be gained in that.

Now, if you can provide proof that Vance is weaponizing routh, such as rhetorical statements used to call for actions of violence or retaliation of some sort, then we’d have something to go on, as of now, all he has done is suggest toning down the rhetoric.



Your opinion is partially correct. I do not accept what you have claimed as fact, and I have come back with a response, but mine is factual. It is factual in that you have only provided an opinion, and you haven’t proven that Vance is weaponizing the routh situation. That is a true statement.

One answer to address all your attempts to prove you are right.

At NO TIME have you provided anything that proves you are right, other than opinion. In talking about the OP, show me anything that Vance has said or stated that proves that he wasn't being biased politically in his statements.

When you come back with links to articles, facts, statistics and data that proves that your opinion is correct and my statements are clearly wrong, I will respond to you again. As of right now, I will not be responding to any of your posts that don't have links that supports your views.

 

[ThisIsMe]

One answer to address all your attempts to prove you are right.

At NO TIME have you provided anything that proves you are right, other than opinion. In talking about the OP, show me anything that Vance has said or stated that proves that he wasn't being biased politically in his statements.

When you come back with links to articles, facts, statistics and data that proves that your opinion is correct and my statements are clearly wrong, I will respond to you again. As of right now, I will not be responding to any of your posts that don't have links that supports your views.

lol, asks me to post links proving a negative…or what someone DIDNT say. All I need to prove I’m right is your OP, that’s it.

I don’t need to provide any proof to what Vance MEANT, because I don’t know, and I’m not trying to assign meaning to his statements. You’re right, it is my opinion, based on what he said that he was just asking for toning down of rhetoric, not weaponizing anything. All I was doing to showing that what YOU said was just opinion and not fact and I have done so using your own posts to do so. If you require a link, just go back to post #1 of this thread.

It’s fine for you to have an opinion, but if you want to present them as facts, you need to provide some proof that Vance intended his statements as a weapon. Short of that, it’s just your opinion.

That’s all I was getting at

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

You better be able to support that statement with links to statements saying that, or you will be seen as a total liar...............not to say the least.

She damn sure said it ...

If you had to be stuck on an elevator with either President Trump, Mike Pence or Jeff Sessions, who would it be?” DeGeneres asked.

Does one of us have to come out alive?” Harris quipped before breaking out in a laugh.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Is Trump a clear and present danger to our Republic?

YES!

But assassinating him would not be smart. It's obvious that he's going to lose this election by a historic landslide.

Then he'll go to prison where he belongs.

That will be far better for our country than if he was assassinated. We need to make his MAGA follower realize what a bunch of idiots they are, not to give them a martyr which would only cause them to double down on their stupidity.

But not once do you condemn political violence.