quash wrote:The burden of proof is on you, not me, so get to it.
See, this is why the Alex Jones crowd - and
the results of their clout -
never ever "loses" an argument, let alone admits it got anything wrong (
tax cuts for rich people pay for themselves!) - you say "see, I'm reasonable, just show me xyz, what are you waiting for?" even as the other side of your mouth screams that
every single possible source of, and outlet for, xyz is hopelessly corrupted and/or biased, and hey, that xyz can be easily faked anyway, no matter
who unearths it. There is literally
always an escape hatch to allow you to insist that "this proves nothing" and send the whole "conversation" back to square one, in hopes that all involved have forgotten every item of interest that emerged along the way except what you're ready to dust off and re-squawk as if nothing had happened.
As I've said a million times by now, I don't even follow the Russia thing all that closely, because if Trump and his ilk are removed from office for any reason other than "people realize how god-awful their policies are for almost everybody" we'll be repeating this same pathetic dance before long, but hell, let me ask you directly:
Assuming that "hard" evidence of Russian meddling and/or Trump's use of it does exist - heck, forget Russia if you want, and substitute Trump University, the sexual assault accusations, ripping off contractors, anything at all from the massive pile of cases in which Trump is accused of having broken the law - in what form and via what channels would it need to appear for you to even consider the possibility that it might be legitimate?
And y'know, while we're at it, if you truly believe that there's nothing at all to any of this, why aren't you and the rest of the Trumpskis loudly calling on Daddy to release his tax returns and help put the kibosh on this whole charade once and for all? Oh, and if you sneer that "watching the libtards tie themselves in knots over this is more than worth all the uncertainty", guess what - you've proudly taken up the mantle of the
More concerned with pissing off people you don't like than actually having a minimally competent, or even minimally coherent, government in charge of your country Trump supporter. Even more openly than you already have countless times, that is.
It is funny to see you say that they just said stuff that was even crazier than the normal BLM propaganda, because not only are you tacitly admitting that it is largely a movement of crazed people, but because the baseline level of BLM propaganda is already crazy enough as it is!
And here's the other reason there's no such thing as a "debate" with someone like you - let me quote precisely what I said in my previous post:
He said they impersonated them (his exact word was "parroted"), among other groups, and made it seem like said groups were posting particularly incendiary shit to get people even more riled up about this stuff than they already were.
As noted therein, BLM pisses a lot of people off - nobody with working sensory organs disputes that, and before you start ranting about how that statement somehow "condones violence" (enduring double standards
notwithstanding), no, I don't think rioting helps any cause, though under the definition of "inciting violence" that the right likes to use for everyone except themselves (yeah, those well-behaved Second Amendment types have
nothing whatsoever to do with the militias stockpiling military-grade weaponry because they
somehow came to believe that Obama was going to take all their guns away and then send coded messages to the inner cities to unleash the armies of blacks to put
white genocide into effect
), it's
all but inevitable, which works out rather well for you, now as it did then, wouldn't you say?
But notice where the obligatory filter is applied: in acknowledging that BLM, like the pro-gun groups, is controversial (another word I used verbatim), you take the opportunity to
automatically assume in your response that I, and Schiff, in the process somehow "let slip" that
all of the controversy they court,
including that which springs forth
directly from the "they're paid thugs who want to kill cops and rob
hard-working people when they're not lazing around and popping out welfare babies" narrative being deliberately pushed by the well-heeled right (and the Russian doppelgangers),
the NRA very much included (though they
hardly stop there),
is also true (or, at the very least, "feels true" or "hints at a larger truth"), and thus that
any attempt to "legitimize" such a movement is a consummate fraud.
On the flipside, of course, the pro-gun groups' controversial nature is -
must be - incidental or undeserved, since (new rule!) they don't frequently turn out in such numbers (not that they
have to). And by extension, of course, folks who support
them are instantly absolved of association with any and all "behavioral anomalies" the latter might commit, not to mention the same knee-jerk "see? see? he just
admitted it!" insinuations of any such controversy. Again, not a bad starting point upon which to hinge any "argument", wouldn't you say, especially since any other take on the matter at hand can be quickly dismissed as either "biased" or "brainwashed"?
Even in light of all this, what the hell, for whatever it's worth, no, I'm not terribly comfortable with very rich people of any particular stripe pulling the strings of any such effort (even though it
didn't happen the way you suggest); you and the rest of the Trumpskis (with the big guy himself leading the parade, I'm sure) can join me in calling for publicly-funded elections as a first step in addressing their oversized influence over our lives, whenever you're ready. And if you want to argue that the tangible record of police killings by race is woefully incomplete (in large part due to the fact that police departments frequently refuse to release the records they have, if they even bother to keep them at all), go ahead, I'm right there with you. However, I would offer the same basic follow-up question to you (and "All Lives Matter" types in general) here as I did on Trump's tax returns:
Do you even believe that this is an issue worth putting time and money into getting a more solid picture of at all? Why or why not?
Even if Russia did promote the 2A during the election (which, again, that pesky process of providing proof of your accusations has yet to substantiate), it wouldn't immediately make it a Russian cause, just as it wouldn't immediately make BLM a Russian cause if they promoted that.
I would like to see you try to point out
precisely where I - or Schiff - so much as unintentionally suggested
any such thing.
And once again, before we forget - notice how any and all discussion of
what a steaming pile of open-faced bullshit the Nunes memo is - with more on the way! - has
mysteriously vanished, let alone the conclusions to be drawn when the Commander-in-Chief doesn't skip a beat, neither in somehow claiming
Total Vindication due to it, nor in, despite previous promises, abruptly refusing to release a Dem rebuttal, supposedly due to (
new rule! new rule!) security reasons (which is in itself, of course,
yet another conspiracy ), but also managing to
slip in suggestions that it's somehow "political" (and
loooong and
boooring ) in a way that the Nunes memo
somehow just plain
wasn't, while pretty much everyone under his umbrella, as ever, is perfectly content to
yeeaahhh fuck yooouuu yeaahhh right along with him. But hey, you know the routine - you don't get a fucking
word out of the contemporary right unless you're willing to check your attention span at the door and hop aboard the endless merry-go-round!