ABATTBQ11 said:
PlaneCrashGuy said:
ABATTBQ11 said:
PlaneCrashGuy said:
ABATTBQ11 said:
PlaneCrashGuy said:
Teslag said:
PlaneCrashGuy said:
J. Walter Weatherman said:
PlaneCrashGuy said:
You seemed confident the reports from sources in his staff are inaccurate. I'm asking why. What leadership has Biden shown you that we shouldn't believe the reports coming out?
I have no idea if they are accurate or not. The point was the article didn't say what nortex claimed it said.
"Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union."
I was asking what makes you so confident this statement is untrue? This is directly from the article.
Nortex claimed it was Biden officials. The article never claimed it was Biden officials, or even American officials after it was discussed at a joint Europe / US meeting.
Why are you so confident it wasn't Biden officials? Said differently, what has Biden done to deserve the benefit of the doubt?
I see a corrupts potus who ****s himself, clearly you and Weatherman see something else if you're tending goal for him like this. What do you see in Biden that I don't?
No one is saying it wasn't, just that there is no definitive certainty it was, and without that definitive certainty, people like you and nortex are incorrect in the continued assertion that it was. Surely even you can recognize the fallacy of, "An official said it, so it must be a Biden official that said it."
I never said it was definitive but I think it's probably true. If you disagree, I'd love to know what you see in Biden to give him the benefit of the doubt. But it sounds like you're just trying to have a meta argument, which is typical but bores me.
True, but everything you've said regarding it, including arguing about giving Biden the benefit of the doubt, starts with the assumption that that's what has been said, which it hasn't.
If everything you say stems from the fallacy of, "An official said it, so it must be a Biden official that said it," then everything that follows is equally flawed.
The problem with your post is that everything I've said stems from "an official said it, and it was probably Biden's" which is a substantive difference.
So in a delicious bit of irony, you're committing the exact fallacy you're accusing me of, and everything you're posting is flawed. Yummy.
No, "Why are you giving Biden the benefit of the doubt?" requires that the status quo be the assumption that it came from the Biden admin, especially when you're asking someone whose position is that it's unknown who it came from. Otherwise, there's nothing to give the benefit of the doubt for.
No.
"Why are you giving Biden the benefit of the doubt" requires the status quo be the assumption that Biden gets more wrong than he does right. I believe that is true. Do you?
If you disagree with my assumption, articulate why - as I have asked no less than 5 times now.
Or, if you agree with my assumption but believe this is one of the things he got right, articulate why.
None of you can, which is hilarious but 0% surprising.
The simple truth of the matter is that Nortex put you in a corner, agree with him or defend Biden- and you can't defend the position you took.
I'm reminded of when Teslag cited TASS in other perspectives after spending months lamenting it was unbelievable Russian propaganda.