How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

[dneal]

If it’s a whataboutism argument, it’s exactly what you asked for in the challenge you posed.

Maybe give more thought to your requests…

[TSherbs]

Wow, what a scumbag loser Trump continues to be about the 2020 election:

BuzzFeed News: Trump Keeps Promoting Democrats In Races Against Republicans Who Speak Out Against Him.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...a-rally-abrams

[Chuck Naill]

Hard to imagine he was ever elected

[Chuck Naill]

If it’s a whataboutism argument, it’s exactly what you asked for in the challenge you posed.

Maybe give more thought to your requests…

If you don’t have anything better to say, why bother taking up space? Dumb!!

[TSherbs]

He has never given a shit about the party, or even other people en masse. He says he does, then he doesn't do anything except promote the lining of his own pockets (or those of his immediate family) and excoriate those he sees as disloyal...to HIM.

He pulled the biggest con on half of America. And then pulled another one on thousands on January 6. And Trump University? How did that con end up?...

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[dneal]

If it’s a whataboutism argument, it’s exactly what you asked for in the challenge you posed.

Maybe give more thought to your requests…

If you don’t have anything better to say, why bother taking up space? Dumb!!

Chuck, Denial is not a river in Egypt. Is there some reason you are unable to address the substance of posts?

p.s.: You do know who you're starting to sound like, right? Hint: re-read your post. Then imagine an orange crazy-haired dummy sitting on your lap (or living in your head). Pull the string on the orange "Chatty Cathy", and it sounds a lot like that post.

[Chuck Naill]

I’m not interested in being negative toward you, but when information is shared, perhaps you disagree, but suggesting the source is flawed is not what a rational person does without showing a smidgeon of proof. It’s just the way things are done, otherwise, what am I or anyone else supposed to do? For example if you say Woodward has a history of lying, can a reasonable person then decide everything he says is not true. Perhaps you can, but I can’t. I don’t ever think Trump lies all the time . However, I can appreciate you being suspicious of Woodward. That Costa is involved is why he was mentioned by me. Hope this helps

[TSherbs]

Trump continues his baldfaced lies and complete disregard of the reality of the election and of the multiple processes of review in Arizona. He respects NONE of his audience. He just lies and gaslights for his own gain.

Here is another example:

MSNBC: With A Straight face, Trump Lies And Says Arizona Audit Found He Won.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArB70iabloE

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

There are Trumpians who are ignorant and some that are dumb like a fox.

[dneal]

I’m not interested in being negative toward you, but when information is shared, perhaps you disagree, but suggesting the source is flawed is not what a rational person does without showing a smidgeon of proof. It’s just the way things are done, otherwise, what am I or anyone else supposed to do? For example if you say Woodward has a history of lying, can a reasonable person then decide everything he says is not true. Perhaps you can, but I can’t. I don’t ever think Trump lies all the time . However, I can appreciate you being suspicious of Woodward. That Costa is involved is why he was mentioned by me. Hope this helps

Woodward has a long and well-known history, except by you apparently. You asked for proof, or else I was "shooting blanks", I believe you not-negatively said...

That politico link is much more than the smidgeon you requested and have pretended I didn't post. You got owned, you lashed out with your weird attempts at insult, and you continue on in your echo chamber.

I thought you liked to read? Maybe only when it's repeatedly discredited gossip-mongers. Woodward created his credibility problem(s), not me. He goes down in a long list of proven liars. Maybe Woodward was on the helicopter with Brian Williams when it was shot down... That would make a good story.

[Chuck Naill]

You are saying you don't trust Woodward rather than trying to explain what the book states took place.


Let's take one topic in the new Woodward and Costa book that should be easily vetted, did Mike Pence contact Dan Quayle. Have you been able to find where either man denies the conversation? I haven't found one source that said it did not occur. Wouldn't Quayle want to disassociate himself if it never happened?

For me, this is the most important claim the books makes, that a sitting VP had to contact a former VP to explore options to overturn an honest election.

How about General Milley preventing Trump from using nuclear weapons. If it were not true, and if Woodward is lying, wouldn't it be in Milley's best interest to deny the account? Have you found a source that says he denies what the book said? I haven't. Trump took it serious.

[dneal]

You are saying you don't trust Woodward rather than trying to explain what the book states took place.


Let's take one topic in the new Woodward and Costa book that should be easily vetted, did Mike Pence contact Dan Quayle. Have you been able to find where either man denies the conversation? I haven't found one source that said it did not occur. Wouldn't Quayle want to disassociate himself if it never happened?

For me, this is the most important claim the books makes, that a sitting VP had to contact a former VP to explore options to overturn an honest election.

How about General Milley preventing Trump from using nuclear weapons. If it were not true, and if Woodward is lying, wouldn't it be in Milley's best interest to deny the account? Have you found a source that says he denies what the book said? I haven't. Trump took it serious.

Chuck - Woodward, just like Rather and Williams and a lot of others, destroyed his own credibility. You're listening to a chicken little, wanting me to prove the sky is not falling like he claims. How do I prove that? I don't, because it is not my obligation to prove or disprove what he writes. He is making the assertion, and that burden of proof remains with Bob Woodard. I did demonstrate his own damage to his credibility, and gave you a Politico article. You can still go read that. You like to read, right?

No, he has fooled us once; and you more than once apparently.

p.s.: Just curious, if I start a sentence with "How about..." instead of "What about", is it no longer "whataboutism"?

Here are a few more, just so you can ignore those too. The Columbia Journalism Review link is a good one.

https://abcstlouis.com/news/nation-w...orted-by-media
https://www.esquire.com/news-politic...-jive-talking/
https://www.cjr.org/politics/bob-woodward-fear.php

--edit--

Hell, the LA Times won't even give him a break.
https://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...oodward-review

[Chuck Naill]

Okay, but I asked you specifically to respond to the Penske/Quayle story and the Gen. Milley story in the Woodward/Costa book. We’re the pair lying?

Yes, not responding to a question by discrediting a writer is what about this. It would be like me asking why you’re so concerned about Woodward while giving lying Trump a pass.

[Chuck Naill]

This just in, Milley is responding to congress which shows Woodward and Costa didn’t lie.

[kazoolaw]

"Responding" covers a multitude of sins.

[Chuck Naill]

Sure does😂😂

[dneal]

True believers can find signs and omens in all sorts of things, it seems.

[Chuck Naill]

Do true believers vote?

[dneal]

Do true believers vote?

Often and frequently is my understanding. They’re so committed they even vote after they’re dead.

[Chuck Naill]

Do true believers vote?

Often and frequently is my understanding. They’re so committed they even vote after they’re dead.

LOL.gif