Rudy: Only ‘50/50’ Chance I Worked With a ‘Russian Spy’ to Dig Dirt on Bidens

[joko104]

Is understanding my rebuttal to difficult for you?

Your rebuttal falls into the 'incompetent' file, to wit:

Incompetent rebuttals are arguments where the salient premise is based on: [highlighted pertains to your comment]
non arguments, a non argument isn't really debatable or they are not worthy of debate owing to any of the following types noting the fact they all have one thing in common--they lack sufficient dignity worthy of a response, they come in many different flavors, especially those which contain vacuous declarations and/or allegations (which cannot be substantiated, i.e., 'making stuff up'), rebuttals rife with weasel words ( improper use of generalities such as 'some people are saying' 'everyone knows' 'well-established fact'.) ad hominems, loaded terms & phrases,, off topic/irrelevant deflections, sentiments (words that reveal emotional attitude devoid of fact, logic and reason) off point arguments/deflections (off point is a sibling to off topic, where off topic is attempting to highjack the thread. It's done a lot in internet forums, and if the person to whom you directed the topic change accepts it, then you're off into a new direction, but, as such, of course, doesn't refute the original premise offered), egregious strawman arguments, egregious cynicism, off-the-charts ill-logic, 'kill the messenger" tactics, i.e., attacking the person presenting the argument rather than the argument, itself ( the only time kill the messenger is valid is for a well-established discredited source, such as Alex Jones, David Duke, etc, ), childish remarks, trivialising your opponent's argument -- cheap shot, childish or sophomoric comments/logic arising from ignorance (for example, NYTimes is a 'radical leftist rag' -- that's a remark born out of ignorance, it's also an 'kill the messenger' tactic) and then there is the classic thought-terminating cliché; these are cult-tropes, born out of groups who have a demagogue leader who is the master of implanting them in his flock. See, the demagogue doesn't like dissent, so when anyone challenges someone in his flock, he, being a master mind manipulator, will have planted a number of thought-terminating clichés into the minds of his subjects ( via repetition) so they will toss it up to the opponent in an attempt to kill the conversation ( wrongfully thinking it improves their argument ) so TTCs are simple terms catch phrases or words whose sole purpose is, to kill the conversation, such as 'TDS' "NeverTrumper" "Leftist Loony" (noting that the terms are not necessarily devised by the demagogue himself, they could be created by other believers, or have already been around and adopted by and they catch on with the group ) etc., pithy aphorisms assumed to be always true ( aphorisms exist because empirical observations tend to be true, but cannot be used as the salient premise to refute an argument as they are not, nor cannot be, absolute), last, but not least, and a significant debate sin, is posturing; posturing type comments, come in two basic categories, one is where you flaunt, i.e, for example, your military service, but of course if the argument can be improved by your qualifications of expertise in a field, that is okay, what I mean is something like 'I served while you were dodging the draft" whereupon your service doesn't improve your argument about whether dodging the draft was moral, or not, or flaunting your education, or authority of some kind, unless it's pertinent to the argument, and the other type of posturing are those comments which are motivated by puffing oneself up, and this is done by shaming, belittling, mocking, patronizing, 'mansplaining', flaming, where one talks down to ones opponent in order to puff oneself up.

So you really can't construct a topical response.

 

[OscarLevant]

So you really can't construct a topical response.

Not when your comments are incompetent.

 

[Parrish]

Is understanding my rebuttal to difficult for you?

Your rebuttal falls into the 'incompetent' file, to wit:

Incompetent rebuttals are arguments where the salient premise is based on: [highlighted pertains to your comment]
non arguments, a non argument isn't really debatable or they are not worthy of debate owing to any of the following types noting the fact they all have one thing in common--they lack sufficient dignity worthy of a response, they come in many different flavors, especially those which contain vacuous declarations and/or allegations (which cannot be substantiated, i.e., 'making stuff up'), rebuttals rife with weasel words ( improper use of generalities such as 'some people are saying' 'everyone knows' 'well-established fact'.) ad hominems, loaded terms & phrases,, off topic/irrelevant deflections, sentiments (words that reveal emotional attitude devoid of fact, logic and reason) off point arguments/deflections (off point is a sibling to off topic, where off topic is attempting to highjack the thread. It's done a lot in internet forums, and if the person to whom you directed the topic change accepts it, then you're off into a new direction, but, as such, of course, doesn't refute the original premise offered), egregious strawman arguments, egregious cynicism, off-the-charts ill-logic, 'kill the messenger" tactics, i.e., attacking the person presenting the argument rather than the argument, itself ( the only time kill the messenger is valid is for a well-established discredited source, such as Alex Jones, David Duke, etc, ), childish remarks, trivialising your opponent's argument -- cheap shot, childish or sophomoric comments/logic arising from ignorance (for example, NYTimes is a 'radical leftist rag' -- that's a remark born out of ignorance, it's also an 'kill the messenger' tactic) and then there is the classic thought-terminating cliché; these are cult-tropes, born out of groups who have a demagogue leader who is the master of implanting them in his flock. See, the demagogue doesn't like dissent, so when anyone challenges someone in his flock, he, being a master mind manipulator, will have planted a number of thought-terminating clichés into the minds of his subjects ( via repetition) so they will toss it up to the opponent in an attempt to kill the conversation ( wrongfully thinking it improves their argument ) so TTCs are simple terms catch phrases or words whose sole purpose is, to kill the conversation, such as 'TDS' "NeverTrumper" "Leftist Loony" (noting that the terms are not necessarily devised by the demagogue himself, they could be created by other believers, or have already been around and adopted by and they catch on with the group ) etc., pithy aphorisms assumed to be always true ( aphorisms exist because empirical observations tend to be true, but cannot be used as the salient premise to refute an argument as they are not, nor cannot be, absolute), last, but not least, and a significant debate sin, is posturing; posturing type comments, come in two basic categories, one is where you flaunt, i.e, for example, your military service, but of course if the argument can be improved by your qualifications of expertise in a field, that is okay, what I mean is something like 'I served while you were dodging the draft" whereupon your service doesn't improve your argument about whether dodging the draft was moral, or not, or flaunting your education, or authority of some kind, unless it's pertinent to the argument, and the other type of posturing are those comments which are motivated by puffing oneself up, and this is done by shaming, belittling, mocking, patronizing, 'mansplaining', flaming, where one talks down to ones opponent in order to puff oneself up.

 

[iguanaman]

If Trump's followers truly wished to support the douche, they should have started by abolishing Giuliani from the scene. Trump owes his treason to Giuliani's idiocy.

Ukraine served two purposes: (1) Trump began to truly believe that Biden was corrupt and (2) exposing that corruption might help him win in 2020.

Thus, it was because of Giuliani's obsession with Ukraine that he pushed Trump to glorify the debunked conspiracy theory and moved to try to enlist Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 American election. Trump is either an unwitting fool, or a malicious traitor. Either way, the GOP authorized future Presidents to seek personal and political help from a foreign government.

I actually had a different take on Trump and Ukraine. I think the Crowdstrike CT was what really got him off. Getting that mainstream would have allowed him to petition Congress to allow Russian sanctions to be removed and get Putin off his back. Remember the "World tour" that Barr made? It was to try and drum up support for the Ukraine hacking the DNC hoax. Of course he knew Biden would beat him in 2020 so that was a close second.

 

[year2late]

Rudy: ‘50/50’ Chance Russian Spy Helped Me Dig Dirt on Biden

In a wild interview, Giuliani defended his years-long mission to torpedo the Bidens by exposing their alleged misdeeds in Ukraine. And he doesn’t care who supplied the ammunition.

www.thedailybeast.com

”Giuliani said he viewed his latest leak to the New York Post as an extension of his years-long efforts to work with Ukrainians to dig up dirt on the Bidens. But nearly all of his former Ukrainian associates have either been arrested and indicted by federal law enforcement or are no longer welcome in the U.S.”


Even money?

When Rudy put his hands down his pants, there was a 50/50 chance he would find a set of balls.

 

[notquiteright]

When it comes to government and politicians, I don't care where information came from. I care if it is the truth and what that truth means. It is well understood that Joe Biden ordered Democrats not to ever accept any facts, so facts literally and openly are the declared enemy of the Democratic Party. Therefore, exposing facts must be a criminal offense.

When it comes to tRumpers and their Pied Pipers, they don't care if the story being told is from someone who's job is to lie for Foreign interests. If the story is what they want to believe it is true....

It is well understood tRump and his cabal will ruthlessly punish anyone who speaks truth to the fat orange guy, so facts are literally and openly are the declared enemy of the Trumper Party. Witness the roll call firing of anyone who dares to disagree with cry baby tRump....

Jan 20 can't come soon enough... ✌

 

[MSgt]

I actually had a different take on Trump and Ukraine. I think the Crowdstrike CT was what really got him off. Getting that mainstream would have allowed him to petition Congress to allow Russian sanctions to be removed and get Putin off his back. Remember the "World tour" that Barr made? It was to try and drum up support for the Ukraine hacking the DNC hoax. Of course he knew Biden would beat him in 2020 so that was a close second.

Good points. Trump was definitely a foreign asset to Russia. He routinely placed Russian interests above American interests. Along the way, he was an unwitting asset to China and Iran. Pity his followers are too stupid to see the obvious.

 

[rhinefire]

Video of Giuliani blowing his nose in to his handkerchief then wiping his mouth and face with it is as good as his hair dye streaming down his face. Add the fly on Pence's head and you have the Republican party in essence.

 

[skeptic llc]

Rudy: ‘50/50’ Chance Russian Spy Helped Me Dig Dirt on Biden

In a wild interview, Giuliani defended his years-long mission to torpedo the Bidens by exposing their alleged misdeeds in Ukraine. And he doesn’t care who supplied the ammunition.

www.thedailybeast.com

”Giuliani said he viewed his latest leak to the New York Post as an extension of his years-long efforts to work with Ukrainians to dig up dirt on the Bidens. But nearly all of his former Ukrainian associates have either been arrested and indicted by federal law enforcement or are no longer welcome in the U.S.”


Even money?

If you have no recollection of the year in question due to the bombardment of alcohol on your faculties, then everything looks like 50/50 to you.