I expect everyone to be accurate, and “your allegations only matter if it’s against Republicans” is inaccurate. To show that it’s inaccurate, I cited an example in which allegations against a non-Republican mattered.
-
-
Replying to @NGrossman81 @ReaganBattalion
Accurate if stating defensible *rules*. Anyway, stick a “normally” operator in front of the rules to make its structure clear to you. And that seems true. Do you seriously expect us to ignore the rule with your “Butt Franken!” argument?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MaulPanata @ReaganBattalion
I expect people to include recent cases when discussing supposed "rules," yes. If the most notable recent case defies the rule, maybe it isn't a rule after all.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @MaulPanata @ReaganBattalion
How many times can the opposite of a "rule" happen before it's no longer a rule?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NGrossman81 @ReaganBattalion
I don’t think there’s some number which applies to all cases. Why don’t you look at cases where we only have *say-sos* (as in Ford’s v weak case) and tell me how many we have on both sides. Not very good evidence when your counter is one we have pictures, and multiple accusers
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MaulPanata @ReaganBattalion
The most prominent Republican faces many accusations of sexual assault, hasn’t hurt him. A prominent Democrat got accused of far less, ousted from Senate. “Your allegations only matter if it’s against Republicans” does not match reality.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NGrossman81 @ReaganBattalion
Again, the entire force of your reply is to take that phrase woodenly literal, hence why you think one example disproves it. But I’d say you and I live in different epistemic universes if you think none of that has hurt trump.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MaulPanata @ReaganBattalion
Yes, the point I made was the point I was trying to make. If you’re interested in arguing against a point I didn’t make, I can’t help you.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NGrossman81 @ReaganBattalion
I began by agreeing with you but then gave a subtler reading to the claims which avoided you simplistic gotcha. If you didn’t want to go down that road, should’ve just replied “oh I don’t care about that, Imma get my daily dose of low hanging fruit.” I can be smarmy too. :)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
It’s not a simplistic gotcha. It’s arguing that two years of new data should be factored in. I don’t know why you’re so adamant that it shouldn’t.
-
-
Replying to @NGrossman81 @ReaganBattalion
Oh then I don’t see how your point was responsive to what I said. I have no problem factoring the new data in. So ... I’m lost.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.