Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Someone with an IQ over 60 please explain to Taichiliberal that using the "your study announced its limitations like every other study ever performed, therefore it must be invalid" fallacy isn't just "using a direct quote."
Would some literate person try to explain to Taichiliberal that using random quotes to arbitrarily smear one source out of more than a dozen with no apparent rhyme or reason is invalid on its face and refutes literally no part of what anyone is saying...as with all diversionary "attack the source" fallacies?
Note Taichiliberal inventing night-and-day double standards out of thin air for only Republicans to follow and then rushing in to pretend that someone is using the left's beloved "whataboutism" fallacy when they point it out.
View attachment 13648
Comprehending it yet?
1) If any part of the NUMEROUS sources cited being in any way connected to Bush magically invalidates the entire list of sources and evidence, then guess what...almost the entire news media is made up of left-wing ideologues who donate to Democrats, vote for Democrats, and used to work for Democrats in office.
Your own logic just invalidated 95% of the "evidence" Democrats cite on virtually every single issue. As usual, way to think it through there, Socrates.
2) And the person still regurgitating hilarious propaganda about President Trump being a secret Russian agent is accusing ANYONE else of being spoon-fed their talking points by propagandists?
View attachment 13645
Taichiliberal forgets all the articles repeatedly provided (including from DEMOCRAT SOURCES), that clearly DO refute and disprove his biased partisan "fact-checkers" and their clearly erroneous butchery of the facts.
I'll provide it yet again. Work on your literacy skills and try to actually comprehend it this time.
From CBS:
Did Ukraine try to interfere in the 2016 election on Clinton's behalf?
"Some conservative personalities within and without the White House have been talking a lot lately about the links between Ukraine and Hillary Clinton's campaign. Their relationship was exposed by Politico reporter Ken Vogel, who has since moved to The New York Times, back in January... a Democratic operative working with the Democratic National Committee did reach out to the Ukrainian government in an attempt to get damaging information about the Trump campaign. That operative's name is Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American former Clinton White House aide who was tasked with ethnic outreach on behalf of the Democratic Party."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-ukr...2016-election/
From Daily Beast:
Ukrainian Officials Meddled in 2016 Election by Leaking Secret Manafort Ledger, Court Says
"Two Ukrainian officials meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election by leaking a secret ledger showing $12.7 million in payments between Ukraine’s ousted pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych and Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, a Ukrainian court said Wednesday"
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukrain...ger-court-says
From the Hill:
As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges.
"After nearly three years and millions of tax dollars, the Trump-Russia collusion probe is about to be resolved. Emerging in its place is newly unearthed evidence suggesting another foreign effort to influence the 2016 election — this time, in favor of the Democrats. Ukraine’s top prosecutor divulged in an interview aired Wednesday on Hill.TV that he has opened an investigation into whether his country’s law enforcement apparatus intentionally leaked financial records during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign about then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in an effort to sway the election in favor of Hillary Clinton."
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...linton-emerges
From Politico:
Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire
"Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...ackfire-233446
From Washington Examiner:
Washington Post admits Ukraine interfered in 2016 election but attempts to minimize its effect
"Farhi’s piece acknowledged that Vogel’s reporting on Ukraine 'extensively detailed Ukrainian efforts to undermine Trump in 2016, such as publicly questioning his fitness for office, disseminating documents implicating Paul Manafort, his campaign chairman at the time, in corruption and helping a Clinton ally research damaging information about him.'"
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ize-its-effect
From The Nation (which is ultra-liberal):
"'Ukrainians certainly had every reason to expose Manafort’s corruption, and the man’s subsequent trial showed there was an enormous amount to expose,' wrote Golinkin. 'But Ukraine’s efforts also happened to coincide with—and have an immediate impact on—an American campaign. And yet, despite this information's being available in English, and published by established Western media, we’ve had almost no debate about its implications.'"
https://www.thenation.com/article/uk...lections-2016/
Garbage in, garbage out. Contribute nothing but childish fallacies, tantrums, conspiracy theories, and moronic contradictions and hysteria...and get laughed at. Cry all you want. That's how it works.
View attachment 13647
View attachment 13646
All one has to do is note what Army does NOT address when he edits my responses and provides excerpts from other sources, like this point here: 4. Army forgets I provide valid, documented facts and source material that he cannot refute in kind, so instead he offers the half assed propaganda from the WND (noted right wing rag of dubious credibility). Here's another little tidbit to puncture Army's hot airhead.... https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/fa...r-fraud-claim/
Essentially, the reader can see Army is on a loop, just repeating insipidly stubborn clap trap from previous exchanges and avoiding anything he can't logically or factually disprove or refute. What's particularly pathetic about Army is how he provides his own version of what I previously wrote or what my source material states. Obviously, Army believes that the reader is as lazy as he is, and won't click the arrow link to examine the chronology of the posts to see his folly.
Army has demonstrated his limitations via his intellectual dishonesty and impotence. So I leave him to his blathering.
Last edited:
