Right, 10+ years of intimate and continuing relationships, with unlimited access to any and all information requested, with people's who's medicare withholdings are more than our salaries combined has lead me to a conclusion completely dismissed because you know the name of a logical fallacy.
It's like... You aren't even reading my posts...
Maybe we shouldn't have made fun of Romney for knowing all this you've obsessively posted about for months now then?
Last time I brought this up you poo-pooed it as "scoring political points", but in reality it isn't. It's pointing out what a massive fucking mistake re-electing Obama was, and how much more on point in this reality you suddenly agree with Romney about Romney was aware of.
But you know, Obama listed Climate change and went out to party with Beyoncé so we done picked a good one there.
And this right here is part of the reason I'm out of fucks to give ^.
We fucked up in not electing Romney, obviously. Because Russia is, according to you, a major issue and things are really grave. So because you're NOW, four years too late, mouth frothing at the grave situation, and I'm sitting here like "well not point in getting all worked up over a 4 year old mistake until it comes to complete fruition" I'm "silly and craven"... Right.
It's a semantic argument, and one you're completely losing your mind over, further convincing me you've dived off the deep end on this issue. Collusion is the wrong word, you know this, yet refuse to let it go... Maybe because you see conceding any ground, what-so-ever, as some sort of knock on your greater argument. I don't know. I do know that collusion takes effort, and in fact intelligence, understanding, cunning and skill on everyone involved, in order to accomplish. I'm only trained in how to look for it...
The reason the semantic argument matters?
Because you're pushing the narrative of "he's a moron". Fine. I disagree, because the mountain of real world evidence, and plethora of examples points to people in control of their own money, which he is, are overwhelmingly anything but a moron if they continue to get richer through active investments, which he has. This does NOT mean the individual would be a FP expert, a good speaker, in-clumsy or many, many other insults. Nor does it ensure a specific dick size, which appears important to you as well. But it does mean a general level of overall intelligence well above moron.
And again, I'll trust the numerous examples of idiots pissing away hundreds of millions of dollars, and bright people turning $30k into $30m I've seen with my own eyes, been reading about for the last 17 some odd years and see going on in everyday life, over the fact you say it isn't true because "it's a fallacy".
But anyway... Calling someone a moron means, they shouldn't be taken serious. Okay fine.
But then you turn around and want to claim this moron somehow colluded to completely destroy the entire fabric of trust and security in the nation, the most powerful and watched in known human history. This moron is believed to HAVE to be a moron in order to collude... blah blah blah on and on and on.
Now to us silly and craven people this entire line of reason "a moron so stupid he literally must be a savant because he stole the biggest and most powerful prize in the history of human civilization, right out from under the entire world's nose... via collusion" has me putting the entire argument further and further into pizzagate territory.
You can call me all the names you want, call my reasoning all the names you want, but you're ignoring the simple fact that end of the day, my reaction is the reaction you're line of argument is getting from people. Whether or not actually reaching people is important to you is up to you.
That's not collusion, that's a patsy. Two very different situations, and the difference between both a civil war and hot war with Russia, or just a hot war with Russia.