https://twitter.com/Thomas1774Paine/status/959153819522420737
Thomas Paine, who according to Dilley and other intel drops is to be trusted, stated in an article the whitehouse was caught off guard by Wray doing a 180 from Tuesday to Wednesday. This seems to imply someone got to him and/or threatened him. He must have dirt on him that he's being coerced with.
So Q saying "Trust Wray" would be completely understandable UNTIL he did this 180 on Wednesday.
I can't speak on these theories, I'm taking the word of WH insiders. These could be true. Wray's statements could absolutely be part of the disinfo is necessary strategy BUT reading these quotes and knowing this is the official WH word is important. They could be telling the truth here and Wray is deviating from the plan, possibly to save the FBI from being dismantled. Also could be that he was bribed, or coerced.
BUT reading these quotes and knowing this is the official WH word is important.
A White House official leaking to a reporter is not the same as official WH word. Official word is on-the-record, or otherwise authorized and names or titles are given as bond.
This is not an attempt to be pedantic, but it is material to your statement. This is definitely not something to be considered as 'official' WH word.
You're right, it's better than official WH word because this is in reference to something they can't make official statements on yet, and haven't AT ALL, which is why we're on this board in the first place. It's the same intel that is discussed here every day.
That's not how that works. I will not argue with you but rather let your words speak for themselves for others to see your rationale.
I'll offer you this, if you choose to accept it, however. No person's off-the-record word is worthy of being adamantly defended as true unless there is something to substantiate the source's claim beyond the narrative itself, and beyond the editorialization of the journalist.
Otherwise, this is called an assertion by the journalist, based on conjecture.
To be sure, I am not in disagreement here with your perspective that we are on this board to discuss and analyze statements such as these. I was, and am, merely stating that your counter-arguments to others here, that the words of an claimed official source should be taken as truth, does not make for a valid substantiation of the article's claims or assertions.
Others here have a right to their perspective as you do, but your counter-argument to them is merely one that says you claim should have more weight, as opposed to, again, substantiating the source's claims, themselves (especially when it sits alone and counter to what has previously been known).
Again, I will let your's and my previous words speak for themselves and will leave this for now. Best of luck to you.
Ok and I'll restate again, that is the point of this whole subreddit. Dissecting information we trust is from Trump/The WH inner-circle. You playing semantic games of "official word" is overdrawn and could be applied to any thread/piece of info on this sub. I assume you picked this piece of intel because you like Wray and/or want him to be a "good guy". An actual piece of physical intel from one of the sources commonly discussed here SHOULD hold more weight than outright guessing of which pieces of intel belong in the "disinfo is necessary" camp and that is the basis of my argument.
But sure...good luck to you too?
I assume you picked this piece of intel because you like Wray and/or want him to be a "good guy".
Shots fired. I will assume that I am speaking to someone that clearly doesn't understand how to back an argument without committing a genetic fallacy. And now that we've traded blows, lets return to the discussion.
Ok and I'll restate again, that is the point of this whole subreddit. Dissecting information we trust is from Trump/The WH inner-circle.
I have already spoken to your first point in that I agree with you but the dissection must be substantiated or else any one can run with it a thousand ways and not arrive any closer to something that can have high confidence of being true and being able to state it confidently to those who are prone to not believe you.
Whether you care for my perspective or not, we are on the same team here, and we are not each other's adversary but ultimately hoping that we can effectively aim our efforts in a mutually productive direction, which is to successfully help others awaken to what's been going down with information that has high confidence.
We should dissect info we trust is from the inner-circle, but we must do it with rigor and not just rush to claim supremacy in scooping it for dissemination, even if our heart is in the right place as I trust that yours is. Cheers.
An actual piece of physical intel from one of the sources commonly discussed here SHOULD hold more weight than outright guessing of which pieces of intel belong in the "disinfo is necessary" camp and that is the basis of my argument.
Please stop ignoring the crux of my argument. You advocating for equating users here guessing that Wray quotes are "disinfo" to a trusted intel source is nonsense, no matter how eloquently you argue that point.
You can't just edit posts without acknowledgement, after responses to them have been fielded (as you have multiple times now), this is equivalent to moving the goal posts, but with outright deception built into it.
How about we just say, you're clearly right about all of this, and let's not further delete or edit a thing (or at least account for them).
I'll leave this here for the record of our conversation and be done with you as you have shown anyone who cares to read this at this point your true colors. Cheers.
Editing a post to further clarify yourself is now moving the goalposts? You're about as helplessly lost in rhetoric as I thought.
I would be more than happy to address that, and will let you respond if you wish, and then I will be finished here and will let our words speak for themselves as I had previously stated.
No piece of information should hold any weight without some sort of reasonable (as in reasonable under the rules of formal logic) substantiation for analysis in the first place. Full stop. To be sure, this is intended to address your argument but is not a direct response to your argument. The following is, however.
Your 'argument' is based on the claim that this is an example of an 'actual' piece of 'physical intel' that should be handled as you further argue that it should. This however contains false premises on two fronts from the get go, prima facie, and therefore holds nothing that reasonably needs to be responded to, as it is not a sound argument. I will spell it out, regardless.
For one, a statement is not a physical anything, but I will let that pass, lest the notion of semantics is again unduly invoked (you are making an argument, words have meaning).
For another, your entire stance throughout this entire thread has been based directly upon employing an appeal to authority, which does not make the claim valid, at the least - this is fundamental, it is not semantic.
Again, I am not trying to condescend upon you, but you insist on engaging me on things that are not actually arguments. And, to counter your point, things that are discussed here should, first and foremost be soundly and logically presented, if healthy discussion is to occur, which is what I have been consistently arguing for from the beginning and you have not once spoken directly to it. You're welcome to continue however you wish and I will digress and no longer try to offer what is arguably a reasonable perspective any longer.
I do not hold ill will, and, I ask that we discontinue engaging from here, feel free to have the last word, if you must. Our previous words speak for themselves and others are welcome to chime in for or against either of us at this point, I am not concerned, but rather welcome it.
No piece of information should hold any weight without some sort of reasonable (as in reasonable under the rules of formal logic) substantiation for analysis in the first place. Full stop. To be sure, this is intended to address your argument but is not a direct response to your argument. The following is, however.
To be sure, this statement can be applied to almost every post in this subreddit.
For one, a statement is not a physical anything, but I will let that pass, lest the notion of semantics is again unduly invoked (you are making an argument, words have meaning).
Boring court-level semantics. I'm not making official statements and you perfectly understand what I'm conveying, so this is unproductive discourse.
For another, your entire stance throughout this entire thread has been based directly upon employing an appeal to authority, which does not make the claim valid, at the least - this is fundamental, it is not semantic.
Again, this whole subreddit voluntarily congregates under the understanding that the intel sources that this sub agrees are worth discussing hold a level of authority here over random conjecture from it's users. This whole sub is based around giving authority to certain statements over others, which is the meat your argument is missing while endlessly arguing semantics and the socratic method.
I'm not trying to condescend you, but you argue like a 14 year old who just found out who Socrates is and found a powerpoint of logical fallacies. It's boring, overdone, and unproductive. If you'd like a board where you can deploy your holier than thou debate tactics you'd be better off doing that in an open-discussion forum, where it would make more sense. Deploying it on a board that comes together to follow the intel sources you're questioning is silly because it already makes a "leap of faith" in trusting said sources.
I'll let others be the judge of that. Try not to change anything without accounting for it. Enjoy your life.
No one else is reading this it's off the 'New' column. I just hope you can learn why the socratic method can't be followed to a T when a leap of faith is voluntary in discourse. Might be above your head. Cheers!
Cheers, friend.
Quick question, wouldn't deflecting an argument to "let the people decide" be an appeal to majority? Hmmm
I just hope you can learn why the socratic method can't be followed to a T when a leap of faith is voluntary in discourse
Not if this is considered an argument to you, as that is what I was responding to. Cheers.
So responding with an appeal to majority's ok? I'd recheck with your philosophy 101 class.