• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Dinesh D'Sousa Blows the Lid off Democrat lies about Election Fraud

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
which facts are you disputing?

I'm not disputing anything.

I'm rejecting the source as I do anything from conservative or creationist sources. There is no reason to look at anything from either of those kinds of sources because they are both consistently dishonest. They do not share my agenda, values, or methods, so I'm pretty uninterested in anything they churn out using them. I thought I was clear about my repudiation of these people, their opinions, or their desires.

Perhaps you consider this the genetic fallacy: "a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context." That might be the case if I were arguing that these people's conclusions are false based on the source rather than the argument. But I'm not saying that they are wrong, just that I don't trust them to be honest enough to justify looking at their material.

One might say, "Judge the argument, not the source." I'm not even interested in looking at the argument, since I don't trust the source to be honest. Truth is not a value of theirs. Persuasion is. That's what I mean about different agendas and different values. You might say all I need do is fact-check the claims, but that's not enough. How about what's been deliberately and deceptively left out? I recall a piece of creationist apologetics claiming that man could not have descended from a common ancestor of the other extant great apes because man only has 23 pairs of chromosomes compared to the 24 pairs found in all other apes, and the fact that the dropout of an entire chromosome would lead to death, probably in the womb, not a new line that could evolve into the human race. This is a compelling argument, and if one simply checked all of the fact mentioned, none would be found to be incorrect. The lie is in the omission, not the argument.

I wasn't fooled, because I was aware of human chromosome 2, but what about those reading along who aren't? My advice to them is to get their science elsewhere, from sources that share their agenda, values, and methods.

And that is why I'm not interested in conservative apologetics, either. Same agenda, methods, and values: Lying is OK if it furthers the cause by making an argument seem more persuasive, which is the goal for both of these types of people.

That goes for the rabid, tendentious conservative ideologues posting on RF as well. I assume that they are dishonest, or else serving as unwitting vectors for those who are, the latter how I see most of the creationists, but not the conservatives.

So, not any kind of fallacy since it is not saying that the conclusions are wrong because of their source, but rather, the source can't be trusted and therefore it's arguments are not contradicted, but rather, not considered.

And I am not disputing anything from you or your sources. I'm simply uninterested in content from such sources.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
We had a Steele dossier that was completely false that was bought and paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign to undermine democracy (no it wasn't opposition research, it was a lie), a Russia collusion investigation that turned up nothing,
You're misrepresenting the Steele Dossier and what it said and didn't say.

Steele got intel from two sources, Russian and Dutch, that said Trump may have compromised himself while in Moscow for beauty contests, but Steele, who has an excellent record overall, btw, said he couldn't confirm this. This sent up red flags since Trump was running for the Republican nomination and there was a question as to whether Putin had something on him that might be used to blackmail him. The State Department couldn't find any evidence for that, so they dropped it but kept it on the "back shelf".

Then it was the Pubs who got interested in it because of the timing before the primaries but then they dropped it after Trump was nominated. Then the Dems came in to search for evidence themselves, however they also found nothing to implicate Trump or Putin in such wrongdoing.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
You're misrepresenting the Steele Dossier and what it said and didn't say.

Steele got intel from two sources, Russian and Dutch, that said Trump may have compromised himself while in Moscow for beauty contests, but Steele, who has an excellent record overall, btw, said he couldn't confirm this. This sent up red flags since Trump was running for the Republican nomination and there was a question as to whether Putin had something on him that might be used to blackmail him. The State Department couldn't find any evidence for that, so they dropped it but kept it on the "back shelf".

Then it was the Pubs who got interested in it because of the timing before the primaries but then they dropped it after Trump was nominated. Then the Dems came in to search for evidence themselves, however they also found nothing to implicate Trump or Putin in such wrongdoing.
Not to mention that Trump at one point said that he would collude with the Russians if given a chance only to take that back later, claiming that it was a " joke".
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Not to mention that Trump at one point said that he would collude with the Russians if given a chance only to take that back later, claiming that it was a " joke".

Trump has a sense of humor, which is lacking on the left. I enjoyed the way Trump would come up with funny names for his adversary. It was hilarious and not mean spirited like false accessions. The left is way too serious about everything, and cannot laugh at a funny joke that smears a shallow facade.

Think logically, if you were colluding, why would you make a joke about that serious topic, in a public setting, to draw attention to yourself? The natural thing for a genuine colluder would be to change the subject, deny, or blame someone else. That was the strategy of the Left. Use common sense and not con artist sense. A good con artist makes a moving target not a stationary target. The stationary target is for comedians; Rodney Dangerfield.

The Clinton Foundation received 10's of $millions from Putin. Did the Left ever talk about this or did they try to avoid, deny and circle the wagons? Trump knew about this Putin-Clinton money connection and made a joke about asking Putin about Hillary's illegally erased e-mails. This accusation of Clinton collusion had to be turned around, with the best defense, a good offense. The charge made the Left very defensive, so they decided to defect away from their own guilt, by making someone else appear guilty. This was debunked and the crooks got away. These are skilled con artists.

Hillary had a private e-mail server so there would be no public record of her quid pro quo schemes and scams. Discussions of a large donation to the Clinton Foundation would have been in that private server, that was beyond the IRS and other US Agencies that were on the books.

Putin, who is not dumb, may have use that donation as a pretense, to bug her private e-mail server, through attachments such as a bank transfer statement. Trump assumed Putin had all the dirt on Hillary, via tapping her server. He made the left squirm by suggesting Putin could blow this wide open, useless a previous deal had been made with the Left.

Putin never talked about this with Trump or the media, which tells you where his loyalty lied. Obama and Biden would both allow Putin into Crimea and then Ukraine, which may have been part of the quid pro quo.

The Durham investigation is now showing how Hillary was behind the fake dossier used to defame Trump with the lie of Collusion. It also shows a conspiracy among top Democrats leaders to place blame on Trump, as a way to sabotage and overthrow his presidency. If the Left wing collusion had surfaced the crooks would have been in jail by now. This will have to wait until after the midterms.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Trump has a sense of humor, which is lacking on the left. I enjoyed the way Trump would come up with funny names for his adversary. It was hilarious and not mean spirited like false accessions. The left is way too serious about everything, and cannot laugh at a funny joke that smears a shallow facade.

Think logically, if you were colluding, why would you make a joke about that serious topic, in a public setting, to draw attention to yourself? The natural thing for a genuine colluder would be to change the subject, deny, or blame someone else. That was the strategy of the Left. Use common sense and not con artist sense. A good con artist makes a moving target not a stationary target. The stationary target is for comedians; Rodney Dangerfield.

The Clinton Foundation received 10's of $millions from Putin. Did the Left ever talk about this or did they try to avoid, deny and circle the wagons? Trump knew about this Putin-Clinton money connection and made a joke about asking Putin about Hillary's illegally erased e-mails. This accusation of Clinton collusion had to be turned around, with the best defense, a good offense. The charge made the Left very defensive, so they decided to defect away from their own guilt, by making someone else appear guilty. This was debunked and the crooks got away. These are skilled con artists.

Hillary had a private e-mail server so there would be no public record of her quid pro quo schemes and scams. Discussions of a large donation to the Clinton Foundation would have been in that private server, that was beyond the IRS and other US Agencies that were on the books.

Putin, who is not dumb, may have use that donation as a pretense, to bug her private e-mail server, through attachments such as a bank transfer statement. Trump assumed Putin had all the dirt on Hillary, via tapping her server. He made the left squirm by suggesting Putin could blow this wide open, useless a previous deal had been made with the Left.

Putin never talked about this with Trump or the media, which tells you where his loyalty lied. Obama and Biden would both allow Putin into Crimea and then Ukraine, which may have been part of the quid pro quo.

The Durham investigation is now showing how Hillary was behind the fake dossier used to defame Trump with the lie of Collusion. It also shows a conspiracy among top Democrats leaders to place blame on Trump, as a way to sabotage and overthrow his presidency. If the Left wing collusion had surfaced the crooks would have been in jail by now. This will have to wait until after the midterms.
You forgot. Trump is an idiot. Ask anyone that works with him. It was not a joke.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Trump has a sense of humor, which is lacking on the left. I enjoyed the way Trump would come up with funny names for his adversary. It was hilarious and not mean spirited like false accessions.
So, name-calling and demeaning innocent people in a mean way you think is compatible with the Gospel, such as his demeaning of a man in a wheelchair or making fun of a man with Parkinson's? Chanting "Lock her up!" and saying that Hillary should be tried and executed is compatible with the Gospel?

How in the heck is Trump's display of hate compatible in any way with Jesus' Sermon On the Mount's mandate to "love one another"? Maybe ask your priest about this.
 
Top