Merged Trump Fires Comey....

Aridas said:
<snip>

And that his campaign was being investigated, but not him, is something that Trump has stressed.
Click to expand...


Maybe I'm missing something here.

Was there some point at which Comey contradicted Trump's claim that Comey had told him he wasn't personally being investigated?

I don't see a victory for Trump about this one thing. What has been disproven?
 
quadraginta said:
Maybe I'm missing something here.

Was there some point at which Comey contradicted Trump's claim that Comey had told him he wasn't personally being investigated?
Click to expand...

Not that I'm aware of. Others have claimed that it would be extremely inappropriate to have done so and thus, it probably didn't happen, but Comey hadn't weighed in until now, to my knowledge.

quadraginta said:
I don't see a victory for Trump about this one thing. What has been disproven?
Click to expand...

The claim that Trump was lying about Comey assuring him three times on the dismissal note? It was still rather out of place, though.
 
phiwum said:
Pedantic comments follow. Probably best to just skip this one.

Not a non sequitur. You're misinterpreting the argument.

"Because" indicates that what follows ("there's nothing there") is a premise and that what preceded ("Comey won't incriminate Trump in anything") the conclusion. Hence, Busta's argument is the following:

1) There's nothing there.
2) So, Comey won't incriminate Trump in anything.

Clearly, this isn't a non sequitur. The primary problem, rather, is that the argument depends on an unsupported premise. Evidently we have to take Busta's word for it that Trump has done nothing illegal.

(It is also an invalid argument, since the premise could be true and the conclusion false -- Comey could lie, after all. Nonetheless, I wouldn't call it a non sequitur, since the premise gives some evidence for the conclusion.)
Click to expand...

(Numbers added by me.)

The poster is using #2 to support #1. #1 does not follow from #2 (but the reverse could).
 
Argumemnon said:
(Numbers added by me.)

The poster is using #2 to support #1. #1 does not follow from #2 (but the reverse could).
Click to expand...

His use of the word "because" suggests you are mistaken.

"P because Q" means "Q, therefore P". Hence, he is taking (1) for granted, and concluding (2).

You're right that the point of his post is likely to assert (1), and so the focus is on the premise and not the conclusion, but he is *not* expressing that (2) is evidence for (1). That's not how "because" works.
 
phiwum said:
His use of the word "because" suggests you are mistaken.

"P because Q" means "Q, therefore P". Hence, he is taking (1) for granted, and concluding (2).

You're right that the point of his post is likely to assert (1), and so the focus is on the premise and not the conclusion, but he is *not* expressing that (2) is evidence for (1). That's not how "because" works.
Click to expand...

"Evidence" is a word you added. I did not say that. I said "implied". He's using (2) to assert (1), just as you just said.
 
Argumemnon said:
"Evidence" is a word you added. I did not say that. I said "implied". He's using (2) to assert (1), just as you just said.
Click to expand...
No, he's using this argument to get premise one out there, but premise two is the conclusion of this simple argument. It doesn't serve to support one.
 
phiwum said:
No, he's using this argument to get premise one out there, but premise two is the conclusion of this simple argument. It doesn't serve to support one.
Click to expand...

"See? He's not saying anything incriminating because there's nothing there." (paraphrasing) most definitely is using the first clause to prove the second, regardless of how "because" should normally be used.
 
It occurs to me that all of this could have been avoided if Trump had simply immediately fired Comey as soon as he took office and appointed some superficially qualified minion in his place.
 
Civet said:
It occurs to me that all of this could have been avoided if Trump had simply immediately fired Comey as soon as he took office and appointed some superficially qualified minion in his place.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's right in a sense.

I do find it convincing, however, that what caused Trump to turn on Comey was the combination of the Flynn/Russia stuff (which seems like it was a persistent, nagging annoyance to Trump), but the actual trigger incident was when Comey testified and stated there was no factual basis to Trump's tweets about Obama wiretapping Trump Tower.

Meaning that your scenario wasn't a possibility because upon taking office, Trump was supportive of Comey because of the way he sandbagged Hillary. But, as Jeff Sessions is now learning, there is no such thing as loyalty to Trump, and he soured on Tall Jim.
 
Aridas said:
<snip>
quadraginta said:
I don't see a victory for Trump about this one thing. What has been disproven?
Click to expand...

The claim that Trump was lying about Comey assuring him three times on the dismissal note? It was still rather out of place, though.
Click to expand...


But since Comey never made any such claim I still don't understand why it is getting so much traction as a point for Trump against Comey and his testimony.

It's nothing but a huge straw man.

I have yet to see any of the talking heads point this out to the apparently infinite supply of Trump supporters and apologists going on endlessly about that one thing, like it was somehow significant and pertinent to the Comey testimony.

Even among the usual abysmally low standards of sensibility for Trump apologist talking points it seems singularly bizarre. And yet they are milking it all they can without anyone saying, "What the hell are you going on about?".
 
TraneWreck said:
Yes, that's right in a sense.

I do find it convincing, however, that what caused Trump to turn on Comey was the combination of the Flynn/Russia stuff (which seems like it was a persistent, nagging annoyance to Trump), but the actual trigger incident was when Comey testified and stated there was no factual basis to Trump's tweets about Obama wiretapping Trump Tower.
<snip>
Click to expand...


Somewhat ironic in itself, with Trump and Co. bragging so incessantly about how Comey told him he wasn't being investigated.
 
Argumemnon said:
"See? He's not saying anything incriminating because there's nothing there." (paraphrasing) most definitely is using the first clause to prove the second, regardless of how "because" should normally be used.
Click to expand...

I suppose the poster should let us know what he meant, rather than you and I continue this argument.
 
quadraginta said:
But since Comey never made any such claim I still don't understand why it is getting so much traction as a point for Trump against Comey and his testimony.

It's nothing but a huge straw man.
Click to expand...

Pretty much.

quadraginta said:
I have yet to see any of the talking heads point this out to the apparently infinite supply of Trump supporters and apologists going on endlessly about that one thing, like it was somehow significant and pertinent to the Comey testimony.

Even among the usual abysmally low standards of sensibility for Trump apologist talking points it seems singularly bizarre. And yet they are milking it all they can without anyone saying, "What the hell are you going on about?".
Click to expand...

No, I'd say it's right around par. For an even worse example, though, that Trump supposedly was renegotiating NAFTA before having even officially started the process is actually worse. Given the lack of news, still, it probably still hasn't started. Promised to start in January... exact same promise in April...
 
Last edited:
Trebuchet said:
Except that he's never made even the tiniest of mistakes in his entire life.
Click to expand...

Hasn't the orange turd literally said he has never done something that he felt required him asking god for forgiveness? Granted he's probably not a Christian but he pretends he is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom