So...let's use your measuring stick as a guide to inform our beliefs...the lack of action is not proof of anything.
So that means that Barr is not a swamp creature, that the FBI is not a swamp infested lagoon, that Wray is not a swamp creature, that the GOP is not a swampfest, and that SCOTUS is not a swampfest.
"I just did." <--- This irrational ploy is called argument from incredulity. That's two, now:
-Argument from ignorance (absence of evidence is evidence)
-Argument from incredulity.
Not so rational. Not so "great".
"So that means that Barr is not a swamp creature," Our suspicions about what happens behind closed doors has absolutely no rational connection to what really happens behind closed doors. You're told what you need to hear, because you have no "need to know". If either of us had that kind of clearance, we wouldn't be discussing it here. No one important who might be in this forum provides information without authorization, unless they're breaking the law. The public (especially the VOTING public) is told what they need to be told and that's not necessarily the straight story. Anything else is coming from your collective imagination.
"he's a swamp creature." Prove it.
"Can we prove he even exists?" Here in an internet forum??? Of course not. Don't be silly.
Omg didn’t you see, absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence 🙄
Sure, the evidence lies in the fact that you can't point to one thing he's done to fight the swamp.
"the fact that you can't point" Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. You made a claim: PROVE YOUR CLAIM, shill.
No, it's really not.
I just did.
So...let's use your measuring stick as a guide to inform our beliefs...the lack of action is not proof of anything.
So that means that Barr is not a swamp creature, that the FBI is not a swamp infested lagoon, that Wray is not a swamp creature, that the GOP is not a swampfest, and that SCOTUS is not a swampfest.
I'm far more believable than you are.
"I just did." <--- This irrational ploy is called argument from incredulity. That's two, now:
-Argument from ignorance (absence of evidence is evidence)
-Argument from incredulity.
Not so rational. Not so "great".
"So that means that Barr is not a swamp creature," Our suspicions about what happens behind closed doors has absolutely no rational connection to what really happens behind closed doors. You're told what you need to hear, because you have no "need to know". If either of us had that kind of clearance, we wouldn't be discussing it here. No one important who might be in this forum provides information without authorization, unless they're breaking the law. The public (especially the VOTING public) is told what they need to be told and that's not necessarily the straight story. Anything else is coming from your collective imagination.