You're confusing differing opinions for incompetence. I own my mistakes and don't mearly cast them aside when it doesn't fit the narrative. Must we debate grammer, I said politicians with an s of which make up a political affiliation and party. My main points are aimed at the weaponisation of the DOJ perpetuated by the Democratic party in the pursuit of justice. I admitted so much above that I was wrong about the 8 Billion being the final total, when it was mearly the initial secured funds. That was a question aimed at you. Care to answer champ?
Probably because @Gareth Halfacree is using a keyboard on a proper computer, instead of his phone like I am. If you really want it, I can pull out quite a few primary sources on both Trump and Biden’s handling classified materials to back up what I’ve posted. You’ll have to give me a couple hours after I’ve finished work though, ‘cos it’ll take a while: there are 150-odd across just those two Wikipedia pages I linked (and even then I only linked to the page about the FBI investigation into Trump) never mind what I’ll be able to independently find and verify. But yes, Gareth is definitely a good egg. There’s few people here I’d try to argue with, whether they’re moderators or not; currently, Gareth and Nexxo are vying for top spot, although Nexxo’s a bit busy with an international retirement and he doesn’t come around the Serious section very often.
That is not a grammar debate. Why, having now admitted that "both sides" are two-faced, are you attempting to argue that you did not complain about a single political party doing what you say both do? Should political parties not pursue justice? Is the pursuit of justice a bad thing, in your eyes? That's not how research works, Slick. You wanna hire me as a journo, I can send you my terms sheet. You want to cite sources in a debate? You're going to have to find them yourself. No insinuation. No hoping that if you make a claim someone else will put in the legwork to prove it wrong. Back it up with a primary source, or don't make it. That's because Nexxo is a much smarter man than I.
I'm not saying I did not. My main point is about one party, the Democratic party weaponisation of the DOJ. The DOJ should pursue justice without political bias https://www.justice.gov/about Sorry, I thought this was a serious discussion forum, not a job board.
This is an unsubstantiated claim with no source. Cite a primary source. Also, that wasn't your point at all. At the time, you were arguing about the wall - nothing to do with the Department of Justice. Seriously, you can't just keep trying to retcon your posts. They're right there. Maybe have a re-read of the last couple of pages, refresh your memory? It absolutely should, yes. Do you have any primary sources to prove it does not? And I thought you were going to cite primary sources?
This is a discussion point and it's currently ongoing. One rule for me, not for thee. Conversations are not all linear, well some are, but this wasn't and henceforth from #933 it became the main point for me in this sea of disagreement. Well you lot changed the topic and diversion of this thread. I simply answered your questions and seemingly viseral disapproval of Trump. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/nyregion/trump-ny-fraud-investigation.html And the Hillary dossier, Russia gate (links in previous posts) etc... I posted one. Do you not read them?
Err... you're the one who started demanding citations that couldn't be dismissed as a "questionable source": I then followed up with a primary source, as you requested. One rule for thee, and... well, the very same rule for me. Egalitarian, no? First, it's "visceral." Second, I'm posting facts and figures - you're posting rhetoric including "snowflakes," "MAGA," "fake news," and a hodgepodge of other alt-right dogwhistles. If the facts and figures make Trump look bad, that ain't on me. The New York Times is not a primary source. Try again, Skippy. My apologies, I must have missed it. Please, do point me towards the primary source you posted which backs up your claim about the "Democratic party weaponisation of the DOJ." I promise I will read it in full. Well, skim it, at least.
No no no, it was relating to news sources provided not containing citations to back up their journalistic unbiased reporting. Indeed, visceral dare I say hatred of Trump. I hope he's re-elected again, he's good for a bull market. Hang on, it was only for facts and figures Sonny. Momentary and future events don't fall under primary sources.
You talking about this Forbes piece? Now I know you didn't read it, 'cos Para. 6 literally quotes the BBC in support of the $15bn value, complete with a link. That piece then lays out the source for the figure, which is the CBP - the same primary source I provided to you, as a shortcut and so you wouldn't be able to claim "bias and politicisation." Look, they even drew a pretty picture: It's a wall! Note the citation of the primary source right there at the bottom-left. Okay, I think I know what the problem is, here. Without heading to the search engine of your choice, do me a favour: can you tell me exactly what you think a "primary source" is?
Please, just 2nd hand links bar this one (attached) that doesn't even load properly lol Where is the link? My meaning in relation to the topic is official government statistics as a primary source in a news article. Without data from said source, anything could be said or inferred.
...it's here: You've already seen it. You replied to it. I assume you also read it, but I could be wrong. A primary source provides first-hand evidence: statements, figures, statistics from those directly involved. A secondary source provides, as the name implies, second-hand information - analysis, review, synthesis. The New York Times is not a primary source about anything other than The New York Times. If the New York Times cites a primary source, give me that - like I gave you the CBP above. Otherwise you're giving me secondary sources at best, if not pure op-ed.
$11-15bn well spent right there. 's not even a wall. It's a chuffin' fence. And my absolute favourite bit is the admission that smugglers are finding it easier to cross in the areas where the construction took place, 'cos there's all these lovely flat gravel roads they built to get the materials and equipment there...
It's koola on a disposable email address. Definitely a guy with nothing to prove, that(!) Banned his sockpuppet, and I'll give his main account a permanent holiday once I'm back in the office. What a plum.
