The Forum > General Discussion > 'Truth' rules
'Truth' rules
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- ...
- 6
- 7
- 8
-
- All
The National Forum | Donate | Your Account | On Line Opinion | Forum | Blogs | Polling | About |
Syndicate RSS/XML |
|
About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy |
1. If I'm fairly certain that something happened, then it happened.
2. It somebody could have done something, then it's very likely that they did.
3. If somebody had a motive for doing somethinng, they probably did.
There you go: either Trump came up with the suspicion, or dreamt it (it happens) that Obama misused his office to try to bring Trump down; OR Obama could have, OR he probably wanted to, THEREFORE, if you put all that together, it's obvious that Obama had Trump's offices wire-tapped.
This new way to establish 'truth' opens up many exciting avenues for OLO posters:
* if you suspect something has happened, you won't need anything as mundane as proof, you already KNOW it's true;
* if someone has a different opinion to yours, then clearly they are not only wrong, and have all manner of ulterior motives, but they hate you, so you can attack them with no need to use anything like evidence;
But other avenues open up: clearly, Trump believes that, armed with the 'truth', he will be immune to prosecution for besmirching the name of a former President, the former head of the FBI, etc., etc.
So no matter what you 'know' of someone else, you are probably right to attack them any way you can. After all, they're playing dirty, so you can too.
Welcome to the playground.