• odelik@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    What you just did with using my words to fit your narrative is called a straw man logical fallacy, with a nice dash of false dillema.

    I’m saying that these people are good at their fucking jobs and surpassed my expectations as somebody that’s not a legal expert but has watched a few high profile investigations play out in my time. Hence my surprise to seeing charges this year.

    Nobody is agreeing with you. Your use of logical fallacies are causing you to think everybody is agreeing you.

    • logicbomb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so let me ask you this. Do you think the timing of these cases has nothing to do with the upcoming election in 2024?

      • BassTurd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think it has nothing to do with the upcoming election. The investigation took time, and that time happens to be about now. If Trump wasn’t running, I don’t think the timing would have changed.

        • logicbomb@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          So, your belief is that Trump was being investigated by New York, Georgia, and the DoJ for years, and that the first indictment was on March 30, and the fourth indictment was on August 1, and that all four of these indictments that came within a four month window, because that was simply the time frame in which their investigations were complete, and that it had nothing to do with whether Trump was running or not?

          I suspect there aren’t many people who would genuinely agree with your assessment.

          Edit: I see your downvote, but I don’t see your response. Did you just now realize why odelik didn’t respond to the comment that you responded to?

          • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Let’s say that what you’re saying is correct, that it was political in nature. I’m okay with that, because the guy they’re trying to keep from office never should be allowed to run in the first place. He is a traitor; he is in bed with Putin, has had help from the Russian mob, performed a thankfully failed coup to take over the US government, has sent his followers to threaten and kill people, and gave out nuclear secrets. You’re worried that there is a small chance that it’s political to keep that guy out? I don’t care if it’s political because those are all extremely awesome reasons to keep that guy out.

            • logicbomb@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I never said it was bad that it was political, and in truth I don’t think it’s bad if it’s political.

          • odelik@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Have you stopped and considered that all of the prosecuters are pulling from the same evidence pool? That they all worked together to deliver relevant information to eachother as they pulled on the specific investigations? Let’s not forget they were given a boatload of information from the Senate investigation. Then they worked together to tighten up all of their cases? Then the rest is up to judicial process and timing for the specific courts where filed.

            With how fucking transparent the Trump conspiracies were you expect me to believe that there’s some conspiracy going on here with the courts and the current executive & senatorial leadership and that that hasn’t been leaked yet? I’m not sure how many philosophical razors that this runs afoul too, but my guess is close to all of them.

            • logicbomb@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              I said that everything they were doing was legal, so what do you mean by saying that I am asking you to believe in a conspiracy?

              If you’re not talking about a criminal conspiracy, then your assertion that “they worked together” would count as a conspiracy. So, you specifically say that a conspiracy exists and then immediately afterwards guffaw that anybody would believe that a conspiracy exists.

              I’m not sure how many philosophical razors that this runs afoul too, but my guess is close to all of them.

              This is hilariously hypocritical.

              Also, why are you answering here, odelik? Are you the same person as BassTurd, but using two different accounts? That would seem a bit underhanded.