He's trying to match brainpans with the other members here, and he only feels joy when someone takes his posts as relevant and serious.  Most times, they are "mind phucks" (aka thought experiments) and arguments.  Getting him to stop is what's frustrating, not that we can't articulate a response.  Yet, he trolls us with that frustration as if he's somehow scored a point.

#Contrary-BOT

Which is why I don't reply with a good reply anymore as much. I got stuff to do and don't need to spend time explaining an obvious statement.

So she states she was told to not go to the capitol because all those there will be made an example of. Cant push a fake narrative if ur own people are there too.

Their lack of evidence shows this is a witch hunt. I feel bad for those who have been in solitary for over a year

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

You're implying that we are posting wrong views and info and trying to be what you think is "objective". I know you didn't make a statement about her test being more credible. Because that is not how you post. You will post "whataboutism" and play both sides. And when responding to use, you won't directly say that we're wrong, but again use your whataboutism which would imply that.

Logic can be used to deduct that she is BSing. It's very simple.

What I am pointing out is that people who are inclined to dislike a negative account of what Trump did are going to look for a way to discredit this account. So they see a statement from the Secret Service that two agents are willing to testify it didn't happen. Good enough for them, Hutchinson is discredited and then comes the talk of perjury charges.

On the opposite side, the people inclined to hate Trump are going to love the negative account of what Trump did. They are going to ignore anything that would bring that account into question and praise the testimony as brave and sincere. Good enough for them, Trump bad, case closed.

Do you disagree, do you think that bias isn't effecting both sides here?



Nothing in my response was a whataboutism. My comments try to seek an objective analysis. 
Witness A said X, witnesses B and C say Y. Now you have conflicting claims so you consider the possiblities:
1. Could A be telling the truth?
2. Could B and C be telling the truth?
3. Could all sides be telling the truth?
4. Could all sides be lying?
5. Is there anyway to help prove or disprove the accounts of any of the witnesses?


How are you concluding logic proves her story is BS? And when you say BS do you mean false or do you mean a lie? (They are not the same thing)

I've come to the conclusion that EEF is nothing more than a Contrary-BOT. 

So you are saying I am like you?

What I am pointing out is that people who are inclined to dislike a negative account of what Trump did are going to look for a way to discredit this account. So they see a statement from the Secret Service that two agents are willing to testify it didn't happen. Good enough for them, Hutchinson is discredited and then comes the talk of perjury charges.

On the opposite side, the people inclined to hate Trump are going to love the negative account of what Trump did. They are going to ignore anything that would bring that account into question and praise the testimony as brave and sincere. Good enough for them, Trump bad, case closed.

Do you disagree, do you think that bias isn't effecting both sides here?



Nothing in my response was a whataboutism. My comments try to seek an objective analysis. 
Witness A said X, witnesses B and C say Y. Now you have conflicting claims so you consider the possiblities:
1. Could A be telling the truth?
2. Could B and C be telling the truth?
3. Could all sides be telling the truth?
4. Could all sides be lying?
5. Is there anyway to help prove or disprove the accounts of any of the witnesses?


How are you concluding logic proves her story is BS? And when you say BS do you mean false or do you mean a lie? (They are not the same thing)

What "people" are you referring to?  We have posted here why he discredit her. Not just a vague statement without evidence. Which lead to the logical view that she is not a good witness. Sounds like you're goal post moving by throwing in others who are not on this thread.

She will not get a perjury charge. This ties into her "I heard" which we covered and she will be plausible deniability (guess I heard him wrong). No one here posted their view about her being a bad witness because they are pro Trump and that's the only reason why she's not a credible witness. Goal post moving, BRB getting the business going again.

There was enough evidence from her 1st day of testimony that showed she was not a credible witness. Again, we explained all of this, but yet you're clinging on to wanting more evidence. So we explained more as time passed. We know you enjoy playing both sides, I'm gonna assume because you're at work and have down time.

What "people" are you referring to?  We have posted here why he discredit her. Not just a vague statement without evidence. Which lead to the logical view that she is not a good witness. Sounds like you're goal post moving by throwing in others who are not on this thread.

She will not get a perjury charge. This ties into her "I heard" which we covered and she will be plausible deniability (guess I heard him wrong). No one here posted their view about her being a bad witness because they are pro Trump and that's the only reason why she's not a credible witness. Goal post moving, BRB getting the business going again.

There was enough evidence from her 1st day of testimony that showed she was not a credible witness. Again, we explained all of this, but yet you're clinging on to wanting more evidence. So we explained more as time passed. We know you enjoy playing both sides, I'm gonna assume because you're at work and have down time.

When I said people I meant anyone who is looking at this hearing from a strong pro-Trump bias or a strong anti-Trump bias. There are some people like that here on the forum, whose biases are looking for reasons to discredit her and I don't mean to be rude but I think that includes you. The elephant is going where it wants and the rider is trying to justify it as a rational decision. I pointed out that people on the left do the same to illustrate that I am not taking sides and that both sides succumb to this thought process. Please note that I don't mean that as an insult, we all have biases that tug on us and it is hard to see how they drive our conclusions.

I think your "logic" for finding her testimony not-credible and I explained an objective investigative process to show why. You obviously do not agree so at this point I think we will end up going in circles.
You think she is discredited, I think there is not enough to reach that conclusion.
Aloha 

lul

Where's Waldo? aka Ray Epps

Ray Epps

Ray Epps

FED!  FED!  FED! 

Exclusive: In Private, Cassidy Hutchinson Joked About Riot, Called J6 Committee ‘Phony,’ Praised Trump Before Changing Story

https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/26/exclusive-in-private-cassidy-hutchinson-joked-about-riot-called-j6-committee-phony-praised-trump-before-changing-story/?_nlid=gMM9kuPHdq&_nhids=5aEjulrVwg

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk