Nah, they for sure were there, were called up by Waltz, and for sure used some level of force. I can’t find anything specific about how much force because the media doesn’t generally like talking about that, but mostly because there’s so much recent news and I’m not spending all day doing research for an internet comment a handful of people will see and doesn’t really matter anyway.
It really isn’t important, but the people pretending it didn’t happen (like you) are self-sabotaging, because it’s going to come up. Just be aware with it and come to terms with it. It happened and it’s not ideal. He’s generally pretty good though and I like him. You don’t get to have a perfect candidate, and ignoring the flaws makes your whole foundation fragile.
but the people pretending it didn’t happen (like you)
I see another flaw in your logic. How am I pretending it didn’t happen? Or is anyone that replies to you in a way that is non-affirmative “pretending it didn’t happen”?
Your post is implying that my post not providing evidence is implication that there isn’t evidence, and as such didn’t happen. (The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.) What other conclusion could be drawn? What was your intended message if this was not the intent? I can’t find another interpretation of your message except doubting that it happened, so perhaps you can bring light to it?
Holy logical overreaching, batman! My comment was just pointing out a common logical trope nowadays, being certain of something without confirming the evidence to back it up. Everything else after that ( “but the people pretending it didn’t happen (like you)” … “that there isn’t evidence, and as such didn’t happen”) is baggage you’ve tacked on.
You are creating strawmans and overreaching while parting from a lack of logical rigor in referencing evidence (but at least you are honest about that last part). I don’t think I’ve read anyone who is claiming it didn’t happen, just differences on the when, where, and how, nuance that you are admitting your comment lacks.
Nah, they for sure were there, were called up by Waltz, and for sure used some level of force. I can’t find anything specific about how much force because the media doesn’t generally like talking about that, but mostly because there’s so much recent news and I’m not spending all day doing research for an internet comment a handful of people will see and doesn’t really matter anyway.
It really isn’t important, but the people pretending it didn’t happen (like you) are self-sabotaging, because it’s going to come up. Just be aware with it and come to terms with it. It happened and it’s not ideal. He’s generally pretty good though and I like him. You don’t get to have a perfect candidate, and ignoring the flaws makes your whole foundation fragile.
I see another flaw in your logic. How am I pretending it didn’t happen? Or is anyone that replies to you in a way that is non-affirmative “pretending it didn’t happen”?
Your post is implying that my post not providing evidence is implication that there isn’t evidence, and as such didn’t happen. (The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.) What other conclusion could be drawn? What was your intended message if this was not the intent? I can’t find another interpretation of your message except doubting that it happened, so perhaps you can bring light to it?
Holy logical overreaching, batman! My comment was just pointing out a common logical trope nowadays, being certain of something without confirming the evidence to back it up. Everything else after that ( “but the people pretending it didn’t happen (like you)” … “that there isn’t evidence, and as such didn’t happen”) is baggage you’ve tacked on.
You are creating strawmans and overreaching while parting from a lack of logical rigor in referencing evidence (but at least you are honest about that last part). I don’t think I’ve read anyone who is claiming it didn’t happen, just differences on the when, where, and how, nuance that you are admitting your comment lacks.