Sure.

- Drop the bombastic style you are affecting.
- Read between the lines.
- When people get sufficiently fed up with you to tell you that you are being a dick directly, read the actual lines.
- Eschew obfuscation.
- Brevity is the soul of wit.

If you genuinely want to write better, or just perhaps for your edification, I highly recommend:

- Strunk & White's The Elements of Style
- Eats, Shoots & Leaves by Lynne Truss
- Orwell’s essay Politics and the English Language

Did we miss this one?

Does fact and truth have no place in todays discourse?

Odd question to be a serious one but i mean when I ask.


At Georgia Rally, Trump Falsely Claims Arizona Audit Found He Won in Maricopa County

Fact check: Arizona audit affirmed Biden's win, didn't prove voter fraud, contrary to Trump claim

The AZ Audit "Proof" of cheating has become the foundation for the continued Audits in other districts.

Trump Supporters Are Calling For More Audits After Arizona Proved Biden Won The Election (Again)

A fiction, piled on top of a fiction, that was based on a fiction.

Who is the Russiagate person A? You have no names, ever, so now you invoke an imaginary "Person A"? Wow that is pathetic. Nice try but your analogy, which was pointless to begin with, is misleading. This isn't a murder with a named person A. This is in information trail which picks up at Papadopolous. If he is aware that Russia has dirt on Hillary (which Russia wouldn't need Trump campaign permission to release independently anyway but whatever we are in a dumbed down world where people can't think past premises about a whole argument) then, presumably, he is either communicating directly with Russians or whoever is communicating with the Russians is communicating with him. Papadopolous being "in the loop" is a trivial inference.

And he is all they have then. So why not put in that FISA application to spy on him?

The only reasonable conclusion one can reach is that the FBI knew that Papadopolous was a dead end as far as establishing a real connection based on what they knew without a need for a warrant. And (sorry but this is the part you just don't have the cognitive ability to follow) therefore it is obvious that the FBI didn't actually think the Papadopolous comment was a proper predicate. They then proceeded to alter documents in order to obtain a warrant to spy on Carter Page which led to the one criminal conviction of an FBI lawyer, the one real criminal conviction so far in all of Russiagate which has anything to do with Russiagate (Hillary's lawyer and a host of others involved with the fraud are on deck).

This is your valid predicate, a dead end on Papadopolous and criminal evidence tampering to spy on Carte Page. I've already said I don't really care about the predicate so much as how the investigation proceeded. You have harped nonstop about how the investigation MUST proceed once Papadopolous said some magic words to some guy in a bar or cafe or wherever. But the FBI didn't think those words were so magical as you do and didn't premise their investigation on it.

In this case a witness comes forth (eye witness) its a Murder investigation and Person A (the suspect) is accused of killing Person B (the victim). That is what the investigation will seek to determine if true and accurate of not.


Based on George P's comments the witness that comes forth is British Intelligence. Person A (the suspect is Russian Intelligence) and Person B, the victim is the US election.

In both instances it is very easy to follow what the investigation would seek to determine if true and accurate or not. Remember Investigations are not done to determine guilt and a waste of time if that is not the conclusion. They are done to answer questions.

Anyone should be able to easily follow this, that is if you are not hopelessly dumb.

I've always thought bombast was more of an in-person phenomenon. And style is a personal, subjective choice anyway. You probably don't like my style simply because you don't like what I say, like how Democrats hate Trump for his crude and vulgar speech but don't mind very credible rape allegations against Biden- just don't mind them in the least. It's politics, you know? Telling someone you disagree with that their style if wrong is a hard sell as a genuine opinion. Let's keep it to mechanics.


example?


Who said I was being a dick? Good catch if that is actually happening because I totally missed it.


What's a soul here? Anyway I'm not trying to sound witty. I try to keep my word count down but a lot of times I am tying to both tear down illusions and evidence reality and that can take a few words. It's much easier to be brief when your objective is to point and laugh at people for being outside the groupthink drum circle. Consider the nobility of my mission please.

Don't distract with pointless analogies. If a situation is complicated sometimes analogies can be illuminating or sometimes an analogy is a way to add humor to an explanation. That doesn't apply here since this scenario is as simple as you are humorless. Let's skip the analogies.

You say the Papadopolous comments (which I believe have never been actually disclosed) were the predicate for the investigation. I am saying, were that true, an application for a warrant to spy on Papadopolous would have been filed. No warrant was sought, indicating the FBI did not consider the comments as significant after preliminary investigation as to the necessity of a warrant. In other words the FBI did not consider the comments sufficient or even necessary as part of the predicate. The FBI then went on to fabricate evidence, and has been convicted for it, in order to instead spy on Carter Page. The illegal spying on Carter Page also led to nothing, not surprising since that was also premised on a bunch of lies, lies acknowledged by all parties, known as the Steel Dossier.

I care nothing about your technical legal interpretations because you have shown how little you understand about this. Let's just cut to the chase. Is it your opinion Kilimnik could be indicted for Russiagate related crimes? If so, why wasn't he? Other Russians were.

Why are you misrepresenting my claim? I said that no security agency or intelligence agency referred to Kilimnik as a Russian intelligence agent. You finding "influence agent" and Russian proxy, wherever you found them, are not that.

I'm a little conflicted here. I applaud the effort to dig in and find the words you need. But when you don't find them you shouldn't try to twist what you do find into what you need. Why not dig for truth instead of deepening your own ignorance? Who are these people you are making yourself ignorant for and why do you feel you owe them anything? They are pigs.

Kilimnik sent out emails with polls showing Trump's parity with Clinton to clients in order to boost Manafort's profile, to generate business and collect money owed for previous consulting. That makes sense with all the evidence we have, including the redaction of emails containing said polls.

The claim that the data was being fed to Russian intelligence to then be fed to troll farms to trick Black people into hating Hillary is preposterous conspiracy theorizing not supported by any evidence. It's a lie you know is a lie but you are going with it, just like the Trumpers are going with their evidence-fee lie. Plus everyone knows once Hillary talked up that hot sauce in her bag nothing was going to get in between Hillary and her peoples.

No, I did concede that Gates had, in addition to emphasizing that the data was top level polling data, acknowledged that some of the data was nonpublic. I didn't demand you cite it either, because I am tying to establish truth, not "win" in some lawyer sense. My memory is of Gates being on a talk show saying it was all top level publicly available polling data which was dated, not real time. But I just conceded the point that he said there was also internal polling data passed to Kilimnik. It really doesn't impact my argument that much and you are likely correct that he said that- I just take it for granted that you are.

Now, can you admit you were just flat wrong when you said that Manafort was convicted for lying about Russiagate when, in truth, all his convictions were related to his lobbying business? That was a fundamental misunderstanding on your part because you thought it supported what has become the last hope of the collusion claims.

The answer is no, you can't admit you were fundamentally wrong about something, that you were successfully misled by the media into believing something that isn't true. You've got the Trumper's disease and you will stay willfully blind, I suppose.

This is essentially the Clapper argument. Clapper said he couldn't think of an innocent explanation for why the campaign manager of the Trump campaign would be sharing internal polling data with the Russians. The implication being, without an innocent explanation, collusion is all that is left.

Here is where you might consider that Clapper is a serial liar. He must have known all about the innocent explanation which existed yet he pretends he didn't. The innocent explanation, of course, is that while Manafort was the manager of the Trump campaign he is also, like Trump, a grifter trying to enrich himself. Manafort was Trump's campaign manager but he also had a consulting business which was his actual career, and it was in this capacity that he directed his employees to share polling data to show his corrupt ass was going to possibly be in the emergent power center, that he was going to have trough access. The polling data was sent to Ukranians and Ameicans, not Russians. There is no evidence any of it was ever sent to Russians. Mueller seized servers with Kilimnik's email on it but still, no evidence anything was ever sent to Russians, as I quoted from the Senate intelligence report.

Clapper's deceit can only succeed if people don't read the Mueller report and, instead, take his word for it- the word of a proven liar. You are actually one of the super small percentage of people who will actually read the report for any reason. Now that you have, you have no excuse.

I think you have totally missed it. Numerous times.

You're welcome.

No, it has to do with writing style, which is the subject under discussion. Look up "grandiloquence".


Sure it is. Seems strange to ask for tips and then respond "well, didn't want your shitty tips, anyway".


It may have escaped your attention, but I haven't engaged with the substance of your posts at all. I find the style very grating.

Sure, but I doubt this ends well for you. I have actually read the books I recommended.

Which is? To ensure that a bunch of people who are smarter than you and hang out in an obscure corner of the internet come round to your way of thinking about the Mueller investigation? A lofty goal, indeed.

As an aside, this is a perfect example of bombast, can't make this **** up.

I think this can all be encompassed in one phrase - learn to read the room, my dude.

that is not how things work. Not even a little bit. I honestly cannot think how dumb a person would have to be to think that is how thinks work.

Again, if someone is over heard saying 'I have information that A is in the midst of committing a crime against B', the police do not then launch an investigation to watch the person who reported it.

What they do is look if there is any actual crime taking place and try to stop it.

There is nothing to learn in surveilling George P. He is not Person A giving the info to Person B (Russia). Being AWARE of a crime happening does not mean you are participating.

If in investigating the claim it THEN leads back to George P, then and only then, might they surveille him as well. They follow the investigation where it leads them but to do so that requires them open the investigation.

I'm not going to reply to most of the specifics in this because very little of it is relevant to anything I have been saying. At no point have I argued that any of the information Manafort shared had any significant impact on the election. My issue has always been with the comparison to 2020 rigging claims and pointing to the various things that make the comparison so absurd. Things such as Manafort sharing information with a pro-Russian political consultant; Trump Jr meeting with Russians who were offering dirt on Clinton; and Russian cyber attacks on the DNC and election infrastructure. Regardless of whether any of these made even the slightest difference to the actual result, each on its own would already take the investigation out of the realm of being reasonably compared to the 2020 claims. There being so many things like this make the comparison ludicrous.


A couple of specifics I do want to mention though.

I did make a mistake wrt to what Manafort was charged and convicted for; I remembered his lying to investigators about what he shared with Kilimnik having consequences but confused him having his plea deal revoked with him actually being charged for it.

I also wasn't deliberately misrepresenting you about intelligence agencies saying Kilimnik was a Russian agent. What I was responding to was you saying this:

I would consider working as a proxy for the Russian government (even if not a direct employee), which has definitely been claimed by intelligence agencies, to fit into the latter of those designations. If you specifically mean that intelligence agencies haven't stated that he is an actual member of a Russian intelligence organisation as opposed to hired help then sure, I think that has only been said in the Senate report. However I also don't think it's a particularly important distinction when the issue is if it's potentially problematic for a presidential campaign manager to share information with him.

You absolutely insist on hiding behind your inept analogy, do you?

We are talking about collusion or conspiracy. When you break collusion down it's people communicating and then those people, on the basis of that communication, coordinating their efforts towards some nefarious or criminal goal. So unlike murder, the communication of the offense implicates the communicator. Anyone in the communication loop, in which Papadopolous exposed his inclusion, should be assumed to be either part of the conspiracy directly or at least privy to it. This is where the difference between your analogized crime of murder and the actual offense we are considering renders your analogy misleading. But I just know, no matter how many times I explain it or how many approaches I use to explain this to you that you will never get this.

Here are some more simple questions you are too afraid to answer:

If you were the FBI and you got this information that this volunteer Papadopolous said that Russians had dirt on Hillary and you had no other leads, would you not investigate Papadopolous? And if you were going to predicate an official large scale investigation on his comments wouldn't he be important enough to surveil given you have no other leads at that point? You act like you are an expert at interpreting what they FBI should do. The situation I am describing is what they were faced with. What should they have done?

They didn't surveil GP, because they knew GP is a nobody and, perhaps for other reasons as well, it was a dead end. They then did not, as you suggest they must, follow leads. They had no leads because GP wasn't a viable lead and they didn't predicate the investigation on his comments. They predicated the investigation on a fraud for which they were prosecuted. They altered evidence and used a fraudulent report (which they knew was bunk btw) to go fishing through the Carter Page wiretap.

Why do you keep defending behavior which is acknowledged by all parties as criminal? Why do you perceive that that somehow benefits you?

Well if you read books, hang out with people who read books, and have occasion to actually use the word bombastic then you might be more familiar with how it is actually used. I first learned the word via the refrain of a rap song "Mr. Boombastic" by the artist Shaggy. Then later I read it in Shakespeare where one character referred to another as "my sweet creature of bombast", which is why I prefer to use the noun form. Kanye West is bombastic. Trump is bombastic. Tyson Fury is bombastic. It's a word usually used to describe a personality, maybe rhetoric sometimes when politicians get into public disputes over policy, when threats are being issued, or when they are beating their chest for whatever reason. But I can't say I have very often heard the word used in regard to people writing about things other people have done or will do, as we do here talking about current issues. Some journalist's writing style is bombastic? While not technically incorrect, that usage is not expected. Just some guidance in case you don't want to sound like a guy who looks words up in a thesaurus in order to appear learned or intelligent but doesn't know the typically used context of the word.

Why would I want the shitty ones? To be clear, I only want the good tips and not the shitty ones.

Yeah I looked over some of your past posts in order to find out if the guy giving writing tips can actually write himself. You tend to make short, derogatory posts about unpopular posters. Maybe 80% of your posts are that. Many of them are edited. So I guess you really care a lot about the composition and grammar of that 1-2 sentences of wasted time to try to hurt someone's feelings on the internet, although the product I see doesn't really seem to reflect high effort.

I prefer to exchange about issues which are somewhat complex. Maybe one day I will evolve into someone like Trolly or you, some bitter pedant trying to make people feel small, in the same way that so many ocean species evolve into crabs. Then I will write short little crabby posts like you. For now, my style is not on the table.

I think I speak for everyone when I say we are all super impressed. I've read two of the three myself. Well maybe I've only actually read a quarter of the Strunk, which I bought in order to get the comma placement thing down.

When one person here shows the ability to distinguish between assertion and evidence I will open to the idea that anyone here is smarter than me. Maybe Rococo has shown that or at least not revealed that particular deficiency. I don't think Rococo is smarter than me, but I think he is the only opposition who can at least make that trivial distinction, so he could be smarter than me. The rest of you would need to come clean and admit you've been willfully ignorant before I would consider the possibility.

When you try to say something amusing - are you the only one who laughs?

All the best.

You don't even need any media/intelligence input to get to essentially the same place--over stuff we all saw with our own eyes

What part of your read on trump/stone/manafort's character makes you think it wasn't possible? They're Exactly the kinda guys who would be into it. trump cheats on principle ffs

Any agreement could've orig. been accomplished in a blink. It's not like stone/manafort were some noobs they're savvy enough to be able to navigate the edges.

Personally I think our system is corrupt enough to simultaneously drag out trump's dirty laundry(and there's plenty we still haven't seen) while also letting him slide. It's also defending the system to continually insist that since the system didn't get them dead nuts there's nothing there

If that doesn't happen sometimes you're not making enough jokes.

Understanding the difference of others laughing at you as opposed to with you may help you in your future comedic adventures.

All the best.

Again I cannot fathom the depths of dumb a person would have to be to think the above.

NO, in fact a 3rd party (George P) can absolutely overhear discussions or get info on OTHERS in the campaign without he, himself being implicated.

You are 100% wrong once again.

But regardless of any of that, nothing would be determined without an Investigation first.

So again now you are acknowledging the need and justification for an investigation.

I never said it wasn't possible due to attributes of those in the Trump campaign, only that it didn't actually happen. Both The Trump and Hillary campaigns definitely displayed a willingness to get dirt on the other from anyone. And just look at what Manafort was actually doing over there in the Ukraine. These people are all crooks, no doubt. That doesn't mean we can just charge them with anything and drag it out in a fishing expedition. There were plenty of crimes for which Trump could have been legitimately impeached.

I don't agree that collusion would have been easy, but I will grant you that point. But it never made logical sense to begin with. Russia never needed Trump campaign permission to release Hillary's emails if they had them and thought it would help Trump. In fact the optics are better with better plausible deniability. And you can't really get into quid pro quo with people who are about to be the most powerful people in the world because what would your position be wrt Trump's America if you had just withheld help with the election because you were tying to squeeze Trump?

Consider model of crime that did develop:
polling data -> Russian government -> troll farms -> facebook -> 5K dollars worth of brain washing with silly click bait

This is the model the intelligence agencies want you to accept. That is what they think of your intelligence. I don't see why everyone isn't offended by this.

The problem is the system didn't believe it either. Russiagate was an exercise of power, not an investigation.

Well we just disagree on that. If the crime is communicating and coordinating crime efforts then, I think, identifying yourself as in the communication loop implicates you in that conspiracy (which are necessarily secret in case that's the key thing keeping you from seeing the obvious). You think differently, but I see no further reductions I can make in the explanation.

They did investigate, but it should have been over when they decided not to tap GP. The "investigation" known as Crossfire Hurricane was not predicated on the dead end GP. It was predicated on altered evidence, illegal wiretaps, and the fraudulent Steele Dossier. The fact that they had reason to look at GP does not excuse or justify the massive abuse of power which went on for years and mired the county in animus and lies. I am starting to think I'm the last person to realize you have mental problems. Normally I wouldn't criticize someone for that but if it makes you ceaselessly defend corrupt institutions then you need to get on different meds.

So I've got one guy who barely writes telling me how to write. You've got advice on humor. What's your funniest post? That time you murdered me with the phrase "comedic adventures"?

My feelings were hut earlier ITT as I found out about all this 2020 Trump election action I inexplicably missed out on. That hurt. You might try poking holes in my arguments if you can't think of times where I lost a huge wagering opportunity. Other than that I have no advice for you on how to make me sad or whatever you're going for here.

Deuces, I think I came across your double secret Quora account earlier. Was this you?