Twitter hides Trump Tweet for glorifying violence!

Originally posted by Silent Master
It's called deflection. 😮‍💨

speaking of which, please quote where I confused "imply" with "infer",as you accused (in your previous deflection); instead of deflecting further

Originally posted by Silent Master
No, he won't. just like bash can't tell the difference between imply and infer.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
I see you refused surt's diversionary assistance.

quote where I confused the two, my friend

then we can return to the original topic which you deflected from (because you lost):

Originally posted by Silent Master
The looting started a while ago, where is the supposed Trump ordered police/military shooting?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
Trump's disability in recognizing time and the chronological order of events does not negate his threat:

"when the looting starts, the shooting starts"

The part where you confuse your inference with his implication

so you will simply repeat your empty accusation without citing it? I suppose you think that means you won the debate?

what else could he possibly be implying here?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg

"Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. [B]Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!"
[/B]

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
what else could he possibly be implying here?

So, you want to know what I inferred from his statement?

I want to know what else he could have possibly been implying, as I clearly asked. will you just answer that question with another irrelevant question, or will you just answer the question:

Originally posted by Bashar Teg

what else could he possibly be implying here?

"Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!"

You realize, you're asking for what else could people have possibly inferred from that statement, right?

to-may-toes, to-mah-toes.

-what else could trump have been implying?
-what else could we infer from what trump said?

^same thing

are you dodging the question because you have no answer, and you know lost the debate?

You realize that just because someone inferred something from a statement doesn't mean that is what the person who made the statement meant to imply, right

Originally posted by Silent Master
You realize that just because someone inferred something from a statement doesn't mean that is what the person who made the statement meant to imply, right

pick your favorite identical question and answer it:

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
to-may-toes, to-mah-toes.

-what else could trump have been implying?
-what else could we infer from what trump said?

^same thing

are you dodging the question because you have no answer, and you know lost the debate?

Here's the thing, neither one of us can answer what Trump meant to imply as neither one of us have access to his thoughts, all we can do is comment on what we inferred he meant from the statement

you have no way to explain away his words and have thus chosen to render the very concept of inference and implication null and void. noted

so since trump did not say "I will be ordering the national guard to illegally murder looters just for looting", that means you won the debate

am I summarizing your argument correctly?

You're just upset that I called you out on trying to pass off your opinion as fact.

Next time, just say " this is what I think he meant"

so I was correct? this is an accurate appraisal of your silly copout?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you have no way to explain away his words and have thus chosen to render the very concept of inference and implication null and void. noted

so since trump did not say "I will be ordering the national guard to illegally murder looters just for looting", that means you won the debate

am I summarizing your argument correctly?

Next time, don't try to pass off your opinion as fact and I won't have to call you out

it was not my opinion. trump clearly implied that he would order the shooting of looters for looting. "When the looting starts, the shooting starts". very clear statement

I see you've now resorted to "you mad", so I guess you concede? not that I'm suggesting that you implied it, I'm just going by your past performance

If it's not your opinion, where is your proof?

already posted the same proof several times. Attempting to reboot the debate is a pathetic tactic, even for you

No, you posted your opinion multiple times. Where's your proof?

nope. we had moved past that and you were attempting (and failing) to find another statement which could be inferred from trumps words. then, when cornered on your last failed copout:

Originally posted by Silent Master
The looting started a while ago, where is the supposed Trump ordered police/military shooting?

you then tried to negate the concept of "implication" and incorrectly define it as "opinion", which is false.

I'll just accept your concession-via-copout 👆

No, we never moved past it being your opinion. Hence all the talk about infer vs. Imply