False equivalency at its finest.
Only the lines you’ve connected in your mind could lead to such a conclusion.
Yeah, because I’m the only one crazy enough to believe that a politician could do something just as illegal as any normal person could do, LOL.
Hillary Clinton stole classified information, fled the country, and intentionally disseminated it to news organizations?
You consider their alleged crimes to be “just as illegal”. This is a false equivalency because 1) if Hillary were guilty, it would be of some form of negligence (willful or not), not treason, and 2) Hillary hasn’t been charged with a crime even after extensive FBI investigation, no matter how much you wish she had been.
False equivalency at its finest.
Only the lines you’ve connected in your mind could lead to such a conclusion.
Yeah, because I’m the only one crazy enough to believe that a politician could do something just as illegal as any normal person could do, LOL.
Did you try to misinterpret what he was saying? I don’t know where any of that came from.
Yes. This represents a pattern of behavior. I don’t know if it’s a debate tactic to shift the goalpost and therefore his argument or just an obtuse misreading of the facts.
How do you know it represents a behavior if you don’t even know whether it’s a debate tactic or an obtuse reading? We differ in opinion on their matter of guilt and this is what you come up with?
Your motivation is irrelevant. This is your debate style. We’ve all seen it before. You say something wonky, you get challenged, you claim to have meant something other than what you said, and you respond to any further challenges by claiming that the misunderstanding is on the challenger’s side. Whether it’s obtuse or gaslighting, both indicate willful misdirection.
And we don’t differ on their matter of guilt, we differ on the facts. Snowden intentionally disseminated classified material to unauthorized individuals for the purpose of leaking it to the public. Clinton used a private e-mail server that may or may not have exposed classified material to potential hacking. These simply aren’t the same crimes, wouldn’t receive the same charges, and wouldn’t carry the same sentences. And I’ll remind you again that the then-head of the FBI found Clinton to be negligent, but not criminally so.
We can have different opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.