Jay

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/321152-pence-mixes-up-nicaraguan-and-israeli-flags-in-tweet

WTF

My six-year-old is learning about flags right now and apparently would make a better VP.

The flag is so small in the tweet, that I can’t tell what is in the center.

Especially on a mobile device. The flags look almost identical.

TV’s Frink said:

I sure hope so, but I’m worried about the Bernie bros throwing another fit because they didn’t get their again.

Maybe Bernie’s supporters are justifiably upset over the way he was treated by the DNC and the apparent corruption in that organization, and this vote could be interpreted as more of the same from a party that claims to be for the people while it continues to sell out to corporate interests. This is exactly the kind of behavior that led to the Tea Party, and I’m not liberal enough for a Democrat equivalent to show up and crash the party in 2018.

Can someone take a screenshot next time they see it and post it here please? I have both iOS and Android devices and haven’t seen this issue.

captainsolo said:

When I get through S2 and3 I’ll tun the films on LD before plowing into the animated series and TNG. I have the BD set for the latter and the purist in me is already saying “couldn’t they have branched the effects there as well despite being native NTSC? I wouldn’t mind the old ones!”

In TOS, the original effects were all done on film, so it was easy to stay true to them during the remaster. I’m glad they included them because that’s how I choose to watch the BDs.

The HD effects in TNG are for the most part very tasteful representations of the original effects and integrate nicely with the remastered live action; they didn’t set out to “improve” them, just make them look like they got a detail upgrade so they blended well. Many of the effects were done on film, so they technically are the originals. I never felt while watching that I was missing out by not seeing the NTSC effects.

The NTSC transfers were horrendous and the tests they did with upscaled effects looked truly awful. Had every 480i effects shot been deinterlaced to 480p, upscaled to 1080p, and spliced in with the new film transfers, they would’ve stuck out like a sore thumb and taken the viewer out of the experience many times per episode. Even though it only happens in a few episodes, I know instantly when they switch to an upscaled shot because they couldn’t find the original film. Takes me out of it every time.

TV’s Frink said:

doubleofive said:

Ignore this is Cosmo for some reason:

I don’t know why or how, but apparently Cosmo and MTV have both done some good reporting on Trump.

https://twitter.com/SamGrittner/status/811340510971342848

TV’s Frink said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Thus the downward spiral that is Frink vs. Fo begins anew. . . .

Well, since Jay said the next one of us to poke the other gets a timeout, I’m simply going to just wait and see if he meant it.

I did. Fo, you’re out for a while.

Spaced Ranger, your ban is permanent this time. Best of luck elsewhere.

Jetrell Fo said:

Duracell, I apologize if you felt I was breaking your rules (though the examples given are subjective at best), I promise not to disagree with anyone or try to point out why or say anything good about Trump or any of his White House staff in your thread anymore.

They’re such horrible, scummy, repulsive, lying, don’t deserve to live and breathe, ego-driven, and money-driven POS’s. How we’re are not extinct after the 30 days he’s been in office is beyond me. I will hate him and hate him and hate him.

Is that enough hate or do I need more to make it feel genuine?

Jay said:

Do we need to lock this thread also?

If we do, political discussion is done in Off Topic for good.

This topic should really be locked at this point for good. It seems all of us cry babies, myself included, just can’t put aside our egos long enough to get along or even disagree.

I think at some point you’ll have to accept – and not just say you accept, but genuinely accept – that your political viewpoint is in the extreme minority here and that not agreeing with your politics shouldn’t be taken personally. Besides, most posts contradicting yours are in regard to logical fallacies or failure to comprehend your point and not political differences.

Between you and Frink, the next one to prod the other gets a timeout.

DominicCobb said:

Jetrell Fo said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF_42xLINO0

Sean Spicer giving Liberal reporter the slam. Damn double standards that don’t exist. I love it.

There’s nothing to love, that’s just more misconstrued “double standard” bs. Yes, there’s nothing wrong with criticizing a judicial decision, no one is saying there is. The problem is that Trump is insulting judges personally and questioning their qualifications. Obama never did that.

No president does that – except this one.

Do we need to lock this thread also?

If we do, political discussion is done in Off Topic for good.

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://deadspin.com/shad-khan-comes-out-against-trumps-muslim-ban-1792011708

I’m going to repeat the entire column here because it’s short, but also because the consistency in the paragraphs is admirable.

Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shad Khan, who voted for Donald Trump, is speaking out against Trump’s ban on refugees and on all entry from seven majority-Muslim countries. While NBA representatives have been vocal in expressing their disapproval of the ban, the NFL has been mostly silent—making Khan’s voice a prominent one.

Khan, who voted for Donald Trump, is himself Muslim. He told the New York Times he had expected Trump to be more moderate upon entering office and praised the court system for blocking the ban.

Khan, who voted for Donald Trump, is himself an immigrant. He told the paper that the ban is “not good” and that he believes immigration is the “bedrock of our country.” The Jaguars owner was born in Pakistan and arrived in the U.S. in 1967.

Khan, a registered Republican who voted for Donald Trump, also spoke of his support for a human rights ordinance in Jacksonville that would make it illegal to discriminate against members of the LGBTQ community. That law—similar to those in more than 20 other cities—has been consistently rejected by Republican politicians in that city.

Khan, who voted for Donald Trump, also told the Times he is a strong proponent of NAFTA and that he opposes Trump’s attempts to repeal it.

I noticed at the bottom of that article somebody had posted…

Exactly. Khan, like most Republicans, doesn’t care about what happens to others as long as his particular issue is supported/left untouched. It’s only when it hits home that he gets it. Lack of empathy is the bedrock of the Republican platform.

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

FanFiltration said:

Beauty knows no pain, and it’s not a joke.

Donald J. Trump uses hair loss medication that causes mental confusion, anger, mood swings, sexual dysfunction, and even suicidal tendencies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/02/03/side-effects-of-the-drug-trump-reportedly-takes-for-hair-loss/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.a6a2f1243d2f

Just the kind of drug you want the guy that is in charge of our nukes to be taking.

There are certain safeguards in place to keep this from being as simple as someone walking in and pushing a button. I mean you talk like he’s the only one with the codes and the combination to the toilet paper safe they’re kept in, LOL.

I’m also glad to see making fun of people who take medication and suffer from side effects is still alive and well. It makes me feel like dancing.

😃

Medication for a life-threatening condition that causes negative side effects is unfortunate. Medication for a lack of self-esteem and inability to deal with natural aging that might cause you to rant like a loon and possibly destroy the country is worthy of mocking. We all know you’re going bald, Donald. Just accept it and quit taking the pills.

There are a lot of men in lesser places than Trump that take the medication so are they all worthy of mocking or just Trump cuz he’s Trump?

Are they running a country? Are they potentially endangering the lives of others for the sake of their own vanity?

Ryan McAvoy said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://deadspin.com/shad-khan-comes-out-against-trumps-muslim-ban-1792011708

I’m going to repeat the entire column here because it’s short, but also because the consistency in the paragraphs is admirable.

Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shad Khan, who voted for Donald Trump, is speaking out against Trump’s ban on refugees and on all entry from seven majority-Muslim countries. While NBA representatives have been vocal in expressing their disapproval of the ban, the NFL has been mostly silent—making Khan’s voice a prominent one.

Khan, who voted for Donald Trump, is himself Muslim. He told the New York Times he had expected Trump to be more moderate upon entering office and praised the court system for blocking the ban.

Khan, who voted for Donald Trump, is himself an immigrant. He told the paper that the ban is “not good” and that he believes immigration is the “bedrock of our country.” The Jaguars owner was born in Pakistan and arrived in the U.S. in 1967.

Khan, a registered Republican who voted for Donald Trump, also spoke of his support for a human rights ordinance in Jacksonville that would make it illegal to discriminate against members of the LGBTQ community. That law—similar to those in more than 20 other cities—has been consistently rejected by Republican politicians in that city.

Khan, who voted for Donald Trump, also told the Times he is a strong proponent of NAFTA and that he opposes Trump’s attempts to repeal it.

I noticed at the bottom of that article somebody had posted…

Exactly. Khan, like most Republicans, doesn’t care about what happens to others as long as his particular issue is supported/left untouched. It’s only when it hits home that he gets it. Lack of empathy is the bedrock of the Republican platform.

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

FanFiltration said:

Beauty knows no pain, and it’s not a joke.

Donald J. Trump uses hair loss medication that causes mental confusion, anger, mood swings, sexual dysfunction, and even suicidal tendencies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/02/03/side-effects-of-the-drug-trump-reportedly-takes-for-hair-loss/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.a6a2f1243d2f

Just the kind of drug you want the guy that is in charge of our nukes to be taking.

There are certain safeguards in place to keep this from being as simple as someone walking in and pushing a button. I mean you talk like he’s the only one with the codes and the combination to the toilet paper safe they’re kept in, LOL.

I’m also glad to see making fun of people who take medication and suffer from side effects is still alive and well. It makes me feel like dancing.

😃

Medication for a life-threatening condition that causes negative side effects is unfortunate. Medication for a lack of self-esteem and inability to deal with natural aging that might cause you to rant like a loon and possibly destroy the country is worthy of mocking. We all know you’re going bald, Donald. Just accept it and quit taking the pills.

TV’s Frink said:

Lol, check out this tweet.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827885966509604865?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

First off, he’s just shouting MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! That’s the entire tweet. But look at all the gifs immediately following it.

jedimasterobiwan: Stop asking questions. You’ve been asked repeatedly. Any further questions and I’ll consider it harassment under the forum rules and ban your account.

Jetrell Fo said:

doubleofive said:

Spicer just announced that the wall would be paid for with a 20% tax on Mexican imports. Now I’m assuming that this means Mexicans importing American goods, but no one is stating it like that. They all say a tax on Mexican goods coming into the US. That would mean that American consumers would be paying for it…

If they buy products made in Mexico, then yes, they will. As far as I can read anyways.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-imports-mexico-pay-trump-234500210.html

Mexico is a huge trading partner and this tariff is going to hit most Americans.

If Americans buy Mexican goods, our sales taxes pay for the wall. If we don’t…our income taxes pay for the wall, because the money has to come from somewhere.

My grocery bill is going up so Trump’s supporters can have a wall that won’t even stop illegal immigration.

“Mexico is paying for it.” What a gaping anus this guy is.

Watch the personal attacks, everyone. This is starting to look like the old politics thread.

Expressing disdain over someone’s opinion or 4th-grade-level humor is fine, but just calling them an asshole doesn’t cut it.

DuracellEnergizer said:

I don’t believe I ever really thought about it one way or the other.

TV’s Frink said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

I don’t believe I ever really thought about it one way or the other.

This.

And you call yourselves fans.

http://fxrant.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-death-star-and-final-trench-run.html

Star Wars fans pride themselves on knowing each and every detail from the original trilogy. But there’s one little detail from “Star Wars” (1977) that might surprise a lot of fans, and the reality of this detail is different than our collective head canon.

At the end of the original film, Rebel ships fly along the Death Star trench in an attempt to blow up the space station. Look at the photo of the Death Star at the top of this post: can you point to the trench that Luke and the Rebels flew down to fire upon the exhaust port that would ultimately destroy the space station?

Nearly everybody points at the equatorial trench of the Death Star. I asked dozens of die-hard fans, including many co-workers at Industrial Light & Magic, and nearly every single person pointed to the equatorial trench. If you asked me, I would also have said the equatorial trench.

I can see how people make this mistake, despite the indicators in the film to the contrary.

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

oojason said:

Have you an answer? - or do you have another deflection?

Yes.

This is Jay’s answer, not mine, and I’m not sure why he might presume to speak for someone else.

It was a joke. Holy shit.

oojason said:

Have you an answer? - or do you have another deflection?

Yes.

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

My motivation is now irrelevant … LOL. The only facts that concern me is that each broke Federal Law. Those are not my facts, they are “the” facts.

Yes, they each broke federal law, but that’s not what you’ve been suggesting. What you’ve been positing is that Snowden’s crimes and Clinton’s crimes are the same. They are not. THAT is the fact.

General Patreus intentionally leaked classified information to his biographer, whom he was also fucking. He was charged with a misdemeanor. Would that be adequate for Clinton and Snowden? I mean they all broke federal laws, right? And these crimes are all the same, right? If not, then do you agree that Patreus’ punishment should have been more severe?

Now, if you’re privy to proof that exonerates Clinton completely, bring it and I’ll gladly reconsider my position.

I’m glad our legal system doesn’t work the same way your brain does.

I saw your original response before you disappeared it.

You’re a real jerk for saying what you did and acting like you’re better than others around here. “Low-information voters” my foot. I want to swear but I don’t need to get banned just because I let you get to me too.

You have your opinion I have mine, this conversation ends now.

I didn’t “disappear” it. I removed it because it was a personal insult that wasn’t necessary, even though I believe it to be true. But since you brought it up, yes, I believe Trump is a low-information candidate president for low-information voters.

We don’t have our own opinions on Clinton/Snowden. I have facts and you have the newly-minted “alternative facts” (straight up Orwellian, can’t believe it came from a public figure). If it’s your position that Clinton should have been charged for what she did, that’s fine, but arguing that Clinton’s transgressions and Snowden’s transgressions are the same and should be treated the same is asinine and betrays your irrational anti-Clinton bias. That’s the real reason you’re disengaging, just like ferris. You prefer the comfort of conspiracy theories to logic and truth.

The conversation only ends if you leave the thread and you never bring up Clinton’s alleged crimes again. If you post, anyone gets to respond.

Just to be clear, a member in this forum has never been — and never will be — banned for their opinion, political or otherwise, or for moderate swearing. Swear if you like; it’s perfectly acceptable within reason according to the rules as long as it’s not a personal insult.

Just so I understand, gaslighting is good for everyone but those not liked. Encouraging the exact behavior the rules are meant to discourage is okay too. No mercy, no respect, no concern for those here you don’t like because they aren’t like you in any way. Take em down folks, take em down. And some of you complain about Trump being an asshole?

As for ferris, he’s a good person, why bash him? He serves and protects in the real world, puts his life on the line for it too, how many here can say that? Just because he doesn’t share others view of the world here or their opinion it’s okay to crap talk him? Sounds like it to me.

So yeah, anyone reading, it would seem you are now allowed to treat me and probably ferris anyway you want when we post. Swing away litlle cherubs, we are apparently not worthy of your greatness and innocence, we are the mats on which you can now wipe your feet on freely. The word has been given.

This is why I disengaged. Your entire response is a personal insult but, since rules are rules, anything goes when it’s Fo who posts? Your posting style and your pm style clearly align with the likes of Mr. Frink. No wonder he’s untouchable, he’s like you, and that is the preferred appreciated attitude apparently. I am not sad that I am not like you guys.

Do your worst, it is what you’re best at, isn’t it?

Can’t deal with facts or rational debate so you’re back to playing the victim. Got it.

Attacking my person over the meme was not rational debate. Disappearing your personal insult against me, after you complained about me deleting something you said got me what I deserved (which I reinstated of my own volition because you quietly blocked another members ability to edit their post), are those rational too Jay?

For the record, here’s my original post (the last paragraph is the part I removed):

Jetrell Fo said:

My motivation is now irrelevant … LOL. The only facts that concern me is that each broke Federal Law. Those are not my facts, they are “the” facts.

Yes, they each broke federal law, but that’s not what you’ve been suggesting. What you’ve been positing is that Snowden’s crimes and Clinton’s crimes are the same. They are not. THAT is the fact.

General Patreus intentionally leaked classified information to his biographer, whom he was also fucking. He was charged with a misdemeanor. Would that be adequate for Clinton and Snowden? I mean they all broke federal laws, right? And these crimes are all the same, right? If not, then do you agree that Patreus’ punishment should have been more severe?

Now, if you’re privy to proof that exonerates Clinton completely, bring it and I’ll gladly reconsider my position.

I’m glad our legal system doesn’t work the same way your brain does. It becomes clearer every day why you support Trump; he’s a low-information candidate for low-information voters.

Everyone is free to make of that what they will. I take ownership of everything I wrote. Also for the record, yes, I believe you got what you deserved for starting a thread wherein you told an unspecified group of members that you hated them and that ot.com Off Topic was the worst forum section you’ve ever been in. It was clearly baiting.

I believe Hillary Clinton to be just as guilty as Edward Snowden, of what they’re accused of, breaking Federal Law.

You’re reframing the debate to mask your original comparison of the two.

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

My motivation is now irrelevant … LOL. The only facts that concern me is that each broke Federal Law. Those are not my facts, they are “the” facts.

Yes, they each broke federal law, but that’s not what you’ve been suggesting. What you’ve been positing is that Snowden’s crimes and Clinton’s crimes are the same. They are not. THAT is the fact.

General Patreus intentionally leaked classified information to his biographer, whom he was also fucking. He was charged with a misdemeanor. Would that be adequate for Clinton and Snowden? I mean they all broke federal laws, right? And these crimes are all the same, right? If not, then do you agree that Patreus’ punishment should have been more severe?

Now, if you’re privy to proof that exonerates Clinton completely, bring it and I’ll gladly reconsider my position.

I’m glad our legal system doesn’t work the same way your brain does.

I saw your original response before you disappeared it.

You’re a real jerk for saying what you did and acting like you’re better than others around here. “Low-information voters” my foot. I want to swear but I don’t need to get banned just because I let you get to me too.

You have your opinion I have mine, this conversation ends now.

I didn’t “disappear” it. I removed it because it was a personal insult that wasn’t necessary, even though I believe it to be true. But since you brought it up, yes, I believe Trump is a low-information candidate president for low-information voters.

We don’t have our own opinions on Clinton/Snowden. I have facts and you have the newly-minted “alternative facts” (straight up Orwellian, can’t believe it came from a public figure). If it’s your position that Clinton should have been charged for what she did, that’s fine, but arguing that Clinton’s transgressions and Snowden’s transgressions are the same and should be treated the same is asinine and betrays your irrational anti-Clinton bias. That’s the real reason you’re disengaging, just like ferris. You prefer the comfort of conspiracy theories to logic and truth.

The conversation only ends if you leave the thread and you never bring up Clinton’s alleged crimes again. If you post, anyone gets to respond.

Just to be clear, a member in this forum has never been — and never will be — banned for their opinion, political or otherwise, or for moderate swearing. Swear if you like; it’s perfectly acceptable within reason according to the rules as long as it’s not a personal insult.

Just so I understand, gaslighting is good for everyone but those not liked. Encouraging the exact behavior the rules are meant to discourage is okay too. No mercy, no respect, no concern for those here you don’t like because they aren’t like you in any way. Take em down folks, take em down. And some of you complain about Trump being an asshole?

As for ferris, he’s a good person, why bash him? He serves and protects in the real world, puts his life on the line for it too, how many here can say that? Just because he doesn’t share others view of the world here or their opinion it’s okay to crap talk him? Sounds like it to me.

So yeah, anyone reading, it would seem you are now allowed to treat me and probably ferris anyway you want when we post. Swing away litlle cherubs, we are apparently not worthy of your greatness and innocence, we are the mats on which you can now wipe your feet on freely. The word has been given.

This is why I disengaged. Your entire response is a personal insult but, since rules are rules, anything goes when it’s Fo who posts? Your posting style and your pm style clearly align with the likes of Mr. Frink. No wonder he’s untouchable, he’s like you, and that is the preferred appreciated attitude apparently. I am not sad that I am not like you guys.

Do your worst, it is what you’re best at, isn’t it?

Can’t deal with facts or rational debate so you’re back to playing the victim. Got it.

DominicCobb said:

Trump has had so many chances for graciousness yet hasn’t taken advantage of any of them. He’s just an asshole, plain and simple, nothing’s going to change that. Hard to respect him as the president if he doesn’t know or care about knowing the first about being presidential.

Trump is only gracious when the other party is gracious and strokes his ego first, which is the exact opposite of being gracious.

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

My motivation is now irrelevant … LOL. The only facts that concern me is that each broke Federal Law. Those are not my facts, they are “the” facts.

Yes, they each broke federal law, but that’s not what you’ve been suggesting. What you’ve been positing is that Snowden’s crimes and Clinton’s crimes are the same. They are not. THAT is the fact.

General Patreus intentionally leaked classified information to his biographer, whom he was also fucking. He was charged with a misdemeanor. Would that be adequate for Clinton and Snowden? I mean they all broke federal laws, right? And these crimes are all the same, right? If not, then do you agree that Patreus’ punishment should have been more severe?

Now, if you’re privy to proof that exonerates Clinton completely, bring it and I’ll gladly reconsider my position.

I’m glad our legal system doesn’t work the same way your brain does.

I saw your original response before you disappeared it.

You’re a real jerk for saying what you did and acting like you’re better than others around here. “Low-information voters” my foot. I want to swear but I don’t need to get banned just because I let you get to me too.

You have your opinion I have mine, this conversation ends now.

I didn’t “disappear” it. I removed it because it was a personal insult that wasn’t necessary, even though I believe it to be true. But since you brought it up, yes, I believe Trump is a low-information candidate president for low-information voters.

We don’t have our own opinions on Clinton/Snowden. I have facts and you have the newly-minted “alternative facts” (straight up Orwellian, can’t believe it came from a public figure). If it’s your position that Clinton should have been charged for what she did, that’s fine, but arguing that Clinton’s transgressions and Snowden’s transgressions are the same and should be treated the same is asinine and betrays your irrational anti-Clinton bias. That’s the real reason you’re disengaging, just like ferris. You prefer the comfort of conspiracy theories to logic and truth.

The conversation only ends if you leave the thread and you never bring up Clinton’s alleged crimes again. If you post, anyone gets to respond.

Just to be clear, a member in this forum has never been — and never will be — banned for their opinion, political or otherwise, or for moderate swearing. Swear if you like; it’s perfectly acceptable within reason according to the rules as long as it’s not a personal insult.

Jetrell Fo said:

My motivation is now irrelevant … LOL. The only facts that concern me is that each broke Federal Law. Those are not my facts, they are “the” facts.

Yes, they each broke federal law, but that’s not what you’ve been suggesting. What you’ve been positing is that Snowden’s crimes and Clinton’s crimes are the same. They are not. THAT is the fact.

General Patreus intentionally leaked classified information to his biographer, whom he was also fucking. He was charged with a misdemeanor. Would that be adequate for Clinton and Snowden? I mean they all broke federal laws, right? And these crimes are all the same, right? If not, then do you agree that Patreus’ punishment should have been more severe?

Now, if you’re privy to proof that exonerates Clinton completely, bring it and I’ll gladly reconsider my position.

I’m glad our legal system doesn’t work the same way your brain does.

thejediknighthusezni said:

The last two couldn’t be more reasonable.

There’s nothing reasonable about about the birther movement and the Birther-in-Chief. Thanks for this and previous posts; makes it easy to jump past anything you post from now on.

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

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.

Jeebus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

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.