My case is that if Obama were to take up the offer, he will have established that if you offer millions of dollars to a charity, he'll cater to your whims. Then everyone's going to say that he can be bribed into taking action on your requests. At what point does this all stop?
Much better. Now you're working it out, not just reacting.
Since it's a offer that has huge scarcity attached, ($5 Million pricetag, not many will pony that up, ever) just once or twice is all we need talk about. No one is ever going to associate it with bribery because it's charity to sick kids or something and at the same time "obama milked that rich fool dry." -He'd be a hero to some for taking Trump up on it... & certainly to the recipients of that charity.
It's not Obama's responsibility to answer to this shit. And him ignoring some dumbass billionare's incessant conspiracy shilling is not an admission of guilt, it's an efficient use of Obama's time.
Or something that could be bad to his reputation, we don't know for sure.
This isn't about responsibility, and it isn't even about setting precidents, because of the aforementioned scarecity. In all truth, this is about Obama's popularity taking a hit just before his election, which it appears that Trump has some control over now. (Again, only if he has said dox.)
I subscribe to Occam's razor at every turn in life.
Excellent, I do so as well. I've also noticed that we agree a lot on threads that don't involve the government.
So, what's more likely: that Obama was born in Honolulu in 1961 and because of poor document handling in the pre-internet world on a god damn island that the original documents were lost...or that there's a major government conspiracy involving many agents who are committing a massive coverup and fraud operation in order to hide the fact that we have an illegitimate president?
My favorite game!
Here's how it's played... You have to put both negatives and positives for each case on its' side. What you have done is cherrypicked those two scenarios.
For your "A" scenario, you left out that the following negatives:
1. The hawaiian document scanner behaved differently than other known & tested document scanners for some reason, perhaps because it was some off-brand technology that no one has ever heard of?
2. The fishy responses by the obama administration in regards to the birth certificate, such as how no long form certificate ever existed, were brought about by some kind of delusion or misinformation.
3. Then by extension, you should also include the extremely quick time in which Obama rose from nowhere to become president without even serving one full term in any federal office! Yeah, it's legal, but damn odd.
Then on the "B" scenario, you left out the following positives:
1. Conspiracies and coverups are as common on capital hill as hookers are.
2. Anyone with enough power could be behind this particular conspiracy, not just some politicians or "Teh government."
So when you weigh those two choices more realistically, I'd say it's still a toss-up. We really don't have enough information to know yet, but the PDF problem really does seem to be a smoking gun that you can't just push under the table and pretend like it didn't happen. Not because it's "perfect" evidence, but because it's pretty much the only "hard" evidence in the case.
I'm not emotionally reacting to anything, I'm looking at the facts.
I was referring to all of the super-large fonts and your tendency to dismiss a premise here with prejudice. Remember, I didn't force you into this conversation, you keep coming back to this thread.
I only have a copy of my birth certificate. I don't even know where that is right now to be honest. Which charity should I donate to to prove I'm an American?
Strawman arguments too.
Just because some things/events/people have odd little discrepancies doesn't mean there's malicious intent at the core of the issue. Some shit is just odd.
Given, but to play the game you wanted to play, which scenario, A or B, has a sum of more oddness?
You gotta admit, scenario A is pretty odd too.
And just because there isn't a perfect explanation for something doesn't open the door for any wild ass idea to be true.
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That would make sense if I said that his citizenship
CAN'T be legit, but I didn't, did I? I'm saying the opposite should be
considered. You're saying very clearly that it shouldn't be considered, bestowing a questionable amount of trust in someone who's job it is to constantly lie to us and steal from us, and even kill us from time to time and then lie about that too.
I'm sorry, but this shit just ain't logical!
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
"WRITING IN LARGE FONTS IS NOT A WAY TO PROVE YOU'RE RIGHT ON THE INTERNET"
