[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> The problem stems from one interpretation of a premise comprising multiple terms and an inability to consider alternate valid premises.

Apparently also either an inability or unwillingness to explain these alternate premises.

This comment hits the nail on the head: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45211312

You do not seem to be engaging in liberal discourse, but propaganda instead.

[yetihehe]

Another case of "Trying to play chess with a pidgeon".

"You can't play chess with a pidgeon. It will overturn all the pieces, shit on board and will be happy that he won". Scary thing is that a lot of people will root for that pidgeon ("Yeah, that pidgeon showed the master who's the boss!").

[austin-cheney]

I have told you my opinion and you either are incapable of understanding it or choose to not understand it because diverging opinions aren't of interest to you. I am not trying to persuade you one way or the other, but agreement appears to be all you seek. I really don't care if you agree with me and I am not trying to convince you of anything. This seem lost on you.

[zahlman]

The comment you're linking to was rightfully flagged and killed. Your characterization of "propaganda" is completely uncalled for.

The premises were explained before the questioning even started:

> I believe they are honest because they are pushing factual numbers and speaking in reference to eye witness accounts.

The entire point was that the claim

> privately telling people that Trump was awful, while publicly saying the opposite.

has no bearing on the assessment of honesty. It does not matter what Carlson's private beliefs or public opinions are. Facts are facts no matter who believes, disbelieves, claims to believe or claims to disbelieve them.

Whether numbers are factual can be objectively assessed. The truth of the numbers does not depend on who cites them. The eyewitness accounts cited objectively exist. What eyewitnesses claim to have happened is a matter of record, and it doesn't matter who cites those claims. That Carlson was "speaking in reference to" those accounts is objectively verifiable by cross-referencing what he says with what the eyewitness said.

The bit about Carlson's private tweets is irrelevant, and a textbook example of ad hominem fallacy.

Determining whether a claim is true does not depend on who made the claim. It takes no additional skill to make this determination if the source is generally unreliable, except in the case where the claimant is being used as an authority (so as to determine the legitimacy of that authority in context). But this isn't such a case. That's the point.