3 Jun 2023 11:46 am
Maria Bartiromo was a Russian spy, and whatever evacuates from her lips, cannot be relied upon. As for Nicole Parker she testified on the issue of 'weaponization' has been making the rounds on Fox News and right wing sources, and of the 35,000 hard working agents in the FBI, there is always going to be a few disgruntled who will no doubt be favorited in the right wing sphere. Can I trust her? Not until I can see her challenged by impartial sources or other former members of the FBI who disagree with her to see how well she holds up, until then, I hold her testimony as 'unverified'.ConservativeWave » 03 Jun 2023, 9:24 am » wrote: ↑ [ truncated due to 4k char. limit...]
Below, was in interview with Maria Barataromo, and an EX FBI agent named Nichole Parker... this as part of the announcement that FBI Director Christopher Wray... faced with CONTEMPT of Congress threats, WILL deliver subpoenaed documents (relating to Joe Biden's CORRUPTION and acceptance of millions of dollars in bribes and kick-back)... to Congress. THIS interview, as well as the testimony of ALL the FBI whistleblowers.... IS BEEN EYE OPENING !!↓https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM5mhG1IV1o&t=32s
So, let's examine your argument:
The argument you presented contains several logical fallacies and lacks sufficient evidence to support its claims. Let's analyze and address them:
Hasty generalization: The argument assumes that because 80% of the FBI (and possibly America) is not involved in corruption and does not support the "Totalitarian Deep State," it is enough support to take back democracy. However, this conclusion is based on a generalization and lacks specific evidence or data to support the claim. It is hasty to assume that the majority automatically opposes corruption or supports a specific cause without further evidence.
False dichotomy: The argument presents a false dichotomy by asserting that if action is not taken immediately, it will be too late. This creates an either-or scenario without considering other possibilities or potential outcomes. The argument overlooks the fact that addressing corruption and promoting democracy can be complex and multifaceted, requiring careful consideration and long-term efforts rather than a rushed response.
Appeal to fear: The argument employs an appeal to fear by asserting that if action is not taken now, it will be too late. This is a fear-inducing tactic used to manipulate emotions rather than presenting logical reasoning or evidence. Appeals to fear are often used to pressure individuals into accepting or supporting a particular viewpoint without critical evaluation.
Lack of evidence: The argument mentions an interview with Maria Bartiromo and an ex-FBI agent named Nichole Parker, along with the testimony of FBI whistleblowers, as eye-opening evidence. However, no specific details, quotes, or verifiable sources are provided to support the claim of corruption and acceptance of bribes by Joe Biden. Without concrete evidence, it is difficult to evaluate the credibility or accuracy of the argument's claims.
Ad hominem: The argument implies that FBI Director Christopher Wray's compliance with delivering subpoenaed documents is due to facing "CONTEMPT of Congress threats." This is an ad hominem attack, focusing on personal motivations rather than addressing the substance of the issue. It undermines the argument's credibility by resorting to attacking individuals rather than engaging with the evidence or facts.
Until you can provide evidence of all the claims you are making, I have no choice but to put your argument on hold as 'unverified'.
And btw, 'deep state' is a thought-terminating cliché, and is too vague to have any argumentative value.