- Joined
- Apr 20, 2018
- Messages
- 10,257
- Reaction score
- 4,161
- Location
- Washington, D.C.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Non sequitur -- The answer to the question you pose above (red), regardless of what the answer be, has absolutely nothing to do with my assertion (red) -- that "opposition research is useful if and only if it's accurate" -- identifying the nature of insipidity/irrationality associated with and underpinning the statement found in the rubric article (pink).
- "The dossier, which is made up of 16 opposition research-style memos on Trump underwritten by the Democratic National Committee and Clinton’s own campaign, is based mostly on uncorroborated third-hand sources.
- Anyone in political strategy/research knows that opposition research is useful if and only if it's accurate. Why? Because nobody needs to engage outside research resources if one is willing to fabricate claims; one need only repeatedly utter them to an ignorant fan-base. Trump's myriad fabrications have made that plainer to see than nose on one's face.
- The veracity or untruth of any given assertion does not depend on who utters it, and the accuracy or inaccuracy of information obtained does not depend on whether or who paid for the research that uncovered the information.
... you can't be that naive, can you?
I mean, your assertion is so easily destroyed by what you almost certainly believe.
Example: Were the accusations from the Trump campaign against Hillary true? Did they help Trump win?
I am fairly certain that your answers would be "No" and "Yes" respectively....