Read you own post again…slowly. See if you can find the flaw.
There is no flaw. On the other hand, there isn’t much I can do about your condescending arrogance. Kind of goes with the territory.
Frothy froth froths. 
Want a crying towel? 
Runaway. A run-run-run-runaaway.
Not really…some people just like to examine people…
I do it all the time…go to a store and just observe how people act…
As has been pointed out several times to you, the narratives aren’t competing if both of them can be true with no “consequences” to personal political beliefs.
Your failure to understand how to properly use the English language in no ways turns non-competing narratives into competing narratives.
You’re doing very poorly in this thread.
You don’t understand the definition of “compete”.
You don’t understand the definition of “perjury trap”.
You’re not doing well at all.
“Froth frothy froth” or “let’s move on” or something like that in 3…2…1…
Oh well! At least you’re more fun than the QAnon horde that has poured in across our Hannity Borders the past few weeks…
1 Like
Continuing down this path only serves to further demonstrate that you really have no understanding of what a competing narrative is. So you keep right on pointing out how clueless you are in this area.
Compete, as in competition, isn’t remotely relevant to this discussion. Implying that a competing narrative is a competition, with winners and losers, further demonstrates that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Well that’s interesting. I thought there was no such thing as a “perjury trap”. You now seem to be conceding that there very well might be such a thing, but that I have no clue as to what it is.
Well guess what. I believe it is you who doesn’t have a clue as to what it is. How do you like them apples.
I’m glad I could amuse you.
Thanks for making my case.
I bet if you were asked to define “competing narrative” for us you’d throw a little hissy fit.
Not that I’m trying to coerce you to do such a thing but you certainly are welcome to try.
Because from where I sit, you don’t seem to believe the word compete means what it says in the dictionary.
Peek- first of all, close the Wiki.
Second of all, point to a post where I ever said there was no such thing as a perjury trap.
I was the one who provided the legal definition of what a perjury trap was, which you of course completely ignored.
And still changing the definition of “compete” I see. LOL!
So I should abandon everything and listen to the superior LIB intellect? 
The general argument from Trump-hating forum members was that there was no such thing. Whether you personally agreed or disagreed with that argument is irrelevant to me.
As is always the case with LIBs, they provide their opinion, or spin, and expect everyone to accept their opinion as fact. I too have an opinion and it is different than yours. That is a fact you can take to the bank.
And we are done.
Nope. The argument was that you can’t be subject to a perjury trap if you haven’t told lies.
1 Like
Whether I personally agreed with the idea that there was no such thing as a perjury trap was irrelevant to you…even though you were responding to MY post?
Thanks for admitting you don’t think of people as individuals but instead simply group them into categories.
And thanks for admitting you believe that the definitions of words and concepts are simply a matter of people’s opinion. It explains a lot.
But here in the real world, “compete” is an actual word with an actual definition. “Perjury trap” is an actual legal term with an actual definition.
1 Like
Peek has been well-trained to believe truth is a matter of opinion, and so therefore an investigator that’s “out to get Trump” will simply allow a truth to be “made up” and when Trump doesn’t agree with that made-up truth, said investigator will accuse him of lying.
Peek thinks this is what a perjury trap is.
Peek doesn’t realize that the real world of investigations and courts still functions reasonably well, and doesn’t operate in the CEC Dystopia he believes it operates in.
I get blasted from multiple forum members every day. I quickly lose track of who said what.
I keep my attacks on LIBs at a general level rather than attacking individual forum members. That is my way of acknowledging that there are exceptions to my broad brush generalizations.
As with everything else, definitions are subject to interpretation. Why else would we be having this disagreement?
Compete has an actual definition. “Competing narrative” also has an actual definition. They are not one and the same, as forum members are attempting to argue.
“Perjury Trap” is one of those terms that is subject to many different interpretations. Legal experts seem to disagree, as do forum members. Your interpretation is but one of many. It carries no real weight with me.
I’ve always thought this poster was female, must be the screen name.
Anyway, he represents the concept of cognitive dissonance to a T.
No factual information that discredits Trump will permeate the bubble, and actual mounting allegations and evidence against him will simply be dismissed out-of-hand, until the head explodes or the subject will no longer discussed at all.
You might want to take another crack at this. Looks to me like you stumbled onto something that you know nothing about!
LIBs believe they have a superior intellect and that when they open their mouth everyone should hang on every word they say. When they speak, the discussion is all but over - as they alone have the truth on their side.
It does sound kind of silly.
