Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Comey firing - Have you considered..

Aight retards, let's finish up our NA so you can get to your remedial life-skills class.

I told you we'd be introducing a concept called a weighted average. Now I'll tell you about it.

The short-bus version is it's a way to apply weight to a statistic relative to other relevant statistics. As it pertains here, we have two basic arguments. First, the presence or absence of collusion. Second, the timeline by which it was shown. As we've seen, absent weighting you now can say you were 5.6% RIGHT! Woot woot! You're so freaking awesome and I want you to know that. I do love you and so does, I mean, pretty much everyone.

Sigh. I just love building self-esteem in retards.

Anyway. Onward. So, the question is, how do we decide if one is more important than the other, and if so, by how much?

Let's try a few hypotheticals.

- if Donald Trump's own lawyer had conceded campaign collusion say a week sooner or a week later than he did, how much would that matter in the big legal and political picture? I say, didly squat. However-- I'm listening here, guys! Really I am. I CARE about whatever retarded shït you cook up in your addled pinheads. So by all means, contest that as you see fit.

- second, legally and politically, how much difference is there between collusion NEVER being shown, vs. being shown? Example: say Mueller comes out and completely clears Trump, his campaign, and for extra credit gives Putin a hand job? How would that compare to, say, Mueller showing that Trump himself directed a conspiracy to attack America with Russia and then cover it up? By my assessment, that would be the biggest political event, either way, in our lifetimes.

So in short, we have didly squat vs. largest political event of the entire modern era.

So now, let's assign a weight. I think it's fair to say that the specific timeline by which collusion is revealed, within reason, is about a million times less important than the actual showing of same. I mean, duh? But, out of respect for your retard-feelers, let's reduce that by a factor of, uh, "a bunch", and assign it a weight of 100 relative to the timeline argument, which will get a 1. Put another way, it's 100 times more important whether or not a sitting POTUS (sic) and/or his campaign aided and abetted an attack on America than the specific date when that's revealed.

Let's pause a minute for any questions.