2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

[BlueTiki]

I can do semantics if you insist, but it isn't going to go any better for you than treating our discussion as an audit.

This is or was not a semantics issue.  You made a mistake; I pointed it out . . . and now you’re acting like an emotional, pissy, and triggered, liberal stooge claiming I rejected your premise based upon your error. 

Not true.

I never challenged your argument, based upon your mistaken misclassification of two companies. I questioned your ability to report factual information . . . and if I could rely on what you post, as such.  Period.

I answered your question per your request. That I then asked for your professional perspective has no bearing on that. That you claim it does shows you either intentionally engage in sophistry, or are ignorant re fallacies.

That is not true or accurate. 

I never claimed that my “professional perspective” has any bearing on the accuracy of your mistaken misclassification.  I never asserted or claimed a “professional perspective” when answering your question.  

In fact, quite the opposite.  I declined to differentiate the nuances between stock and shareholder . . . either as a layman or in my capacity as a licensed securities dealer.

Since you're clearly implying that it's an either/or proposition, feel free to try and substantiate it.

I already substantiated the differences in my previous response.
 
It appears it is you who does not understand the difference, between the two asset management companies, their ownership and how income is distributed to those who are “invested” in each.

Simply and non-professionally:  BlackRock stockholders benefit from dividends based on the company’s overall performance.  Vanguard shareholders benefit from revenue generated by the specific fund in which they are invested . . . NOT by overall company performance.
 
Additionally, the same is true with BlackRock (as it is with Vanguard) that investors in funds benefit from revenue generated by the fund in which they are invested. 

Therefore:  BlackRock offers an investor the potential of two revenue streams (as publicly traded AND an asset management company) whereas Vanguard (a non-publicly traded asset management company) can only offer one.

In the bolded statement you get it backwards: if you *had* challenged my use of BlackRock or Vanguard (or other global asset managers, in general), or implied it was a fallacious component to support any of my arguments, there would be no basis for claiming you had engaged in logic chopping. Instead, you used one minor error that has no bearing at all on my premise that the establishment of a global government is sucessfully being advanced by people I describe as globalists, to discredit everything I've presented, and my general credibility.

That is not true.  

I never discredited, challenged, or supported your globalist premise based upon your error, regarding Vanguard. 

Show me where I stated, that because you misstated the corporate structure of Vanguard, I discounted and invalidated your premise regarding the role of asset management companies and their relationship and position, with the global elitists.  THAT is an example logic chopping.

What I did is question your ability and credibility to be accurate with facts and statements . . . when you offer a premise or post anything . . . and strictly MY confidence for MY reliance upon them. MY confidence and MY reliance . . . no one else's . . . they can freely choose for themselves.

I never promoted or encouraged anyone from discounting your opinions or posts, snowflake.   

That's an extreme example of logic chopping, coupled with ad hominem. I'm somewhat surprised that you'd engage in reasoning that is so blatantly fallacious. Did you think I wouldn't notice?

No.  This was not logic chopping.  I questioned your ability to provide factual information for me to unquestioningly rely upon . . . regarding anything you post. 
Just like I do with your beloved MSM.

I hope your globalist handler is proud of you, for following the liberal stooge playbook, and redefining a term to fit your narrative!

For the record, I did a quick search and the source I relied on for Vanguard was inaccurate.

Good for you!  Checking and verifying accuracy and not relying on what someone posts!

And I bet you gave that source a lucid, well-deserved, and a right-solid scolding, for being shamefully inaccurate, too!  Damn those bastards who tricked you!

However, I can only imagine as to the number of other sources you’ve used, that were both incorrect and you failed to verify before posting.

I wasn't concerned with rigor, I merely wanted to see how you'd respond. You've now provided a sufficient number of examples that this can fairly be said to be your modus operandi.

Glad to be of service! 

If or when rigor becomes a concern, may I suggest you consider ED medication?

Only after doing a quick web search . . . naturally.

My response, to your post is above, in red.

Please try and not take it personally . . . I know it's tough not to do as you've just you've entered the liberal stooge apprenticeship and your emotions and hormones are elevated.

For the record, I am not prone to accepting anything I read, as fact.  Except Stop signs.

I never question them.

XOXO