Birdman14

I'll be honest Foxxy you have a niche POV and you use a unique definition of independent to describe yourself that is difficult for people to understand. It's easy for people to infer bias based on the content you post and how you interact with people. You have been wildly consistent over a long period of time which is the reason why you may not be entirely full of shit.

🚨 JUST IN: After TMZ ran a SMEAR PIECE on him, LA mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt took it to them DIRECTLY on their network — he showed up and PUMMELED the lies They tried saying he misled people about living in the trailer because his house burned down — that he's at a "hotel" PRATT FIRES BACK: "So this idea that anyone's like, oh, he's at a hotel! I'm at a hotel because these PSYCHOPATHS are messaging me every day. They're going to kill me because Nithya Raman is calling me a fascist, because I don't want people to have their kids next to drug addicts at the park or stepping in human poop when you get your matcha!" 🔥🔥🔥 "[The trailer] is where I will live until I have a new house...Where my kids are in Santa Barbara right now is a temporary housing. This is where I live. This is where they burn my house down. So this semantics or the nuance of this is the consequences of their failed leadership!" "Again, I don't live at the Hotel Bel Air...I don't live in the Santa Barbara." "That's where Karen Bass, Mayor Bass, BURNED DOWN MY HOUSE!" THE LIES WON'T WORK

@CuriousMrFox101 @MPD_6228 @EricLDaugh I disagree when you look at the timing of the political campaign ad, the rhetorical and symbolic language commonly used in those ads, and the lack of any pattern establishing his intent to mislead viewers.

@CuriousMrFox101 @MPD_6228 @EricLDaugh I said she was lying because it's reasonable to believe that's information the Mayor of LA should know or would have been briefed on in the last 16 months since the fire.

@CuriousMrFox101 @MPD_6228 @EricLDaugh I don’t think because she was wrong she lied. I gave you my reasons on why I believe she knew or should have known before the debate and you disagreed.

I gave you my reasons on why I thought she lied and in your opinion, it doesn't meet your standard. Which is fine. You made the claim that Pratt lied and failed to provide any evidence otherwise and specified it was just your opinion. Your logic as to why doesn't meet my standard. At the end of the day we are just left with our opinions.

@CuriousMrFox101 @MPD_6228 @EricLDaugh Then why even make the post that Pratt lied if you aren't trying to convince anyone that he lied?

@CuriousMrFox101 @MPD_6228 @EricLDaugh Where did I say I want you to believe that Bass lied? We both just said they lied and argued why or why not.

@CuriousMrFox101 @MPD_6228 @EricLDaugh You want me to believe Pratt lied and you have failed to establish any evidence of intent and have failed to convince me.

I gave you the reasons why I believe it was reasonable that she knew about the wind restrictions prior to the debate. You just disagreed. This is exactly my point. TO YOU Pratt lied. You can't prove intent but you believe there is enough to infer it. I believe Bass lied. I'm inferring based on the reasons I gave you earlier that she would have been briefed on the information and it’s reasonable to believe that's something she should know. Circling all the way back to my original point that it's subjective to the way each individual perceives the information.

@CuriousMrFox101 @MPD_6228 @EricLDaugh I've also asked for you to provide proof or facts of intent for Pratt and you have failed to do so. Courtroom certainty and verifiable facts are usually your standard for proof. You usually don't deal with things that involve context or inference.

@CuriousMrFox101 @MPD_6228 @EricLDaugh How so?

@CuriousMrFox101 @MPD_6228 @EricLDaugh Exactly.

@CuriousMrFox101 @MPD_6228 @EricLDaugh You failed to prove intent for Pratt. Which is exactly the point. Your take is just your personal opinion based on your personal application of deception inference not fact.

More than anything your argument is superficially plausible but fundamentally flawed when you dig into the logic, consistency, and application of standards. It’s your classic gotcha that relies on selective framing, shifting evidentiary bars, and treating inference as decisive in one case while demanding more in the other.

Deception inference is subjective to each person. There is no single agreed-upon standard because it is inherently probabilistic, context-dependent, and subjective. Proving it usually requires showing systematic patterns, not isolated errors. Which in the case of Pratt you have failed to provide any evidence outside of the campaign ad to establish a pattern or intent.

A mayor in a wildfire-prone area should know the key wind speed thresholds that affect aerial firefighting operations. It’s a core part of responsible emergency management and public safety leadership. It’s standard for someone in the Mayor of Los Angeles’s position to be briefed on detailed wind mph data sustained speeds, gusts, forecasts, and variations during a major wildfire event. If she honestly didn't know thats alarming for entirely different reasons.