> ‘Anyone who agrees with him is a trump supporter'

If I said that, you’d be able to point to where I said it, rather than lying by pretending to quote me but in fact writing something of your own that I didn’t say.

If you want to argue with someone who holds that view, you need to look elsewhere.

If you have a question about what I actually said, feel free to ask it.

> If I said that, you’d be able to point to where I said it, rather than lying by pretending to quote me but in fact writing something I didn’t say.

I did not say 'you said that'. I said: "What is your point? In fact, is it this instead?"

So if that isn't your point, then I'll ask you again before you dodge my question, with an even clearer one for you:

Even when Trump did say "Defund the FBI", What is your point then? Especially when you already knew the answer before asking it?

You said it was my point, and you put it in quotes. If you weren’t intending to make it look like something I said, you wouldn’t have needed to make it look like a quote. You were being deliberately misleading.

You are now asking what my point is, which shows that you don’t actually know, so you were obviously stating a falsehood when you claimed to know as a ’fact’ what my point was.

> Especially when you already knew the answer before asking it?

Believing you can read other people’s minds is a symptom of psychosis.

> You are now asking what my point is, which shows that you don’t actually know, so you were obviously stating a falsehood when you claimed to know as a ’fact’ what my point was.

Did you even make a point in the first place with your original question? Or are you still knowingly dodging mine? I made myself perfectly clear in the second reply to you, and yet you're still unable to directly answer a basic and simple question.

> Believing you can read other people’s minds is a symptom of psychosis.

You choosing to dodge, leads me to think you weren't even making a point in the first place. If you believe you had a point to make, then I'll ask again:

Given that it is true that Mr Trump said "Defund the FBI", What is your point then? What point are you making on your question in the first place?

Have you considered the possibility that the purpose of a question is to discover what other people think?

There are many interesting possible answers to the question. You are welcome to offer one, or as I have already said ask a clarifying question if you don’t understand.

From the guidelines:

“Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.”

I suggest that you might want to stop looking for political ‘points’ to argue against, and consider just having an open discussion.

> Have you considered the possibility that the purpose of a question is to discover what other people think?

Except that I directly answered your question, rather than avoiding it or dodging them which is what you are still actively and currently doing with my question:

'Given that it is true that Mr Trump said "Defund the FBI", What is your point then? What point are you making on your question in the first place?'

What part of this question don't you understand if my first seemingly 'complicated' question "What is your point on this?" was very difficult for you to answer?

> There are many interesting possible answers to the question. You are welcome to offer one, or as I have already said ask a clarifying question if you don’t understand.

You: "Isn’t this the view of former president Trump?"

Me (Second reply): "Even when he said he wants it defunded, what is your point?"

Me (Second reply): I do not care if Trump, Biden, Jan 6 rioters, BLM rioters, Antifa, or anyone says that. The point is, that it is quite clear that the FBI doesn't care and is on no-one's side.

I have already answered it. Everything else is you dodging my question and your inability to even directly answer it.

> “Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.”

So assuming you took the time to read the guidelines, surely your question wasn't flame-baiting, or was it since you still don't have a point for asking your question?

"Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies, generic tangents, and internet tropes."

> I suggest that you might want to stop looking for political ‘points’ to argue against, and consider just having an open discussion.

That starts by answering basic questions, like I did. Rather than dodging them like what you are doing, which isn't good in a discussion. I already told you what I think. Now you can begin by giving a direct answer to my basic question to continue this "open discussion".

Your quote again doesn’t reflect our actual conversation. It’s heavily edited.

What basic question do you claim I didn’t answer? Try asking it in once sentence.