Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
3/4/2025, 11:14:09 PM
X
In reply to:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
300d
@KettlebellDan because he was always a wealthy sucker with a hubris problem and no morals
Dan
@KettlebellDan
·
300d
@GaryMarcus Because of the Larry King interview back then, or the political ad, or something else?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
300d
@KettlebellDan oh they were surely interested
Dan
@KettlebellDan
·
300d
@GaryMarcus Agree it’s really hard to trust or distrust sources like these

I find it hard to believe that Russian was that interested in Trump in 1987 but maybe they do that for any American remotely important like a portfolio
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
300d
@KettlebellDan doesn’t mean what they said isn’t true, and there is a ton of collateral evidence that seems to fit with their story.

even Russia admits, even bragged, how happy they are with Trump.
Dan
@KettlebellDan
·
300d
@GaryMarcus It’s really hard to determine the legitimacy of former kgb officials who stand to make a lot of money by writing books like these

The statement is part of a broader conversation about the legitimacy of claims made by former KGB officials and their implications on public figures like Trump. The tone of the statement is accusatory and dismissive, focusing on personal attacks rather than substantive engagement with the topic.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not strive to do no harm, as it engages in name-calling and personal attacks, which can be harmful. [-2]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not respect the dignity of others, as it engages in derogatory language and could be considered a form of harassment. [-2]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue, as it resorts to personal attacks rather than addressing the argument or evidence presented. [-2]