Total posts: 5,890
-->
@Greyparrot
It’s a conspiracy theory when you are a rrrracist RepublicanFixed that
No, all you did was strawman my position in a clear example of how little interest you have in an actual intelligent discussion.
And if anyone needed more proof of that…
DoubleR wants to make the entire nation of America like the disaster New York is through the totalitarian authority of the Federal government of elites in DC.
Setting the stupidity of this post aside, how about letting me explain what I want? Oh never mind, why argue with me when a fictional DoubleR is so much easier to knock down?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Did you know that Maryland and Illinois rank 1 and 3 respectively in the most gerrymandered districts?
According to who? NC is every bit as bad as Maryland and probably worse, but more importantly, Republicans have the rest. Republicans will draw 187 congressional districts to Democrats 75 in large part due to large blue states who actually believe in drawing fair congressional districts.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I thought ballot harvesting was a right wing conspiracy?
It’s a conspiracy theory when you allege that it did happen without evidence, as Republicans are doing all across the country. You know what the 2018 race had? Evidence.
Created:
-->
@Unpopular
Can you name an election where fraud has impacted an outcome, outside the 2020 presidential election
There was that congressional race in 2018 that had to be redone because of fraudulent votes… by the republicans. It’s the only case in recent memory, but why let facts get in the way?
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Because republicans are better at it than democrats
So in other words, democracy really isn’t for you.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I saw an internal democratic memo about it. Basically half of his policies are not a part of the republican platform and therefore something Democrats would support
There is no Republican platform, it’s just whatever Trump says.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Do I really have to go nk over the accusations that Bill Clinton raped people and that Trh mko p nk is a russian spy, instead of you not using some common sense here?
What you need to do is back up your claims with evidence. You claimed I had no room to talk about getting rid of party allegiance. Do you have any actual reason to believe this, or were you just making shit up and are now trying to find evidence to justify it?
Common sense is not an argument, it’s your excuse for not making an argument and instead acting like your point of view should be accepted by default. The problem is this is a debate site. Here you actually have to defend your BS.
you think Trumpnis compromised and bill clinton would never rape a woman right?
Trump has 26 accusers, has never in his life shown respect for women, was caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting them and is a narcissist. And then there’s this really weird thing he has going on with his daughters. Yeah, he’s definitely a creep who I have little reason to doubt is guilty.
Clinton had his issues and has some accusers as well, so there’s definitely something wrong there. I know a lot less about his accusers because I was 20 years old last time he was relevant in politics so quite frankly, I didn’t care then and I have far less of a reason to care now.
Does that answer your question?
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I knew you would see similar witch hunts as different based on what political party each identifies with. . Thanks for confirming
Sent this to the wrong person. It has nothing to do with anything I have said.
My comment was as follows…
Tell you what, why don't you give me an example that you think fits either scenario and I'll tell you what I actually think about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Orangemanbad was a much more powerful cult than the Trump cult could ever be
Orangemanbad is a cult? Wow. “I know you are but what am I” worked in third grade. Do better.
It's the reason why California is experiencing Blackouts.It's the reason why 50% of the police left in Orangmanbad cult territory.It's the reason why there is a crisis at the border right now.It's the reason why Biden got mocked mercilessly from all the G7 nations.It's the reason why Russia got its pipeline built with no resistance.It's the reason why cyberattacks were dismissed casually by elites in DC.
All of these examples are complete nonsense, but I’m not going through all of them. Pick one, just one, that you can actually stand by and I will enlighten you as to why.
And that's just the 1st 6 months of Orangemanbad. We still have more to go.
Yes, more to go of nut jobs equating Biden stuttering with Trump suggesting we drop a nuke inside a hurricane.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
So, according to the rationale, Biden should go shoot that guy.
According to what rationale? What are you talking about?
I was being serious BTW, I would really like an answer to how you know it was Russia and not some 400 pound guy sitting on someone’s bed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump didn't create the Orangemanbad fuckery.
No, he didn’t. MAGA cult followers did as a way to dismiss valid criticisms of Trump with no thought whatsoever.
Trump stands on the world stage and takes Putin’s side over his own intelligence agencies, left wing freaks out… orangemanbad.
Trump announces to the world that the next G7 summit will be held in his own golf resort, left wing freaks out… orangemanbad.
The FBI foils a plot to kidnap and kill an American governor. Trump complains that the Governor did not personally thank him, and later goes on to to attack that same Governor (did I just mention they tried to kill her?). The left freaks out… orangemanbad.
There is no president in the history of the United States that would have even thought to do any of these things, or any of a literal hundred other things I could mention. And there is absolutely no way you or any of your cult followers would have accepted this from any president before, especially a democrat. Hell you started a whole thread about how Biden isn’t being tough enough on Putin for not taking any tangible action on a hack that as far as we know he had no personal involvement in. But go on and tell me all about this orangemanbad and how it points to anything real.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Who, exactly, did Biden shoot when our energy sector was attacked, creating lines at gas stations throughout the South? Hmmm? By giving Putin an open door to other than the 16 holies?
How do you know it was Russia and not some 400 pound guy sitting on someone's bed?
Created:
you could make the case that the supernatural exists beyond a preponderance of the evidence. yet, despite this, atheists are atheists and have faith in nothing.
If you had the preponderance of the evidence you wouldn't need faith.
Really curious to hear this evidence for the supernatural you claim to have.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
You made the claim. Do you have any substantiation for it or not?
Tell you what, why don't you give me an example that you think fits either scenario and I'll tell you what I actually think about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
If you answer no, without speculating, please explain why human experience can't be attributed to the existence of a Creator.
Things that do not exist cannot be the cause of other things, therefore you need to prove that something exists *before* you can put it forward as a candidate explanation.
After all, if God did not exist how could there be any experience of that nature?
Confirmation bias. How many times has personal experience revealed someone else's God?
Created:
Posted in:
Amazing how America elects the first president in history who regards his political opposition as the enemy of the country, and then 4 years later the country is tearing itself apart. It's almost as if the two were related.
Created:
Posted in:
Also, I am the official president of Dart, until and if I am ever defeated in a fair election.
DART will be using Dominion voting machines to tabulate the totals, so that ain't be possible.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Better to just get rid of party allegiance.I don't disagree, but you have no room to talk. It is funny how half of Trump's policies were popular with liberals until...
You're not talking to "liberals". You're talking to me. So go on, explain to me how I have no room to talk. I'll wait.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Nobody is admitting to election fraud LOL. You have to look at other forms of fraud or cheating to see who is more inclined to do it.
Liberals being more inclined to cheat in relationships isn't surprising in the least given that liberals are generally far more open about sex and sexuality, while conservatives are far more likely to have been raised to think that sex is a dirty thing which the Lord will look down on them for expressing.
But you think the latter group is just as likely to admit these things to a pollster?
So yes, these things are entirely unrelated, and that's before considering the only question that matters... Why the disparity in the two groups? That's a question you don't even consider, because you got the answer you wanted out of it so you stopped looking.
This is why you believe the absurd things you do. Turns out that when you start off looking for the dots you want to connect, they can be pretty easy to find. This is where stopping at common sense gets you.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If slavery becomes political, I might have to switch party allegiance.
Better to just get rid of party allegiance.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Funny how democrats who are so accepting of honosexuals seem to think it is an insult to call somebody a closeted homo though
The difference is that one loves their lives honestly with pride and self respect.
Not that I condone the insult…
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Provide one single piece of evidence for this claim.The study mentioned in this article…
Is this a joke? The study you linked is about engaging in extra marital affairs. What does that have to do with committing election fraud?
Why don't you have common sense though? If you tell me conservatives are more likely to change their own oil, I won't ask for a study to prove it, I'd just apply common sense.
My common sense tells me you have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about and have made no effort to understand the links and articles you cite as evidence. My common sense also tells me that conservatives are far more likely to commit voter fraud because:
A) They are the ones who don’t see all Americans as legitimate and are therefore far more likely to see themselves committing voter fraud as justified, and
B) The constant and widespread belief in the mythical epidemic of voter fraud despite having no evidence of it and plenty of evidence to the contrary, strongly suggests this all to be the product of projection.
But this is a debate site, we’re here because common sense is not good enough. If you want to be able to substantiate your claims, which is kind of the whole point of these exchanges, you need to provide facts coupled with reasoned argument for the things you spout.
If just 2% of democrats got 3 and all republicans got one, that can shift the election as well, and would be more likely to get dismissed or go unnoticed.
I asked if you had evidence
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Also cheating would not be a wash, liberals are more inclined to cheat.
Provide one single piece of evidence for this claim.
Also there is reports that democrats were going door to door in some areas asking registered democrats if they had remembered to vote.
That’s called a ground game. It’s literally what your campaign donations fund.
LoL, you really consider that fair? To send all democrats 3 ballots so they have extra reminders to vote and with state money and only send one ballot to republicans so if it is lost in the mail, they are less inclined to vote?
Do you have any evidence that this was an operation targeted at democrats, or did you really just jump from “my wife got 3” to “all democrats got 3”?
Did you hear about the area in Arizona where magic markers were handed out to Republican voters, so their ballot would be invalid?
Did you hear about the time that claim was fact checked and turned out to be complete BS?
There are thousands of examples of things like this.
Of course there are, that’s the beauty of the Internet. Now every idiot can have a platform to spread complete nonsense. It’s doesn’t matter what you’re looking for, there is always someone out there selling it to you.
The problem for you is that 1000 unsubstantiated claims do not equal 1 valid one. This tactic of throwing out one claim after another without making any effort to stand by any single claim is what conspiracy theorists have been using to justify everything from the moon landings to 9/11.
Gee, I feel like I’ve said this to you before.
Let me ask you… do you consider yourself a conspiracy theorist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Do you think this is a coincidence?
Coincidence has nothing to do with this. We just went through a pandemic of a highly contagious virus. How do you stop or at least slow down a contagious virus from spreading? Less human contact, same instinct you follow when someone shows up to work coughing and sneezing. So of course this would have a disproportionate effect on people of lower incomes who work with their hands instead of their fingers. What about this seems suspect to you?
Are you really so sure this wasn't intentional? Do you really believe the ruling class has your interests at heart?
The ruling class are not a collective, we’re not talking about the Borg here. We’re a world of individuals each looking out for our own personal best interests. Those who stood to gain from lockdowns were more inclined to push for them. Those who were not, felt far less inclined. But that fight took place on the grounds of reason, which seems to be completely absent from your analysis.
The old adage of “look who benefitted” is one of the oldest in the conspiracy theorist handbook. It’s a fallacy because it presumes at the outset not only that there was a conspiracy, but also that the people who benefitted are the perpetrators. People benefit from things they had nothing to do with all the time. You’re asking the wrong question while ignoring all of the implications of where your questions lead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You asked for the part you don’t get:1 The popular nationwide vote is meaningless.2. Presidential candidates do not visit every state, but, at least in the last two elections, your Democrats lack it more than Republicans. Go cry I your own beer.
Repeating yourself is not answering the question.
The national popular vote is meaningless with regards to who actually becomes president in our current system. That is not what the conversation was about. You are talking to yourself.
I did bring up presidential candidates and what states they visited, it had nothing to do with who’s better between democrats and republicans.
I suggest you read threads before chiming in to tell people what they don’t understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Theory 3: Lockdowns are not, and never were, about "safety" or "public health." The "scientific" evidence to support their efficacy, even independent of COVID, is virtually non-existent outside of a fringe strain of research that was the offshoot of Neil Ferguson's quackery at Imperial College in London.…Linking lockdowns to safety was the single greatest lie that any government has ever told its people. It is a complete and utter fabrication. And yet, it has become "common knowledge" among any watcher of the BBC, Sky News, any Canadian news station and most Australian news sources. They even framed it from the perspective of something like a health-based noblesse oblige: "stay home, save lives."I'm not saying everyone who repeated that bullshit knew they were being used. I'm saying everyone who did is a useful idiot to the power-holding interests that exploited this crisis to transform it into the single greatest transfer of wealth in recorded history from the worlds' rising middle classes, in countries developed and developing, to the hands of private capital.
So to be clear… you believe a bunch of (or a few) powerful individuals made the decision to pretend that lockdowns were needed, and convince the entire world of this, so that wealth could be transferred to them. And the US government - lead by the biggest anti-lockdown mouthpiece in the world, was the largest purveyor of this global conspiracy?
Do I have that right?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There were people celebrating the imprisonment of political opposition in Russia too. America isn't special anymore.
You didn’t even attempt to respond to anything I said or substantiate anything you said. Why do you bother?
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Intent and mindset matters.
So does reality.
There is no evidence for what they believe, it’s all made up. That is an important factor in sentencing. A person willing to act violently on their belief is a danger to society. A person willing to act violently and is gullible enough to believe crackpot conspiracy theories… that’s another level.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
He is asking that radicalized people be reported
Radicalized… *towards violence *. You seem to have conveniently left that part out.
Is there a reason you take issue with this?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Once America decides taking selfies and cosplaying in the Capitol is an "attack", America then has zero moral ground to condemn any other nation on the planet for how they treat their political opposition.
This is just a whole new level of stupid.
Focusing in on the selfies while ignoring the barricades plowed through, the windows broken, the 140 officers injured, the deficating in the hallways, the chants of hanging the VP, the breaking into of congressional offices, and the clearing out of both chambers for the first time since 9/11… is the laziest attempt at propaganda I’ve ever seen. Do better.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
In perhaps a lead up to what is about to happen with false flags, biden is asking citizens to report on people with right wing views possibly to be rounded up later. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/06/15/biden-administration-asks-americans-to-report-potentially-radicalized-friends-and-family/
Can you please point me to where in this article Biden said anything even remotely like this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
You don't think that a guy making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year despite not speaking their language and being a crack addict is suspicious?
Does this whole situation reek? Yes. It reeks of privilege. It reeks of a private company trying to curry favor by hiring a VP’s kid. It reeks of a private company trying to use that favor for political influence.
Key word here: *trying*
We don’t investigate someone because someone else *tried* to influence them. If we did we’d be investigating every congressman and Senator every time they sit down with a lobbyist.
You need a valid predicate, that is, an actual link between the efforts of the alleged influencer and the actions of the alleged influencee. Trump had no link. There was nothing here other than baseless speculation centered entirely on what Burisma was *trying* to do.
Baseless speculation is not a valid predicate to launch an investigation.
And I don't even know about this Ivanka story
Here’s a link, in case you actually care about corruption involving politicians being influenced by favors to their kids
I don't know what evidence Trump and Giuliani were referring to. But they have more access to government intel than either of us.
So in other words, you just believe whatever Trump says. A proven pathological liar. Wow.
I promise you, if they had any more to this they would have used it during the impeachment trial and certainly made sure it went public before the election.
Nixon did nothing wrong. Not even once.
You cannot be serious.
Also, Clinton and Trump both had increased approval ratings after impeachment acquittals, so I'd say it is hard to argue that being cleared doesn't help you.
Irrelevant. Impeachment trials are political, so they push everyone into their partisan corners making it easy for sitting presidents to play the victim (especially when your crime against humanity is lying about a blow job). That is an entirely different thing than being under investigation for corruption by a federal authority.
Obama's FBI investigated the Trump campaign with FISA warrants that lacked probable cause. But now you have a problem with investigating political opponents.
Irrelevant for so many reasons.
The warrants lacked probable cause. That requires a much higher bar than opening in investigation.
No one ever said I don’t have a problem with this.
Obama had no personal involvement. This was done by the justice department, the actual authority responsible for investigating impropriety.
The FBI did not disclose even the fact that this investigation was taking place till well after the election, contrasting entirely with Trump who only wanted the announcement while showing no real interest in the actual investigation.
And the big one… nothing was sought after in exchange for the investigation. The FBI was interested in the facts, that’s all, even if they were wrong for the methods they used.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Here's what you don't get:Trump made 79 visits in 19 states as an incumbent.Biden made 57 visits to 13 states as a wanna-be.Presidential candidates do not spend time in states that are a virtual locks, but even Hillaryous Balloon Girl vs Trump:Trump, 45 states visitedClinton, 37 states visited.
What makes you think that I don’t get anything you just said, and what does any of this have to do with the conversation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Irrelevant considering he’s been under audit for years and lawyers/accountants reccomend you don’t release numbers till it’s done. You really think the IRS won’t be ruthless if they find anything.
Trump has never shown an iota of evidence that he was under audit, and he has demonstrated repeatedly the lengths he will go to to keep them secret. And even if it were true it’s still completely irrelevant, there is nothing about being audited that requires the tax payer to keep his returns private.
Plus… he’s still under audit since 2015? Really?
This is a complete BS excuse made only by people who are not serious.
But again, this is all irrelevant to the conversation. Precedent has been set, Trump ignored it and you have no issue with that, even though this precedent is far more meaningful, far more relevant to our country today, and far more established. Turns out you really don’t believe precedent is something to be upheld Surprise surprise.
Eisenhower nominated Brennan as a recess appt a month before the election. Democratic Senate didn’t confirm him till after Eisenhower overwhelmingly won re-election.
What does this have to do with anything? Democrats were on recess, they didn’t hold the seat open declaring that it’s an election year so the people must decide. In fact that wasn’t the case in most of the examples you are citing as precedent. Just one more reason why this is a terrible argument.
Yes they were. They clearly said if a vacancy was open where the same party held the Presidency and Senate they’d fill the seat just as it always had been done.
Show me one Republican making this argument after Scalia died.
I have always said that’s the game. It’s politics. It’s up to the political parties. When the time comes the Constitution benefits Republicans and at another time it benefits Democrats.
I look forward to hearing that same tone from you the next time a debate about court packing or adding DC & PR comes up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The precedent is that vacancies that occur in Presidential years when opposite parties aren’t filled because the people will choose the government that will choose all three branches of government.
This reminds me of when I watch a baseball game and the announcer will try to make something mundane sound amazing; “this is the first time in 50 years that a Hispanic player has hit 2 home runs both batting lefty in Yankee stadium as a visitor”. Like what?
“So it’s not the seat being filled in an election year, those don’t count, it has to be a vacancy created in an election year.
“And we must hold it open because we say the people should decide”
“But of it’s our guy in the White House, then we need to decide”
There is no rational defense of this, so pointing to precedent is ridiculous. Precedent is not law, if you don’t agree with it you don’t follow it. How many precedents has Donald Trump tossed in the trash? Somehow I suspect if I search through your comments I will find no criticism of him for not releasing his tax returns.
The reason precedents do matter is because they set the tone for how things are *expected* to go moving forward. You can’t legislate everything. So a precedent that says presidential candidates release their tax returns becomes a norm, voters expect to see it. SC decisions become precedents within our society because we expect future rulings will reflect them, which in turn impacts how people proceed. There was no expectation set here. Using the 1800’s as an excuse is just wholly dishonest, it was a long dead and forgotten precedent resurrected for nothing more than political purposes.
This reminds me what Ramshutu was talking about; the period where talking points are thrown at the wall until one sticks. When republicans like Lindsay Graham were asked what they would do in 2020 if a vacancy opened none of them were talking about this. If republican voters were polled in 2019 I bet less than 0.1% of them could have quoted the historical precedent you’re now citing but we both know a majority would have supported it anyway, certainly no one on the left believed republicans actually believed the arguments they made in 2016. I’m also willing to bet you were on board with this well before you knew anything about this “past precedent” you now cite, you were just waiting for them to spoon feed you your justification.
I would respect you if you just came out and said “yeah that was f*ucked up, but hey that’s the game”. But you don’t, you instead pretend you believe this garbage because you know if you admit to that you no longer have justification for your fake outrage about what democrats are trying to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You still don't get it. Biden won nothing by popular vote, and neither did Hillaryous Balloon Girl, because that is not how presidents are elected. Period.
I am well aware of how US elections work. You forgot to mention the part I don’t get.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
If you are against the electoral college that is totally fine. But it isn’t an undemocratic system designed to favor republicans. As coalitions change parties advantage ebbs and flows. Personally I believe that the electoral college (and the senate) incentivizes running up small margins in lots of different places rather than massive margins in a few places, and sort of forces compromise so I like the system.
I never said it was designed to favor republicans. I realize that is what the word “rigged” implies, but hey Trump says it all the time so I figure his followers wouldn’t care about a little detail like that.
I disagree on whether it’s a good system that forces compromise, I’d say it does the exact opposite. It concentrates power in the hands of a small few undecideds rather than being forced to consider everything. When was the last time a presidential candidate focused on the problems of black voters in Kansas, or rural voters in NY? Under our current system they just don’t matter. I think a president should care about more than just the issues of a couple of swing states.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Are you claiming it’s not? What is one measly representative from Wyoming against the 53 people of California. California has much more influence in the House than Wyoming.
Larger states, by definition, have more people. The entire concept of democracy is that the most votes wins. Calling the election “rigged in favor of the larger states” is nonsensical.
As far as your CA vs WY example, CA has 53 seats to WY’s 1, but CA still has 70x WY’s population, so if you live in WY your vote still counts for more than if you live in CA. *That* is the point of this whole conversation. What we do about it or whether we even should is an entirely different question I haven’t even started on. I know it’s convenient for you to just label and attack everything I say as the product of a constitution hating liberal hack, but at that point you are arguing with yourself.
No it wasn’t. Obama won 53-46, but Dems had 60 seats. 7 seats better than Obama’s margin. Let’s look more recently. Biden won 51-47 and the margin is 50-50. One seat worse than Biden’s margin.
The 60 seat majority didn’t come from one election, it began in 06 when it became clear that the Iraq war was a complete waste and the country was ready for a sea change.
I’m talking about the senate today and its prospects for the foreseeable future. If the republicans were doing anything with their majorities besides denying every democratic court seat while jamming through every republican one this wouldn’t be a major topic.
Level the playing field? What? Statehood for DC would be a violation of the 23rd Amendment not to mention having the federal capital in a state completely overthrowing the balance of power. Same thing with PR. You want 4 unquestionably Democratic senators, when I showed you the Senate is fine as an institution and has and will flip from time to time.
Nonsense. The 23rd amendment grants DC three electoral college votes. Nothing about that prohibits DC from becoming a state.
Overthrowing the balance of power? What?
Same thing with PR? What?
I have yet in this conversation to talk about what I want other than for you to admit that republicans have nothing without the fact that their votes count more, and that the left is right to be pissed about that considering that the right’s only serious agenda item right now seems to be stopping the left from voting.
Packing the court for political reasons is exactly what the Founding Fathers did not want.
Then you oppose Mitch McConnell’s hypocrisy in his handling of SC picks? No, of course you don’t.
Ya so? I’m showing you the precedent that dates back to the 1840s that proves McConnell was following precedent. It’s your job to prove that nominations were made and confirmed in Presidential election years by opposite party control.
Actually, my only job is to point out how weak your argument is given that you have to go back almost 2 centuries to find a comparable example that fits your Cherry picked narrative.
The fact that the senate and presidency were controlled by different parties was a justification not one republican gave in 2016 when they refused to hold a vote on Garland. All of a sudden in 2020 it’s their main argument. It’s beyond obvious what this is about.
It’s also just a terrible argument. The conversation here is about how what republicans did was wrong. “Because we can” is not a valid defense.
Oh and BTW, Reagan’s pick (Kennedy) was approved 97-0 in 88 (an election year) by a majority democratic senate.
Again you’re the one arguing for partisanship.
I’m not arguing for anything, but in defense of those who are, all democrats are doing (or trying to do) is respond to what republicans have done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I think it is quite clear what the point is. A guy who is in charge of the most powerful country in the world’s diplomacy has a crack-addict son that speaks no Ukrainian making absurd amounts of money in a field he knows nothing about.
Still waiting for the part where you explain why any of this matters.
The fact that Hunter was battling a crack addiction - irrelevant
The fact that he doesn’t speak Ukrainian - irrelevant
My tax dollars were not paying Hunter’s salary, and Hunter had no authority within the US government. The absurd amount of money he was being paid came from a private company who has every right to pay their employees whatever they want.
If you want to argue that the US has a vested interest in this you need to link this to US affairs. Baseless speculation is not a link.
Moreover, it’s breathtakingly hypocritical for you to argue that this warrants a federal investigation while apparently not giving a rats ass about Ivanka, an actual federal employee, who dad is the sitting president, receiving patents from multiple foreign governments, many of which were approved right after Ivanka met with their prime ministers. It seems quite obvious what this is really about.
quite clearly you think there is nothing special about his relationship to the Vice President and that he is just an average private citizen, unless you were purposely being deceptive in your phrasing.
There is nothing special about his relationship from a law enforcement standpoint. Hunter has no authority and swore no oath, so he is not obliged to the same ethics that actual office holders and federal employees are.
This was supposed to be about Joe Biden. Show me what evidence Trump had on Joe Biden at the time of the phone call to Ukraine.
I do, but this is a gray area where it is both in Trump’s interest and ours to know if Biden is corrupt or not.If he is, then it helps Trump and voters. If he isn’t, then nobody is helped, except maybe Biden getting cleared.
There are grey areas here but it really isn’t that complicated. There fact that an argument can be made for some hypothetical benefit to the US is an absurd standard. Nixon could have easily made the same argument; “duh I was spying on them to see if they are corrupt because if they are the US needs to know!”. Any president can invent a reason why the country would benefit.
That’s why we ask what the primary intention was. To argue that Trump was primarily concerned about corruption in Ukraine is laughable. None of the context surrounding this situation supports that narrative and all of it contradicts it. And have you ever seen Trump fight back against corruption anywhere? Ever?
To argue that Biden would have benefited from “being cleared” is equally absurd. Investigations require a valid predicate. Because of this fact, we have all developed a strong skepticism towards someone’s innocence when we learn they are under investigation. The mere announcement of that investigation would have hurt Biden’s credibility and therefor weakened him politically. That’s common sense. Trump did not have that predicate, so what he was really trying to do was to steal that credibility from real investigative bodies in order to smear his opponent.
Well then that’s just a fundamental disagreement.
I’m not convinced of that. I don’t buy for a second that you would see it the same way if this were Biden, Clinton, or Obama. I don’t buy for a second that you really don’t see an issue with a US president going around the justice department to investigate his own political rival, and use US foreign aid to do it. Some things are just so obvious they shouldn’t need explaining.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Stop believing the hype and do your own investigation into this stuff. Pure and simple: the media lies.
Joe Biden won by 7 million votes, yet 45k votes in 3 states would have given Trump the election. Hillary won by 3 million votes and lost the EC. Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections yet have held the White House for the same number of years as republicans. This isn’t complicated, please stop projecting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The system is rigged towards smaller states as was intended. Just as how the House is rigged towards larger states as was intended
Rigged towards the larger states? Do you understand how nonsensical that is?
Your problem is that it benefits Republicans at this point in time just because you’re liberal. However for a much much longer time prior, it didn’t benefit either party. The Senate just like the House routinely changed hands. Just look at 2008 when Democrats had a 60 seat majority - something unthinkable for Republicans.
My problem is that the system has become disconnected from the American people. No one complained about the senate in 2008 because the 60 seat majority was a reflection of where the country was at that time. The current senate makeup is not.
And for the umpteenth time since you keep ignoring this point… I’m not arguing in favor of any specific solution to this. My issue is two fold; first is the fact that people like you pretend there is nothing wrong with this. “Look it’s what the founders intended”. Yeah the founders also designated black people as 3/5ths of a person. It turns out not everything they came up with were good ideas, and the bad ideas have been changed over time because *that* is the greatest single feature of the constitution… the ability to change what is no longer appropriate for the times. A concept you completely disregard.
The second issue is that people like you point to the constitution as if anything within it is great by definition, but when the democrats use it for their advantage you lose your shit. Look at the right wing freak out over statehood for DC and PR, or adding more justices. You guys act like we’re the ones trying to rig the election process because we’re trying to level the playing field. That’s absurd.
I’ll have you know that gerrymandering is as old as the nation. Our Founding Fathers did it.
I’m well aware of how old gerrymandering is. I brought it up because it’s a clear example of how democrats have demonstrated far greater value of election fairness, and makes clear that republicans are not winning the House because of their ideas.
That’s ok though cause what you said is blatantly false. John Tyler faced a vacancy in December of 1843. Another seat opened up In April of 1844. The first seat was filled after the election in February of 1845 because Nelson was preeminently qualified and the second seat was appointed by Polk and filled in August 1846.
You do know the civil war took place in the 1860’s right?
I just see one thing - the Constitution.
Nonsense. You see only what benefits you, and right now that’s the constitution. It really saiys a lot about your position that you cannot come up with one argument to say that any of this is right, all you can do is argue that you have the right. Big difference. Like I said and you ignored, republicans would never stand for this of the roles were reversed.
Your party is downright against the Constitution.
Coming from someone who supports Trump… wow, what a joke.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
They didn’t rig it, the Founding Fathers did on purpose.
Republicans didn’t do it, the Founding Fathers did on purpose.
You’re having a different conversation. The how or why is irrelevant to the is. The system is rigged for republicans. That’s a fact. Can you admit that or not?
I know I did get into the how on the other two points, but there was a different reason for that which I’ll get to…
Not my fault Democrats are incompetent.
Easily the most telling thing I’ve ever heard you say.
Clearly, you think instituting a system that values fairness is incompetence. I’ll have more on that as well.
Actually that’s false. History is on the side of Republicans. No nominee when the Presidency and Senate are of opposite parties has been approved during a presidential year.
History has taken no side on this, It’s classic obfuscation. No SC vacancy has ever been held open for a year because of an election. The last time we had a year long vacancy on the SC was during the US civil war. And the reason it sat vacant for a year… was because of the US civil war.
You think the Constitution is rigged. I think it’s genius
I never said the constitution was rigged, I said the US election process is rigged. And it is. That’s a fact.
The question at hand here is whether that is a problem. I think it is, you think it’s not. The reason for our differences is because I’m looking towards our future, your looking towards our past. So which side is more legitimate?
This isn’t a difficult question to answer. Just imagine if the roles were flipped. I mean seriously, tell me what republicans would do if they won the popular vote but lost the election, got more senate and House votes yet we’re in the minority in both. There is no world in which that happens and republicans don’t toss the constitution in the shredder. And how obvious is it that you would support it? Because you already admitted that valuing election fairness over power = incompetence.
But what about democrats? Aren’t they just taking the side that’s convenient for them? Well, maybe. But don’t we have proof that they actually value fairness? Yes, that’s why republicans gave the advantage in the house.
You’re wrong here, and I think you know that.
Actually it’s your side that denies equality. Affirmative Action…
Affirmative action was an attempt to level the playing field for those who were disadvantaged. Fighting back against oppression is not oppression, the same way fighting back against election rigging is not election rigging. The projection of the right never ceases to amaze me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Let's say there are credible rumors and some surface-level information going around suggesting that Romney is taking bribes from the mob, but the justice department doesn't do anything about it. No investigations.
Then no investigations. That’s what the justice department is there for, and we rely on them because that’s where we have our actual experts who understand things like what counts as a valid predicate for an investigation, what is ethical, what is legal, and are bound by these principals. You know who fits none of that? Guys like level Lev Parnez who held no position in government and yet Trump tells him to remove the US ambassador. Or Rudy Giuliani who is not employed by any government agency and yet leading the way on investigating Biden. It’s absurd to claim this, on its face if nothing else, appears perfectly legit.
A free press that gets banned from Twitter when they start digging into these corruption stories, eh?
It speaks to the level of desperation required to defend the indefensible when you have to portray, as your argument, the idea that the free press of this country is beholden to Twitter.
the private citizen that you mentioned just so happens to be the vice president's son. The very same vice president that was put in charge of Ukraine policy.
Your point?
This just isn’t serious. First of all, a private citizen getting a job at a private company is of no interest to the United States…Crazy, and calling Hunter "just a private citizen" right after you criticize me for: "Turns out that when you restate someone else’s comment and leave out the important part, it’s easy to make their statement sound dumb"
Crazy how you continue to make shit up about my argument just so you can accuse me of doing the misrepresenting. I never used the word “just”, you did.
And you think what? That Ukraine would do a false investigation fit with false evidence of some corruption? Biden threatened to not give them a loan unless they fired a prosecutor. You use leverage to get things done.
Thankfully, Ukraine never needed to worry about that since the story became public and the Trump administration tried to go along as if it never happened.
Using leverage to get things done for the country is fine, that’s what people in power are supposed to do. Using that leverage for your own personal gain is not, that’s the literal definition of corruption. Do you not understand the difference?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Not illegals. Sorry, to be légala if Democrats get their way.
Can you provide a single fact to back up that statement? No, of course you can’t.
The nation wouldn’t have formed without the Connecticut Compromise. What you said had no impact on the structure of the Senate itself. It was clearly defined as a check against population based representation which big states favored
At the time of the compromise the disparity between the largest vs smallest state was 12:1. Today that disparity is 70:1. I highly doubt the compromise would have been made under today’s circumstances. But that’s hardly relevant, I’m not advocating for abolishing the current senate makeup.
The system is rigged for the right in every way. The senate is constitutionally gerrymandered for republicans. The electoral college gives rural voters a louder voice in who becomes president than urban voters. And republicans will draw the lines for 187 congressional districts this year vs 75 for democrats. Why? Because Democratic states like NY and CA had the brilliant idea to create bipartisan redistricting committees. Even the Supreme Court now has a 6-3 conservative majority. Why? Because the senate, controlled by republicans despite the democrats getting more votes, decided that rules restricting SC seats only apply to democrats.
What I really want is just for you to admit:
A) That Republican Party can only win elections because the system is rigged in their favor, and
B) That it’s the right, not the left, that are actually pulling the power grabs here. The constant allegations of the left cheating is simply projection. The left has shown clearly that it values equality, the right has shown that they value anything that gives them the advantage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
It only makes sense because you clearly aren’t interested in facts. No serious person would claim republicans being “honest people” as a justification for claiming the left commits more voter fraud. It’s quite bigoted actually.
If the prison population has anything in common it’s the fact that they overwhelmingly come from poverty. Most of the prison population was not heavily into politics before being sentenced.
But more importantly, we only have one recent example of an election being stolen, it was done in 2018 by a republican. So you’re just ignoring reality when it doesn’t suit you.
And let’s not forget January 6th. If there was anything that made clear which side would be more willing to defy the law for their politics that was it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
It’s one of the most secure elections because it has been by far the most scrutinized election in a generation at the very least. We’ve had recount after recount in state after state, and in most cases they were done by republicans recounting an area that a democrat won in. 60+ court challenges, almost every single one held up, and a nation wide search for nefarious activity coming up empty.
If you really believe mail in voting is suspect, why are you not questioning Florida’s results, or Texas? It’s just downright amusing to me that the only areas where republicans think voter fraud occurred are the areas Joe Biden won. It’s classic conformation bias.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I severely disagree. Democrats are going to gain power for the next century with the agenda they hold.
Their agenda is to ensure every American has access to the polls, and that every American is represented. Please explain to me how that’s a bad thing, and also, if this is really how you see it, don’t you think it’s a problem for your party that more Americans voting and every American’s vote being counted equally would result in them being indefinitely out of power?
Plus you have to consider that these are the United States of America. Foundations do matter because those foundations are what has made America arguably one of the best nations in the world. Changing the way the Senators are chosen to reflect a popular vote will definitely lead to Civil War.
When America was founded the only people who were allowed to vote were white male property owners, and senators were chosen by the governors. Change doesn’t stop a country from being a country. I do agree with you though that it would get really ugly if something like that were enacted, it turns out that when you have gotten used to being overrepresented, equality feels a lot like oppression.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
None of that addresses the evidence I provided. I trust the science, and a mathematician and a physicist as linked above has proven that Trump not bbn only won, but got the popular vote.
That’s not how science works. Some guy who claims to be a physicist and some guy who claims to be a mathematician saying they figured out what no one else in the country has, is not how we go about developing our understanding of reality.
Science is process. It involves unmistakable transparency to the point where anyone can recreate your work precisely, and only after all of your scientific peers have had the opportunity to prove your work wrong and failed to do so, do we consider something a matter of scientific fact.
I’m curious though, since you put so much stock into what these two individuals say merely because of their stated credentials… what is your attitude towards Dr. Fauci and everything he has said about COVID?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
But why is this even a conversation? There is no evidence of any significant level of voter fraud, and all indications suggest 2020 was one of the most secure elections we’ve ever had. Why are we talking about this?
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Big names complicit in the fraud are trying to stop audits of the vote, trying to stop an investigation or audit is as good as a confession in my book btw, honest people want to be investigated and cleared.
This is the same argument conspiracy theorists have been using to justify everything from the moon landings to 9/11 was an inside job.
We don’t decide whether to investigate something based on a coin flip. Investigations require a valid predicate, and it’s the person calling for the investigation that is tasked with providing it. Why? For the same reason it’s not your job to prove to me that there are no Martians coming to kill us. The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim.
There is no valid reason to investigate 2020 election fraud, there are perfectly valid reasons not to. Namely, because the investigations themselves add to the made up narrative that there was something wrong with the past election. Why? Because investigations are normally only conducted when there is a valid predicate. Full circle.
And all of that is before we get to the absurdity of the AZ “audit”. First of all, real audits are conducted by the state and done so in a systematic bipartisan fashion. This audit is being conducted by a private company with no audit experience lead by a guy who claimed prior that the 2020 election was stolen.
Further, because of the fact that this is a private company, all of these machines have to be thrown out because state elections officials cannot use them now that the chain of custody has been broken.
Lastly, the things they are looking for is just down right insane. Using 5k cameras for traces of bamboo to see if the ballots were shipped from China? Complete and total lunacy.
The fact that democrats are pushing back against this isn’t sign of anything other than common sense and a desire to govern, as opposed to republicans demonstrated desire to chase down conspiracy theories because they cannot handle a loss.
And BTW, why are republicans only interested in auditing areas that Trump lost? Apparently only democrats can cheat, even though the only example in recent years of an actual election being stolen was done so by a republican. The projection is staggering.
Created: