Total posts: 5,890
-->
@Shila
Yes but the initial question was whether I would vote to convict, the follow up was under what circumstances would I not convict. My answers were straight forward and quite simple, I don't understand what the issue is.
You point out the fact that he's on video... Ok... They still have to prove that the person sitting in the defendants chair is the person on that video. In theory that should be easy, that doesn't mean it's ok to prejudge any criminal trial.
It's easy to sit here on debateart spouting whatever we think and feel, it's an entirely different thing when you're sitting in a jurors chair and another human beings life is in your hands (I would know). It's the latter situation I was asked about so that's what I addressed.
Created:
-->
@Shila
On what grounds could the shooter be found not guilty ?
On the grounds that the evidence fails to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual sitting in the defendants chair is guilty of killing the victim.
I haven't had time to read this thread, is there something I'm missing here? Why are you hoss asking me these questions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
This is where you are lying. This is not a controversy
Right, and Harris won the 2024 election.
That's just stupid, no serious response required.
Trying to arrest a presidential candidate because [the evidence overwhelmingly proves that he committed serious crimes]?
Fixed.
How exactly would you work with the cheating party to stop cheating LOL?
Reform the system so that cheating cannot occur. If the other party refuses then take the case to the ultimate authority; the voters. That's why democrats made such a big deal about democracy and the rule of law this past election - cause they *actually* care about those things. In the end they lost because too many Americans were brainwashed into thinking Trump was the obviously better choice to bring down the price of eggs.
"Why do you guys think this pardonnis so bad or controversial"We don't that is literally something you would think if you only consume left wing media. I assume he watched CNN and they said Republicans were upset about it, and despite how often they lie to him he blindly believed it.
I think that because I have eyes, ears, and an internet connection. It's been all over right wing media and right wingers have been arguing this since it happened. Are you really that incapable of thinking for yourself that you reflexively assume no one else can either?
All he had to do was just shoot me a PM and ask how MAGA Republicans feel and I would have told him, we were cool with the pardon.
lol I didn't know Wylted from debateart is the designated spokesperson for the national republican party
Created:
-->
@WyIted
If the evidence shows the shooter is guilty as charged I would vote guilty
Created:
-->
@WyIted
If you on the shooters jury, are you using g jury nullification or are you going to let the judge cuck you with his soy jury instructions
What are you talking about? Please speak English, I only have a limited understanding of conspiracish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
If you don’t believe Biden would have pardoned his son ANYWAY, you are only fooling yourself…
As I've already made clear, I fully accept as a reasonable possibility that Biden planned to pardon his son either way, I just find out more plausible that he would not have had the circumstances been different.
You are the only who only sees one possiblity and disregards any other regardless of how reasonable they may be. I'm not the one who's insulated myself into a comfortable cognitive bubble.
Try this on for size:“Trump did say several times when asked that he would not pardon his son Donald, Jr. But when he found the case against Donald, Jr. turning out to be a sham he reversed his decision and pardoned Donald, Jr.”
Donald Trump would never say that and you know it. Instead he would say "well we'll have to see if the justice system treats him fairly" by which he means 'if he's acquitted then it proves he's innocent, if he's convicted that proves it was a witch-hunt'.
But we both also know it would never get to that. 2016 Trump would have allowed Don Jr. To be prosecuted because he didn't feel like he had any choice but to allow it. 2024 Trump knows he can get away with anything he wants, so he would never in hell allow him to be prosecuted, he wouldn't even allow him to be investigated. Tell me you actually believe Trump would allow a prosecutor in his DOJ open an investigation into any of the Trump's and still have a job before they go to sleep that night. Go on...
Meanwhile Joe came into office and went out of his way to keep the prosecutor investigating Hunter in his post, despite that being a post that would be replaced in any other transition. That's the difference between a president who respects the rule of law vs one that doesn't. Trump has never talked about the importance of respecting the process unless it was his political opponents being prosecuted.
Created:
-->
@Mall
That is right.Do you disagree?With what?
With the post you responded to...
I believe no god of the sorts that I mentioned exist, because they can't exist. That is very different from proclaiming to know that we live in a godless universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Did you think creating a banana republic would be free of consequences
You tell me, that's what Trump is attempting to turn is into now.
That video is from 6 years ago...
We've only continued down the same path
...and bullshit
How? Where is it wrong?
The left is literally doing some batshit crazy stuff.Take how they are supporting literal terrorists right now. If 9/11 happened again we wouldn't all be united like last time. Literally half the population would be on the side of the 9/11 hijackers
A couple of college kids protesting is not "the left", nor is any of this relevant to the point.
If one side literally only abuses power in response to abuses of power then what is a good strategy to end that?
That's the whole point. The one side abusing power is the republicans, Because republicans are bad faith unprincipled hypocrites.
This pardon controversy is just the latest example. When Trump was president he pardoned everyone in his inner circle, including his son-in-law's father who was convicted of witness tampering after he hired an escort to seduce the witness, filmed the entire encounter, and then sent the video to the witnesses's wife to intimidate them from testifying. Trump also just named that same guy to be the next US ambassador to France.
Trump pardoned Roger Stone for his conviction after refusing to testify... about Trump's own actions. So he literally pardoned the guy who for illegally helping Trump.
He pardoned Steve Bannon after Bannon was caught flagrantly defrauding Trump voters.
The list goes on. But Biden Pardons Hunter and that's the abuse of power that republicans get to respond to? What? Are you on drugs?
This isn't a serious argument, it's an excuse. You guys always do this - pretend your actions are justified because the other side "did it first", meanwhile not only are you just flat out lying about who actually started it, but you pretend what the left did is remotely comparable to what you are arguing your already concocted permission slip in entitling you to do. It's pathetic.
So to answer your question, if you really cared about this then instead of inventing fake justifications to do the same but worse, you would work with the other side to reform the system. We need to look at ways the pardon power can be restricted, and we need to find ways to codify into the law the independence of the justice department. Trump would never go along with something like that, because he never wanted that. All he wanted is the excuse he needs to do whatever he wants and claim it justified. That's why he and MAGA are celebrating this, it is (in their minds) the excuse they were looking for.
Created:
-->
@Mall
That is right.
Do you disagree?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Aren't you clearly Insinuating that maga are crying about this pardon when we all told you it is completely understandable for a dad to pardon their son?
No, I'm talking about how MAGA is orienting this pardon is so bad as a pretense to support Trump through whatever flagrant abuses of power he engages in. Which is remarkably stupid since Trump's pardons were way way worse. It underscores how fake republicans are. They're perfectly ok with abuse of power, all they're looking for is an excuse to celebrate it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Oh pulease, they have no principals whatsoever,
That's my point
They always try to justify their outrageous and unlawful actions by equating them to practically nothing done by their opponents.
Exactly. If they didn't have false equivalences they'd have no arguments at all
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
How in the hell can Republicans ever win if democrats always cheat. If one side continually cheats and gets away with it, it forces the hand of the other side. You notice how Republicans only employ those tactics after de ocrats do it first.
We'll now jailing political opponents is on the table.
OP proven yet again
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Just like they are changing "you lied you fucking hypocrite" to "you abused pardon power".
Right... The people who voted for Trump have a problem with lying and hypocrisy... Ok bro.
Tell me about Merrick Garland's SC nomination again...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
MAGA doesn't care about that. Maga is celebrating Biden's move to join their side in saying DC is a corrupt cesspool filled with unelected career government interests.
Biden didn't say any of that.
You've proven my point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
So basically you lied about the MAGA position
It was never the MAGA position, that's the point. MAGA doesn't care about this, never has otherwise they would really have hated what Trump did. It's all a pathetic excuse to pretend their hands were forced when it's what they wanted an excuse to do all along.
Created:
Posted in:
Joe Biden's pardon of Hunter has released the latest wave of brazen hypocrisy where MAGA suddenly pretends to care about the abuse of the pardon power and the idea that president's should be held to a high standard.
What's most telling about this example is something I've noticed quite a few times before; it's the way republicans take an action by the left they think they have grounds to criticize and explicitly proclaim it as a permission slip to do the same (but worse).
It goes to show how bad faith and hypocritical republicans are. If you actually cared about the pardon power not being abused, then as a principaled individual, you would advocate to address the problem by finding a way to restructure the law or draft a constitutional amendment to limit the power of the president to simply wipe away someone's conviction with a magic wand. No Trump supporting republican would ever suggest such a thing and everyone here knows Trump would never go for it if it meant limiting his pardon power.
It goes to show that you guys really don't care about this, because "now I get to do it too" is not what principal looks like.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
What on earth are you talking about? Are you even reading these exchanges before jumping in?
We were talking about the double standards (my claim) applied towards Harris in this election and he used as a counter example that voters held Trump to something he didn't campaign on (opposing the right to abortion). So I responded to his point
*Responded*
...by pointing out that he bragged about getting rid of those protections and when pressed refused to say he wouldn't sign a national ban.
Nothing about that conversation meets your description.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
They didn't have that power genius. It was literally just an advisory board.
Do you even bother to read your own sources?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
It looks like a hamster wheel because you've completely ignored my point.
Kicking the can down the road means you are pushing off the inevitable. My point is that it was not inevitable.
It is a perfectly coherent and plausible explanation that what triggered Biden to do this was the appointment of Kash Patel, signifying that Trump does in fact plan to use the DOJ to go after his political enemies and therefore Biden was unwilling to subject his son to anymore of this nonsense. There is no reason to think that Biden saw this as an inevitable outcome, so you continue to ignore an obvious alternative.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's never going to happen with only 13 states voting for it, and Trump said so. That's a fact.
Irrelevant to the conversation
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Cite?
It happened in front of the whole country at the debate.
You can criticize whomever you wish. I’m just saying you don’t get to decide what is important to people other than yourself.
Then you are wasting your breath because I never suggested I do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Setting to the side whether what they were chatting was a "misinformation board"...
Creating a misinformation board =/= destroying free speech.
If you don't understand the difference been those two things you have serious issues.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Here’s the truth: I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice= lawfare
They're not the same thing. Lawfare is the intentional use of the justice system as a weapon. A political infection within the process is referring to bias. It's pretty stupid to claim the DOJ is being used as a weapon against him when he's ultimately in charge of it.
*writes "doubling down on not giving a shit about precedent" on psychiatric pad*
So you also suffer from reading comprehension issues. Got it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Basic human communication involves clearing misunderstanding and citing precedent often help clear doubts.
Go back and read the original exchange.
If someone doesn't understand how you get 4 from adding 2 and 2, you don't waste you're time moving onto algebra.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Ah, so if I understand your word salad correctly, Biden having lied in order to beat Trump constituted “a noble lie” in your opinion.
I never called or suggested it to be a nobel lie, you made that up. And it wasn't word salad, it was quite simple. Here, let me dumb it down...
One of the most basic rules of politics is that you do not say anything that will cause a needles firestorm.
That's really simple and it's nothing new. That's why for example candidates always say they're campaign is doing just fine and they're not going anywhere... And then "suspend" their campaigns the next day.
Funny thing is, everyone understands this. No one turns around and calls them liars because they wouldn't publicly admit what they knew they were going to do. This is politics 101.
So even assuming the worst, what Joe Biden did by saying he wasn't going to pardon Hunter isn't remarkable at all. Admitting it would have caused a firestorm so Biden followed the same rule everyone follows. It's only when MAGA is looking for any excuse to say that democrats are just as bad as Trump that suddenly basic common sense goes out the window and this becomes the scandal of the decade.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Bla bla bla "what you forgot is that I'm right about everything"
So no response. Got it.
He broke the law. Being prosecuted it what follows. That's not lawfare.Joe Biden disagrees.
No, he doesn't. Nothing he said contradicts that.
I'd offer more but if you can't be bothered to type out a thoughtful response I have no obligation to.
So anyways the part you ignored in favor of meaningless "nuh ugh":The first thing reason advises is to look at precedent. That is precisely what you people (and you in particular Double R) didn't give a shit about.Provide one relevant example hereThis is after demanding you find a precedent like five times:I know you have not and will not produce a single precedent that anything DJT said about EJC was defamation.[Double_R] If I have to explain to you what context means and the role it plays in communicating with other human beings, there's no way I'm about to waste my time citing legal precedent with you.
You claimed that I don't give a shit about precedent. A posting of me telling you that I'm not going to bother citing precedent to someone who doesn't understand how basic human communication works doesn't support that claim.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
abortion has not been central to Trump’s platform
He's literally the reason abortion is illegal in many US states, and has bragged about it many times
he has stated clearly that he is against a federal abortion ban
He also refused to say he wouldn't sign one when asked point blank with the whole country watching
Voters vote according to what is most important to THEM
No one is suggesting otherwise. Criticizing them for it is still perfectly valid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
What was the 1st year that the world was willing to hear a woman? You say they weren't willing back then but they are now, so.
It's not a light switch you flip on or off.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Hence you believe no God of such exists.
I believe no god of the sorts that I mentioned exist, because they can't exist. That is very different from proclaiming to know that we live in a godless universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You people are so delusional it's impressive.
Attempting to combat misinformation (a very real problem and very real threat to national security is not, in any way, an attempt to destroy freedom of speech. That's just stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Like the current headlines? Seems as though he only succeeded in kicking that can down the road.
If what I suggested was in fact that truth then the only reason it was effectively a can kick is because Trump not only won but has made clear that everything the left warned the country about is accurate. So not exactly a refutation.
Standards only apply to democrats.Standards which demand lies in order to be satisfied are not that admirable.
I would far rather have someone who pretends to be a 100 on the moral standards scale and turns out to be a 70 than someone who acts like a 10 and turns out to be a 20.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
However the crimes Hunter hasn't been charged with yet were included in the pardon had victims, the entire American people and probably a lot of people in Ukraine and China too.
This noting but conspiratorial nonsense. The republicans have been investigating this for 4 years and found nothing. The pardon was because enough is enough, this is the witchhunt you guys have been screaming about for almost a decade now.
Punching back isn't immoral
It is when your punching back against something that was completely fabricated.
In general I doubt they committed immoral acts.
So it isn't immoral to defraud Trump voters?
So therefore we don't hold Trump to any standards when assessing his egregious abuses of the pardon power.So therefore Trump is not a hypocrite and a liar in the way Biden is.
Correct, because Trump is categorically worse.
In order to be a hypocrite you have to purport to believe in something in the first place. Donald Trump doesn't believe in anything, so he just does and says whatever is convenient for the moment and dodges that criticism altogether.
When people lie, they are normally trying to convince you that whatever they are telling you is the truth. Donald Trump says the stupidest and most ridiculous things that no sane rational halfway educated person would believe them, so what he's really doing is disregarding the concept of truth altogether. That is way way worse.
Hunter was prosecuted only because his last name was Biden.and suddenly you care about prosecutorial motivations, you didn't when it was Trump & friends.
I've always cared. Have you never read any of my responses?
The main reason that's plausible is because Joe Biden and Merrick Garland are probably not the top of the power structure they belong to.
Ah yes, the ole puppet master conspiracy. Ok bro.
It is entirely implausible that these kangaroo courts and witch trials spontaneously appeared in a temporal cluster before an election
They didn't. Every single one of these investigations/trials had been ongoing for the entire 4 years, some even before that. Not sure you are aware of this, but criminal proceedings takes years, and still they would have all taken place had Trump not fought tooth and nail to delay all of them indefinitely, so spare me your fake timing outrage, Trump largely created that.
and even if it was a grassroots conspiracy to "get Trump" why the fuck should I care? It's still lawfare.
He broke the law. Being prosecuted it what follows. That's not lawfare.
You don't give a shit that no connection has been made between breaching the capitol and Trump besides Trump telling them what's on the line
That's just stupid. The connection is obvious, we've argued it many times, not my fault that you hold Trump to an impossible standard that you would never apply to anyone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
and while they backed off from it because it backfired (and flipped extremely important players like Musk and other tech elites to Trump) there was an effort in 2021-2022 to use the administrative state and friendly industry to effectively repeal the First Amendment and destroy freedom of speech forever.
What on earth are you talking about?
Created:
-->
@Mall
This is why they resist saying they believe there is no god. Sounds too much like having the faith, having the religion. So they like saying "lack of belief"
We say we lack belief because that is the correct set of words to most accurately describe our position.
There are plenty of god concepts I will tell you don't exist, like an all powerful all loving god who created a place of torment and torture for us to spend all eternity if we disobey him, as just one example. I could sit here all day giving more examples, but that is utterly pointless since you will probably just tell me they aren't the god you pray to.
The reason I can't tell you no god exists is because there is no possible way for me to rule out every possibility, I just don't have the kind of access I would need to make that assessment.
So at the end of the day what makes me an atheist is that I believe in critical thinking, which when used properly doesn't permit faith as a basis for anything. Critical thinking however, is not as religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Or maybe, she was waiting 30 years to get a TDS jury to believe a billionaire would be going around grabbing an older woman because he just could not seem to find any younger women to grab consensually.
When you're a star they let you do it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Why didn't she let the world know in 1980?
For starters, you should actually talk to a sexual assault survivor.
Second, to any woman who lived through the 1980's. The world was not nearly as willing to hear a woman out as it is today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
You think Biden essentially had no choice but to lie about his intent?
Politically, yes. Again, imagine the headlines if he even showed ambiguity about his intentions. But I'm not so sure he was lying about his intentions. It's perfectly plausible that Biden wasn't planning on pardoning him but after Trump's victory and his signaling through his cabinet picks Biden rethought his options.
So no, it doesn’t cut both ways.Trump tends not to lie about his intent. “He is who he is.” This is why many of his supporters like to claim “promises made; promises kept.”
He doesn't have to lie about it, his supporters have no standards for him. Standards only apply to democrats.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's OK when the crimes are fake or victimless.
You mean like lying about your drug use on a gun application, or evading taxes that you already paid back?
It's not OK when the crimes are real with real victims.
Like inciting a mob attack on the US Capitol that resulted in 140 Capitol police officers getting their heads bashed in along with the death of one of the rioters?
Also lying to the public in order to cover up you stealing from the public is not OK.
You mean like running a fake university or stealing from your own charity?
That's the algorithm I'm using.
Clearly not
And when Trump pardons people who committed crimes on his own behalf that’s also fineSo what do you make about the time period the pardon for Hunter was for?
What do you make of Trump pardoning people who were convicted for crimes they committed on his own behalf? You forgot to address that.
The time period for Hunter makes sense given Biden’s stated reasons for issuing it. The republicans have been obsessed with Hunter for absolutely no reason for the past 4 years. He remains the only private citizen (as in person who never held a position of power) to ever have a special counsel go appointed to go after him. His genitals were literally plastered on the screen in a congressional committee investigative hearing, and the gun charges he was prosecuted on have never been prosecuted as a stand alone offense. Ever. Republicans are obsessed with him, and since Trump just named the guy who publicly stated he would use the DOJ to go after Trumps political opponents as his FBI director, it makes perfect sense that he would take the time period republicans zeroed in on off the table.
Trump never swore off pardons.
So therefore we don't hold Trump to any standards when assessing his egregious abuses of the pardon power. That standard only applies to Biden and the democrats. Got it.
Trump never implied that lawfare was made up. Biden and friends did. They're the hypocrites here. They're the ones who expected everyone to laugh away "lawfare" as a silly concept nobody could take seriously.Now they believe in it, they believe in it only when the people they don't trust have the gun.
No, they believe in it when the totality of the evidence logically concludes that it is real.
But even in that statement I'm granting you too much. What Biden said was absolutely correct; Hunter was prosecuted only because his last name was Biden. I already explained why above. That isn't warfare, that's an overreach of a prosecutor making a name for himself. Lawfare is when it's organizational. It's when the orders are coming from the top, and we both know neither Joe Biden or Merrick Garland was orchestrating this.
There was no lawfare in this administration nor was there in Trump's first term. His second term however... He's made clear it's actually coming. The fact that Trump appointed the man who publicly stated he'd go after Trump's political rivals to run the FBI has made that undeniably clear.
You can't have it both ways.Either the system is corruptible or it isn't
Corruptible? Of course it is. Is it actually corrupt? That's a different question.
The first thing reason advises is to look at precedent. That is precisely what you people (and you in particular Double R) didn't give a shit about.
Provide one relevant example here
It is unclear how far Trump & friends will twist and distort the law, how little they will care about precedent; but I won't be weeping tears of blood if they do because...
Because you're an unprincipled hypocrite as this statement here demonstrates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Trump didn't get prosecuted until he ran for POTUS; then his haters were desperate.
His accusers didn’t come out until he ran for office. There’s nothing remarkable about that, when you put yourself in the spotlight and run to become the most powerful man on earth it’s not ominous for people to think “the world should know what he did to me”.
There’s also the issue of public pressure. It’s easy to turn a blind eye when no one else is looking. That luxury evaporates once the individual in question runs for public office.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Atheists are religious. They have their own belief systems. Doesn't mean they're religious like Christians, Baptist, Muslims, etc .
Atheists have belief systems because they’re human beings, and all human beings have belief systems. That’s not religion.
You are again, watering down the word religion in an attempt to rob it entirely of all meaning. Why? Is it really that hard to accept it for what it is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Truly it's a bad time to be a left-tribe hack.
It’s hilarious how terrible it is when the left does it, but when Trump pardons a convicted felon and then names him as an ambassador to France that’s ok. And when Trump pardons people who committed crimes on his own behalf that’s also fine. It’s almost as if you guys really do understand basic morality and ethics, but just don’t seem to think it applies to your guy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Biden didn’t say, “It depends.” He said, “No pardon for Hunter.”
He did, and it’s a bad look for him. But in all seriousness, what was he supposed to say? “I’ll pardon Hunter if Trump wins”? Just imagine the political firestorm comments like that would have caused. Any ambiguity at all on whether he would have pardoned Hunter would have been headlines all over the country, so I don’t see what else he was even supposed to say.
Second, no one who supports Trump has any ground to stand on when it comes to lying.The above is what I call a “cuts both ways” claim:“No one who supports [Biden] has any ground to stand on when it comes to lying.”
You can argue that all day long, that doesn’t make it rationally defensible. Trump defenders love to pretend everything is black and white; You’re either a liar or you’re not a liar. You’re either a hypocrite or you’re not a hypocrite. That’s it, that’s all. But of course that’s ridiculous. There are levels to these kinds of things, and on any topic of anything having to do with ethics Trump is categorically worse than anything we have seen in our lifetimes. So no, it doesn’t cut both ways.
The irony here is that many, including myself, believe Trump would have said, “Sure, I’ll pardon my son if it comes down to it. What father wouldn’t?”
2024 Trump wouldn’t have even let it get to that, he would have fired the prosecutor who dared to investigate his son in the first place.
This right here is exactly the point and problem. Everything Joe Biden did is understandable even if ultimately wrong. But at least with Joe it was a struggle. That struggle came from a respect for the rule of law and the responsibility he felt he had to play along and set an example. In the end, the circumstances were too much for the former to win out. Meanwhile Trump has none of that and everyone knows it.
People like you brand Trump as honest which is good, but it’s easy to be honest when you have no respect for American institutions and ran on a platform of burning every political norm and institution to the ground. There’s nothing virtuous about that. At all. There’s no reason to play along with a system you don’t respect. There’s no reason to respect institutions you don’t give a damn about. Trump’s honesty when it comes to things like this is not commendable, it’s nothing more than a natural byproduct of how despicable of a human being he is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Good. Hopefully now the party will drop the pretense that the candidates they field are morally better people than Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I actually don’t have a huge problem with him pardoning his son. The issue is how adamantly he said he wouldn’t pardon his son if found guilty.
Reasonable in theory, but I have two problems with this:
That was before Trump won the election and then nominated a man who *publicly* said he would use the Justice department to go after Trump’s political enemies to lead the FBI. So much for all that “Trump’s not really going to weaponize the DOJ” BS. If I were Joe I’m certainly not about to hand my son who’s already been put through the ringer to this DOJ.
Second, no one who supports Trump has any ground to stand on when it comes to lying. Remind me again who pays tariffs vs what Trump has been telling the country about this for years?
Joe’s actions are hardly defendable here if we’re applying normal President standards, but that’s is story of this election; only one side gets held to those standards. It’s beyond disingenuous.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
As ridiculous as you may find it, this is neither unusual nor unique to Harris’ candidacy. Voters regularly feel strongly about issues that aren’t central to a candidate’s campaign and vote accordingly.
True, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a mismatch in terms of the level of unimportance of an issue on one side vs the caricature of importance the other side prescribed to it.
Created:
-->
@Mall
All people upon sound mature mind are religious.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. There is a very clear difference between the way religious people live their lives in devotion to the perceived wishes of their deity and the way atheists don’t do the same. In normal English we call that difference religion, but you pretend there is no difference and then defend that notion by pretending the word religious doesn’t mean what it actually does. Why? It’s almost as if you recognize that religion is itself silly so rather than admit it you decide to instead water down the word to meaninglessness to avoid having to acknowledge it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The next supply disruption, manufactured or otherwise, may be much worse if we don't significantly increase our strategic supplies of critical goods necessary for the security of the nation. Yeah, it hurts to go cold turkey, but the security of a nation demands it.
COVID was a literal once in a century pandemic.
Again, if we're trading we're doing it for a reason. No one trades for the mere fun of it. To alter our entire way of doing business just to secure us against an imaginary boogeyman that will probably never come again in our lifetimes is ridiculous. And even if there is another pandemic or global event it's not even clear what the benefit of keeping everything domestic would be. The supply chain disruptions were not just international, there was plenty of domestic disruptions as well so we would have experienced it either way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
which means Chinese companies will lose business.Oh, looks like China is paying (losing money) after all. Guess we can put that lie to rest.
Oh my god, there is no way you are this ignorant.
They're losing money because American companies will be getting their product elsewhere (eventually), which means American companies will themselves be paying more and passing that on to the consumer (us). That's what's called a lose lose. Do you understand? Did I go to fast for you?
If the guy with bread is undermining your country, maybe you should get your bread from somewhere else. We spend trillions on national security, I am sure a slightly more expensive sandwich is doable and a drop in the bucket to further national security.
This has nothing to do with national security. Nothing. This is 100% about Trump's ego combined with his breathtakingly ignorant understanding of basic economics.
Charging Americans a tax on all Chinese produced goods does absolutely nothing to make us more safe, that's just plain stupid. And Trump made this clear by his constant shifting of the reasons he gives for this. The tariffs themselves are the point plain and simple, because he thinks that makes him look strong. Everything else is just an excuse.
Says the ethnocentric Destiny fan
Never said I was a fan. This is what happens when you have nothing of intellectual value to offer; you scurry through every word looking for something to attack. It's pathetic.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The comment I made was about how when the left attacks the right, almost always those attacks are against things Trump has done and said himselfLike when Trump said puerto ricans were garbage... oh wait...
Keyword... Almost.
So congrats I guess on the pointless gotcha attempt, was a great effort (not really).
It's almost like they tried to cram an issue they thought they could win on down the throats of the public regardless of what the candidates were saying or doing.
Right right right, so your position is that Trump means everything he says and therefore everything he says should be taken seriously... Right?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
A good 15% of the publicly available data is classified as "event production expenditures" of which Kamala had a great many events with celebrities
And you think these events are free to put together and execute?
Created: