Total posts: 1,080
-->
@ethang5
I asked you to whom should thus evidence be presented. Trump is in court. The process cannot be called bogus till a court has ruled. The election cannot be over till it has been certified. Kavenaugh is not guilty till he has been convicted in a court of law. I see a pattern with you Democrats. You want to rule on things by your emotions. This is why a BLM thug in the street feels free to assault another person, he has done exactly what you're doing here, made himself judge, jury, and executioner in one fell swoop. Conservatives want the rule of law and due process. We will NEVER submit to fascism.
You've literally just stated you don't want rule of law and due process
And yet the election has not been certified? No worries, reality has a way of correcting delusion.
It's quite simple really. Here let me give you an analogy. While Trump may not have been certified as an idiot, and while he may claim he is very very smart, it is quite quite clear he is not.
>>snicker<< This is like that other liberal gem, "Women must be believed when they allege rape!" It's "obvious" my candidate won so, he's president! It just needs to be "obvious". Lol.
It's a shame vote counts aren't dismissed quite so easily like you seem to think they are
None of Trump's cases have been dropped. That is just the fake news media calling the cases of private individuals, " Trump cases". That's why you can't name a single case of Trump that has been dropped.
Ah yes. Delusion.
Then why are there provisions in the law for it?
Which provisions allow for a president to halt vote counting and declare himself the victor? I wasn't aware this was cuba.
Luckily for Trump's team, your opinion of their credibility is irrelevant. Sit down and let the man have his day in court.
Unluckily for Trump's team, his claims of voter fraud have no credibility.
You will wait a very long time to hear me condemn something good and legal. While you wait, look up the several Governors who have decided that they will not certify their state's results till the lawsuits have all been resolved.
Nice try, fascist sympathizer.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Provide evidence to whom? The news media? You? Evidence is presented to courts, not random liberals. None-the-less, the allegations are all over the news, that you chose to be obtuse about them does not make them disappear.
You claim you value the truth. The truth is that you have no evidential basis to support these bogus processes. Hence you do not value truth, because you have ignored it for your own delusion.
Realty is the law that says no one has won till the election is officially called. That is why the Time magazine cover calling Hillery Madam President was a joke. Mass media do not determine presidents.
Correct. The electoral votes determine presidents. The states have decided.
Lol! Which is why about a thousand people on twitter are currently calling themselves "president-elect". But BEING president-elect certainly does require certification. At least for now in non-fascist America.
Being president elect simply requires an obvious winner in the recent election. There is an obvious winner. It's not Trump.
I'll tell President to submit his evidence to you post haste. And alert the legally ignorant court that you have judged the "evidence" nonexistent. The police will have to release all those it arrested for voter fraud, and the courts that have barred vote without signatures have to rescind those decisions.
No need. His suits are getting dropped one by one, which speaks to what evidence he has. Or rather what evidence he hasn't.
Then you haven't been watching the fake news media. They have been condemning Trump for 4 years!No need to be angry BLM. If you are right, the courts will throw out Trumps claim AFTER listening to it. (Unlike fascists who want it thrown out without due process) And no one needs to condemn legal actions by Trump, and much less to you.
You claim that candidates have not won until the election is officially is called. You claim that due process should be followed. Declaring himself the winner and asking that vote counting should be halted violates both of those principals. I am waiting to hear your condemnation, you hack.
Trump thinks some illegality went on in the election, it is his legal right to challenge the results in court. In 2,000 it took 35 days. Settle down and get your panties out of a wad. Dart is not a good place to practise BLM thuggery of assaulting people because they hold a different political opinion.
Trump says many things which are false. Such people have no credibility and require evidence to support their claims.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Right. You're the one denying due process, pre-judging people, and refusing access to courts but I'm fascist. OK.
You support challenging a democratic election despite being unable to provide evidence that the election should be challenged.
Fascist? I think so.
All I can say is thank God America isn't on your fascist system. No wonder you hate Trump. He is as antifascist as one can get.
Lol no. Lets stick to reality.
The certification in MI was rescinded. Do you know why? Hispanics in FL voted overwhelmingly for Trump. Do you know why? Kavenaugh was innocent. Do you know why?
So the answer to that question was no, you did not. Because there is none.
I said nothing about changing the result. I said election results are not official until certification. That is a fact that doesn't change because Biden calls himself president-elect.
Calling Biden president elect does not require certification.
Any honest person would call for a fraudulent vote to stop. That is why our laws allows for it. And the court did find that the state violated the law, and fake votes were switched back to Trump.
A dishonest person would call for a vote to stop, despite having no evidence. Which is what happened here.
Yet Trump had nothing to do with the buggy dominion software glitches, or the criminal USPS employees who threw out votes, or the county officials who are now refusing to certify the fake results.
None of these conspiracy theories were established on the 4th. Yet he called for vote counts to stop on the 4th and declared himself the victor. I have heard no condemnation of this action. I'm waiting, you hack.
The supreme court is going to hear this case. Dust off your liberal argument that conservative justices will vote for Trump. (We know you don't think that liberal judges can be biased.)
I believe they've already declined to hear such a case so I wouldn't bet on it
Nothing you say here now will change the present facts.*Biden is not the president-elect.*Elections are not called by private news companies*Due process is required by American law.
Nothing you say will change the present facts.
*Biden received the most electoral votes and the most votes overall.
*This makes him the president elect.
*There is no evidence of widespread election fraud.
Trump is within his legal rights and has done nothing wrong. The only ones crying are you liberals.
That's because there's a distinction between legally being wrong, and morally being wrong. I know that these can be hard to distinguish between the two for you in particular.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
That is what the "it" is in my comment.
Not really. You seem to think that Facebook changed something about his account. Since this isn't the truth, it's hardly the truth that you will be satisfied with. Also as an aside, it's such a ridiculous thing to believe anyway, if you bothered to stop and thinking about it for like a second.
Except apparently you.
Not even I
Because I'm a non-fascist American who believes in the rule of law through a legal system set up for exactly this purpose.
Nope. You seem to support the hijacking of democracy. That's pretty fascist to me.
No, in your system, people must first fit your politics to be worthy of due process. Americans reject your system and are willing to pay for a democratic one.
No, in my system people should have valid and non-frivolous reasons for going through the courts. Being a whiny baby is not one said reasons.
I know. Google, "people arrested for vote fraud in 2020" and you will see a lot more "nonsense". Well you won't see it as you have your liberal reality blinders on, but it'll be there anyway.
Did you happen to google "evidence for widespread voter fraud us 2020" while you were at it?
Then why do we need elections certified? Are you aware we are talking about the American system here?
Certification is a formality. If it changes results, all well and good. However thinking that it will materially change the fact that Biden is president elect in this particular case is delusion
Biden then wasted time and money. He should have just called himself the president elect on Nov 4th. Same difference if certification is irrelevant.
No silly. Time is needed to fully see how the votes pan out. I believe the one who called for vote counting to stop in battleground states and declared himself the winner on the 4th was actually Trump. Perhaps you should look into that.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
I'm satisfied that anyone who looks at facebook will see it.
But you aren't satisfied with the truth?
You, and liberals like you, will not be the door keepers to the courts, disallowing those who you pre-judge to be fake cries.
No one cares hypocrite.
You can wail and cry now, but Trump will get his day in court, and no election will be called by you or the fake news outlets.
You seem to be the one wailing and crying that the courts should be allowed to precede. After all, it's not my money and time that will be wasted.
In the main time, people keep getting arrested for election fraud, and in each case so far, it has been democrats trying to cheat the system. As I said, your flippant denials do not change reality.
Sounds like nonsense to me. I know you're frightened of the word "evidence" but perhaps you should provide it some time. That way your statements don't get summarily dismissed.
And you can call Biden anything you want, but until he is declared the winner, and not by CNN, he is not the president elect. Reality does not reside between your ears.
The reality is he has won the most electoral votes. Calling him anything but the president elect is delusion.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
You better tell the states to declare that then. Cause we know whomever you decide is the winner.
Nope, that would be the people of each us state who decided to vote for Biden in the majority.
Then I was correct and you were wrong.
Nah
You first called it an untruth. The rest are facts you cannot counter.
Nah. What is claimed without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
WHY its a conspiracy theory to you is immaterial. No one should be denied their day in court because someone thinks lowly of his allegation.
It's a conspiracy theory by definition. You claim to value truth but then reject the definition of words when inconvenient? Lul.
Due process is still warranted. And due process is supposed to benefit the person seeking redress. That is the point. You want thugs in the streets assaulting people and burning down property. We want redress legally and peacefully in a court of law.
Not really. Fake crys for due process should not be entertained, nor should conspiracy theories.
Biden is not president-elect. That is a lie.
Calling him by what he is does not mean Trump will be booted out of office earlier. You recall hopefully that Trump was also called president elect, and Obama was not magically booted out of office before his time.
Of course it does. Intelligence briefings are FOR the president. A sitting president cannot be barred from intelligence briefings.
And yet does not simultaneously mean that Trump will leave office earlier.
You said no one had done it.Of the 2 of us, I am the one advocating the American system of due process. You seem to want a form of fascism where people you have pre-judged as "bad" never get their day in court.The same thing was attempted on Judge Kavenaugh. Democrats wanted him convicted simply on an allegation. This is America, not 1970's South Africa. You do not decided whose allegation is worthy of jurisprudence. You do not call elections. You do not decide who wins.
And no one has. Should be is not equivalent to will be. Media is not reporting he will be no longer be president before Jan 20. You are simply wrong
And this is the problem with the mass media duping the sheeple. Even though its easy to go to the president's facebook page and see that he is now listed as "political candidate", you will just mouth the talking points of the fake news sites.
Incorrect. You claim it was changed. It was not changed. A cursory investigation into this allegation would've revealed this. You claim you value truth, but you do not do the least modicum of work to validate truth.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
No matter what I call it, Biden is not the winner till it is called. But if you're omniscient, I don't have a chance do I?
Biden is the winner. Vain hopes are no substitute for reality.
You've already convicted Trump. What "evidence" fed that conclusion if you know evidence is yet to be brought forth? Or perhaps your current position is not based on evidence?
No convictions here.
Biden has won nothing till he is declared the winner. He has not been. You must pretend Biden has won to conclude the State is flippable. Pretense makes for poor arguments.
The winning of states precedes the winning of the nation. Your assertion otherwise is nonsensical
Eh. How true it is that the vote was corrupt is material to me and 78 million other Americans. But then, we're conservatives, truth matters to us.
If truth mattered to you, you'd have the grace to stop spouting mistruths. You've spouted a string of mistruths in the span of a couple of posts. QED you don't value the truth
The impeachment was by a single party, that is a fact. The fake whistleblower was found to have been in communication with Adam Schiff's office though Mr. Schiff had previously denied it. That the Obama administration spied on Trump is a matter on record. Who do you think spied on Carter Page?
The impeachment was by a single party - that was empowered by the majority of American people to do so. I'll give you that. The rest is nonsense.
Then why have several counties and states refused to certify the votes? Why have courts found that Governors and election officials were unconstitutional? Why have the courts not thrown out the cases? Why are you pretending not to see my points?
To reiterate, no widespread election fraud has been found thus far. Which is why instead of presenting direct evidence of widespread election fraud, you're attempting to paint a picture with a collection of shoddy circumstantial nonsense. Cute, but hardly convincing to anyone with two brain cells to spare.
So you tell us what that email between the two crooked FBI lover agents meant by having an "insurance policy" that would stop Trump from winning the election? Droning the phrase "conspiracy theory" is not a counter argument.
It's a conspiracy theory because you've yet to show material evidence. I'm not the czar of Russia just because I say I am. Likewise, posturing from two random FBI means nothing until evidence is shown that more was done other than posturing
Conservatives prefer to let due process work. That is why justice Kavenaugh was not borked and the election still has not been called. My constitution values courts, and does not convict till after investigations are done.
Let me fix that for you. Conservatives prefer to let due to process work when it benefits them and they can pretend to take the highroad. Which is why you claim to value truth and due process, but simultaneously call a whistleblower a fake whistleblower
You lied that no one had done that.
Oh in that case my contention holds. I was just confused because your response was so nonsensical. Calling Biden president elect does not mean Trump is not still president until January 20. Saying that Trump should be barred from intelligence does not mean Trump is not still President. Saying Trump should be removed from office before January 20th is not equivalent to will be.
Facebook removing "President" from his official account is just false. Do your research you silly goose.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Elections in America are not called on "basic reason and probability". At least for now. I will KNOW when a qualified election official calls it.
Let's be honest. Whether or not a qualified election official calls it, you'll invent your own reality and call it a day anyway
This is only if you pretend that "contested" has no meaning.
Not really. Just because a state is being contested doesn't negate any cast votes. That comes later when evidence is brought forth.
Well, a state not won by Biden cannot be "flipped". If your argument cannot be reasonable unless you pre-assume it is correct, it probably isn't correct.
Agreed. However Biden has won these states. Therefore it can be flipped.
How likely it is is immaterial. What we want to know is, how true is it?
How true is it is immaterial when it comes to this.
No single party presidential impeachment had ever occurred previously. No fake whistleblower had ever been planted by Adam Schiff previously. No sitting president had ever spied on a presidential candidate previously. So?
All of what you've said is fake news. So your point is moot.
That is the mass media lie you've been spoon fed. But its good to see liberals have been beaten back to adding in " widespread". At first they just said, "no voter fraud". Dominium is a problem. Burst water pipes is a problem. Whistle blowers on election fraud is a problem. State AG's, Governors, and election officials who have been deemed to have violated the condtitution by the courts is a problem. Wake up man!
So to reiterate, no widespread election fraud has been found thus far.
Trump's own officials said they had an "insurance policy" to ensure he didn't win. Those same "officials just spent 4 years telling us that Russia meddled in the 2016 election.
Yawn conspiracy theory. Yawn yawn yawn.
Your priority may be the likelihood of Trump winning, my priority is the validity of the 2020 election. Either way, I will wait till a court of jurisdiction decides.
That's great! You should be in total support of quashing these fake and bogus election fraud probes then.
Facebook has removed " President" from his official account. Mainstream news outlets are calling Biden "President-elect". A few democratic idiots are saying Trump should be removed from office before Jan. Some are saying Trump should be barred from intelligence briefings.
The relevance of this to your original contention is what exactly?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
How do you know its a fact if all the votes have not been counted and election officials have not called the vote? You, like most liberals, seem not to need election officials or due process.
Basic reasoning and balance of probability? Let's examine this logically.
Biden is currently leading in the supposedly contested states by some margin of votes. There are very few remaining uncounted votes, such that they cannot surpass the margin. Hence Trump cannot flip these states by simply counting any remaining votes.
The only recourse Trump has is overturning votes through court action. How likely is this? Well, we know that widespread voter fraud has never occurred previously. We know that as of yet, there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud for this election. We know that Trump's own officials have stated that this was one of the most secure elections in US history. Apart from this, he'd have to prove that this occurred in several states, for a number of votes that surpasses all known cases of voter fraud in history. So not very likely at all.
And obviously, Trump will remain president until Jan 20th. No one has said otherwise.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
How do liberals like you forget the four years of democrats undermining the legitimacy of the 2016 election? Didn't the Obama administration spy on candidate Trump? Didn't every news mainstream new media outlet say Biden was ahead in a blue wave? Who said that Biden should no concede "no matter what"?
1. Irrelevant to the point
2. Half of those points are fake news. You should not accuse someone of being irrational when you spout out obvious misinformation.
The fact that you have already decided that Trumps case has no merit shows your bias and disdain for due process. I bet you think Kavenaugh was guilty of rape too.
What I have is a disdain for conspiracy theories, pointless actions and petulant man babies.
Biden is not he winner till all disputes have been resolved and official election authorities have declared him the winner. Till then, you are only displaying the depth of your TDS.
Doesn't actually negate the fact that he received the most electoral votes and this won't change.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
This is untrue. Just like the lie that Trump "refused" to condemn white supremists, or the lie that Trump said bleach should be injected, or the lie that Trump paid no taxes, or the lie that Trump was "behind" in the 2016 election, or the lie that....You get my drift.The liberal left simply believes every lame claim against Trump and it's almost impossible to get them to see their irrationality.
The general idea is that the person who undermined the legitimacy of the election before the election even occurred, is now meritlessly contesting the results of the election. Big surprise.
The bottom line still is, no official election official has called the election. Biden is NOT the president elect, and Trump is still the president. Curb your bias.
The bottom line is that he has received the most votes, as well as the most electoral votes. This is unlikely to change and Trump whining about it will not change the inevitable.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
It's simply a fact that the end result is overwhelmingly unlikely to change. We're talking about thousands of votes over multiple states. Hence it's a waste of both time and money. Of course he has the right to audit votes. However if you're asking why anyone would quash the audits, it's simply because the claims are meritless and there are consequences to entertaining his claims.
You should stop and consider that you are using the same people who gave us the bogus polls of 2016 and 2020 to declear that Biden won. Do you not find that problematic?
Unless your assertion that all of the news have collectively decided to report the same false number of vote counts, your point is moot. If that is your assertion, I look forward to seeing your evidence for a national scale conspiracy and the resulting pulitzer.
You should stop and consider that the one contesting the election is the same one who has previously refused to say that he'd transfer power peacefully, is generally a crook and has little in the way of morals.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
If Biden got more legal votes, why are the democrats fighting to quash the audit? They should welcome it.
That's kinda the point. He got more legal votes. Auditing them is a waste of time and money when the end result is overwhelmingly likely to not change.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Just to summarise HB's disproving video, the y axis (percentage of people who diverged from a straight party vote) was calculated by subtracting the percentage of candidate voters who voted Trump, from straight party voters who voted republican. The issue with this is that you cannot randomly subtract percentages, they have to be percentages based on the same size population. Ayyadurai's graph does not account for this and displays it's results under the assumption that there are an equal number of straight party voters to candidate voters, which of course is false. The proportion can vary widely, with some precincts having around only 40% of voters voting straight party, to 80% of voters voting straight party.
Apart from this, if you made the same plot with data from Biden and democrats instead, you'd get the same linear line, which would also apparently indicate that the greater number of straight democratic voters, the less likely they are to vote Biden.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The ultimate source for this claim seems to be a peddler of hyperpartisan bullshit and dubious claims including delights such as vitamins prevent/cure coronavirus, and Fauci is a deepstate actor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Scientifically it’s either at conception or after being removed from the womb. Any other definition is contradictory to science.
Once you've moved on from life into personhood and rights, it's no longer a scientific topic but a philosophical one
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Bringing it right back up to evidence
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I thought Joe Biden was a middle class boy from Scranton🤔. Where’d rich come from?
Time and asset management?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The point is that "This can't possibly happen" is not evidence. Especially when it's patently a fact that wealth, privilege and family opens up many doors that are closed for the vast majority.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I challenge you to find a person in this world who gets elected to the most respected office of the USA, despite being caught on tape uttering the phrase "I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab ‘em by the pussy. You can do anything.”, who cheated on his wife, banged a pornstar and then attempted to cover it up, who has had multiple allegations of sexual misconduct levied against him, who was caught running a fraudulent training program.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
As the thread creator, you set the initial conversation topic. However you have no say over how conversations evolve within a thread. And if a conversation devolves into whether powdered donuts or glazed donuts are better, it is one thing to rightfully call out such a conversation as off topic, it is another to randomly spout out false Biden strawmans like a unsocialised retard.
Hence deranged
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Unnecessary for any disease.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm not criticising individuals. While I think those who think that a month lockdown is worse than many months more of an epidemic are shortsighted dumbasses, ultimately if they don't have the framework or leadership it's hardly their fault. I'm criticising the government. I don't think the government should bend over for the whims of selfish individuals when it's a matter of public health.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
It's not that I do or don't think they are racist.
I just wanted to know why YOU think they are racist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Funny thing is, the best cures for Heart disease is also the best defense for Covid. Funny how that works. Diet. Exercise, manage your health risks, live a less stressful life ignoring what CNN demands you to get stressed out over. Those things.
Those certainly reduce risk, but obviously the best defence is to not get it at all. Because reducing risks are not a guarantee and regardless of what you do, risks associated with age will always be prevalent to some degree.
An absolutely rational approach. The vast majority had no problems with a lockdown till about May when the numbers were available to better evaluate death risks, at-risk groups, and also better evaluate hospital surges. To know who really needed hospital care and who could go home and fight it off.
This is a good argument as to why the views of the vast majority are irrelevant in such specialised matters. Obviously people generally aren't concerned with the health of the nation as a whole. Nor are they well-informed of the long term impacts of a disease.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Can you explain why those examples are racist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's true that heart disease and cancer are much more severe threats, however there are several differences here that justify the response over Covid-19
1. Heart disease and cancer aren't contagious. So ordinary people can go about their lives without the threat of being impacted by heart disease and cancer from other people
2. Linked to 1, heart disease and cancer are fairly well understood in comparison to Covid-19. It's not the best idea to let something rampage through society without knowing the full extent of long term impacts.
3. Linked to 3, because they are well understood, we already have solutions for them. We have done what we can for those particular conditions. In comparison, there is an absolute defence against contagious disease propagation which has been ignored, so clearly more can be done in that regard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
If the conversation is about whether or not Trump was callous towards Covid-19, and then you randomly switch topics to Biden's positions when that topic was never previously breached, that's one thing.
But when you then conjure up random strawman Biden positions?
Deranged.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I'm not going to lie, you sound rather deranged when you talk in such hyperboles and constantly shift topic to Biden.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Personally I think the attitude of "Just live with it" in response to a pandemic is reasonably callous yes. I'm not sure why a list of bare minimum actions changes this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Depends what you're aiming for. If it's strictly the amount of deaths, sure. But reducing deaths is not equivalent to the normalcy you get from a well-implemented lockdown right?
Because you still have the disease rampaging throughout the country. You wouldn't be able to travel anywhere without being a pariah. Even if you aren't at risk, you aren't immune from the disease. Long term impacts of even mild cases still haven't been fully examined. And of course, at risk people form a significant amount of the population so when will they come out of quarantine if ever?
As an aside because you mentioned the flu, I don't know if you've heard, but New Zealand has near eliminated the flu as a consequence of the covid-19 lockdown.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It would certainly be interesting to examine why countries that implemented lockdowns failed to contain the disease. But in theory, a well implemented and adhered to quarantine is an absolute defence against the spread of disease.
If you only strive for the results found on the bottom rung of the ladder, sure, the cure may arguably not justify the disease. But then you have cases such as New Zealand and Korea. In those countries, the "cure" was obviously better than the disease so perhaps aim for that bar?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The Cure cannot be worse than the disease.
I don't disagree. However at this time, the virus is continuing to spread and has continued to spread for more than half a year.
So the question is, is the cure (a sufficiently long lockdown period followed by aggressive contact tracing) actually worse than the previous months of the disease and future months more?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
So it is no longer "People are learning to live with it," but is a more subjective "Just live with it?" You cannot correct me, then make a similar misquote.
I wasn't quoting him, but summing up his general callous attitude. I think "Just live with it" is fairly reasonable given his encouragement of opening up the economy.
Pessimism is an approach, but it is not mine, andf appears Grayparrot agrees with my more positive position. Wring your hands, or put them to work to help.
It's one thing to make the most out of a poor situation. It is another to recognise the realities of the situation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Callous? I think the callouses cover your eyes and ears. Wake up.
Personally I think the attitude of "Just live with it" in response to a pandemic is reasonably callous yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
But the line that sold me that Biden is all wrong for America is his response to Trump, who said, "We must learn to live with the virus." Biden replied, "No, we must learn to die with it." Foot-in-mouth, and may-I-have-another all wrapped into a single comment.
If this is the part of the debate that I remember, the actual rebuttal to Trump who said "We are learning to live with it" from Biden was "People are learning to die with it". In otherwords, this is a repudiation of Trump's callous attitude in handling the virus. Hopefully this clarification eases your mind on that particular point anyway.
Created:
How does that logic relate to the "unreasonable searches and seizures" bit?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Your puffery is well noted and neither impresses me or has relevance to the matter at hand.
You have the conviction that Biden does not have a chance, so I wished to know where this conviction comes from if not polls. If from simple hope, all well and good. If from some other measure, even better.
You have the conviction that Biden does not have a chance, so I wished to know where this conviction comes from if not polls. If from simple hope, all well and good. If from some other measure, even better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Even given the case that the polls were wrong and you know why they were wrong, you can't actually accurately quantify these factors to say Trump is definitively winning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
If not by polling, how do you personally judge who is likely to win? Or is it more a case of you don't have an objective measure, but you support Trump and are optimistic for him nonetheless?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Makes sense, they all agree with you so it must be ok huh.
It's not a question about being ok or not ok. There's just nothing inherently wrong about university faculty being overwhelmingly liberal
You mad that you don’t have a buddy? I’ve literally just responded to GP. How does that make it a circle jerk?
Your conversations can be summed to be "Lol liberals". "Yes, Lol liberals".
That’s not what I was talking about. Did you read the article where constitutionalist judges like Scalia and Thomas voiced opinions that they necessarily didn’t agree with but ruled against their personal opinion anyways? That seems more moderate than Garland to me. I challenge you to name one case that displays how he’s a “moderate.”And pray tell where Garland has broken from his liberal colleagues on the court system? I can bake you various instances where conservatives have. Garland is not an originalist because by definition originalist is moderate. They’re bounded by the Constitution whether they like it or not.
Sure. Garland is noted to be moderate-conservative in criminal law and has oftened dissented with the more liberal judges of the DC circuit. You may read more and find specific cases here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2010/04/the-potential-nomination-of-merrick-garland/
Sure if the party of the Senate is different from that of the President. Then a Presidential election in concurrence with Sebatorial elections can decide the will of the people. That process already happened in 2016 and 2018. The will of the people is in the White House and Senate.
No, that is not in the context of the Biden rule. Again, that is a bit of pretext used to justify this chicanery.
Biden came up with the idea. By logic he should agree with it, but he didn’t. So tell me again how Mitch McConnell started this when the idea was proposed by Joseph R. Biden himself. And let’s get one thing straight. If a vacancy did occur, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee he wouldn’t have agreed to a vote.
It was never actually codified or acted upon? It's one thing to suggest bombing a school as a hypothetical. It's quite another to actually bomb a school.
To the contrary. The first action of hypocrisy was started by the Democrats when they disagreed with their own Vice President at that time in 2016.
That wouldn't be hypocrisy. That would be disagreement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I think MisterChris did that if you want to look into polling information.
Chris admirably showed that university faculty are overwhelmingly liberal. That's not a surprise nor is it something I care about.
You accuse us of being in conservative circle jerk.
It's not really an accusation and it's more by definition at this point. Look at how many times you've @'d at GP just to cackle together over hysterical conservative talking points just in this one thread.
Maybe you want to check out academia that’s literally a circle jerk and a groupthink cesspool.
And why do you think academia is a groupthink cesspool?
Seems like GP did that for you.
Stating that a conservative think tank thinks he's not moderate is rather vacuous. Perhaps something more specific?
I also mentioned how he was anti-gun and pro-regulation. Not to mention fond of the EPA and IRS hegemony.
This really doesn't mean much right? Conservatives may vote on the side of liberal policies and vise versa. Garland is noted for having judicial restraint which is more characteristic of conservative judges. So again I ask, what is a definitive sign of a more moderate judge and why are you definitively stating that Garland is not one?
American people did get a say - in 2014, 2016, and 2018 when the GOP won and kept the Senate, followed by in 2016 when the GOP won the presidency.
We must be on different wavelengths or something. The context is the people should get a say on presidential election years.
They flipped back in 2016. They flipped again now. Both sides did. They’re both hypocrites. You defending the actions of Democrats it’s peculiar.
The Biden rule wasn't a rule until Mitch made the precedent.
Schumer on one hand wants his party’s nominee to be appointed even when his party wasn’t in power in the Senate. It directly is against the will of the people who have the GOP one of the largest gains in the Senate. He has flip flopped on the issue too, whether you like it or not, just because it’s politically convenient. If Mitch is a hypocrite, so is Chuck.
I think I can let this one slide, given that it stems entirely from Mitch's hypocrisy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I have. It’s horseshit and biased. I literally have a professor who taught feminist classes who’s being accused of sexual assault.
Perhaps demonstrate so. At the moment all I see you posting uninformed opinions that you can't justify and you whining about biased academia. Which is great when circle jerking with other republicans, but it's useless in every other case.
How many times are you gonna say Garland is a moderate. He’s not.
Until it's shown otherwise?
If Mitch isn’t following the rule - Democrats didn’t either. If you’re saying one is the hypocrite, the other is the hypocrite too.
How have democrats been failing to follow the rule, when they haven't had the chance ever since the precedent was first made?
By invoking the Biden? Sure. Schumer is doing the same thing.
No, by justifying his actions by claiming the American people should have a say, and then ignoring his own justifications when it becomes convenient. Do you have an example where Schumer has done this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Yup, them and their media accomplices. We’re just all deplorables right?
You apparently have a brain, so theoretically you should be able to critically analyse news pieces and literature. Perhaps try it instead of whining at me.
This is laughable. You and I both know that Democrats would not hesitate to put a judge on the bench.
Sorry I should've been more clear. I think people in general should follow standards they themselves set. If Mitch has set the standard of Biden's rule, then he should be bound by it. Others shouldn't necessarily also be dragged into following it, and in this case with the Democrats that's probably ok. They were willing to go with a compromise pick. The same probably cannot be said with the republicans.
Even if Mitch is a hypocrite, so is Chuck Schumer. What’s your point?
That your original point is wrong. He is not just "following the Biden rule". He's doing his own thing within the bounds of the law that best benefits his party.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Funny how academia is disproportionately liberal huh?
Their reasonings are certainly more convincing than the hot air you put out.
Glad we agree then. Trump and nominate and Senate should vote. Period.
Not really. Can and should are somewhat different. This congress has the power certainly but from a consistency standpoint, I think the precedent set by Mitch in 2016 should be followed.
Your dodging says it all - glad we agree that they’re hypocrites as well
Absolutely, to some extent. And hardly because of anything you've said. But again, not the point.
The original point was that using the Biden rule is pretextual and that Mitch is a hypocrite.
Do you see how calling the Democrats hypocrites and asserting that the republicans have the power to seat a judge have nothing to do with this point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I can’t help you if you think Merrick Garland is a moderate.
Merrick Garland being a moderate is a view expressed by many versed in legalese and is hence my conclusion. If you think this is not the case, perhaps you should explain why instead of making a very obvious and predictable dodge.
It’s pretty clear - the people gave the GOP the Senate and the Presidency through legitimate processes.When Joe Biden and the Democrats have a problem is when a Republican is in the picture. The people didn’t give Democrats the mandate prior to 2016 because they didn’t control the Senate. By contrast GOP has both. Historically, GOP should confirm the nominee.
No one is arguing that the GOP doesn't have the power. But again, this is not the point.
Democrats are as much of hypocrites as Mitch McConnell and the Democrats. Deal with it.
This has nothing to do with whether or not the Democrats are also hypocrites so still not the point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
His justification was Biden himself. Biden acknowledged that the process would be highly partisan probably because the Senate and Presidency were in the opposite hands.
February 23, 2016: “I can now confidently say the view shared by virtually everybody in my conference, is that the nomination should be made by the president the people elect in the election that’s underway right now,” McConnell told reporters following Senate Republicans’ first closed-door meeting after Scalia’s death. “I believe the overwhelming view of the Republican Conference in the Senate is that this nomination should not be filled, this vacancy should not be filled by this lame duck president…The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let’s give them a voice. Let’s let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be.”
March 16, 2016: “The Senate will continue to observe the ‘Biden rule’ so that the American people have a voice in this momentous decision on who to name to the court,” McConnell said in a floor speech the day Obama nominated Garland.
Garland is not a moderate. He rules liberally on everything there and is a judicial activist.
What are the characteristics of a moderate then and why does Garland not fulfill these characteristics?
If you’re going to vote for Joe you gotta listen to what he says right? Your problem here is that you’re salty RBG didn’t retire under Obama and now her seat is going to be filled by a conservative. I have no doubt Democrats would fill it if the vacancy occurred during a Democratic President. The historical precedence lies with the GOP. Go read SirAnonymous’ post.
To be clear, the point I made is the invoking the Biden rule in defence of Mitch's hypocritical actions is pretextual. None of what you've said appears to have addressed this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You're missing some context I think.
Firstly, "if a vacancy with the same party, fill it in election year" has been arbitrarily tacked on later to justify Mitch's actions. That bit is not a part of the "Biden rule" and is the flimsy pretext.
Secondly, the context of the rule when first suggested by Biden was to allow the people to have a say in the choice. This is the justification used by Mitch in blocking Merrick Garland.
Thirdly, the suggestion made by Biden at the time was, failing the second point, a compromise pick should be made either with the consultation of the senate or the selection of a moderate.
Given the first point, Mitch is not actually invoking the Biden rule in this case. He's just doing what he wants and is legally able really.
Given the second point, clearly Mitch is a hypocrite as he does not intend to follow the justification of the Biden rule, nor his own justification made at the time for blocking Garland.
Given the third point, arguably Mitch never followed the Biden rule in the first place, because from what I understand, Garland was and is a moderate, and was actually a Republican suggestion in the first place.
Also I'd point out that the Biden rule is not actually a rule. It was a suggestion at the time and never codified or put into practice until Mitch invoked it to justify blocking Garland. Given that he obviously doesn't care about the context behind the rule clearly means that invoking it is pretextual, both in the first instance of invoking it and even moreso in the second instance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Mitch is just following the Biden Rule - if vacancy with same party, fill it in election year, if parties are different wait till after election
Let's try not to justify Mitch's actions under such a flimsy pretext. It is sufficient to say that while hypocritical, Mitch is legally serving his party's best interests.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
But let's be real, president Trump is the only one doing anything or attempting to do anything about this issue.
ಠ_ಠ
Created: