Simple Poll. Is Joe Biden corrupt?

[Dill]

(08-20-2023, 05:18 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: All of this and not one single mention of Biden, Joe, Hunter, Corrupt, Innocent, Guilty, Ukraine Money, Bribed, Laptop....
So i'm just gonna stick this post in the not thread related category.

What about the others with no single mention of Biden, etc.? 

By the way, settling questions of whether and how press bias frames issues is always relevant.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-20-2023, 08:07 PM)Dill Wrote: What about the others with no single mention of Biden, etc.? 

Fair, this thread has been replete with off topic posts.  As i usually the case.

[Dill]

I have a couple points to make which I'll not direct to anyone specifically.

1. If someone calls me a "racist" or claims I am "disingenuous, I surely have a right to defend myself, though I don't reply in kind. (I usually ask for evidence to dispute, though I don't often get it).

2. Exercising that right does not obligate me to defend anyone else or "call out" anyone else for remarks addressed to others.

E.g., if Hollo calls someone a "racist," I don't see why I have to "call him out" for it. Let his addressee defend himself or let the moderators take care of it.
Further, not "calling him out" doesn't suddenly make me a "blatantly lying hypocrite" for not doing so, nor does it mean I'm only giving him a pass because his politics tend to align with mine. StrictlyBiz' politics don't align with mine but I would not "call him out" either.

For the most part, policing other posters like that is just not our job. And more often than not, done without ground. The whole "calling out" concept seems to me misguided and accusatory rather than engaging.
'
I have twice made exception to this general rule, though, because I saw a pattern of a poster dogging others from thread to thread,
constructing unfounded accusations and promising to continue that toxic behavior into the future. When this goes beyond an angry one off, and one poster has a long game of creating a "rep" for another poster and urging others to buy in, then yes, I'll finally step in and object. Others should too.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-20-2023, 08:38 PM)Dill Wrote: I have a couple points to make which I'll not direct to anyone specifically.

1. If someone calls me a "racist" or claims I am "disingenuous, I surely have a right to defend myself, though I don't reply in kind. (I usually ask for evidence to dispute, though I don't often get it).

2. Exercising that right does not obligate me to defend anyone else or "call out" anyone else for remarks addressed to others.

E.g., if Hollo calls someone a "racist," I don't see why I have to "call him out" for it. Let his addressee defend himself or let the moderators take care of it.
Further, not "calling him out" doesn't suddenly make me a "blatantly lying hypocrite" for not doing so, nor does it mean I'm only giving him a pass because his politics tend to align with mine. StrictlyBiz' politics don't align with mine but I would not "call him out" either.

For the most part, policing other posters like that is just not our job. And more often than not, done without ground. The whole "calling out" concept seems to me misguided and accusatory rather than engaging.
'
I have twice made exception to this general rule, though, because I saw a pattern of a poster dogging others from thread to thread,
constructing unfounded accusations and promising to continue that toxic behavior into the future. When this goes beyond an angry one off, and one poster has a long game of creating a "rep" for another poster and urging others to buy in, then yes, I'll finally step in and object. Others should too.

So after it was pointed out, you going to do it AGAIN??? 
Make you own thread, i'm only interested in Biden news in this one. 

[Dill]

(08-20-2023, 09:18 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So after it was pointed out, you going to do it AGAIN??? 
Make you own thread, i'm only interested in Biden news in this one. 

Is this YOUR thread?

You reserve for yourself the right to police threads in your interest.
Me too.

[Luvnit2]

Is it surprising the far left liberals in the thread are trying to divert and change the narrative of questioning Biden is corrupt?

Yes, many have ignored the thread topic, it is easier than admitting their main squeeze Joe Biden is corrupt.

Joe Biden will not be the nominee in 2024, the man ignored hs grand daughter for years and then takes a vacation after Maui burns down. Empathy was supposed to be his strong suit, instead the world now sees him for what he is and the liberals see it too, just will never admit it.

[StoneTheCrow]

(08-21-2023, 09:13 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: then takes a vacation after Maui burns down. Empathy was supposed to be his strong suit, instead the world now sees him for what he is and the liberals see it too, just will never admit it.

Wrong. *Two vacations*

Joe Biden doesn’t care about Pacific Islanders

[StrictlyBiz]

(08-20-2023, 05:11 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL I'll bet 100% of the partisan "nonpartisans" who target "leftists" do.  


1. Any reporter writing up the "147 Republicans" piece the next day would have known by Jan. 2 that Louis Gohmert had sued Pence to force him to reject already certified slates of electors in favor of alternatives NOT validated by the proper state officials. S/he'd know that Pence had been handed lists of "alternative" (fake) electors from 7 states during the certification and rejected them, lists which required weeks of preparation and help from more than "several" Republican Congressmen. S/he'd know that Senatorial endorsements of the objections had halted certification and forced debate over unproven allegations of voter fraud--including for elections the Congressmen themselves had won. S/he'd know that no Senators had endorsed House objections in 2017, and that JB had not been sued or handed such lists before he refused to consider objections in 2017.

2. S/he'd know that a president, who had NOT conceded the election, HAD sent a mass of people to the Capitol, a mass he'd been calling up for weeks, and timed to hit the Capitol during the certification vote and the fake lists.  S/he'd know from watching tv that this mass breeched the Capitol, some carrying zip ties and rope to hang Pence if he didn't do as Trump ordered. She'd know the mob interrupted certification forcing Congress to evacuate. That reporter would know that this had not happened in 2017, indeed had never happened before; and that in 2021 it was an attempted Putsch.  S/he wouldn't still be uncertain about that in 2023, needing an extra Google search to make sure.

3. S/he'd also know that all Republicans who'd been forced to flee came back to vote. And some who'd intended to vote against certification decided NOT to, now that the vote was clearly not simply a protest but linked to an active insurrection. The remaining 147 who continued to object to certification knew very well they that they were endorsing the same movement that brought the mob into the chambers of Congress.

So sure. Dems in 2017 announced their intent ahead of time too. Thus the two certification processes were "very similar" to anyone who could set aside "bias," and apparently their eyes as well.  

Only reporting "tone" made the situations different, smearing those honest gentlemen/women who, by 8pm 1/6, knew exactly what their votes endorsed.  

There's a mix of fact and opinion here. 
1 is true

2 is a mix. The hang Mike Pence chants were not widely known immediately after. 

3 is purely opinion. Things were happening quickly that day. And while some Republicans may have decided to change their minds, that doesn't make all of those who didn't complicit in a nefarious scheme. Many had planned a "ceremonial" objection well in advance and they still wanted to drive their point across. That doesn't make the complicit in anything and certainly not worthy of being smeared as trying to overturn an election. 


What has been lost through this thread, something that I mentioned waaay back in one of my first replies, is that the job of the media is to report the news, not to elicit an emotional response for likes and clicks by injecting their opinion into their articles. This should be especially true for an age old and 'respected' institution such as the New York Times. Unfortunately, the article that I cited is pure sensationalism designed to do exactly that...get clicks and likes. 

I am done here. Especially in light of some of the most recent posts commenting about how this thread has gone so far off of the rails. 

I recently read the Vivek thread (something I missed a while ago) and saw that you literally wrote that stories of returning US soldiers being spit on was a myth, and then spent the next several pages denying that you said it...when it was written as plain as day for everyone to read. 

If you are willing to so adamantly deny something that you wrote, that is literally right there just a few pages back, for the world to see, then you will most certainly continue this conversation indefinitely. If I don't stop, this thread will literally go on for a year. So I am out. 

[StrictlyBiz]

(08-20-2023, 08:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fair, this thread has been replete with off topic posts.  As i usually the case.

After reading this and other replies, I apologize for my part in derailing the whole thing. I should've seen where it was going and backed out a lot sooner. I did however, try to resist the attempts to drag it down even more desolate roads, but that wasn't enough. I got sucked in. 

I see that I have one more reply to Hollodero when I get the chance, but after that I checking out. 

[Dill]

(08-21-2023, 09:33 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: There's a mix of fact and opinion here. 
1 is true
2. S/he'd know that a president, who had NOT conceded the election, HAD sent a mass of people to the Capitol, a mass he'd been calling up for weeks, and timed to hit the Capitol during the certification vote and the fake lists.  S/he'd know from watching tv that this mass breeched the Capitol, some carrying zip ties and rope to hang Pence if he didn't do as Trump ordered. She'd know the mob interrupted certification forcing Congress to evacuate. That reporter would know that this had not happened in 2017, indeed had never happened before; and that in 2021 it was an attempted Putsch.  S/he wouldn't still be uncertain about that in 2023, needing an extra Google search to make sure.
2 is a mix. The hang Mike Pence chants were not widely known immediately after. 

I heard the "hang Mike Pence" chants on television as the Capitol was being breached. Also saw the gallows erected in front of the Capitol and people entering the Capitol with zip ties. Easy to find video of tv coverage for that day, right? So certainly "widely known" to reporters.

Three main points here: the VP was presented with forged lists of electors from 7 states,  a mob breeched the Capitol, having been called there by a president who was contesting election results.  And the certification was interrupted. Not "similar" to 2017.  This is important for assessing point three.

(08-21-2023, 09:33 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: 3. S/he'd also know that all Republicans who'd been forced to flee came back to vote. And some who'd intended to vote against certification decided NOT to, now that the vote was clearly not simply a protest but linked to an active insurrection. The remaining 147 who continued to object to certification knew very well they that they were endorsing the same movement that brought the mob into the chambers of Congress.

3 is purely opinion. Things were happening quickly that day. And while some Republicans may have decided to change their minds, that doesn't make all of those who didn't complicit in a nefarious scheme. Many had planned a "ceremonial" objection well in advance and they still wanted to drive their point across. That doesn't make the complicit in anything and certainly not worthy of being smeared as trying to overturn an election. 

What has been lost through this thread, something that I mentioned waaay back in one of my first replies, is that the job of the media is to report the news, not to elicit an emotional response for likes and clicks by injecting their opinion into their articles. This should be especially true for an age old and 'respected' institution such as the New York Times. Unfortunately, the article that I cited is pure sensationalism designed to do exactly that...get clicks and likes. 

Things were not "happening [so] quickly" that Republicans did not know they'd been forced to flee because a mob, called by Trump, had broken into the Capitol to voice its "objection" to certification. All knew Pence had been handed lists of "alternative" electors for a number of states. They SAW that, but didn't wonder how those lists were produced, where they came from? They didn't know that de-certification could throw the election to a House vote?  You seem to think that, amidst all that uncertainty about how the day would end, it was no great matter if GOP Congressmen still "wanted to drive their point across"--namely they, like the mob, did not want the election certified?  Not "opinion" that some, perceiving the link between the riot and the objection plan, declined to continue.  Not "opinion" that others went ahead with their vote, in full knowledge that it aligned them with the motives of Trump and the rioters but, so you think, without "making them complicit" in some "nefarious scheme."  

Your assertion that the NYT media article was "sensational" is predicated on your claim that a certification interrupted by a riot in 2021 was "similar" to one in 2017, simply because in both cases Congressmen planned to object. And my "gymnastics" do not prove otherwise when I refer to the riot, the lists of fake electors, and the fact that some Congressmen saw a difference between a protest vote planned before the certification and one that still went forward after fake elector lists appeared and a mob had breached the capitol. Well I have not been convinced they are so similar that no difference in tone is justified when reporting an almost coup. Nor that mere "sensationalism" accounts for a reporter's assumption that the objections of 147 Congressmen were about overturning the election.  Like, somehow, their point could not REALLY be that they wanted the election overturned.

Looks to me like you are just forcing this national earthquake into your "both sides" thesis. As if this were no different from each side complaining the other's president takes too much vacation time. Maybe both sides didn't storm the Capitol and attempt a coup, but both sides DID plan objections to certification beforehand. So same same. And you have spotted how the media sensationalized what happened to get clicks. Media should just report facts. Not add all that other stuff about overturing elections. Which is "opinion." 

[Dill]

(08-21-2023, 09:33 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: I am done here. Especially in light of some of the most recent posts commenting about how this thread has gone so far off of the rails. 
I recently read the Vivek thread (something I missed a while ago) and saw that you literally wrote that stories of returning US soldiers being spit on was a myth, and then spent the next several pages denying that you said it...when it was written as plain as day for everyone to read. 
If you are willing to so adamantly deny something that you wrote, that is literally right there just a few pages back, for the world to see, then you will most certainly continue this conversation indefinitely. If I don't stop, this thread will literally go on for a year. So I am out. 

Apologies to OtherMike, but I don't like to let misrepresentations of my views just circulate without contest. 

The "myth," as I repeatedly said, is that being spit on was a common experience. Since the late 80s and early 90s, this has been presented in right wing media as representative of what happened to most vets. 

The thesis is not really original with me; e.g., I also cited Jerry Lembkes' book The Spitting Image, which develops the same claim with data on vet re-entry, and uses the word "myth" to describe claims the spitting was "representative."

So I not only DON"T deny that being spit on was a common experience, but continue to affirm that's is my main point on the subject.  There is no place on the Vivek thread where I "adamantly deny what I wrote." 

Why do you pop up on this already derailed thread to make a false claim like that? If you think I "adamantly" denied something I wrote, why don't you go to THAT thread and demonstrate it? Cite where I "denied" this. Or if not, then just stop repeating the falsehood. You think reporters should represent topics without "sensationalism"; why don't you adopt that standard yourself? 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-21-2023, 08:56 AM)Dill Wrote: Is this YOUR thread?

You reserve for yourself the right to police threads in your interest.
Me too.

Go for it, when i post off topic feel free to call me out. 

[Dill]

(08-23-2023, 09:46 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Go for it, when i post off topic feel free to call me out. 

If you are defending yourself, very unlikely I would single you out as "off topic." 

[GreenDragon]

(08-09-2023, 08:18 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Yes or No based on the evidence presented thus far by the oversight committee. Sorry, it was suggested to I missed a poll option.
No, but I won't admit it.

I tried to update the poll question, but was not allowed.

Do you have evidence to suggest that Biden is corrupt? 

[hollodero]

(08-20-2023, 08:38 PM)Dill Wrote: E.g., if Hollo calls someone a "racist," I don't see why I have to "call him out" for it. Let his addressee defend himself or let the moderators take care of it.

I see the point, but when I'm concerned, I wish people would immediately call me out for bad behaviour.

Eventually I might do so myself, like right now where I apologize for my behaviour in this thread.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-23-2023, 04:12 PM)hollodero Wrote: I see the point, but when I'm concerned, I wish people would immediately call me out for bad behaviour.

Eventually I might do so myself, like right now where I apologize for my behaviour in this thread.

You have nothing to apologize for.  Stating your opinion, without rancor or ill intent, is not something one should have to apologize for.