Simple Poll. Is Joe Biden corrupt?

[StrictlyBiz]

(08-13-2023, 02:49 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: What should change is that you should see how you are being mislead by a media who's trying to gin up likes and clicks by playing with your emotions, rather than reporting the news. 

For example, here is how two different left leaning news sources reported on the 2016 and 2020 election results. 

2016: "House Democrats fail to muster support to challenge Trumps electoral college win"
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/no-trump-electoral-college-challenge-233294



2020: "147 Republicans who voted to overturn the election results"
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/07/us/elections/electoral-college-biden-objectors.html



Two articles from two different elections, with two different results, and two different Congresses doing EXACTLY the same thing....what they are allowed to do...object to states results.

But with two VERY different headlines with VERY different tones. And partisan suckers will fall for it 100% of the time.

I doubt you'll see the point though. You'll most likely reply with some lengthy diversionary post pointing to some insignificant difference as you gymnastically flip-flop your way to a "Democrat good. Republican bad" conclusion. 

I don't like quoting myself, but I'm going to expand on this....


Imagine the person whose already got a political bias and reads the second headline. Without trying to fully understand the situation and fully reading both articles with an open mind in an effort to gain that understanding, what conclusions will they draw? 

That person will likely conclude that both parties didn't like the election results, but the Republicans actually tried to overturn the election. They'll file it away in their head as just another example of a deeper level of 'documentable evidence' that similar accusations of wrong doing between the parties aren't equivalent, and "Democrats good. Republicans bad."

Working backwards in your post...That person who is now armed with 'evidence' that the Republicans are worse will be likely to believe, before the judicial process plays out, that the President attempted a coup and some Republicans helped him out. 

I looked to see if Donald Trump is actually being charged with attempting a coup, and all that I can find were left leaning websites that offered the opinion that he is. And while I do understand their logic that the charges collectively define and amount to what a coup is, the judicial process to determine if he's guilty of what is being charged has yet to play out. And while that may ultimately be the case, it has yet to be determined. At this time Trump is only being accused of attempting a coup (as defined by certain websites.) 


However, in your mind, you've already convicted him of attempting a coup and are using it as yet another example of a deeper level of documentable evidence that "Republicans bad, Democrats good" because some Republicans helped him out. 

Fair and unbiased thinking (or as close as you can get to it), sits back and observes and lets the process play out. It's okay to have an opinion one way or the other beforehand and it's okay to discuss it, but drawing a conclusion beforehand and making definitive statements based on it is the stuff of partisan hacks. 

[StoneTheCrow]

(08-13-2023, 10:28 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: He was just calling to say "i Love you Daddy!"...
Joe said no business was discussed so i take him at his word til proven otherwise.  

Correct. Hell, I have a few important Teams meetings this week and I forwarded the invites to the old man in case he wants to jump on and say hello and discuss the drizzle outside.

[Luvnit2]

I just looked at. the poll results. I am going to keep the poll results up until October. Did anyone change their mind after the over 20 million dollars to HB was verified with bank records. Did the Devon Archer testimony confirmation Joe did talk business at numerous business dinners change your mind?

Did anyone change due to Joe again saying he did not discuss business or do business with his son Hunter?

Feel free to tell us why you voted not corrupt or corrupt.

[GMDino]

Got to thinking this morning:  What was Kushner's expertise in the middle east that DJT sent him there over say, the Secretary of State?  




Obviously he's as slimy as most lobbyists, but that much money that soon after his FIL left office?  I wonder what he gave them.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-14-2023, 10:20 AM)GMDino Wrote: Got to thinking this morning:  What was Kushner's expertise in the middle east that DJT sent him there over say, the Secretary of State?  


Obviously he's as slimy as most lobbyists, but that much money that soon after his FIL left office?  I wonder what he gave them.  

Whatabout?

It's interesting that you're still banging this drum even after Bel pointed out that what happened is unfortunately not illegal.  But please return to your whataboutism.

[masonbengals fan]

Democratic Chairwoman Maloney led a House Oversight Committee on the subject in 2022.

[Luvnit2]

(08-14-2023, 11:25 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Democratic Chairwoman Maloney led a House Oversight Committee on the subject in 2022.

It is all he has is to say business people who are multi millionaires did something illegal to change the narrative Hunter and his dad appear to be corrupt.

[Luvnit2]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-agent-says-biden-transition-team-secret-service-were-tipped-off-on-plans-to-interview-hunter-biden

"FBI agent says Biden transition team, Secret Service were tipped off on 2020 plans to interview Hunter Biden".FBI agent is retired and delivered this information under sworn testimony.

Why is the D.O.J. and Secret Service intervening in a private citizen (Hunter Biden) investigation? Why were IRS agents not permitted to not only interview HB, but US Attorney 2nd in command to Garland stopped F.B.I. and I.R.S. agents from interviewing any Biden family members?

Why? It looks simple to me, if you are Biden or Biden family member you get a free pass. If you are Trump, the justice department throws you under the bus.

The Congress investigation continues even though Garland is trying to shut it down by saying they are investigating HB, yet no word on if they are also investigating Joe Biden and other family members.

[GMDino]

(08-14-2023, 11:25 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Democratic Chairwoman Maloney led a House Oversight Committee on the subject in 2022.

Okay, and they are maybe going to look into it again, but what I was getting at was part of the whole Hunter thing is he was paid for something he had no expertise in.  I'm not sure what Hunter did was illegal either.  Companies pay people they think can help them.  If they think just being a Biden was going to guarantee his father's "pull" that doesn't mean they get it/got it.  (Joe's participation is what makes a difference to me.) 

But that's why I asked if Kushner had anything other than his FIL's position to help him collect billions.  That aspect hasn't been something I've seen discussed.

[Luvnit2]

(08-14-2023, 12:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: Okay, and they are maybe going to look into it again, but what I was getting at was part of the whole Hunter thing is he was paid for something he had no expertise in.  I'm not sure what Hunter did was illegal either.  Companies pay people they think can help them.  If they think just being a Biden was going to guarantee his father's "pull" that doesn't mean they get it/got it.  (Joe's participation is what makes a difference to me.) 

But that's why I asked if Kushner had anything other than his FIL's position to help him collect billions.  That aspect hasn't been something I've seen discussed.

You continue to violate the forum rules. If you want to discuss Kushner, start a thread. Kushner's business deals have nothing to do with Joe Biden being corrupt or not being corrupt. You have a habit of doing this and I would hope the mods put an end to it.

[GMDino]

(08-14-2023, 01:28 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: You continue to violate the forum rules. If you want to discuss Kushner, start a thread. Kushner's business deals have nothing to do with Joe Biden being corrupt or not being corrupt. You have a habit of doing this and I would hope the mods put an end to it.

I wasn't the first or only person to bring Kushner into the conversation.

Thought it sounds like you don't want to talk about it. 

[Dill]

(08-14-2023, 07:09 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Imagine the person whose already got a political bias and reads the second headline. Without trying to fully understand the situation and fully reading both articles with an open mind in an effort to gain that understanding, what conclusions will they draw? 

That person will likely conclude that both parties didn't like the election results, but the Republicans actually tried to overturn the election. They'll file it away in their head as just another example of a deeper level of 'documentable evidence' that similar accusations of wrong doing between the parties aren't equivalent, and "Democrats good. Republicans bad."

Thanks for putting the time into your answer, and for the examples. The follow up post is helpful, because I could not tell what your comparison was getting at in the first post. What exactly were the "partisan suckers" falling for? Still not sure, but now I have more to proceed on. Some further questions now, to make sure I am not going after a straw man.

The first bolded above puzzles me. You posit someone who has "already got a political bias" and is not "trying to fully understand the situation," not "reading both articles with an open mind."  But someone who turns to the documentary record to judge whether "both sides" are legitimately questioning certification would be trying to "fully understand the situation" wouldn't s/he?  Why wouldn't "a person who's already got bias" be more likely to judge WITHOUT reference to factual record? 

Not sure why someone "trying to fully understand the situation" by checking the factual record would NOT conclude that some Republicans did actually try to overturn the election. If one is biased in favor of democracy and functioning government, then why, in this election cycle, wouldn't one conclude "Democrats good"?  But you seem to be saying that sort of independent reasoning from record and law would be evidence of bias. To me, it doesn't seem exactly "unbiased" to conclude both attempts to question certification were equally legitimate, and we cannot possibly think or know otherwise until a jury decides for us.

(08-14-2023, 07:09 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Working backwards in your post...That person who is now armed with 'evidence' that the Republicans are worse will be likely to believe, before the judicial process plays out, that the President attempted a coup and some Republicans helped him out. 

I looked to see if Donald Trump is actually being charged with attempting a coup, and all that I can find were left leaning websites that offered the opinion that he is. And while I do understand their logic that the charges collectively define and amount to what a coup is, the judicial process to determine if he's guilty of what is being charged has yet to play out. And while that may ultimately be the case, it has yet to be determined. At this time Trump is only being accused of attempting a coup (as defined by certain websites.) 

However, in your mind, you've already convicted him of attempting a coup and are using it as yet another example of a deeper level of documentable evidence that "Republicans bad, Democrats good" because some Republicans helped him out. 

You are responding to my claim that when "both sides" are accusing each other of the same thing, one can resort to documentary evidence (and other kinds) to sort it out. I.e., one doesn't have to be stuck with the bland insight that both sides are doing it. If we are trying to sort out whom to vote for, person or party, that "insight" isn't very helpful.  But you seemed to be offering that insight as the alternative to "being duped."  Our critical vision is somehow empowered; recognizing that "both sides do it" it liberates us from the propaganda to see how things really are. That's why I asked "what changes" if we adopt your perspective. What do we "see" now that we couldn't before? Still hoping for something more specific in response.

But if your counter-argument is that Trump is "only accused" and we should "let the judicial process play out," then you are responding to a different claim. I cannot affect the judicial process; it seems you are just asking that I and other "partisans" not judge Trump until the jury has rendered a decision. THEN we will know whether Trump is guilty of sedition or whatever, but not before. Somehow we've escaped "bias" if we, as private citizens, withhold judgment?  

And you are also arguing that because I've said there is a documentary record which may help us adjudicate claims of "both sides do it," I've actually moved away from "fair and unbiased thinking" to convict Trump, rather than towards it. Because in "my mind" I've convicted him.  

You've looked at "left-leaning sites" to see whether Trump has been charged with a coup. But you didn't say whether you had looked to see what, in Trump's behavior, might lead to such a charge. That's NOT being "biased"?  You are leaving it up to the courts to decide on the evidence for you? 

Then there's this:

(08-14-2023, 07:09 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Fair and unbiased thinking (or as close as you can get to it), sits back and observes and lets the process play out. It's okay to have an opinion one way or the other beforehand and it's okay to discuss it, but drawing a conclusion beforehand and making definitive statements based on it is the stuff of partisan hacks. 

So its "ok to have an opinion one way or the other beforehand," and "okay to discuss it"; but that is somehow separate and different from "drawing a conclusion beforehand" and "making definitive statements."  I don't see a very clear line between having an "opinion" beforehand and "drawing a conclusion beforehand etc.," but if I understand you, you are saying that I crossed that line when I referred to documentary evidence as a useful means of sorting the truth claims of "both sides" rhetoric--before the "process plays out." Is that right?

And it's not clear, but this implies that maybe (?) "discussing beforehand" is not enhanced by reference to factual record? We as voters shouldn't or don't need to be checking politicians claims against what record is available to us? That's of no help in the project of "seeing through propaganda"?  We should wait for juries to decide what that means? 

Seems like we have a fundamental disagreement on the role factual evidence should play in voters' political judgment. From my view, what's interesting about our disagreement is that you seem to be saying that reaching for evidence is, or leads to, "bias," that reaching judgments about an indicted politician's character or fitness for office based on available evidence BEFORE a court decides guilt means one has fallen for "propaganda"?  Have I understood you correctly? 

[Dill]

(08-14-2023, 12:24 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Why? It looks simple to me, if you are Biden or Biden family member you get a free pass. If you are Trump, the justice department throws you under the bus.

(08-14-2023, 01:28 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: You continue to violate the forum rules. If you want to discuss Kushner, start a thread. Kushner's business deals have nothing to do with Joe Biden being corrupt or not being corrupt. You have a habit of doing this and I would hope the mods put an end to it.

Whenever you claim there is a double standard of justice, that always implies a comparison. So referring to Trump family members to judge whether and how "biased" the DOJ and FBI are with regard to Biden family members is just built into the issue. Discussing Kushner's BILLIONS is NOT off the topic as YOU have defined it.

And you have yourself directly compared the Biden family to Trump. 

But you don't like that Kushner comparison, which destroys your "bias-against-Trump" argument. So you appeal to the mods to settle what your own arguments cannot. You've censored your own reasoning process to exclude counter evidence. Now you are extending that censorship to the thread as a whole when you seek to exclude other views with an appeal to force.

[Luvnit2]

(08-14-2023, 02:36 PM)Dill Wrote: Whenever you claim there is a double standard of justice, that always implies a comparison. So referring to Trump family members to judge whether and how "biased" the DOJ and FBI are with regard to Biden family members is just built into the issue. Discussing Kushner's BILLIONS is NOT off the topic as YOU have defined it.

And you have yourself directly compared the Biden family to Trump. 

But you don't like that Kushner comparison, which destroys your "bias-against-Trump" argument. So you appeal to the mods to settle what your own arguments cannot. You've censored your own reasoning process to exclude counter evidence. Now you are extending that censorship to the thread as a whole when you seek to exclude other views with an appeal to force.

You shoud apply to CNN, where journalism died a decade ago.

I have no issue discussing Kushner, you or your buddy can start a thread with your take on anything illegal kushner did. Here is a hint, Kushner did apply to be a foreign agent, something Hunter nor any member of the Biden family did. It is the same crime Manafort was sent to federal prison for committing. But, hey can't wait for your thread about Kushner legally making money off of a business deal(s).

[Dill]

(08-14-2023, 08:44 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: You shoud apply to CNN, where journalism died a decade ago.

I have no issue discussing Kushner, you or your buddy can start a thread with your take on anything illegal kushner did. Here is a hint, Kushner did apply to be a foreign agent, something Hunter nor any member of the Biden family did. It is the same crime Manafort was sent to federal prison for committing. But, hey can't wait for your thread about Kushner legally making money off of a business deal(s).

The CNN comment indicates what you consider journalistic standards. I can't imagine some editor there telling a reporter that "under no circumstances are you to compare the situations of HB and JK! Protect Kushner!" Yet they are your example of bad journalism. Unlike Hannity and Tucker? 

I think we can continue with our take on Kushner on this thread, unless you can explain why the House's lack of interest in investigating the billions he took home from the Saudis supports your "double standard" charge against the Bidens.  Here's a hint--Manafort went to prison for fraud. But he's not there now because he was protected by a president (not Biden). 

We know less about the legitimacy of Kushner's deals than we do about Hunter Biden's; yet you are sure nothing stinks about those billions. His talent brought them home, not his connections to his father-in-law? 

[Luvnit2]

(08-14-2023, 10:01 PM)Dill Wrote: The CNN comment indicates what you consider journalistic standards. I can't imagine some editor there telling a reporter that "under no circumstances are you to compare the situations of HB and JK! Protect Kushner!" Yet they are your example of bad journalism. Unlike Hannity and Tucker? 

I think we can continue with our take on Kushner on this thread, unless you can explain why the House's lack of interest in investigating the billions he took home from the Saudis supports your "double standard" charge against the Bidens.  Here's a hint--Manafort went to prison for fraud. But he's not there now because he was protected by a president (not Biden). 

We know less about the legitimacy of Kushner's deals than we do about Hunter Biden's; yet you are sure nothing stinks about those billions. His talent brought them home, not his connections to his father-in-law? 

https://reason.com/2019/03/11/here-is-what-paul-manafort-was-convicted/

Read the article, sure sounds like a lesser degree exactly what HB admitted he was guilty of in a plea deal.

[BengalYankee]

What kind of Dominion crap poll is this??? Every time I vote with a different username  that Biden is corrupt  it registers "No" Binden is not corrupt. 

[StrictlyBiz]

(08-14-2023, 02:19 PM)Dill Wrote: The first bolded above puzzles me. You posit someone who has "already got a political bias" and is not "trying to fully understand the situation," not "reading both articles with an open mind."  But someone who turns to the documentary record to judge whether "both sides" are legitimately questioning certification would be trying to "fully understand the situation" wouldn't s/he?  Why wouldn't "a person who's already got bias" be more likely to judge WITHOUT reference to factual record? 

Not sure why someone "trying to fully understand the situation" by checking the factual record would NOT conclude that some Republicans did actually try to overturn the election. If one is biased in favor of democracy and functioning government, then why, in this election cycle, wouldn't one conclude "Democrats good"?  But you seem to be saying that sort of independent reasoning from record and law would be evidence of bias. To me, it doesn't seem exactly "unbiased" to conclude both attempts to question certification were equally legitimate, and we cannot possibly think or know otherwise until a jury decides for us.

The fact that you are using the article that says "147 Republicans who voted to overturn the election" as documentary evidence completely proves my point. Thank you for that. 


The unbiased reader reads the headline and article, and may even draw the initial conclusion that the Republicans did something nefarious, but pauses, takes a step back, and asks questions like...

"What exactly are they doing?"
"Are they allowed to go this?" 
"Is there a precedent for such an action?" 
(and any number of other question)

....and seeks the answers from a variety of sources from as many political angles as possible. A lot of times, that's when you'll uncover the bias of the original article. Citing the original article as documentary evidence without investigating further is the stuff of partisans. It literally is the bubble/echo chamber that they are living in. 

Quote:You are responding to my claim that when "both sides" are accusing each other of the same thing, one can resort to documentary evidence (and other kinds) to sort it out. I.e., one doesn't have to be stuck with the bland insight that both sides are doing it. If we are trying to sort out whom to vote for, person or party, that "insight" isn't very helpful.  But you seemed to be offering that insight as the alternative to "being duped."  Our critical vision is somehow empowered; recognizing that "both sides do it" it liberates us from the propaganda to see how things really are. That's why I asked "what changes" if we adopt your perspective. What do we "see" now that we couldn't before? Still hoping for something more specific in response.

See above. The flaw is in what you accept as documentary evidence. Everything built off of the foundation of that acceptance crumbles if you actually seek to fully understand without bias.  

Quote:But if your counter-argument is that Trump is "only accused" and we should "let the judicial process play out," then you are responding to a different claim. I cannot affect the judicial process; it seems you are just asking that I and other "partisans" not judge Trump until the jury has rendered a decision. THEN we will know whether Trump is guilty of sedition or whatever, but not before. Somehow we've escaped "bias" if we, as private citizens, withhold judgment?  

You can judge him, but the unbiased thinker refrains from making definitive and bold statements based on those judgements. The unbiased thinker either keeps that judgement to themselves, or qualifies their statement in some way. They realize that they don't know all of the facts and that things may change as they learn about those facts. 

For example: I think that you've got to be naive to believe that Joe Biden didn't know about and didn't participate in his sons business dealings. But you'll never see me participating in a discussion about it, much less making statements about him being a criminal or that he needs to be impeached. I acknowledge that I simply don't know all of the facts yet, and that my judgement could change when I learn more. I also acknowledge that he's probably no different that Trump or Clinton, and to use the cliché...it's just politics. 

Since people don't like to admit to being wrong, making definitive and bold statements usually lead to people seeking out "documentary evidence," like the NY Times article I posted, that fits their view as evidence to support their statements. 

Quote:You've looked at "left-leaning sites" to see whether Trump has been charged with a coup. But you didn't say whether you had looked to see what, in Trump's behavior, might lead to such a charge. That's NOT being "biased"?  You are leaving it up to the courts to decide on the evidence for you? 

You obviously didn't read my last post close enough. I suggest you go back and read it again. 

Quote:So its "ok to have an opinion one way or the other beforehand," and "okay to discuss it"; but that is somehow separate and different from "drawing a conclusion beforehand" and "making definitive statements."  I don't see a very clear line between having an "opinion" beforehand and "drawing a conclusion beforehand etc.," but if I understand you, you are saying that I crossed that line when I referred to documentary evidence as a useful means of sorting the truth claims of "both sides" rhetoric--before the "process plays out." Is that right?


And it's not clear, but this implies that maybe (?) "discussing beforehand" is not enhanced by reference to factual record? We as voters shouldn't or don't need to be checking politicians claims against what record is available to us? That's of no help in the project of "seeing through propaganda"?  We should wait for juries to decide what that means? 

Seems like we have a fundamental disagreement on the role factual evidence should play in voters' political judgment. From my view, what's interesting about our disagreement is that you seem to be saying that reaching for evidence is, or leads to, "bias," that reaching judgments about an indicted politician's character or fitness for office based on available evidence BEFORE a court decides guilt means one has fallen for "propaganda"?  Have I understood you correctly?

I think I pretty much covered this one above. 

[Dill]

(08-15-2023, 08:32 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: The fact that you are using the article that says "147 Republicans who voted to overturn the election" as documentary evidence completely proves my point. Thank you for that. 

You are responding to my claim that when "both sides" are accusing each other of the same thing, one can resort to documentary evidence (and other kinds) to sort it out. I.e., one doesn't have to be stuck with the bland insight that both sides are doing it. If we are trying to sort out whom to vote for, person or party, that "insight" isn't very helpful.  But you seemed to be offering that insight as the alternative to "being duped."  Our critical vision is somehow empowered; recognizing that "both sides do it" it liberates us from the propaganda to see how things really are. That's why I asked "what changes" if we adopt your perspective. What do we "see" now that we couldn't before? Still hoping for something more specific in response.

See above. The flaw is in what you accept as documentary evidence. Everything built off of the foundation of that acceptance crumbles if you actually seek to fully understand without bias.  

So you've misunderstood what I am calling "documentary evidence." It is NOT newspaper articles, unless we are talking about a special context, like a defamation suit and the article is evidence. 

Documentary records would be court records, phone records, bank transactions, indictments and reports like the Mueller or Durham reports, and the records that these reports are based upon. When I speak of "checking the factual record" I am referring to this, not newspaper articles. 

I'm saying people should use such records to adjudicate truth claims by either party--not their own rhetoric as reported in articles. Rather than just comparing articles looking for "bias." You appear to think one can determine "bias" in reporting without reference to the basis of the reporting, as you think you have done above. 

(08-15-2023, 08:32 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: The first bolded above puzzles me. You posit someone who has "already got a political bias" and is not "trying to fully understand the situation," not "reading both articles with an open mind."  But someone who turns to the documentary record to judge whether "both sides" are legitimately questioning certification would be trying to "fully understand the situation" wouldn't s/he?  Why wouldn't "a person who's already got bias" be more likely to judge WITHOUT reference to factual record? 
Not sure why someone "trying to fully understand the situation" by checking the factual record would NOT conclude that some Republicans did actually try to overturn the election. If one is biased in favor of democracy and functioning government, then why, in this election cycle, wouldn't one conclude "Democrats good"?  But you seem to be saying that sort of independent reasoning from record and law would be evidence of bias. To me, it doesn't seem exactly "unbiased" to conclude both attempts to question certification were equally legitimate, and we cannot possibly think or know otherwise until a jury decides for us.

The unbiased reader reads the headline and article, and may even draw the initial conclusion that the Republicans did something nefarious, but pauses, takes a step back, and asks questions like...

"What exactly are they doing?"
"Are they allowed to go this?" 
"Is there a precedent for such an action?" 
(and any number of other question)

....and seeks the answers from a variety of sources from as many political angles as possible. A lot of times, that's when you'll uncover the bias of the original article. Citing the original article as documentary evidence without investigating further is the stuff of partisans. It literally is the bubble/echo chamber that they are living in. 

Do you remember when you threw me a Youtube video of some guy tired of the Russia investigation and claiming that if Barr had twisted the Mueller Report in his summary of it, Mueller would have spoken out? My response was to link to Mueller speaking out in a letter explaining that Barr's summary was NOT accurate. That letter was DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. As was the Mueller Report, which I read in full and you apparently did not.

And you were just checking to see if Trump were charged with a coup--two days ago? 

Looks very much like you DON'T know how charges against Trump have developed, and on what factual and legal basis, and that's why you presume that I'm just jumping to biased conclusions based on a newspaper article or two--and then you tell me to "seek answers from a variety of sources etc.," which I have done and you clearly have NOT.  

But you pass judgment on "partisans" and present yourself as someone who has moved beyond "propaganda"?  

[StrictlyBiz]

(08-15-2023, 01:30 PM)Dill Wrote: So you've misunderstood what I am calling "documentary evidence." It is NOT newspaper articles, unless we are talking about a special context, like a defamation suit and the article is evidence. 

Documentary records would be court records, phone records, bank transactions, indictments and reports like the Mueller or Durham reports, and the records that these reports are based upon. When I speak of "checking the factual record" I am referring to this, not newspaper articles. 

I'm saying people should use such records to adjudicate truth claims by either party--not their own rhetoric as reported in articles. Rather than just comparing articles looking for "bias." You appear to think one can determine "bias" in reporting without reference to the basis of the reporting, as you think you have done above. 

No, you've created a straw-man. 
I am fully aware of what documentary evidence is. I am speaking directly about the articles that I linked in a previous post that you replied to. I am sticking to them and I refuse to follow you down the diversionary path that your straw-man creates. Straw-men are your specialty and you are the master at creating them. It's how you debate...you drag someone down totally different path and club them over the head with long, drawn out, and dry word salad posts. 
So unless you have court records, phone records, bank transactions, indictments and reports about Republican Congresspeople that are stemming specifically from the context of the article, then I am only left to conclude that your documentary evidence is the article itself. 

Im not playing your game. 

Quote:And you were just checking to see if Trump were charged with a coup--two days ago? 

Looks very much like you DON'T know how charges against Trump have developed, and on what factual and legal basis, and that's why you presume that I'm just jumping to biased conclusions based on a newspaper article or two--and then you tell me to "seek answers from a variety of sources etc.," which I have done and you clearly have NOT.  


But you pass judgment on "partisans" and present yourself as someone who has moved beyond "propaganda"? 

Yep, another straw-man argument bordering on an ad hominem attack. Nice work trying to shift the focus from you to me. Again, I ain't playin your game.