Simple Poll. Is Joe Biden corrupt?

[Dill]

(08-15-2023, 08:32 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: ....and seeks the answers from a variety of sources from as many political angles as possible. 

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. 

I think I pretty much covered this one above. 

People who make "definitive and bold statements" may also realize they "don't know all of the facts and that things my change as they learn about those facts."  Just as people who don't presume to make such statements may make them all the same. 

When you say something like Biden is "probably no different than Trump or Clinton . . . . It's just politics." I'd say that's a very bad place to be when faced with a choice between Biden and Trump for president. You seem to think you are not being "biased" if Trump tries to overturn a valid election--something which has never occurred in U.S. history-- and you conclude "it's just politics" and Joe is "no different."  

You can silently believe that Joe Biden participated in his son's business though there is no evidence of that, 
but you have difficulty believing Trump orchestrated a three pronged coup attempt until the courts reason that out.
Meantime, news articles reporting the evidence of the attempt look "biased" to you. 

But even if you let a jury think it through for you, it is unlikely judgment will be rendered before the election. People will have to decide for themselves, BEFORE Nov. 2024, whether Trump sought to overturn a legitimate election and promises to unleash chaos if returned to office, even if they "don't have all the facts."

Though you don't seem to practice what you preach, you say that "unbiased" readers will seek answers from "a variety of sources from as many political angles as possible." One way of doing that is to show up in a forum like thus to explore issues in discussion with other people, who provide other "angles." That often involves arguing whether a politician is telling the truth or not, or guilty of some crime or not--making "definitive claims" to be tested against others.

In that context, I'd hope that the reason you wouldn't publicly call Biden a criminal who needs to be impeached is because so far there is no evidence that he is a criminal, not because you are keeping a guilty judgment to yourself. And that is not a good analogy to Trump, for whom there is a great deal of evidence that he orchestrated a three-pronged plan to block certification and throw the election to the House.  I started a thread on Trump's third indictment, which begins with my summary of it. Did you happen to read that "documentary evidence," or even my summary of it?  
 

(08-15-2023, 08:32 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: 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. 
I think I pretty much covered this one above. 

No. I read it just fine. You said the courts would determine if Trump committed a crime, etc. In the meantime we should not make "definitive statements." Either explain what you think I missed or distorted, specifically, or what I said stands.  

[Dill]

(08-15-2023, 02:59 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: 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. 

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. 

If you really think I've created a "straw man" then you ought to be able to show what it is. What's the "real" argument and what's the false. If you can't, then an "unbiased" reader would have to conclude that you cannot. There is no straw man or you are just confused, looking for a way out.

If you are "fully aware of what documentary evidence is," then why did you say I was using YOUR linked article as documentary evidence? 

You must have missed the thread I started on the third indictment, which I began with a summary of that indictment, including evidence of the plan for Congressional Republicans to insert slates of false electors from seven states into the certification process to short circuit it with false questions of which slates were legitimate--at the very moment Trump sent his mob to the Capitol. So you are not "left to conclude that [my] documentary evidence is the article itself." That would assume I had not read anything about the topic before you posted the article.

My thesis is that people can judge political rhetoric by use of documentary evidence--yes, like court records and special counsel reports. 

Your response was to post two reports of two different objections to the certification of electors, apparently on the assumption that one revealed "bias" in speaking of Congressmen voting to overturn an election. Checking what I've called the documentary record should make it easy to see the difference between the two cases--the first was not integrated with a plan involving the VP, slates of false electors, and a mass protest timed to the certification count, a criminal plan to throw the election to the House. 

But you take an entirely different tack, looking not to the record, but for "bias" in a headline about Congressmen who voted to overturn an election. 

Now you are "sticking to " your articles. I don't know what that means, if you also say that "seeking answers from a variety of sources from as many angles as possible" is the key to avoiding bias. Sounds like you saying that there is no evidence these Congressmen were voting to overturn election results in this article, so there is no evidence anywhere? 

You imply that I just cannot have read anything about this issue before you posted your link, so you are somehow forced to conclude your brief report can be my only "documentary" source??  What??

And how is it "bordering on ad hominem" to remind you of what you have said about people "duped" by "propaganda"? 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-15-2023, 03:09 PM)Dill Wrote: People who make "definitive and bold statements"

(08-15-2023, 03:52 PM)Dill Wrote: If you really think I've created a "straw man"

ZZZZZZZZZZZ

[StrictlyBiz]

(08-15-2023, 03:09 PM)Dill Wrote:  

When you say something like Biden is "probably no different than Trump or Clinton . . . . It's just politics." I'd say that's a very bad place to be when faced with a choice between Biden and Trump for president. You seem to think you are not being "biased" if Trump tries to overturn a valid election--something which has never occurred in U.S. history-- and you conclude "it's just politics" and Joe is "no different."  

You can silently believe that Joe Biden participated in his son's business though there is no evidence of that, 
but you have difficulty believing Trump orchestrated a three pronged coup attempt until the courts reason that out.
Meantime, news articles reporting the evidence of the attempt look "biased" to you. 

Lol  this is CLASSIC you. 

I am talking about selling political influence. More specifically how it isn't unique to Democrats or Republicans. It has zilch to do with Trump and the election. But here you are taking two separate topics and stitching them together to prove some kind of point. 


You love to create a diversion, don't you?  

Quote:No. I read it just fine. You said the courts would determine if Trump committed a crime, etc. In the meantime we should not make "definitive statements." Either explain what you think I missed or distorted, specifically, or what I said stands.

Sigh, I shouldn't do this, but here ya go. Post 61

"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..."



This all started when I answered your question by giving you an example of how the media manipulates and deceives by presenting two very similar situations so very differently....and how it becomes clear once you move away from being a partisan hack. 



And in typical 'you' fashion, you have tried to devolve it into something far different by using straw-men and creating diversions in hopes of dragging me down some side road. 


Lol, I am not doing it. 

[Dill]

(08-15-2023, 11:20 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: I am talking about selling political influence. More specifically how it isn't unique to Democrats or Republicans. It has zilch to do with Trump and the election. But here you are taking two separate topics and stitching them together to prove some kind of point. ...

This all started when I answered your question by giving you an example of how the media manipulates and deceives by presenting two very similar situations so very differently....and how it becomes clear once you move away from being a partisan hack. 

And in typical 'you' fashion, you have tried to devolve it into something far different by using straw-men and creating diversions in hopes of dragging me down some side road. 

What "deception" have you shown? What "political influence" is "sold" in your examples?

To show "how the media deceives," at minimum you'd have to show what is "false" in your examples, and contrast that with what is "true."

All you've done is take an article reporting ceremonial objections to electoral certification under normal circumstances in 2017 and contrasted it with another article reporting 2021 objection certifications going forward during a coup predicated on those objections, and interrupted by a mob breaking into the Capitol shouting "hang Mike Pence!--the target of the objection plan." 

Then you've asserted the situations are "similar"; they just are; so any difference in tone must be "media manipulation"--which clever you can see through--rather than any appropriate difference between an unremarkable certification in 2017 and the only coup attempt in U.S. history, centered on certification objection.  As if those 2021 objections look perfectly routine too, once one takes off "left-leaning" partisan hack media lens.   

Seriously, it just sounds like you didn't know much about what happened on 1/6 when you tossed up those examples, especially the role the certification objections were supposed to play in the coup. And that's why the situations looked "similar" to you. You can't refute that that by asserting "it's not really about Trump" and I'm "creating diversions" by referring to documentary evidence that establishes why these "situations" aren't "similar" in any important sense. 

Bias hunting to prove "both sides do it" is just noodling around the media surface, where situations inevitably look "similar"--Joe B and Trump BOTH took documents, right? As I said above, comparing politicians statements and news articles to documentary evidence (which includes law) puts us in a much better position to determine what is really similar, and what not. 

[hollodero]

(08-14-2023, 09:03 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: 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.

I did not vote at all. I don't know if Joe Biden is corrupt. I'd not vouch for him, but that's that.

Hunter Biden sure is corrupt and then some, and that is a certain issue even if Joe had nothing to do with it. It's a vulnerability. Imho it's fair to wish for a president without these son issues.

And one can assume Hunter is corrupt for there is quite undisputable evidence for that being so. Not in a legal sense, in a fair mind sense. As for Joe Biden though, your case consists of speculation and assumptions and hearsay still. And I would also need some evidence, something that leaves no other conclusion for a fair minded person, and you and FOX don't have it. So I don't know.

At last, I don't care either way, I'm not invested in Joe or Democrats. But as soon as your whole argument continues with "...and that's why people should vote for Trump next time", then this runs into severe problems. To argue folks should prefer Donald Trump and his clan over the corruption issue is, say, unconvincing.

[StrictlyBiz]

(08-16-2023, 01:24 AM)Dill Wrote: What "deception" have you shown?

How the media reports on two very similar incidents in very different ways. Although it isn't willful as they are two different authors at two different sources, it does show how the media deceives. 

Quote:What "political influence" is "sold" in your examples?

Lol, just another attempt at a diversion. This has nothing to do with the topic. Im not taking the bait. Sneaky. Nice try though. 

Quote:To show "how the media deceives," at minimum you'd have to show what is "false" in your examples, and contrast that with what is "true."

Not true. Sensationalism is deception too. 

Quote:All you've done is take an article reporting ceremonial objections to electoral certification under normal circumstances in 2017 and contrasted it with another article reporting 2021 objection certifications going forward during a coup predicated on those objections, and interrupted by a mob breaking into the Capitol shouting "hang Mike Pence!--the target of the objection plan." 


Then you've asserted the situations are "similar"; they just are; so any difference in tone must be "media manipulation"--which clever you can see through--rather than any appropriate difference between an unremarkable certification in 2017 and the only coup attempt in U.S. history, centered on certification objection.  As if those 2021 objections look perfectly routine too, once one takes off "left-leaning" partisan hack media lens.  

Lol @ "ceremonial objections" Nice spin.

Are you a writer for the NYT? If not, you should send them your resume. 

There was nothing ceremonial or normal about the 2017 objections. At the time it was only the 4th time in US history that it had been done. All three times previous, it was done by Democrats, two in response to the previous two Republican victories. 

When Democrats do it, it's ceremonial
When Republicans do it, it's a coup 

Quote:Then you've asserted the situations are "similar"; they just are; so any difference in tone must be "media manipulation"--which clever you can see through--rather than any appropriate difference between an unremarkable certification in 2017 and the only coup attempt in U.S. history, centered on certification objection.  As if those 2021 objections look perfectly routine too, once one takes off "left-leaning" partisan hack media lens.

Seriously, it just sounds like you didn't know much about what happened on 1/6 when you tossed up those examples, especially the role the certification objections were supposed to play in the coup. And that's why the situations looked "similar" to you. You can't refute that that by asserting "it's not really about Trump" and I'm "creating diversions" by referring to documentary evidence that establishes why these "situations" aren't "similar" in any important sense.

The problem here is the timeline. The article that I cited was written on January 7th 2017 long before any investigation into the matter. The immediate response to the objections was that it was an attempt to steal the election. Quite different than what was immediately reported 4 years earlier  

Since then, a handful of Rep Congresspeople have been accused by anonymous sources of helping to plan the rally. No one has been formally charged.  

Quote:Bias hunting to prove "both sides do it" is just noodling around the media surface, where situations inevitably look "similar"--Joe B and Trump BOTH took documents, right? 

Lol, Another attempt at a diversion. Except this one falls flat because you'd probably be surprised by my thoughts on the matter....because you're a partisan hack who thinks that everyone else is too. 

Talk about a swing and a miss. 

[Luvnit2]

(08-15-2023, 03:09 PM)Dill Wrote: People who make "definitive and bold statements" may also realize they "don't know all of the facts and that things my change as they learn about those facts."  Just as people who don't presume to make such statements may make them all the same. 

When you say something like Biden is "probably no different than Trump or Clinton . . . . It's just politics." I'd say that's a very bad place to be when faced with a choice between Biden and Trump for president. You seem to think you are not being "biased" if Trump tries to overturn a valid election--something which has never occurred in U.S. history-- and you conclude "it's just politics" and Joe is "no different."  

You can silently believe that Joe Biden participated in his son's business though there is no evidence of that, 
but you have difficulty believing Trump orchestrated a three pronged coup attempt until the courts reason that out.
Meantime, news articles reporting the evidence of the attempt look "biased" to you. 

But even if you let a jury think it through for you, it is unlikely judgment will be rendered before the election. People will have to decide for themselves, BEFORE Nov. 2024, whether Trump sought to overturn a legitimate election and promises to unleash chaos if returned to office, even if they "don't have all the facts."

Though you don't seem to practice what you preach, you say that "unbiased" readers will seek answers from "a variety of sources from as many political angles as possible." One way of doing that is to show up in a forum like thus to explore issues in discussion with other people, who provide other "angles." That often involves arguing whether a politician is telling the truth or not, or guilty of some crime or not--making "definitive claims" to be tested against others.

In that context, I'd hope that the reason you wouldn't publicly call Biden a criminal who needs to be impeached is because so far there is no evidence that he is a criminal, not because you are keeping a guilty judgment to yourself. And that is not a good analogy to Trump, for whom there is a great deal of evidence that he orchestrated a three-pronged plan to block certification and throw the election to the House.  I started a thread on Trump's third indictment, which begins with my summary of it. Did you happen to read that "documentary evidence," or even my summary of it?  
 

No. I read it just fine. You said the courts would determine if Trump committed a crime, etc. In the meantime we should not make "definitive statements." Either explain what you think I missed or distorted, specifically, or what I said stands.  

"You can silently believe that Joe Biden participated in his son's business though there is no evidence of that, 

but you have difficulty believing Trump orchestrated a three pronged coup attempt until the courts reason that out.
Meantime, news articles reporting the evidence of the attempt look "biased" to you." 


I have yet to seen Trump charged with a coup attempt so again you just make crap up. He was also not charged on the Jan.6 riots in spite of a partisan investigation asking he be charged. Then the same committee destroyed their committee records. Why di they refuse to follow normal protocols and archive the records? It wreaks of a cover up of the facts in favor of Trump.

[Luvnit2]

(08-16-2023, 08:10 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: How the media reports on two very similar incidents in very different ways. Although it isn't willful as they are two different authors at two different sources, it does show how the media deceives. 



Lol, just another attempt at a diversion. This has nothing to do with the topic. Im not taking the bait. Sneaky. Nice try though. 



Not true. Sensationalism is deception too. 


Lol @ "ceremonial objections" Nice spin.

Are you a writer for the NYT? If not, you should send them your resume. 

There was nothing ceremonial or normal about the 2017 objections. At the time it was only the 4th time in US history that it had been done. All three times previous, it was done by Democrats, two in response to the previous two Republican victories. 

When Democrats do it, it's ceremonial
When Republicans do it, it's a coup 



The problem here is the timeline. The article that I cited was written on January 7th 2017 long before any investigation into the matter. The immediate response to the objections was that it was an attempt to steal the election. Quite different than what was immediately reported 4 years earlier  

Since then, a handful of Rep Congresspeople have been accused by anonymous sources of helping to plan the rally. No one has been formally charged.  


Lol, Another attempt at a diversion. Except this one falls flat because you'd probably be surprised by my thoughts on the matter....because you're a partisan hack who thinks that everyone else is too. 

Talk about a swing and a miss. 

It is proven over and over again liberal media colludes to get information from the DNC. Yesterday almost every liberal outlet uttered they same phrase, "the Trump lies' in their coverage.

It is so painfully obvious they are not longer reliable news sources and their bias is alarming. but hey, the sheep just follow the fake news including never disputing a fake Russian collusion narrative created by HRC and then the liberal media reported it as fact, never questioning or doing any research on their own of the biggest conspiracy theory of all time that has been debunked in the Durham report. Fox had it 100% right, why did the others refuse to investigate it? Simple, they wanted it to be true.

Great post StrictlyBiz

[GMDino]

(08-16-2023, 09:04 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: It is proven over and over again liberal media colludes to get information from the DNC. Yesterday almost every liberal outlet uttered they same phrase, "the Trump lies' in their coverage.

It is so painfully obvious they are not longer reliable news sources and their bias is alarming. but hey, the sheep just follow the fake news including never disputing a fake Russian collusion narrative created by HRC and then the liberal media reported it as fact, never questioning or doing any research on their own of the biggest conspiracy theory of all time that has been debunked in the Durham report. Fox had it 100% right, why did the others refuse to investigate it? Simple, they wanted it to be true.

Great post StrictlyBiz

Could that have been because the news was actually about Trump lying about the 2020 election despite knowing it was a lie?

What is painfully obvious is that anything that goes against what you already believe is seen as "not reliable" despite the truth of it.

[Dill]

(08-16-2023, 08:10 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: How the media reports on two very similar incidents in very different ways. Although it isn't willful as they are two different authors at two different sources, it does show how the media deceives. 
There was nothing ceremonial or normal about the 2017 objections. At the time it was only the 4th time in US history that it had been done. All three times previous, it was done by Democrats, two in response to the previous two Republican victories. 
When Democrats do it, it's ceremonial
When Republicans do it, it's a coup 

Again, your whole "media deception" argument depends on calling certification objections "similar," even though one was interrupted by a mob pressuring the VP to decertify valid electors. You haven't specified any thing falsely presented, just a vague difference in "tone" when discussing post riot certification objections by well over a hundred Congressmen, as called for by Trump and the mob. Very "similar" to 2017.

I called the 2017 objections "ceremonial" because those making them knew they were only protest moves that would have no impact on the certification. The losing Dem candidate conceded. She did not organize millions to back a Big Lie. There was no plan to move a mob on the Capitol to pressure Joe Biden to reject legal certifications. etc. 

So yes, when some Republicans incorporate objections into an actual plan to invalidate a valid election, it's a coup, or more precisely an autogolpe--an attempt to keep Trump in power after he was voted out of office. NOT a protest vote. 

And it would be a coup if Dems did it too; it's just that--and here you seem to mess the crucial point--they DIDN'T. 

Explaining the difference with respect to the factual record is not a "diversionary" tactic.

(08-16-2023, 08:10 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Quote:What "political influence" is "sold" in your examples?

Lol, just another attempt at a diversion. This has nothing to do with the topic. Im not taking the bait. Sneaky. Nice try though. 

 In your last post, #84, you said "I am talking about selling political influence" and accused me of "creating diversions" to other topics.

So I ask you about this "influence" you claim is "sold," and you call that question "another attempt at diversion" which "has nothing to do with the topic. Sneaky."   Does the right hand even know what the left is doing? 

(08-16-2023, 08:10 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: The problem here is the timeline. The article that I cited was written on January 7th 2017 long before any investigation into the matter. The immediate response to the objections was that it was an attempt to steal the election. Quite different than what was immediately reported 4 years earlier  

Since then, a handful of Rep Congresspeople have been accused by anonymous sources of helping to plan the rally. No one has been formally charged.  

Lol, Another attempt at a diversion. Except this one falls flat because you'd probably be surprised by my thoughts on the matter....because you're a partisan hack who thinks that everyone else is too. 

LOL Some "definitive" ad hominem going there. Like its just "bias" and hackery to see a coup attempt in 2021 but not in 2017. 

A reporter responded to the 2021 objections as if they were part of an attempt to steal the election, because they were part of an attempt to steal the election. One didn't need an "investigation" to know on Jan. 7 that the Capitol had been breached in an attempt to decertify votes to keep Trump in power, and that quite a number of Republican Congressmen were still on board with that plan--even after Trump rioters had trashed the building. "Similar" to 2017.

The press might not have known details of the Green Bay Sweep, the memos and notes detailing the plan, but the plan to object to certification on the basis of non-existent "voting irregularities," and the specific role Pence was to play and possible consequences, was all publicly reported BEFORE 1/6. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/02/us/politics/gop-senators-josh-hawley-election.html

[Dill]

(08-16-2023, 09:04 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: It is proven over and over again liberal media colludes to get information from the DNC. Yesterday almost every liberal outlet uttered they same phrase, "the Trump lies' in their coverage.

It is so painfully obvious they are not longer reliable news sources and their bias is alarming. but hey, the sheep just follow the fake news including never disputing a fake Russian collusion narrative created by HRC and then the liberal media reported it as fact, never questioning or doing any research on their own of the biggest conspiracy theory of all time that has been debunked in the Durham report. Fox had it 100% right, why did the others refuse to investigate it? Simple, they wanted it to be true.

Great post StrictlyBiz

Why did Fox settle the Dominion suit? 

[Dill]

(08-16-2023, 08:54 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I have yet to seen Trump charged with a coup attempt so again you just make crap up. He was also not charged on the Jan.6 riots in spite of a partisan investigation asking he be charged. Then the same committee destroyed their committee records. Why di they refuse to follow normal protocols and archive the records? It wreaks of a cover up of the facts in favor of Trump.

I didn't say Trump was "charged" with a coup attempt. I said he attempted a coup, via disruption of electoral certification.

And for that he is charged with a conspiracy to defraud the United States, to impede a valid vote count, with actually impeding a government function, and to deny Americans their rightful votes.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/8a7503af-fde7-4061-818c-7d7e0ee06036.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_5

And the "same committee" did not destroy their records. That's just another Trump/Fox lie. You've been played.  Again. 

Here is a link to the "missing" records. Maybe forward it to Fox?
https://www.govinfo.gov/collection/january-6th-committee-final-report?path=/GPO/January%206th%20Committee%20Final%20Report%20and%20Supporting%20Materials%20Collection
https://www.meidastouch.com/news/adam-kinzinger-powerfully-debunks-trump-and-foxs-latest-jan-6-lie

[StrictlyBiz]

(08-16-2023, 11:12 AM)Dill Wrote: I called the 2017 objections "ceremonial" because those making them knew they were only protest moves that would have no impact on the certification. The losing Dem candidate conceded. She did not organize millions to back a Big Lie. There was no plan to move a mob on the Capitol to pressure Joe Biden to reject legal certifications. etc. 

Same with Republicans....

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/joint-statement-from-senators-cruz-johnson-lankford-daines-kennedy-blackburn-braun-senators-elect-lummis-marshall-hagerty-tuberville



"Accordingly, we intend to vote on January 6 to reject the electors from disputed states as not ‘regularly given' and ‘lawfully certified' (the statutory requisite), unless and until that emergency 10-day audit is completed.

"We are not naïve. We fully expect most if not all Democrats, and perhaps more than a few Republicans, to vote otherwise. But support of election integrity should not be a partisan issue. A fair and credible audit-conducted expeditiously and completed well before January 20-would dramatically improve Americans' faith in our electoral process and would significantly enhance the legitimacy of whoever becomes our next President. We owe that to the People.

Quote:In your last post, #84, you said "I am talking about selling political influence" and accused me of "creating diversions" to other topics.


So I ask you about this "influence" you claim is "sold," and you call that question "another attempt at diversion" which "has nothing to do with the topic. Sneaky."   Does the right hand even know what the left is doing? 

I was talking about having opinions and used that as part of the explanation of my example. It was not meant as a point of debate. But in typical YOU fashion, you seized upon it and tried to turn it into one. If I respond to it, this takes off down a long and windy road miles away from where we were. Ultimately, you stop and look back and wonder "how the hell did I get here?" 

This is a tactic that you love to employ...create a diversion, drag someone down, and club them over the head with endless long dry wordy posts until they just give up. Im not falling for it. 

Quote:The press might not have known details of the Green Bay Sweep, the memos and notes detailing the plan, but the plan to object to certification on the basis of non-existent "voting irregularities," and the specific role Pence was to play and possible consequences, was all publicly reported BEFORE 1/6. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/02/us/politics/gop-senators-josh-hawley-election.html 

Democrats would NEVER plan ahead of time to object to the electoral vote, would they? Nah! They're as pure as the driven snow. It was all organic on the day of....

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/traditonal-end-unconventional-election-congress-count-electoral

[Dill]

(08-16-2023, 12:04 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Democrats would NEVER plan ahead of time to object to the electoral vote, would they? Nah! They're as pure as the driven snow. It was all organic on the day of....

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/traditonal-end-unconventional-election-congress-count-electoral

Sigh . . . . the issue is not whether parties "plan ahead to object." 

You have a knack for focusing on the inessential then making that the basis of comparison. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-16-2023, 12:18 PM)Dill Wrote: You have a knack for focusing on the inessential then making that the basis of comparison. 

[StrictlyBiz]

(08-16-2023, 12:18 PM)Dill Wrote: You have a knack for focusing on the inessential then making that the basis of comparison. 

Oh the IRONY

[StrictlyBiz]

(08-16-2023, 12:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

HAHAHAHA

You beat me to it!

[Dill]

(08-16-2023, 12:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

(08-16-2023, 12:45 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Oh the IRONY 

Let me know when the discussion returns to examples, quotes, facts--i.e., evidence and argument.

Or be honest about the inability to engage and just put up a white flag meme

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-16-2023, 01:01 PM)Dill Wrote: Let me know when the discussion returns to examples, quotes, facts--i.e., evidence and argument.

Or be honest about the inability to engage and just put up a white flag meme

Oh no, my dear Dill.  You don't get to take your ball and go home when you're called out.  How many different people have to make the exact same observation about your style of discussion/debate here before you get even just a little introspective?  You're like a woman who claims every single guy she's dated is toxic, all the while not realizing the only common denominator is her.