Simple Poll. Is Joe Biden corrupt?

[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"?