« First « Previous Comments 594 - 633 of 699 Next » Last » Search these comments
If Trump were corrupt, it would be exposed.
his style of loyalty/wedge politics which I think is harmful to the country's unity and democratic values.
Really? Worse than Biden's "pandemic of the unvaccinated"?
I reject the premise of your question.
DeficitHawk says
I am not really in a position to gauge Hunter's professional skills, but he does seem to be a bit of a druggie and not the most intelligent person, so it seems pretty reasonable to conclude that he got hired for this job because of his family name rather than his talent. Likely in hopes of access to the VP.
And IF this is the case, he was acting as a conduit for bribes, wasn't he, and Joe Biden was part of that, wasn't he?
Further evidence of this is that Joe Biden threatened to with hold 1 billion dollars in aid (bribes) to Ukraine if Victor Shokin, an investigator into corporate corruption, wasn't fired, and he was fired, and Burisma was on his target list.
We could find out, if this were the case, IF the government would investigate it, but they won't. In fact, they purposely bury evidence, like Hunter Biden's laptop, which has been...
BTW you rejected the premise of my question above, but did not offer any reasoning.
Why do most people agree with one set or the other set if it is not caused by conformity and tribalism?
It seems like progressives are more tribal than any other "tribe". I think people are on a continuum and I try not to label them.
FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden says
dude they cover up every single thing with incompetence because its not illegal. those people aren’t stupid. ive seen that excuse every year now.
I guess I just dont understand what crime you think was committed...
Do you think the secretary of state took some actions intentionally to cause American diplomats to get killed?
DeficitHawk says
FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden says
dude they cover up every single thing with incompetence because its not illegal. those people aren’t stupid. ive seen that excuse every year now.
I guess I just dont understand what crime you think was committed...
Do you think the secretary of state took some actions intentionally to cause American diplomats to get killed?
they lied to us man. “video sent muslims into outrage”, bullshit story. not a crime, but clear attempt to cover up incompetence.
clinton crimes are selling government access, standard practice in DC. look man all politicians are corrupt as fuck, noone holds those faggots accountable for anything. and we Americans are suffering because of them. they act like they own us, like we have owner...
mell says
why debate if someone is deliberatively obtuse?
Ya can't.
Onvacation says
mell says
why debate if someone is deliberatively obtuse?
Ya can't.
People shouldn't argue, they should discuss.
The problem with a discussion is somebody is being dishonest in it, is that you can't progress if somebody is lying to you.
We live in a (western) world where fair debate, respect for rational argument, and a common sense of ground truths are absent. Argument, therefore, resorts to violence and mass coercion. Perhaps people will get tired of beating each other over the head about various flavors of propaganda, but it won't be any time soon.
stereotomy says
We live in a (western) world where fair debate, respect for rational argument, and a common sense of ground truths are absent. Argument, therefore, resorts to violence and mass coercion. Perhaps people will get tired of beating each other over the head about various flavors of propaganda, but it won't be any time soon.
I think our greatest sickness results from this:
People shouldn't argue, they should discuss.
The problem with a discussion is somebody is being dishonest in it, is that you can't progress if somebody is lying to you.
Link to poll?
ignorant, willfully or not, of what our little tribe (lol) knows is true
nationally these cases are very controversial
A lot of people are willfully ignorant about Hunter's laptop and the Biden family corruption
1) Floyd (Jury was WRONG)
Floyd case polls: Both show majority agreement with jury, but with split along political affiliation. (75% agree 25% disagree)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chauvin-verdict-opinion-poll/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/04/21/chauvin-verdict-poll-majority-approve-guilty-finding/7316788002/
Rittenhouse case polls: About evenly split overall, but also split along political affiliation (43% agree, 39% disagree)
https://morningconsult.com/2021/11/22/rittenhouse-verdict-poll/
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/crime/rittenhouse_trial_most_democrats_think_kenosha_shooter_guilty_others_disagree
Let me summarize as I understand:
Hunter Biden sat on the board of directors for Burisma for a period of time.
Joe Biden as VP twisted arms to get prosecutor general Viktor Shokin fired during the Poroshenko administration in Ukraine.
Those facts above are undisputed.
Where it gets disputed is whether these two things are related to each other and why Biden got Shokin fired. Here it diverges into 'the official story' and 'the conspiracy theory'.
So why is there such tight agreement by pat netters on these three cases?
DeficitHawk says
So why is there such tight agreement by pat netters on these three cases?
Because we are rational.
And there was MUCH disagreement and debate about those three cases on this forum. We have mostly moved on to talking about corruption, our war with Russia, and the fact that it seems as though some psychopaths are trying to eliminate 90% of the population and reset the world.
And there was MUCH disagreement and debate about those three cases on this forum
DeficitHawk says
So why is there such tight agreement by pat netters on these three cases?
Because we are rational.
Onvacation says
Maybe you could name a few posters who started with different opinions for each case, but eventually became convinced by the rationality and factual of the debate here and converged to the one single Truth? I'd love to discuss with them.
And there was MUCH disagreement and debate about those three cases on this forum.
However as time goes on, and the protests and riots began, peoples opinions changed. Instead of sympathy for Floyd, the prevailing commentary was opposition to BLM and the REACTION to Floyd. I did not see much in the way of debate on the incident itself changing peoples opinions,
In order to build a case you would need these missing pieces of evidence:
1) Evidence that Shokin was aggressively prosecuting the case against Burisma/Hunter
2) Evidence of whatever malfeasance Hunter supposedly did at Burisma
The allegation apparently is that Ukrainian government was buying Joe Biden's favor by funneling money to Hunter via his paycheck at Burisma. And what did it get them? Some blankets and medical supplies.
over time everyone totally converged to exactly the same opinion
Will your opinion change and match the consensus on some, not all, topics discussed here?
I have to wonder... did people really have a debate on whether Floyd death by police officer was right or wrong? or did people have a debate over whether the riots and reactions to the incident were appropriate, and then map their opinions on BLM reactions back to the event itself?
Neither. When the evidence of the Floyd case slowly leaked out the narrative of the brutal police not believing BLM was proven to be propaganda.
Thats not the conclusion I reached when I read the old threads, but if you have one in mind, can you point me to it?
Neither. When the evidence of the Floyd case slowly leaked out the narrative of the brutal police not believing BLM was proven to be propaganda.
« First « Previous Comments 594 - 633 of 699 Next » Last » Search these comments
By polite, I mean refraining from attacking the person in either direction, but sticking to points of argument instead. So no "You are a (whatever)" will not be allowed. The only appropriate use of "you" will be "Here you said..."
I just ran into an old guy in a cafe who pointed in the newspaper to the governor results in California, which added up to 110%. I said, "well, that's California" and so he accused me of being an "election denier". I asked if he'd seen "2000 Mules" and he said he hadn't "because it's been debunked". Uh, it's the same people who committed the election fraud who are claiming that "2000 Mules" was debunked.
Nor had he heard what was on Hunter's laptop, since he watches only corporate news.
I think I might have made a dent in his wall of denial, and I'd like to try with others.