Countries where convicted felons CAN'T enter.. Will that help president Trump or hurt him?

Factfinder

Delilah6120 said:

@Factfinder

Again, what is Joe Biden´s criminal behavior?

Oh it's a lot worse than trump giving a whore hush money. 

Key Takeaways:

Biden family business associates Tony Bobulinski and Jason Galanis testified under oath President Joe Biden actively participated in his family’s corrupt business dealings and acted as the closer for deals with Chinese and Russian entities

https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-witnesses-expose-joe-bidens-involvement-in-his-familys-corrupt-influence-peddling-schemes/

Barnardot

@jack @MayCaesar Hello again, May:

Even with a fascist at the helm????  What flavor of koolade did you drink?  DU*DE!!!!
excon

Come on. Every one knows that it wasnt koolade. It was flavorade.

Delilah6120

@MayCaesar

First, rights are not privileges. Second, no, I do not think it is possible to abuse it. Social consequences of exercising one's right in a particular way are inevitable, and everyone can decide for themselves what consequences they are willing to accept. In Elon Musk's view, the benefits of the way he runs Twitter outweigh the costs, otherwise he would run it differently. Anyone unhappy with Twitter is free to not use it, or even to start their own social media company operating differently. To me as a private individual, all of this is of zero concern.

You are correct. Rights are not privileges. Rights are fundamental entitlements. But they CERTAINLY can be abused in ways that hurt others and society. The right to bear arms can certainly be abused: violent crimes, mass shootings, unlocked weapons accessible to children, domestic violence ...  Freedom of speech can most certainly be abused by spreading hate speech, inciting violence AND disseminating false information.  Musk? He allows for hate speech AND retweets hateful posts AGAINST the woke. If you are not on X, then how would you know? Did you know he is being considered an advisor to Trump? He's pushing his own agenda for his OWN benefit. 

Delilah6120

@MayCaesar

The first US election I was curious about was the one in 2000, and people absolutely used this phrase - and, the shocker, Democrats tried overturning the election then. Curious, is it not? 

I do not remember a single election in the US that was even relatively chill. Compare it to most elections in Western Europe that somehow avoid a lot of this drama.

I do not remember it being said that it was the most important election. Yes, the hanging chads. Gore questioned its validity due to the extreme closeness of the counts but they did not try to overturn it. Gore conceded. No violence, no lies. He won the popular but not electoral votes. You mean like Trump's insurrection?  And later Gore did win the popular vote but not the electoral. 

Delilah6120

@MayCaesar

As far as I can tell, the whole idea of the American system was to make sure that power-hungry lords stay back in Europe and do not have an entrance into the system here. If the basic principles of the system have to be dismissed upon the slightest challenge, then it is a lousy system. I do not think the US system lousy, therefore "project 2025" and other fantasies of some ideologues do not worry me.

Having little interest in politics can be comforting I'm sure but ignorance is not always bliss. For those of us ("Woke Culture Warriors" as they describe Democrats) who simply do not subscribe to trumpism (yes, that is a word), feel quite differently about the direction America will go in if T is elected. Clearly this mandate is about separating us from each other. Create hate and scapegoat the other side. A divided country is easier to conquer. 

You may not be concerned, but as I said millions are: Here's a quote directly from Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership: 

"Ultimately the Left does not believe that all men are created equal. They think THEY are special. They certainly don't think all people have an unalienable right to pursue the good life. They think only they themselves have such a right along with a moral responsibility to make decisions for everyone else. They don't think any citizen, state, business, church, or charity should be allowed any freedom until they first bend the knee.

This book, this agenda, the entire Project 2025 is a plan to unite the conservative movement and the American people against elite rule and woke culture warriors."

Clever double speak here   ...a plan to UNITE the conservative AGAINST elite and woke?

Delilah6120

@MayCaesar

Do you believe that inciting an angry mob that he himself whipped up and told to "fight like hell to take the country back" is a reasonable cause to be concerned about the demise of our democracy? Do you believe that an ex president - one who "jokes" he wants to be a dictator but only on day one, who still pushes the lie that the election was stolen from him, who is under investigation for stealing government documents that he refused to give up,  who instigated a dangerous insurrection to stop the electoral vote count, who defamed and lied about faulty voting machines, who falsified business records to affect election results, who says that so-called fraud calls for the termination of rules found in the Constitution - is cause for concern about the stability of our Democracy if he's elected?   Read below.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fact-check-did-donald-trump-call-to-suspend-the-constitution/ar-AA1fIliY

 

"A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,"                       on December 3, 2022. "Our great 'Founder' did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!"

Anything can be seen as a cause for concern. But I asked a very specific question. What should make me conclude that it is precisely the next 4 years that will destroy democracy if Trump is elected? And how do you define destruction of democracy? What specific observations should one make about the country to confidently say, "Yesterday democracy was alive, but today it is dead"?

If the quote I just presented you directly from Mandate for Leadership and the above does not make you question or wonder about the fragility of our democracy under his leadership then not sure what will. What are you looking for? Just what specific observation would make you question our democracy's stability May?

Delilah6120

@MayCaesar

I think that the idea that the US has a reasonable chance of becoming a fascist country in the foreseeable future is absolutely ridiculous. Regardless, I have a lot of things I am interested in, and politics is not one of them. Especially since 99% people talking about politics never actually do anything. They just argue at Thanksgiving dinners, then go and vote for whatever corrupt guy is running from their party of choice.

I strongly disagree with your assessment about people involved in politics. Just HOW do you think fascism comes to rise? Citizen participation is the very cornerstone of sustaining Democracy.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Delilah6120 ; @MayCaesar ; What does a "fascist" America look like to you Delilah? What would you identify as a "fascist" agenda?

Is the murder of babies in the womb a form of fascism considering the baby is denied due process before the death penalty is imposed upon innocence?

Is forcing the perversion of LGBTQ upon an entire society and celebrating same openly in the streets for a month a form of fascism?

Is forcing the perversion and life-long crippling of children's bodies in the insanity of sex-change/transsexualism onto your posterity a form of fascism?

Is the taking the jobs and education; the denying of jobs and promotions and education of White men and woman in the WOKE name of DEI and "affirmative action" a form of fascism?

Is forcing the fake green energy policies in the name of man-induced climate change fascism as these policies bankrupt the middle class?

Is opening our borders and allowing many millions of unvetted enemy into our Nation and forcing compliance and acceptance by an nonsupporting public majority a form of fascism?

Is convicting and jailing your political opponents via a weaponized DOJ a form of fascism? 

Is the condemnation of Israel, the withholding of support for Israel's self-defense against its sworn enemies while the citizens of America overwhelmingly support Israel a form of fascism?

Is forcing America to accept Drag Queen Story Hour sessions as faggot drag queens read stories and bump and grind in the face of our preschoolers while the majority of America hates this conduct a form of fascism?

Is the forced funding of a useless war in Ukraine, billions upon billions of American tax payer dollars, which an overwhelming majority of American's don't want funded, a form of fascism?

Is defunding the police and no bail polices and reduction is jail and penalties for repeat offenders...open drug markets, homelessness, squatter's rights to steal property...forced upon the citizens of America a form of fascism?

Is the jailing of Christians who protest the murder of babies while Progressive protestors advocating for the destruction of property and assaulting the innocent in the name of pro-Palestine "protests" are supported by the Democrat Party a form of fascism?

WHAT EXACTLY DOES A FASCIST GOVERNMENT LOOK LIKE TO YOU DELILAH?

jack

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Delilah6120 ; @ MayCaesar  What does a "fascist" America look like to you Delilah? What would you identify as a "fascist" agenda?

Hello Rickey:

Lemme jump in here...  Jules K posted it: "Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism is when hate for people other than your own comes first." 

Charles de Gaulle said it, and I couldn't have said it better.

excon

RickeyHoltsclaw

@jack ;  I DON'T RECEIVE YOUR QUOTES AS NOTIFICATION...if you desire that I respond to your atheistic insanity, use @RickeyHoltsclaw and I'll receive your foolishness.

Democrats-Progressives hate America...Jesus said, "You will know them by their fruit" (Matthew 7:15-20); that is, you will know them by their actions...what they do....DEMOCRATS-PROGRESSIVES-ATHEISTS-SECULAR HUMANISTS-LIBERALS ARE NOT AMERICAN...THEY'RE THUG ALIENS IN OUR LAND.

jack

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@jack ;  I DON'T RECEIVE YOUR QUOTES AS NOTIFICATION...if you desire that I respond to your atheistic insanity, use @RickeyHoltsclaw and I'll receive your foolishness.

Hello again, Rickey:

I'm not here to dialog with you..  I'm here to expose you.

excon

RickeyHoltsclaw

@jack ; Expose...what can a foolish atheist "expose" but his insanity and idiocy?

jack

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@jack ; Expose...what can a foolish atheist "expose" but his insanity and idiocy?

Hello again, Rickey:

Your hatred, perhaps?

excon

MayCaesar

Delilah6120 said:

@MayCaesar

First, rights are not privileges. Second, no, I do not think it is possible to abuse it. Social consequences of exercising one's right in a particular way are inevitable, and everyone can decide for themselves what consequences they are willing to accept. In Elon Musk's view, the benefits of the way he runs Twitter outweigh the costs, otherwise he would run it differently. Anyone unhappy with Twitter is free to not use it, or even to start their own social media company operating differently. To me as a private individual, all of this is of zero concern.

You are correct. Rights are not privileges. Rights are fundamental entitlements. But they CERTAINLY can be abused in ways that hurt others and society. The right to bear arms can certainly be abused: violent crimes, mass shootings, unlocked weapons accessible to children, domestic violence ...  Freedom of speech can most certainly be abused by spreading hate speech, inciting violence AND disseminating false information.  Musk? He allows for hate speech AND retweets hateful posts AGAINST the woke. If you are not on X, then how would you know? Did you know he is being considered an advisor to Trump? He's pushing his own agenda for his OWN benefit. 

A violent crime is not a right. The right to bear arms is not being abused when someone shoots up a school, because the right to bear arms does not include the right to shoot up a school - hence the shooter gets imprisoned as a result, since he violates other people's rights.

"Hate speech" is not an abuse of free speech: it is a kind of free speech. Free speech implies my ability to express hatred towards someone. Other people are free to listen to me or not listen to me, and to respond or not respond to my speech.

Your complaints here come down to, "I do not like what kind of posts are allowed on Twitter". Big deal: do not go there and do not read them. It is like telling Pepsi to stop producing Pepsi Cola because you like Coca Cola better. Forgetting the fact that you are just one of the billions of consumers of these drinks, many of whom have different preferences from you.

Delilah6120 said:

@MayCaesar

As far as I can tell, the whole idea of the American system was to make sure that power-hungry lords stay back in Europe and do not have an entrance into the system here. If the basic principles of the system have to be dismissed upon the slightest challenge, then it is a lousy system. I do not think the US system lousy, therefore "project 2025" and other fantasies of some ideologues do not worry me.

Having little interest in politics can be comforting I'm sure but ignorance is not always bliss. For those of us ("Woke Culture Warriors" as they describe Democrats) who simply do not subscribe to trumpism (yes, that is a word), feel quite differently about the direction America will go in if T is elected. Clearly this mandate is about separating us from each other. Create hate and scapegoat the other side. A divided country is easier to conquer. 

You may not be concerned, but as I said millions are: Here's a quote directly from Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership: 

"Ultimately the Left does not believe that all men are created equal. They think THEY are special. They certainly don't think all people have an unalienable right to pursue the good life. They think only they themselves have such a right along with a moral responsibility to make decisions for everyone else. They don't think any citizen, state, business, church, or charity should be allowed any freedom until they first bend the knee.

This book, this agenda, the entire Project 2025 is a plan to unite the conservative movement and the American people against elite rule and woke culture warriors."

Clever double speak here   ...a plan to UNITE the conservative AGAINST elite and woke?

What is so bad about uniting politically similarly-minded people against what they see as a threat to the country? Is it not different from left-wingers uniting around Biden (who many of them actively dislike) so as to prevent Trump from getting reelected?

As for the ignorance... please. You and I are both ignorant about 99.999% of fields of human activity. To think that you are not ignorant about politics just because you consume some media is like to think that I am not ignorant about history because I have watched a few National Geographic historical documentaries.

There are fields that I am actively studying and becoming good at. Politics is not one of them. If I were to become good at politics, I would start with buying some serious books on political science, not read Newsfeed. I did that with economics, a field I now actually know something about - and it is painful to discuss economics with people who have not studied it, because they make the most basic blunders. It is reasonable to assume that people claiming to know a lot about politics, yet never having studying the subject seriously, make endless blunders as well.

Delilah6120 said:

@MayCaesar

Do you believe that inciting an angry mob that he himself whipped up and told to "fight like hell to take the country back" is a reasonable cause to be concerned about the demise of our democracy? Do you believe that an ex president - one who "jokes" he wants to be a dictator but only on day one, who still pushes the lie that the election was stolen from him, who is under investigation for stealing government documents that he refused to give up,  who instigated a dangerous insurrection to stop the electoral vote count, who defamed and lied about faulty voting machines, who falsified business records to affect election results, who says that so-called fraud calls for the termination of rules found in the Constitution - is cause for concern about the stability of our Democracy if he's elected?   Read below.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fact-check-did-donald-trump-call-to-suspend-the-constitution/ar-AA1fIliY

 

"A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,"                       on December 3, 2022. "Our great 'Founder' did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!"

Anything can be seen as a cause for concern. But I asked a very specific question. What should make me conclude that it is precisely the next 4 years that will destroy democracy if Trump is elected? And how do you define destruction of democracy? What specific observations should one make about the country to confidently say, "Yesterday democracy was alive, but today it is dead"?

If the quote I just presented you directly from Mandate for Leadership and the above does not make you question or wonder about the fragility of our democracy under his leadership then not sure what will. What are you looking for? Just what specific observation would make you question our democracy's stability May?

I think that any democratic system is inherently fragile: I recommend Friedrich Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" book making a very convincing argument that any democratic political system will inevitably gravitate towards tyranny. I still want to understand the argument in favor of the 2024-2028 under Trump being the point of no return, rather than, say, 2028-2032 under Hawley (who, I would argue, is a much more destructive figure).

Delilah6120 said:

@MayCaesar

I think that the idea that the US has a reasonable chance of becoming a fascist country in the foreseeable future is absolutely ridiculous. Regardless, I have a lot of things I am interested in, and politics is not one of them. Especially since 99% people talking about politics never actually do anything. They just argue at Thanksgiving dinners, then go and vote for whatever corrupt guy is running from their party of choice.

I strongly disagree with your assessment about people involved in politics. Just HOW do you think fascism comes to rise? Citizen participation is the very cornerstone of sustaining Democracy.

This is a very bad example, for Italian fascism came about exactly as a consequence of citizen participation in the social movement organized and led by Mussolini. Your own argument undermines it as well, as you specifically point at the active participation of Trump's supporters as the source of the danger to democracy.

Delilah6120

@Factfinder

Factfinder, you should know better than to post proof of something that was literally written by the GOP House Committee. That is certainly not unbiased. Can you find another source that is not biased? Personally, I believe the Republican led House Committee is frothing at the mouth trying to impeach someone. They''ve failed at impeaching Mayorkas and this Biden investigation has been going on for almost 1-1/2 years. They''ve not been able to come up with any proof. If they do, and Biden is found guilty, then so be it. No one is above the law. But as of yet, they got nada.

Factfinder

Delilah6120 said:

@Factfinder

Factfinder, you should know better than to post proof of something that was literally written by the GOP House Committee. That is certainly not unbiased. Can you find another source that is not biased? Personally, I believe the Republican led House Committee is frothing at the mouth trying to impeach someone. They''ve failed at impeaching Mayorkas and this Biden investigation has been going on for almost 1-1/2 years. They''ve not been able to come up with any proof. If they do, and Biden is found guilty, then so be it. No one is above the law. But as of yet, they got nada.

Yet it's very likely he committed those crimes. It is an house judiciary committee inquiry. Do you think the bias justice department will investigate and do so as aggressively as they did Trump for paying a whore?

Do you have a brain and know for a fact the evidence is mounting against the Bidens? Or do you think Bidens people who are testifying really were not his people and didn't follow Bidens orders like they did?

Trump is a crummy candidate personality wise for sure, could be better on some issues, could be worse. But that's no excuse for you pretending Biden is faultless, or that he isn't capable of the wrong doing that the evidence suggests he's doing. It's a lot more than 'nada'. The fact you couldn't even acknowledge Biden was and is being investigated for crimes that are common knowledge tells me you're not here to debate, you're campaigning thinking you can hide behind appeals to authority the requesting of sources you agree with.  Hunter Biden found guilty of gun and drug laws, next up daddy.

Delilah6120

@Factfinder

Yes, it's been under investigation for 1-1/2. Perhaps soon they will reach their decision. And if Joe Biden is found guilty based on evidence presented, I have to trust that it will go through our judicial system fairly and justly. No one is above the law.

I am waiting for evidence on Biden's crimes. Meanwhile, I put my hopes in him as our leader. I do not believe Biden is faultless - far from it. I feel we have two options, Biden or Trump. I happen to believe Biden is the far better candidate based on what I know about him and what I know about Trump. Perhaps I have not been following the crimes of Biden as I'm inundated with Trump's crimes. I do believe you are wrong about Biden''s crimes being common knowledge but I could be mistaken. I am not here to campaign. I am here to learn. Yes, Hunter Biden was found guilty. No one is above the law. We have to trust our judicial system - along with our Department of Justice. 

Why do you always sound so angry?

Factfinder

@Delilah6120

Yes, it's been under investigation for 1-1/2. Perhaps soon they will reach their decision. And if Joe Biden is found guilty based on evidence presented, I have to trust that it will go through our judicial system fairly and justly. No one is above the law.

What has been under investigation? Biden fondling children in public using his position to intimidate anyone who would speak up? Yet he agreed he should stop doing it thus admitting his crime. Where is the DOJ on this?  Refusing to turn over secret documents that were subpoenaed like trump was prosecuted for? Clear cut case against Biden similar to Trump but where is the DOJ on this one? Oh yeah, Biden appointee. Biden in charge of public relations in eastern Europe (Ukraine) as VP while crooked son heads a corrupt oil company there, and Biden bragged on how he handled it openly? Where is the DOJ again?  https://apnews.com/article/garland-contempt-biden-classified-documents-justice-department-bc2fb71b225ae672eb257ee2055cfa67 You do realize Judicial oversight depends on the DOJ doing their job, right? Hey, but we know Trump paid hush money to a whore. Please explain how no one is above the law or was that just a feel good platitude?

I am waiting for evidence on Biden's crimes. Meanwhile, I put my hopes in him as our leader. I do not believe Biden is faultless - far from it. I feel we have two options, Biden or Trump. I happen to believe Biden is the far better candidate based on what I know about him and what I know about Trump. Perhaps I have not been following the crimes of Biden as I'm inundated with Trump's crimes. I do believe you are wrong about Biden''s crimes being common knowledge but I could be mistaken. I am not here to campaign. I am here to learn. Yes, Hunter Biden was found guilty. No one is above the law. We have to trust our judicial system - along with our Department of Justice. 

Why do you put your hopes in Biden as our leader? You agree with him when he says Americans snivel too much about unimportant things and says we deserve to have to pay 3 times more for gas and higher inflation rates across the board? You agree the working class should have to pay for student loans that the students default on? You agree with Biden making like Putin is a pariah publically but privately employing him to strike deals supposedly on our behalf with Iran? Is it his weak leadership in real world situations that you like? You know, remember how for over two years he kept our borders porous as the Cartels operated unabated allowing Fentanyl to kill our children at an alarming rate? Not to mention how many people baked to death in box cars cause of Biden's border policies; and why did he ignore our borders while being so concerned for Ukraine's borders? Cause our borders are a republican thing, isn't that right Delilah? So please tell me why you'd love for a man with no conscience like Biden to be our leader?

I am waiting for evidence on Biden's crimes.

You're not 'inundated' by Trump crimes, you think he's icky so you looked for them while avoiding any inkling at all about Biden's crimes. It is common knowledge what the republicans accuse Biden of, and even with an uneven playing field evidence continues to mount. What people testify to in a Judicial hearing does eventually make it to a criminal court sooner or later when their testimonies are reliable. So you can dismiss the witnesses testifying against Biden now, but we will see what comes out in the wash later as they are credible witnesses who took orders from Biden.

Why do you always sound so angry? 

Don't know as I merely type the truth with well reasoned opinion. Perhaps upon being notified of the facts that do not align with your preferred narrative some anger is projected onto me?

jack

Factfinder said:

Yet it's very likely he committed those crimes. It is an house judiciary committee inquiry.

Hello Fact:

It IS in the House Judiciary committee run by right wing congressman James Comer from Mississippi.  What's he got?  Nuttin.

That, PLUS your evidence that Biden accepted a bribe of $40,000 is laughable..  WHO would risk a reputation built on 50 years for a puny $40,000??  Seriously..  $40 MILLION I could believe, but $40,000??????   Du*de!!

excon

Factfinder

@jack

WHO would risk a reputation built on 50 years for a puny $40,000??

An id*ot like Biden. What reputation has he built Jack? His 'see which way the wind blows' then act on it leadership at any cost? World body first, then USA and others second kinda guy? 

Aren't you the one who laughably believes Biden rode a train to work for 40 years? $40,000 large would be a lot of money to that guy. Ever wonder how many more pay offs he got; like from convicted convict Hunter Biden? Years running a corrupt company in the same country daddy was politically responsible for in the Obama administration, coincidence? Maybe, maybe not. Fact? Yes most certainly a fact both members of the crime family were operating in the same region. 

Delilah6120

@Factfinder

You're way too emotional and frankly and not someone I care to have a logical discussion with.

Delilah6120

@Factfinder

Again, I am embarrassed for you. It seems you have clearly been radicalized by a cult leader.

RUN JACK RUN!

Factfinder

Delilah6120 said:

@Factfinder

Again, I am embarrassed for you. It seems you have clearly been radicalized by a cult leader.

RUN JACK RUN!

Clearly you have. Thanks for admitting it and conceding.

Jack doesn't generally run from facts.

Factfinder

Delilah6120 said:

@Factfinder

You're way too emotional and frankly and not someone I care to have a logical discussion with.

That's your knee-jerk emotional response to my well formed logical and factual opinions? 

Factfinder

@Delilah6120

I do not believe Biden is faultless - far from it

Care to list a few?

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder

Peddling influence for pay to the tune of MILLIONS of dollars...Biden is a compromised traitor. 

MayCaesar

Delilah6120 said:

@Factfinder

Again, I am embarrassed for you. It seems you have clearly been radicalized by a cult leader.

I find this kind of language curious. You used one of the popularized words: "radicalized". What exactly do you mean by that? Is it something you just repeat after others, or is it genuinely a part of your own vocabulary?

To me a "radicalized" position linguistically seems to mean a position taken to its logical extreme. For instance, if I believe that the free speech is generally a good thing, then the maximally radicalized position would be that all speech must be free.

Which of @Factfinder's positions do you classify as such?

As a side note, I find that many people with the kind of thinking you exhibit themselves take extremely radical position: "If you respond to a single criticism of Trump, you are a part of Trump's cult". As far as I can tell, both me and @Factfinder strongly dislike Trump and consider him to be a lousy candidate - we simply happen to be more wary of 4 more years of the clusterfuck which is Biden's presidency. "Trump is a terrible candidate, but the alternative is worse" - how is that for a cultist position?

Delilah6120 said:

@Factfinder

You're way too emotional and frankly and not someone I care to have a logical discussion with.

I do not like speaking for others, but I would venture that it is clear to everyone who is not already fully on board with your position that you have been far more emotional and far less logical in this conversation than your opponents.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

Delilah had to run from this post: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/182509/#Comment_182509 Hence she had to bow out without saying she was conceding. Yet she doesn't realize making up excuses is a form of concession.

You were spot on BTW.

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

That is the behavior people on that side of the political isle engage in consistently. When faced with challenging arguments, they often evade them by attacking the character of the person making the argument: "This person is so despicable, anything he can possibly say is not going to be worth considering". I am no fan of American conservatives either, but they rarely do this, to their credit. I can go to a conservative convention and say that abortion should be fully deregulated, and in 99% cases people will ask, "That is interesting; what makes you think that?" Very rarely will I hear dismissive remarks like, "You are clearly brainwashed; I am not interested in talking to you". They will still typically misrepresent my position, but that will not be their first instinct.

Modern "leftism" on the West seems to be based mostly on whims and emotions. Very rarely will they engage in a serious discussion about pros or cons of a particular policy, or about the principles behind the policy in question. It will usually be an appeal to the strife of one group of people or another: "We cannot leave the poor children behind!" Try to engage in the policy discussions - they will almost always turn it into some variation of, "Oh, you just do not care about group X".

Delilah6120

@MayCaesar

That is the behavior people on that side of the political isle engage in consistently. When faced with challenging arguments, they often evade them by attacking the character of the person making the argument: "This person is so despicable, anything he can possibly say is not going to be worth considering". I am no fan of American conservatives either, but they rarely do this, to their credit. I can go to a conservative convention and say that abortion should be fully deregulated, and in 99% cases people will ask, "That is interesting; what makes you think that?" Very rarely will I hear dismissive remarks like, "You are clearly brainwashed; I am not interested in talking to you". They will still typically misrepresent my position, but that will not be their first instinct.

Modern "leftism" on the West seems to be based mostly on whims and emotions. Very rarely will they engage in a serious discussion about pros or cons of a particular policy, or about the principles behind the policy in question. It will usually be an appeal to the strife of one group of people or another: "We cannot leave the poor children behind!" Try to engage in the policy discussions - they will almost always turn it into some variation of, "Oh, you just do not care about group X".

I do not agree with your assessment that "people on the other side" evade arguments and attack the character. Sure some do and surely you must understand that this happens on both sides May? "Leftism" is based mostly on whims and emotions?  Honestly, you claim to be politically unattached but to me your affiliation is obvious. And what is the Right based on? Would love to know your thoughts on that.

When speaking about rights. You add "A violent crime is not a right." and "The right to bear arms is not being abused when someone shoots up a school, because the right to bear arms does not include the right to shoot up a school..."  We were talking about abuse of rights. A right is being abused when it infringes upon the rights of others, violates laws and societal norms.  Are you actually arguing that a person who shoots up a school did not violate his right to bear arms? Rights come with responsibilities. The abuse of rights occurs when one oversteps the boundaries of those rights. Your double speak here is obvious and it seems you cleverly tried to conceal it with your extremely broad interpretation.

Delilah6120

@MayCaesar

Again, I am embarrassed for you. It seems you have clearly been radicalized by a cult leader.

I find this kind of language curious. You used one of the popularized words: "radicalized". What exactly do you mean by that? Is it something you just repeat after others, or is it genuinely a part of your own vocabulary?

To me a "radicalized" position linguistically seems to mean a position taken to its logical extreme. For instance, if I believe that the free speech is generally a good thing, then the maximally radicalized position would be that all speech must be free.

Which of @Factfinder's positions do you classify as such?

As a side note, I find that many people with the kind of thinking you exhibit themselves take extremely radical position: "If you respond to a single criticism of Trump, you are a part of Trump's cult". As far as I can tell, both me and @Factfinder strongly dislike Trump and consider him to be a lousy candidate - we simply happen to be more wary of 4 more years of the clusterfuck which is Biden's presidency. "Trump is a terrible candidate, but the alternative is worse" - how is that for a cultist position?

I cannot retract that statement because I AM embarrassed for any trump supporter and I DO believe in a majority of cases they've been radicalized by a cult leader. Now there is one faction I believe of T supporters that remains. And that faction IMO is the worst. They are the group that simply abhors Trump and his indecencies but love their money and are willing to forgo all decorum and decency for their own wallets.

A radicalized T supporter is one whose support of one man is extreme or fanatical. Example: Trump was indicted on 34 counts, is now a felon, and his support and $ donations rose significantly. That to me is unwavering support and radical. All democratic principles seem to be tossed aside for an irrational support for one man. As to Factinder's positions? Well his stance on Biden''s supposed crimes is quite unreasonable. They've been looking into the Hunter/Joe connection for almost two years. Fondling children in public. Geezum - Fox news much? I will respond to his last post. 

And again, you say you're not a Trump supporters and Factfinder says the same, but your strong defenses of him tell a different story. Why not come out and say you are indeed Trump supporters?

Delilah6120

@Factfinder

What has been under investigation? Biden fondling children in public using his position to intimidate anyone who would speak up? Yet he agreed he should stop doing it thus admitting his crime. Where is the DOJ on this?  Refusing to turn over secret documents that were subpoenaed like trump was prosecuted for? Clear cut case against Biden similar to Trump but where is the DOJ on this one? Oh yeah, Biden appointee. Biden in charge of public relations in eastern Europe (Ukraine) as VP while crooked son heads a corrupt oil company there, and Biden bragged on how he handled it openly? Where is the DOJ again?  https://apnews.com/article/garland-contempt-biden-classified-documents-justice-department-bc2fb71b225ae672eb257ee2055cfa67 You do realize Judicial oversight depends on the DOJ doing their job, right? Hey, but we know Trump paid hush money to a whore. Please explain how no one is above the law or was that just a feel good platitude?

Biden "fondling" children is just the extreme right wing news cycle pumping propaganda. There is NO evidence of the nefariousness of his "fondling" or his using his position to intimidate. He agreed he should be more aware of boundaries of touching now. He's an old man of a different generation that has not conformed to new societal expectations of boundaries and no touch. I still have to explain this to my husband of 77 years old who also tends to be touchy/feely.  It is simply not acceptable now. When you can actually provide evidence that his touching is nefarious, then do it.

Biden is under investigation in the House because of alleged improper conduct relating to his family's business dealings. Republicans believe that his connection to son, Hunter, who worked for Ukrainian gas company Burisma, at the same time Joe Biden was VP was illegal and sinister. Hunter was receiving 50K monthly for his position on the Board. It is alleged that Joe Biden illegally influenced son Hunter's earnings. It is also alleged that Joe Biden had a Ukrainian Prosecutor, Shokin, fired because of his investigation of the Joe/Hunter link. This was proven false at one time but the Republican House continues to look for evidence. Biden, as VP, influenced the removal of Shokin, along with strong international support, due to Shokin's own known corruption and Shokin's refusal to investigate extreme corruption in Ukraine at the time.

Why do you put your hopes in Biden as our leader? You agree with him when he says Americans snivel too much about unimportant things and says we deserve to have to pay 3 times more for gas and higher inflation rates across the board? You agree the working class should have to pay for student loans that the students default on? You agree with Biden making like Putin is a pariah publically but privately employing him to strike deals supposedly on our behalf with Iran? Is it his weak leadership in real world situations that you like? You know, remember how for over two years he kept our borders porous as the Cartels operated unabated allowing Fentanyl to kill our children at an alarming rate? Not to mention how many people baked to death in box cars cause of Biden's border policies; and why did he ignore our borders while being so concerned for Ukraine's borders? Cause our borders are a republican thing, isn't that right Delilah? So please tell me why you'd love for a man with no conscience like Biden to be our leader?

I do not know what you mean by Biden saying Americans snivel too much about unimportant things? I can only assume the unimportant things are finding drag queen readings harmful, banning books about sexuality and being gay, outrage because one has to address someone in another way, outrage because statues are being taken down, outrage that one did not get the same monetary help that students will get, outrage that the NIH director made mistakes  - to prevent deaths - we had to wear masks and get vaccinated - oh no!, outrage that a trans will be in the wrong bathroom - that stuff does to me seem ridiculous in contrast with all the other important issues we have to tackle wouldn't you agree?

I'll say this once again, the President does not have control over inflation or gas prices. If you do not know that, then research it. And while we're at it, the Biden Administration is trying to tackle Corporate profiteering - that is what's causing high grocery bills and gas bills. Look into the profits of the energy sector before and after Covid to see just how much corporations are price gouging. I am not necessarily strongly in favor of student debt relief, but I do not strongly oppose it either. I am closely connected with many young adults who DO struggle with the high costs of education loans as well as housing and rents. And because I did not get the same monetary relief does not mean I automatically think its unfair that someone else gets what I did not. To me, complaining about not getting thesame for oneself is just plain selfish. Society and its challenges change over time. It is analogous to an elderly couple who benefitted from the taxes paid into their public school system as students but then oppose school tax initiatives once their own children are grown. We've all received benefits in one way or another that not necessarily everyone receives. 

I am ignorant of the "pariah publically but privately employing him to strike deals ....." Please explain.

I agree that Biden could have acted quicker on the border issues but I'm not as quick to judge. Why did he act more aggressively on Ukraine? Well Putin's invasion of Ukraine affects America wouldn't you say? And on the border, Biden understood we've had border issues for decades. Every President kicked this can down the road as it's complex and doing this humanely is at stake. But Trump amplified it as the winning ticket as he used "the illegals" as scapegoats to blame for America's problems. This demon amplification of marginalized people fleeing unsafe countries, was exaggerated and sensationalized to get his supporters angry and unified. Biden likely needed to assess further before acting irrationally. Your description about the evils of the "illegals" are simply exaggerated and the result of right wing news. You think Biden or any other President was unaware of the border issues? You think Trump was a hero? He merely knew what issue to amplify to incentivize his voters. He used this issue and the immigrants as scapegoats to rile up his base. And no President in our history has ever taken babes and children from their parents. There are still hundreds of young children in America now who have no parents which the Biden Administration is still working on to reunite them with their families. I believe millions think Trump was going to fix the border issue but they are completely unaware of his cruel tactics. You think another President couldn't have relied on cruel tactics to fix the border? Trump was the only President cruel enough to expect his Zero Tolerance rule be followed through. His own Homeland Security Secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, quit because of the cruelty.

I have hope that Biden will win because in my opinion: 1) I would vote for anyone other than Trump, 2) He is a decent, honest man and I believe character matters in a leader, 3) He has decades of experience in the machinations of government, 4) I believe he has Americans' backs, 5) I agree with many - but not all - of his policies and last but not least  6) I believe he is fighting to save our democracy and importantly, the continuation of the Great American Experiment. Yes, it is a very ambitious endeavor to maintain democracy based on the principles of freedom, equality and self-governance. This is our superpower created by our Constitution. E Pluribus Unum - out of many, one. The principle that many people of many states can form one peaceful and cohesive nation despite our differences. Yes I believe strongly in this Constitutional principle.

You're not 'inundated' by Trump crimes, you think he's icky so you looked for them while avoiding any inkling at all about Biden's crimes. It is common knowledge what the republicans accuse Biden of, and even with an uneven playing field evidence continues to mount. What people testify to in a Judicial hearing does eventually make it to a criminal court sooner or later when their testimonies are reliable. So you can dismiss the witnesses testifying against Biden now, but we will see what comes out in the wash later as they are credible witnesses who took orders from Biden.

Yes, millions of Americans are inundated with Trump crimes. And yes, no doubt about it, because of his crimes and his shady past, we do think he's icky.

He was found guilty of:

1) Sexual abuse and defamation of EJ Carroll

2) Manhatten hush money case - falsifying business records to cover up a sex scandal to influence the outcome of the upcoming election. Convicted on all 34 counts.

He is currently facing the following:

1) Federal Jan. 6 Case related to his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and obstructing the peaceful transfer of power

2) Election Case in Georgia related to his efforts to reverse the election results by influencing witnesses (pressuring GA Secretary of State, Raffensperger to overturn the state's election results), defrauding the state, computer tampering, racketeering, and perjury

3) Classified Documents Case related to possessing classified documents, obstructing efforts to retrieve documents, and refusal to comply with handing them over

It is common knowledge what the republicans accuse Biden of, and even with an uneven playing field evidence continues to mount. What people testify to in a Judicial hearing does eventually make it to a criminal court sooner or later when their testimonies are reliable. So you can dismiss the witnesses testifying against Biden now, but we will see what comes out in the wash later as they are credible witnesses who took orders from Biden.

Then let the proven evidence speak for itself on Biden.  I am merely saying that he has of yet not been convicted of any crimes. The House has been investigating this since early 2023, I, among millions of Americans still believe in prudence, allowing our fair and just judicial system play out, and accepting the results as it is the best system we've got. 

Don't know as I merely type the truth with well reasoned opinion. Perhaps upon being notified of the facts that do not align with your preferred narrative some anger is projected onto me?

The truth is well-reasoned opinion? Well by that description I guess we all speak the truth don't we? Nah. I'm pretty on top of all this stuff and well aware of the misinformation, disinformation, lies and propaganda being freely disseminated on the internet as well as the numerous Russian and Chinese bots interfering in truth. I do not need to be notified of the facts.

MayCaesar

Delilah6120 said:

@MayCaesar

That is the behavior people on that side of the political isle engage in consistently. When faced with challenging arguments, they often evade them by attacking the character of the person making the argument: "This person is so despicable, anything he can possibly say is not going to be worth considering". I am no fan of American conservatives either, but they rarely do this, to their credit. I can go to a conservative convention and say that abortion should be fully deregulated, and in 99% cases people will ask, "That is interesting; what makes you think that?" Very rarely will I hear dismissive remarks like, "You are clearly brainwashed; I am not interested in talking to you". They will still typically misrepresent my position, but that will not be their first instinct.

Modern "leftism" on the West seems to be based mostly on whims and emotions. Very rarely will they engage in a serious discussion about pros or cons of a particular policy, or about the principles behind the policy in question. It will usually be an appeal to the strife of one group of people or another: "We cannot leave the poor children behind!" Try to engage in the policy discussions - they will almost always turn it into some variation of, "Oh, you just do not care about group X".

I do not agree with your assessment that "people on the other side" evade arguments and attack the character. Sure some do and surely you must understand that this happens on both sides May? "Leftism" is based mostly on whims and emotions?  Honestly, you claim to be politically unattached but to me your affiliation is obvious. And what is the Right based on? Would love to know your thoughts on that.

When speaking about rights. You add "A violent crime is not a right." and "The right to bear arms is not being abused when someone shoots up a school, because the right to bear arms does not include the right to shoot up a school..."  We were talking about abuse of rights. A right is being abused when it infringes upon the rights of others, violates laws and societal norms.  Are you actually arguing that a person who shoots up a school did not violate his right to bear arms? Rights come with responsibilities. The abuse of rights occurs when one oversteps the boundaries of those rights. Your double speak here is obvious and it seems you cleverly tried to conceal it with your extremely broad interpretation.

Perhaps unaware of it, you illustrated my point right here. You immediately jump to "this happens on both sides", so the discussion is diverted. Of course it happens on both sides. My point is that the forms it typically takes differ.

In my experience, people on the "right" often appeal to metaphysical things like duty, tradition and god. They are not as interested in fates of specific individuals or groups as they are in preserving some general systems.

If doing something infringes upon the rights of others, then by the very definition of rights it does not constitute a right. The person who shoots up a school does not violate his right to bear arms: the act of him possessing and carrying an arm did not constitute an infringement on anyone else's rights. The moment he pointed the gun at a person and pressed the trigger, he violated that person's right, and his ability to do so is not a derivative of the right to bear arms.

An objection would be that, without having the right to bear arms in the first place, he could not have shot up the school in the first place. But, first, this is demonstrably wrong (shootings occur in countries that do not safeguard people's right to bear arms all the times), and second, even if it was not wrong, it would not imply that the right to bear arms is somehow being "abused". It would imply that this right coincidentally makes violating other people's rights easier - but that violation, in turn, does not constitute a right, so the connection here is misplaced.

Lastly, you mentioned that my "affiliation is obvious". What is it? It is not obvious to me, so it being obvious to a stranger on the Internet sounds quite implausible.

Delilah6120 said:

@MayCaesar

Again, I am embarrassed for you. It seems you have clearly been radicalized by a cult leader.

I find this kind of language curious. You used one of the popularized words: "radicalized". What exactly do you mean by that? Is it something you just repeat after others, or is it genuinely a part of your own vocabulary?

To me a "radicalized" position linguistically seems to mean a position taken to its logical extreme. For instance, if I believe that the free speech is generally a good thing, then the maximally radicalized position would be that all speech must be free.

Which of @Factfinder's positions do you classify as such?

As a side note, I find that many people with the kind of thinking you exhibit themselves take extremely radical position: "If you respond to a single criticism of Trump, you are a part of Trump's cult". As far as I can tell, both me and @Factfinder strongly dislike Trump and consider him to be a lousy candidate - we simply happen to be more wary of 4 more years of the clusterfuck which is Biden's presidency. "Trump is a terrible candidate, but the alternative is worse" - how is that for a cultist position?

I cannot retract that statement because I AM embarrassed for any trump supporter and I DO believe in a majority of cases they've been radicalized by a cult leader. Now there is one faction I believe of T supporters that remains. And that faction IMO is the worst. They are the group that simply abhors Trump and his indecencies but love their money and are willing to forgo all decorum and decency for their own wallets.

A radicalized T supporter is one whose support of one man is extreme or fanatical. Example: Trump was indicted on 34 counts, is now a felon, and his support and $ donations rose significantly. That to me is unwavering support and radical. All democratic principles seem to be tossed aside for an irrational support for one man. As to Factinder's positions? Well his stance on Biden''s supposed crimes is quite unreasonable. They've been looking into the Hunter/Joe connection for almost two years. Fondling children in public. Geezum - Fox news much? I will respond to his last post. 

And again, you say you're not a Trump supporters and Factfinder says the same, but your strong defenses of him tell a different story. Why not come out and say you are indeed Trump supporters?

Okay, you have introduced a new claim here. You believe that in a majority of cases a Trump supporter has been radicalized by a cult leader - yes, you are embarrassed for any Trump supporter. This implies that your embarrassment derives from something else as well; what is it?

To your explanation, I can give you an analogy: in Russia in 2003 Khodorkovsky, a natural resource billionaire, was indicted on multiple counts, became a felon and was imprisoned for years - yet his political support and donations rose significantly. As you explained, to you this is unwavering support and radical, and democratic principles seem to be tossed aside... Yet in that case Khodorkovsky was imprisoned specifically for his political activities in opposition to Putin's regime, and the whole economical case was made up as per consensus of virtually all experts that looked into that. It would seem to me that what was done to Khodorkovsky constitutes mockery of democracy, yet by your reasoning supporting him is radical and anti-democratic. What am I missing here?

Your last question is, sorry to say, dumb. I clearly am not a defender of Trump. On this website I am mostly interested in logical structure of my and other people's arguments, as well as in learning something, therefore I often play devil's advocate. If you look at some of the comments I made here circa 2019, people were accusing me of "Trump derangement syndrome" because I wrestled with a couple of Trump supporters and pointed out endless fallacies in their arguments. Here, I am pointing out your and others' fallacies.

I have no allegiance or warm feelings towards the man who is incompetent as president (which I said in our discussions in the past), has a very lousy moral character, and who seems to be experiencing some kind of mental decay. I do think that Biden is even worse than Trump, but that is no ground to "coming out as Trump supporter". It is like saying that because I think that alcohol is less harmful than cigarettes, and that not every argument people make against alcohol consumption is valid, I am somehow promoting alcoholism. Again, a very dumb argument.

One which, by the way, @Dreamer here made. When I pointed out that a couple of his claims about cigarettes was not supported by evidence, he accused me of being a mouthpiece of tobacco companies... This loops back to my previous comment where I pointed that on the "left" people often prefer to jump to accusing the individual making an argument, versus criticizing the argument itself.

You are very old and experienced, yet you still struggle with the concept of making impartial arguments sometimes favoring one "side", yet not implying allegiance to that side. This suggests to me that you have not thought much about epistemology throughout your life, and your view here is extremely limited. I suggest that you watch videos of John Stossel and podcasts of Alex O'Connor to get a more skillful demonstration on how one can criticize arguments conclusions of which they agree with, in order to learn something. A heavier read would be Farnsworth's "The Socratic Method: A Practitioner's Handbook". You can find examples there of Socrates convincing his opponent that he (Socrates) is right, and afterwards in the same discussion convincing him that he is wrong.

Factfinder

@Delilah6120

Biden "fondling" children is just the extreme right wing news cycle pumping propaganda. There is NO evidence of the nefariousness of his "fondling" or his using his position to intimidate. He agreed he should be more aware of boundaries of touching now. He's an old man of a different generation that has not conformed to new societal expectations of boundaries and no touch. I still have to explain this to my husband of 77 years old who also tends to be touchy/feely.  It is simply not acceptable now. When you can actually provide evidence that his touching is nefarious, then do it.

Actually there is plenty of video of him doing so and he quit because he was aware of boundaries and knew he was crossing them. But thanks for predictably conforming to left wing spin and talking points. Your husband "touchy/feely" with only little girls? Both he and the president are so disenfranchised they don't know what is and what isn't acceptable behavior in American culture? That's the excuse you offer up? I some how doubt you'd give Trump the same benefit of the doubt but okay that's your opinion. Proof would come a lot faster should Bidens DOJ cooperate with the Judicial committee. Oh but they only did their job when Trump was the target. Funny how you run from that fact and see no bias where bias was plentiful.

Biden is under investigation in the House because of alleged improper conduct relating to his family's business dealings. Republicans believe that his connection to son, Hunter, who worked for Ukrainian gas company Burisma, at the same time Joe Biden was VP was illegal and sinister. Hunter was receiving 50K monthly for his position on the Board. It is alleged that Joe Biden illegally influenced son Hunter's earnings. It is also alleged that Joe Biden had a Ukrainian Prosecutor, Shokin, fired because of his investigation of the Joe/Hunter link. This was proven false at one time but the Republican House continues to look for evidence. Biden, as VP, influenced the removal of Shokin, along with strong international support, due to Shokin's own known corruption and Shokin's refusal to investigate extreme corruption in Ukraine at the time

You go ahead and keep telling yourself that but in reality there is a lot more to it: 

"Biden family accounts ultimately received approximately $1.038 million.  The total amount from Romania to the Biden family and their associates is over $3 million."

"The total amount from China, specifically with CEFC and their related entities, to the Biden family and their associates is over $8 million."

 "The total amount from Ukraine to the Biden family and their associates is $6.5 million."

 "The total amount from Russia to the Biden family and their associates is $3.5 million."

Beyond this timeline, here are links to our First, Second, Third, and Fourth Bank Memorandums that provide detailed descriptions and show actual bank records and wires.

https://oversight.house.gov/the-bidens-influence-peddling-timeline/


The truth is well-reasoned opinion? Well by that description I guess we all speak the truth don't we? Nah. I'm pretty on top of all this stuff and well aware of the misinformation, disinformation, lies and propaganda being freely disseminated on the internet as well as the numerous Russian and Chinese bots interfering in truth. I do not need to be notified of the facts.

Apparently you do need to be notified of facts and you need them explained as well. That's not a bad thing, I see it that way for myself and others as well. Can't make informed decisions without them.

Here's what I mean, you yourself quoted me correctly here: "Don't know as I merely type the truth with well reasoned opinion." Then you changed "with" to "is" and proceeded to knock down the strawman you built as a result of your misrepresentation.

Another example: You admit to being ignorant of Biden explaining the sanctioning Russia in news conferences over Ukraine in order to isolate Putin as a pariah only to rely on Putin to strike a bad deal for America with Iran. All you had to do was google it. Oh yeah, you don't seek information, you're "inundated" with it and it's all negative Trump stories. Wow what a coincidence.  
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/03/biden-colludes-with-russia-on-a-new-more-disastrous-iran-deal/

Great campaign speech for Biden BTW. But you offered no real reason to vote for him. How has life in America improved on his watch? Specifics concerning policies, not campaign stumps. 

The whole reason a corporation exist is for profit. I know liberals hate that fact and hate even more how capitalism raises people out of poverty but deal with it. The device you're using is a result of it. Biden declares war on American energy companies for votes and because of campaign promises costing the industry billions. Production drops initially, then never catching up with demand and prices soar. And you naively claim the president has no influence? Biden grants leases for drilling for the purposes of public spin, then inundates them with red tape, taxes and fees because he promised the world America will be off oil products. We didn't have the infrastructure but he didn't care nor did he care about the hardship he's caused.  After all as Cortez said, he could just rule by decree if the people don't want it so he did. Cause he made promises to her that's more important then the security and welfare of our nation. That's why he's making working people pay the loans for all the worthless liberal arts degrees people got. Again a simple query on your behalf should make you aware of this stuff.

Trump, a convict has more character than Biden as he isn't interested in making promises to the world, his interests are America's interests. His policies generally reflect that attitude where Biden is interested in a world legacy and his policies reflect that. Forcing Americans into cars they don't want, can't afford and lack the infrastructure for wasn't for America, it was to please the climate change globalist elites. Which did a huge disservice for the cause of climate change as it just reinforced the idea it's only about fleecing America.

The border crisis is not exaggerated. Why do you think Biden was forced to finally act? Again your dismissal of it is telling of your selective news sources. 

Ooh, since early 2023 huh? Well the judiciary committee was loaded up with democrats from 2020-2022, had the complete support of Biden and his DOJ; and so far only got Trump for paying off a whore and misrepresenting his companies financial status (kinda like Biden now) and he's still the better candidate, you know why? Cause he's the only one we got and this country might not survive four more years of Biden, and surely not four years of Harris. 

Tell me honestly, would you be interested in writing to your president asking him to let the DOJ investigate the findings of the current judiciary committee without restraints as was the case in 20-22?

Personally neither candidate is ideal but as it stands I take a patriot over a crime family.

jack

Factfinder said:

Tell me honestly, would you be interested in writing to your president asking him to let the DOJ investigate the findings of the current judiciary committee without restraints as was the case in 20-22?

Hello F:

Here in America, the judicial branch is separate from the other two..  The problem we've got here is that Trump TOLD you that one branch had sway over the other two, and for some god forsaken reason, you believe him.  I guess you were absent the day they taught the Constitution.

In my beloved country the president doesn't control the DOJ.  That's the way it is, and that's the way I HOPE it'll continue to be.. Should Trump win, kiss the "Rule of Law" goodbye..

excon

Factfinder

jack said:

Factfinder said:

Tell me honestly, would you be interested in writing to your president asking him to let the DOJ investigate the findings of the current judiciary committee without restraints as was the case in 20-22?

Hello F:

Here in America, the judicial branch is separate from the other two..  The problem we've got here is that Trump TOLD you that one branch had sway over the other 2 branch's, and for some god forsaken reason, you believe him.  I guess you were absent the day they taught the Constitution.

In my beloved country the president doesn't control the DOJ.  That's the way it is, and that's the way I HOPE it'll continue to be.. Should Trump win, kiss the "Rule of Law" goodbye..

excon

You seemed to be absent the day they taught the Constitution as the DOJ is headed by an appointee of the Executive branch. You see Jack in my wonderful country the DOJ is not a branch unto itself. There is the legislative, the judiciary and the executive branch. The legislative branch has what's called 'oversight committees' which is precisely for the purpose of exposing the "sway" being applied in any given situation. For instance in this situation it is exposing the "sway" the executive branch has over the DOJ as common knowledge tells us the executive branch oversees the DOJ and the boss of the DOJ is the president. You served on a Navy ship and don't know this?

jack

Factfinder said:

You seemed to be absent the day they taught the Constitution as the DOJ is headed by an appointee of the Executive branch. 

Hello again, F:

Therefore, you believe they're beholden to the President.. 

That's a very good argument, except that's not the way it happens..   Oh, in Trump world, it happens..  But, not in my country.  In my world, the below is the standard.....

Our Mission

The mission of the Department of Justice is to uphold the rule of law, to keep our country safe, and to protect civil rights.

Our Values

• Independence and Impartiality. We work each day to earn the public’s trust by following the facts and the law wherever they may lead, without prejudice or improper influence.
• Honesty and Integrity. Our employees adhere to the highest standards of ethical behavior, mindful that, as public servants, we must work to earn the trust of, and inspire confidence in, the public we serve.
• Respect. Our employees value differences in people and in ideas and treat everyone with fairness, dignity, and compassion.
• Excellence. We work every day to provide the highest levels of service to the American people and to be a responsible steward of the taxpayers’ dollars.

excon

PS:  On my ship, the Uniform Code of Military Justice was strictly adhered to, just as you'd expect from your military.

MayCaesar

@jack

It is not just in "Trump world". Here is what Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-1/ALDE_00013092/ 

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Factfinder

jack said:

Factfinder said:

You seemed to be absent the day they taught the Constitution as the DOJ is headed by an appointee of the Executive branch. 

Hello again, F:

Therefore, you believe they're beholden to the President.. 

That's a very good argument, except that's not the way it happens..   Oh, in Trump world, it happens..  But, not in my country.  In my world, the below is the standard.....

Our Mission

The mission of the Department of Justice is to uphold the rule of law, to keep our country safe, and to protect civil rights.

Our Values

• Independence and Impartiality. We work each day to earn the public’s trust by following the facts and the law wherever they may lead, without prejudice or improper influence.
• Honesty and Integrity. Our employees adhere to the highest standards of ethical behavior, mindful that, as public servants, we must work to earn the trust of, and inspire confidence in, the public we serve.
• Respect. Our employees value differences in people and in ideas and treat everyone with fairness, dignity, and compassion.
• Excellence. We work every day to provide the highest levels of service to the American people and to be a responsible steward of the taxpayers’ dollars.

excon

PS:  On my ship, the Uniform Code of Military Justice was strictly adhered to, just as you'd expect from your military.

Maybe in a Trump world it would happen, maybe not as he doesn't have the msm support the way Biden does. 

As was it adhered to in my unit but that's not what's in question here as the DOJ is civilian, not military. Any statement of standards or oaths of loyalty are only as good the peope upholding them. Or not in this case...

House Oversight Chair James Comer is urging the Justice Department to launch a sweeping investigation into the Biden family in the wake of Hunter Biden being found guilty on three felony gun charges.

“Today’s verdict is a step toward accountability but until the Department of Justice investigates everyone involved in the Bidens’ corrupt influence peddling schemes that generated over $18 million in foreign payments to the Biden family, it will be clear department officials continue to cover for the Big Guy, Joe Biden,” Comer (R-Ky.) said in a statement after the verdict.

Comer and other GOP chairs spearheading the inquiry made criminal referrals to the Justice Department earlier this month for Hunter Biden and Jim Biden, the president’s brother. The referrals are non-binding, meaning the DOJ doesn’t have to do anything with them. https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/06/11/congress/comers-hunter-biden-verdict-reaction-00162719

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

I think there is a world of difference between corruption of members of one's family, and their personal corruption. Biden's brother and son potentially being criminals does not implicate him in anything, just like Trump's daughter and nephew potentially being criminals would not implicate him in anything. Media going after Hunter Biden as means of getting to Joe Biden are not being fair and impartial.

Overall, the past several election cycles in the US leave a strong aftertaste in my mouth. Instead of discussing issues and policies, the media are going after the candidates' character, seeking crimes and misdoings around them in order to smear them. This strongly resembles what I was used to back in Russia, where it was all about digging up dirt on one's opponents. There was one comedian who criticized Putin routinely, and someone recorded him having sex with a young woman on a hidden camera and released it to the public in order to destroy his reputation.

I honestly do not care about Hunter Biden's laptop, or Trump's business records. I am interested in what these people are going to actually do if elected, and that is something I almost never hear being discussed seriously.

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

@Factfinder

I think there is a world of difference between corruption of members of one's family, and their personal corruption. Biden's brother and son potentially being criminals does not implicate him in anything, just like Trump's daughter and nephew potentially being criminals would not implicate him in anything. Media going after Hunter Biden as means of getting to Joe Biden are not being fair and impartial.

Overall, the past several election cycles in the US leave a strong aftertaste in my mouth. Instead of discussing issues and policies, the media are going after the candidates' character, seeking crimes and misdoings around them in order to smear them. This strongly resembles what I was used to back in Russia, where it was all about digging up dirt on one's opponents. There was one comedian who criticized Putin routinely, and someone recorded him having sex with a young woman on a hidden camera and released it to the public in order to destroy his reputation.

I honestly do not care about Hunter Biden's laptop, or Trump's business records. I am interested in what these people are going to actually do if elected, and that is something I almost never hear being discussed seriously.

In general and in an ideal world you would be correct. But what we have now before us is as corrupt as it gets. We have always had the candidates being smeared and discussed with the issues pushed to the back burners but I'd say about the time of Obama on; it's gotten much worse. Of course Obama was the target then but even he wasn't targeted as much as Trump. Of course Trump being his petulant self brought a lot of it on himself. I digress however, there are sworn affidavits, bank records and witnesses on the record detailing Joe Bidens involvement under oath; and the DOJ says there's nothing there? I do not buy it. The committee is being stonewalled till after the election.

Sad to say I will vote for Trump because his policies the first time around were overall better for America, I say this with some reservation as his conduct on Jan. 6 was horrible. So as a president he's not that good. Gas was around a 1.50, food prices...everything for the most part was better under Trump. No world conflicts that we the tax payers had to pay for, or crisis.

I tried to get Delilah to elaborate on the good Biden has done for this country but she refuses. Now apparently the same goes for Jack. Just obfuscations and allusions to the American way and mission statements. It's like they don't want to know what Joe Biden has actually done and hope hating Trump will get the country by. 

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

Well, perhaps it would do this country some good to separate criminal investigations of candidates from the discussion of their policies. Even if Biden is actually extremely corrupt, in my view, this should not be a factor in discussing his candidacy: rather, it is a factor in figuring out what in the system allows him to be corrupt. As a presidential candidate, I personally am only interested in what he would do if elected. Whether he stole $20 million dollars somewhere is a pretty minor question compared to how he is going to try to spend trillions of taxpayer money.

As for Trump, I may be naive, but I really do not see the evidence of his court cases being politicized. He was implicated in countless misdoings long before he even ran back in 2016. He was always a slimy character, and I have little sympathy for him. I do agree though that he gets an unfairly harsh press coverage in general.

Regarding his policies, I think that it was not as much that his policies were good, as that his predecessors' and successors' policies were abysmally bad. Bush'es, Obama's and Biden's presidencies were disastrous, so the bar is already very low. With his business experience, he managed to avoid making severe blunders crippling the economy, and did quite a bit to deregulate the market. But he did almost nothing to create some sort of legacy, long-lasting functional systems. Biden pretty much undid everything Trump did. Now we will get another 4 years of Trump making hectic decisions, and then 4 years of Kamala Harris or someone like that undoing everything. That is no way to go, is it?

I think people should have higher standards. Not "Trump is a lesser evil, so I will go with him", but "I will not give my vote to anyone I cannot get behind, and I will set an example others can follow by voting according to my principles". If enough people did this, we could get someone reasonable like Vivek Ramaswamy, instead of these joke candidates.

But I will not tell other people how to vote; everyone makes their own decision.

Delilah6120

@Factfinder

I plain don't like you and I don't care to "debate" with someone I just plain don't like.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

Regarding his policies, I think that it was not as much that his policies were good, as that his predecessors' and successors' policies were abysmally bad. Bush'es, Obama's and Biden's presidencies were disastrous, so the bar is already very low.

That's the crux of my position right there. Couldn't of said it any better. Yet we still need to vote and there is only two candidates. Well there is other elections but as far as this presidential election goes, the choices are bad and not so bad. Believe me I tried voting my principles in the primaries and still got Trump.

Factfinder

Delilah6120 said:

@Factfinder

I plain don't like you and I don't care to "debate" with someone I just plain don't like.

That's fine but this is a debate site so if I see a post that is fallacy I'll point it out whether you like me or not.

jack

MayCaesar said:

@jack

It is not just in "Trump world". Here is what Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-1/ALDE_00013092/ 

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers.........

Hello May:

No one doubts the powers of the executive branch..  However, with great power comes great responsibility.  One would hope the president wouldn't appoint toady's - yet that's what he did, and is promising to do it again, only MORE SO...  

excon

Delilah6120

@MayCaesar ;

Well, perhaps it would do this country some good to separate criminal investigations of candidates from the discussion of their policies. Even if Biden is actually extremely corrupt, in my view, this should not be a factor in discussing his candidacy: rather, it is a factor in figuring out what in the system allows him to be corrupt. As a presidential candidate, I personally am only interested in what he would do if elected. Whether he stole $20 million dollars somewhere is a pretty minor question compared to how he is going to try to spend trillions of taxpayer money.

As for Trump, I may be naive, but I really do not see the evidence of his court cases being politicized. He was implicated in countless misdoings long before he even ran back in 2016. He was always a slimy character, and I have little sympathy for him. I do agree though that he gets an unfairly harsh press coverage in general.

A quick response to your first paragraph.

Firstly, I agree that we cannot judge too quickly on ONGOING investigations that have produced no confirming evidence. But I disagree with "even if Biden is actually extremely corrupt .... this should not be a factor in discussing his candidacy."  If there is proven evidence of a presidential candidate's corruption, in my opinion, he/she should NEVER be trusted with the guardianship of America.

I STRONGLY disagree with your assessment of Trump's unfair and harsh press coverage. While I rarely commend Trump due to his amoral character, his self-marketing skills are nothing short of extraordinary. I strongly believe these honed skills --  narcissistic, attention-seeking behaviors  -- come from a primal need to conceal his extreme insecurities and fraudulence. And when the media attention is negative, his need to self protect makes him punch 10x harder as he's like a petulant child, stuck in an emotional age of 8, just begging for the positive reinforcement he never received. His talent for elevating himself is almost an art form. However, every positive aspect has a negative counterpart. He rightly deserves the harsh press coverage he gets as it is a direct result of the attention he himself has cultivated. 

MayCaesar

@Delilah6120

Suppose you have a corrupt candidate that would implement the best policies imaginable, but steal $20 million dollars in the process. $20 million is almost nothing next to the size of the economy his decisions affect - would it really be a deal-breaker for you? What if the opposing candidate is not corrupt, but his policies are awful?

People seem to focus too much on the individual, and too little on the job.

As for your second comment, you did not really say anything to negate my assessment. I did not say that Trump did not deserve a harsh coverage; I simply said that the coverage he received was unfairly harsh.

Factfinder

@Delilah6120

Firstly, I agree that we cannot judge too quickly on ONGOING investigations that have produced no confirming evidence.

That is a misleading statement if you're talking about Biden. There is plenty of confirmed evidence against him and you've seen it. You simply dismiss it because the bias Biden DOJ refuses to do it's job and press charges so a conviction can be concluded. If you truly were against corruption you wouldn't vote for Biden.

jack

MayCaesar said:

I did not say that Trump did not deserve a harsh coverage; I simply said that the coverage he received was unfairly harsh.

Hello again, May:

Huh??

 How can the coverage he receives be both deserved and unfair??

excon