You've conflated actions by social media organizations, the BIden campaign, and former intelligence officials.There's no evidence of any conspiracy, despite the misinformation spread by MAGA media and Congressmen.I’m not sure why you’d defend misinformation and censorship of that sort unless it’s because you want to dismiss and minimize the information therein. Is there some other reason I’m unaware of? — NOS4A2
What many people don't seem to realize is that this, too, is democracy. The problem isn't Trump, isn't Orban, it's the very phenomenon of democracy itself. In a democracy, people defend their own interests. And this inevitably leads to tensions. A common way of coping with those tensions is to try to discredit the others. — baker
It's simply how they are already. — baker
It seems to be easier to propose that people are basically good, but weak; than to consider the possibility that people are basically evil and strong. — baker
Can a convicted felon even serve as POTUS — GRWelsh
What if he gets a sentence of prison time? Can he serve as POTUS from prison? — GRWelsh
Otherwise, it creates a legal loophole where a President can commit any crime he wants and then pardon himself, over and over. — GRWelsh
Your vague reference to "they" suggests you are conflating actions by a variety of people and organizations. Point to an individual who knowingly stated a clear falsehood.I haven’t conflated anything. Serious analysis of the drive itself and the contents therein contradicted everything they claimed about it. That’s just a fact. — NOS4A2
Biden has consistently said he never discussed business with Hunter or his associates, and his attendance at a dinner doesn't contradict this. Joe did dodge questions about the laptop, such as in the debate with Trump when he referred to the letter by former intelligence officers, but his comment was factual - even though it was misleading. Are you so naive as to think being misleading is a novel thing for political candidates?We found out from the laptop that Joe Biden met with Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi In 2015, something the Whitehouse has repeatedly lied about. — NOS4A2
This was public knowledge, not some revelation from the laptop. We're discussing the 2020 NY Post story about the laptop and the contents of the laptop, not your general opinion of Biden.Such a good father was the elder Biden that he let his son accompany him to China in 2013, and days later Hunter is appointed director of a new investment boutique backed by CCP money. — NOS4A2
Sure, there was stupidity in the handling of the story, including the way Giuliani gave exclusive access to only one right-wing outlet. The inability for other outlets to verify the information was a factor in the story not being reported widely. The other factor you overlook is Russia's history of assisting Trump, and Trump's taking maximum advantage of that assistance.The disinfo and censorship of this info was less a conspiracy as it was a confluence of stupidity, just like the Russia hoax. — NOS4A2
None of the signatories of the letter lied. The letter said they were "suspicious of Russian involvement", that it was "consistent with Russian objectives", and "We do not know whether these press reports are accurate". Of course the Biden campaign would use this analysis to maximum advantage, just like the Trump campaign would try to maximize the NY Post story to their maximum advantage.it was former disgruntled CIA director John Brennan who delivered the letter to a politico writer known for pushing the Russian hoax, and the writer served it up on a propaganda platter for unsuspecting Americans getting ready to vote. — NOS4A2
Hunter's corruption was well known.This may be above board for you but to many it reeks of corruption, collusion, election interference, and fraud. — NOS4A2
Your vague reference to "they" suggests you are conflating actions by a variety of people and organizations. Point to an individual who knowingly stated a clear falsehood.
The Russian investigation was not a "hoax", because it was initiated as a result of a clear crime (Russians stealing information from DNC servers). A Trump campaign had knowledge of the crime before the emails were made public, and he lied about it. Additional lies were told by other campaign officials during the investigation - it would have been derelict to ignore this. Russian active measures to help Trump were well known during the 2020 campaign, and this was a major factor in wariness of media outlets at reporting it, and in the judgement of the former intelligence officers. It's pretty ironic that Russia's assistance in 2016 backfired on Trump's desire to spread irrelevant dirt in 2020.
None of the signatories of the letter lied. The letter said they were "suspicious of Russian involvement", that it was "consistent with Russian objectives", and "We do not know whether these press reports are accurate". Of course the Biden campaign would use this analysis to maximum advantage, just like the Trump campaign would try to maximize the NY Post story to their maximum advantage.
Everything you just said is vague. What lie did the inteligence experts tell? "The White House" was the Trump administration at the time. What specific lie did Biden tell at the time? Provide quote and point to evidence that shows he knowingly made a false statement.The so-called intelligence experts, the whitehouse, and Biden himself, as I've already said. There is nothing vague about it. — NOS4A2
You are not well informed.Julian Assange denied the emails came from Russia. Shawn Henry of Crowdstrike admitted under oath that there was no evidence the information was exfiltrated. The US government dropped the case against the Internet Research Agency. It was a bunch of hokum, a hoax, and you're still falling for it. — NOS4A2
You forgot to give me the evidence Brennan & Morrell knew the NY Post story was true at the time. What's wrong with providing talking points for a debate?The author of the letter, Former acting CIA Director Michael Morell, asking John Brennan to sign the letter in an email said that he wanted to give Joe Biden a talking point in the debate. — NOS4A2
What makes you think their concern is fake? It's established Russia interfered in 2016, and that their efforts had been continuing.Given this activity in light of their fake concern that "each of us believes deeply that American citizens should determine the outcome of elections..." — NOS4A2
Everything you just said is vague. What lie did the inteligence experts tell? "The White House" was the Trump administration at the time. What specific lie did Biden tell at the time? Provide quote and point to evidence that shows he knowingly made a false statement.
You forgot to give me the evidence Brennan & Morrell knew the NY Post story was true. What's wrong with providing talking points for a debate?
What makes you think their concern is fake? It's established Russia interfered in 2016, and that their efforts had been continuing.
There are no quotes that depict Joe telling a lie. Sure, he used the talking points for his political benefit, just as Trump used the NYPost story, and made absurd claims about Biden getting Shokin fired to help Hunter.He lied about his knowledge regarding his son’s dealings, he used the fabricated talking point in the debates. I’m not well informed so perhaps you can come up with quotes yourself. — NOS4A2
Indeed, the letter was produced for political purposes, and it was used by Joe to dodge questions about the laptop - but he didn't tell a lie. Look at the transcript. . Hardly a unique practice by politicians. I acknowledged this long ago. You refuse to acknowledge the fact that everything in the letter was actually true. Here's a link to the letter. Being wrong does not mean telling a lie.It was misinformation as developed by former spies, some of whom fumbled the Russia hoax and defrauded the United States electorate. Biden used it to lie in the debates. Media used it to suppress the story. — NOS4A2
Bellows said she received three challenges to Trump's primary nomination petition, two of which argued that the former president did not meet the qualifications for the presidency because he had engaged in insurrection and is therefore ineligible to hold public office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The third challenge argued that Trump should be found ineligible under the 22nd Amendment, which establishes that "no person should be elected to the office of president more than twice." Under this theory, the petitioner, Paul Gordon, said that Trump should be disqualified because he has long claimed to have won the 2020 election.
...
Bellows concluded that Trump had engaged in insurrection and that sufficient evidence had been provided to "demonstrate the falsity of Mr. Trump's declaration that he meets the qualifications of the office of the presidency."
However, Mr. Trump may be able to remove this obstacle of his own creation. If he were to submit a letter sworn under penalty of perjury acknowledging that he lost the 2020 election and repudiating all previous statements undermining the integrity of that election, the question of the 22nd Amendment would no longer be relevant.
They really said that Trump believes he won the election and if that were true, which they argue it's not, then he's ineligible because he's won twice. It’s just a troll at this point for their foamy-mouthed base. — NOS4A2
I’m afraid Trump was not sworn in... — NOS4A2
... so the notion is ridiculous
...
It just goes to show the lengths they are willing to go and the contortions they are willing to commit themselves to in order to disguise their malfeasance. — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.