greg1647545532

LOL that's not why you sound crazy bro.

I hope you're right Panduh and that when Biden wins there won't be any political violence. I really do. I'm not optimistic because the evidence before me suggests otherwise, but I do hope you're right.

You mean like these molotov cocktails confiscated from some boogaloo boys at a BLM rally? I'm sure they're just SOF cosplayers or Bernie Bros or whatever the right wing echo chamber says about extremists on their side.

Yes, this incident and Panduh's sociopathic response are at odds with his confidence that there won't be any right wing violence if Biden wins. It's truly bizarre.

Panduh, are you familiar with the significance of right wing protestors wearing Hawaiian shirts? There's a clue in one of the quotes above, I'm just curious if you're aware of the movement. Serious question, please reply.

Gonna come back to this thread just to say, you know what's real? When it's pointed out that Trump has sowed doubt about the election, called it fraudulent, and refused to commit to stepping down peacefully if he loses, you're not saying, "I'm sure that when the time comes he will do the right thing and adhere to one of the key principals of American democracy." You're not saying that. Wow.

Joe has not refused to concede. Were you raised to be a liar or was this a choice you made as an adult?

Correct. Reality is what it is. You can't change it by declaration. Why should Trump commit to the principals of democracy? Are you asking this with a straight face?

What's funny is that Republicans are gearing up to impeach Biden already over this laptop. I guarantee to you that if Republicans hold the senate then they will waste no time launching Burisma investigation after Burisma investigation if Biden wins, and there will be all kinds of impeachment threats. Remember when the Republican argument was "They wanted to impeach Trump before he even took office!" I mean, this article is from FEBRUARY but you can tell they're really ramping up their efforts now. Pot, kettle, hypocrisy, lol.

Untrue. Hillary Clinton conceded the loss to Trump, did not challenge the results in court, and Trump took office in Jan 2017. Reality is my cite. Claiming that massive election fraud is happening without presenting any evidence is just called being a fucking liar. And a dangerous one at that. It's not a lack of tact.

I'm sorry, I'm just, like, truly baffled. Trump has been sewing doubt about the legitimacy of the election for years. Voter fraud is rampant, mail-in ballots lead to voter fraud, deep state election officials will throw the election, etc. He is paving the groundwork to get his supporters not to accept the results if he loses. He has refused to commit to the peaceful transition of power. When asked directly if he will accept the results of the election if he loses, he said, "We'll see." Has Job Biden behaved similarly? No? Then you can't compare the two. Come on.

Maybe because Joe Biden hasn't made the same inflammatory comments about not respecting the results of the election that Trump has? I mean, if you go around talking about how you're going to rob a bank, and I don't go around talking about how I'm going to rob a bank, you can't exactly get upset when the cops are keeping a close eye on you and not me.

Can you believe when I lived in base housing the government made me mow my lawn and bring my garbage cans in? Fucking fascists.

For one, in the interest of correcting the record, Joe emphatically DID NOT "get the attorney or whoever investigating Burisma removed." He, along with Obama and the rest of the Western world pushed for the prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, to be removed because Shokin WAS NOT investigating Burisma. It's the exact opposite of the way you said it. Shokin was corrupt and was turning a blind eye to corruption at companies like Burisma. This is a frustrating misconception that won't seem to die. If Biden was trying to protect Hunter, he shot himself in the foot. Ergo, fake news. For two, I cannot for the life of me how the email corroborates any unethical activity, even circumstantially. There just don't seem to be any dots there that these email connects. Hence my question.

You're getting your BS mixed up. The 2017 emails are about the "China deal." The screenshot I quoted above is dated April 2015.

Well I've been following it more closely than you, and the Burisma angle doesn't include any sort of accusation that I can see. Here's the NY Post article that "broke" the story, and here's the entire text of the email that the NYP posted a screenshot of. Now, setting aside that the screenshot is sketch, what is the accusation that this email supports? It does not support that Hunter was "acting as a bagman for Joe Biden" on its face. Assuming this email is legitimate, it means... Vadym Pozharskyi and Joe Biden spent some time together.... This is what I'm saying. Unless you're already convinced of a heap of stuff about Burisma and Biden, I cannot see what accusation can be derived from this laptop.

Slate has a podcast called "Slow Burn," it's hit or miss but the first season attempted to play out the Watergate scandal chronologically, inferring parallels to the Mueller investigation that was going on at the same time. What was interesting was how old the "discredit the media" playbook actually was, with Nixon aides attacking Woodward and Bernstein as politically motivated liars right up until they whole charade fell apart. Your post here, of course, is the desired result -- conmen and grifters conditioning the masses not to trust anyone, even respected investigators, scientists, and trained experts, so they can get away with whatever. This is why I'm always encouraging people to be better skeptics -- so they don't get fleeced. Throwing out the baby (quality reporting) with the bathwater (disinformation and facebook spam) is exactly what they want you to do. Anyway, this doesn't actually address my question -- set aside whether or not the accusation is true, I'm just trying to get at what is the accusation. Again, I think it's almost certainly BS, at least in part (they may have mixed some legitimate emails in with some disinformation to lend credibility to the story), but that's not my question -- what is the accusation? And again, I'm not asking anyone to weigh in on whether or not the rich will ever be held accountable for their crimes in America -- we all know that money lets you get away with anything in this country. With the Ukraine scandal, there was a very clear allegation -- Trump used congressionally approved aid as a bargaining chip to try to get the Ukrainian government to manufacture an investigation into Joe Biden in order to advance his (Trump's) personal political interests. It's a succinct accusation. It accuses Trump of doing something clearly unethical. The consequences, real or desired, were a lot more difficult to pin down -- should he be arrested? Censured? Impeached? Regardless, even his defenders understood the accusation. With Biden, I do not understand the accusation. Biden may have been involved in a business deal in China after he left office, but the deal fell through. Where is the impropriety? I'm just not following. It seems that there were other globs of mud that were supposed to be slung from the laptop -- more about Burisma, and then something about child trafficking? I can't really get much information about it because it's apparently so radioactive in terms of its believability that not even shitty right wing sources are talking about it. The only bit that has even the air of credibility is the China thing, and I'm just not connecting the dots on that. Is it just supposed to target low information voters who hear "Hunter, Laptop, Biden, Scandal" and just associate Joe with corruption without thinking too hard? Like if they repeat it enough times it will become true, at least in the minds of morons?

I can't make sense of the laptop story, and I've read a fair bit of coverage on it. Like, setting aside the ridiculousness of the whole backstory and the fact that Fox and the WSJ both passed on it because they couldn't verify anything, I can't figure out how the allegations being made against Joe are supposed to be devastating. So like, explain it to me, assume everything on the emails is 100% true, will Joe go to jail? On what charges? What are the consequences, in your opinion?

I can provide lots of evidence for my claims. For one, the mainstream media, am I right? Can't trust 'em. For two, the other side is the enemy of the people and wants to destroy America. And three, have you been living under a rock? The evidence is all around you! Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

Biden votes are the ones being thrown in the trash all over the country. Trump supporters are the ones committing rampant voter fraud.

It's a frickin' cult. I've never seen anything like it.

Don't encourage their persecution complex.

Well one of us has a reading comprehension problem, you're right on that at least. Keep voting for tax cuts that increase the deficit, it's the libertarian way. Jorgensen 2020!

Nothing in that wall of text explains why think balanced budgets are bad.

Huge, you must have been so happy. Snark aside, why do people not seem to understand that cutting taxes does not stop the government from spending money? If you hate big government spending, cutting taxes doesn't do shit to stop it. In fact, I'd say it has the opposite effect. Make people pay for their government NOW, not at some undetermined point in the future, and then people might actually realize how much these government programs cost and there would be political support for cutting them. Raise taxes until taxes cover spending and see how fast conservatives finally stop paying lip service to small government. So you still think the tax cuts were good policy? (edit: Just so we're all on the same factual page, of course, the deficit has increased every year from where Obama left it. Trump has made it worse every year, assuming we're pinning the entire deficit on the president who presided over it. That's in large part to the Republican tax cuts. So if you're against deficits it seems illogical to vote for anyone who has a track record of making them worse, especially if that's one of the primary things you like about them. Shrug.)