34% of the country beleives the election was fradulent according to NBC news

@izzythepush,

Genuine Biden supporters?

I am hoping there is never an unquestioning group of Biden supporters. I will support Biden when he is right in my opinion and oppose him when he is wrong.

I had no problem supporting Trump when he was right (it did happen a couple of times).

These unquestioning loyal followers aren't a good thing.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

So you don’t give a **** about human rights in China.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Hi Izzy.

0 Replies

@derpydoo,

https://images.dailykos.com/images/649013/large/putin-trump-helsinki-meeting-funny-reactions-29-5b4f2ff083dbb__700.jpg

0 Replies

@derpydoo,

http://www.bilgebucket.com/wp-content/uploads/trumpputinsbitch.jpg

0 Replies

@derpydoo,

https://pics.me.me/putin-and-the-gimp-13034034.png

1 Reply

@Real Music,

Did they film that when Trump went over there to meet Pewtin?? Wink

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

1. There is a difference between false unproven claims and actual evidence.

2. The two are not the same and should not be treated the same.

1 Reply

@Real Music,

Real Music wrote:

1. There is a difference between false unproven claims and actual evidence.

2. The two are not the same and should not be treated the same.

Can you explain the difference (other than my side has "actual evidence" and the other side has "unproven claims")?

There should an objective standard that applies equally to the claims made by either side. If you can't point out cases where the actual evidence supports conservative claims, it is sign that you are basing your objective on your partisan beliefs.

(If you are a conservative, then the challenge is to see cases where the actual evidence supports liberal claims. The point is that the facts are the facts no matter which side of the partisan divide they support).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Our courts will generally dismiss false unproven claims.

1 Reply

@Real Music,

Real Music wrote:

Our courts will generally dismiss false unproven claims.

Hopefully you will be consistent with that standard. There are several cases where I don't think the courts dismissed false claims. I am thinking about Citizen's United, for one...

Or is this why you inserted the word "generally" (what a convenient word) Wink

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

1. Of course there will be times when I disagree with the courts.

2. There will also be times when I agree with the courts.

3. I do take your specific point regarding the Citizen's United ruling.

4. Yes I do believe that in the Citizen's United case, the courts was wrong on multiple levels.

5. I agree with you that the courts (did not) dismiss the false claims in the Citizen's United case.

6. Regardless to whether I agree or disagree with any particular ruling, legally our courts are the arbiters of determining what is actual evidence and what is unproven claims.

2 Replies

@Real Music,

The question is not whether you agree with the courts. What you are saying is that you agree with the courts when they rule in a way favoring your partisan point of view, and disagree when they don't.

The more interesting question is whether you are willing to agree with the conservatives when the facts and evidence support their beliefs?

Everyone lines up in their political bubbles, and it seems no one on either side really cares about facts or evidence.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

What you are saying is that you agree with the courts when they rule in a way favoring your partisan point of view, and disagree when they don't.

I don't recall ever making such a statement.

Quote:

The more interesting question is whether you are willing to agree with the conservatives when the facts and evidence support their beliefs?

1. It would depend on the actual case.

2. It would depend on the specific merits of the case.

3. There could also be possibilities when I might (partially) agree with a particular court case while at the same time (partially) disagreeing.

My question to you is:
Do you believe that legally our courts are the (arbiters) in determining what is actual evidence and what is unproven claims?

1 Reply

@Real Music,

Funny thing about th specifics of the "Citizens United" case, it bears little relevence to actual CITIZENS.

0 Replies

@Real Music,

Quote:

Do you believe that legally our courts are the (arbiters) in determining what is actual evidence and what is unproven claims?

The answer is no, I do not believe that.

Your question is poorly worded, ambiguous and probably nonsensical. Saying that the courts are the "arbiters" is meaningless at best.

When we, as a society, need to know the real facts... usually the courts aren't involved. Climate change isn't decided by the courts. The courts had nothing to do with the vaccine.

When I want to know the actual scientific facts, I trust the scientific establishment. When I want to know the economic facts, I go to economists. And so on.

1 Reply

My point is this. I am certain that the election was legitimate and Biden won. This happens to be the result that I wanted, but that isn't why I believe it. I would change my mind if the evidence warranted it.

There are several things that would change my mind about the election. If courts, particularly courts with judges appointed by Democrats, started ruling in favor of Trump... I would be forced to reconsider my stance. If reputable non-partisan sources started reporting that there were actual suitcases full of ballots, then I would start to consider the possibility that there was a conspiracy to steal the election.

That is the point I am making.... if you are based on facts, you must be able to state evidence that would change your mind even when it goes against your partisan stance.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

When we, as a society, need to know the real facts... usually the courts aren't involved. Climate change isn't decided by the courts.

1. It seems convenient how you chose to insert the word "usually"

2. Courts are indeed involved.

3. The courts involvement is hearing the evidence.

4. If there was actual evidence of suitcases full of ballots, that evidence would have been brought up in court under oath and subjected to cross examination.

5. As far as I know, there has not been any evidence of suitcases full of ballots presented to any court.

2 Replies

@Real Music,

I have made my point clearly.

I don't get your point. Courts hear evidence. Sometimes you agree with the court. Sometimes you disagree with the court decision. I don't even see anything to disagree with here.

Are you just arguing to argue?

1. I am asking the conservatives to accept reality on the basis of clear evidence that their partisan position is wrong.

2. I am stating clearly that were the facts reversed, I would accept reality in spite of my partisan beliefs.

I feel that is only fair.

0 Replies

@Real Music,

Quote:

4. If there was actual evidence of suitcases full of ballots, that evidence would have been brought up in court under oath and subjected to cross examination

IT WAS> The Pa case of which this was all about had its presentation and cross examination and rebuttal. The rebuttal, by the state, was compelling and was part of the basis for the ecisions

0 Replies

34% of the country beleives the election was fradulent according to NBC news

Quick Links

My Account

able2know