Sam, you can stop with the performative whining. Be a man, for God’s sake.
You are making my point for me. You would never, ever say the same thing about Trump if it were his son’s laptop. Never.
The Trump Mar-A-Lago raid thread is now up to 3044 messages. Most it discussions around how damaging this is, how Trump could be open to jail time or execution, etc.
And we still haven’t seen a single document.
Whining? Where? I was pointing out that it doesn’t bother me to hang out in a place where I’m inundated with ideas I think are wrong, and that I put up with constant attacks to do it. I wasn’t whining.
You, however, are being a dick.
Again, you’re deflecting. You’re not even trying to defend your lies.
The Mar-A-Lago raid is an actual story – an ongoing, real story, with real newsworthy facts happening (it is a fact that Mar-A-Lago was the subject of a federal warrant). There is ongoing legal activity – a hearing just happened! Sure, lots of people speculate – who cares? I don’t mind that you speculated about the Hunter Biden laptop bullshit at the beginning (though that was silly – but silly stuff doesn’t matter). I mind that you’re continuing to spread this dishonest bullshit long after it was demonstrated conclusively to be a nothing story. Once again, the existence of a laptop isn’t a story. Bobulinski’s evidence-free nonsense is not a story. Right-wing conspiracy bullshit is not a story. Vague emails about business are not a story. There is no actual story – just rumors and innuendo, helpfully spread by dishonest, lying tools like yourself.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
No, they deserve to be countered with better ideas. Believing that ‘wrong’ ideas should be ‘smothered’ and not allowed to be uttered or even considered is Orwellian. It’s against the very reason we believe in free speech.
I find the idea of ‘smothering’ speech you don’t like to be abhorrent. And yet, I could debate in favor of it without destroying my soul, especially if it’s clear the debate is academic, does not represent the views of the debater, and I could then take the opposite side and debate the other way.
You completely misinterpreted that thread. The strongest position anyone took was that the Daily Mail is a disreputable site and that they were extremely skeptical about the story.
That the story turned out to be true does not invalidate this position in the slightest. The Daily Mail is disreputable and provides no reliable basis for believing a story. It was emphasized in the thread before the reliable sources were provided that the story might have been true, but the sources so far were not good evidence.
Your position here seems to explain a great deal about how you evaluate your sources. Sites like the Daily Mail should not be used at all, even if they are occasionally right. They fall far below any useful standard of reliability.
God, you’re stupid. This is an example of the exact opposite of what you think you’re proving. The left came around on believing it once the facts became clear. But pretty much every example of bothsideism is like this.
Smothering speech is speech. A bunch of people saying fuck you is speech. You saying that is abhorrent is speech. It’s all speech. You’re whining about speech you don’t like.
Well, this thread certainly seems to have taken off.
Discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or sexual identity. Minority Rights. And how they both are effected on a systemic level. Personally, I find a majority of “socially conservative” Republicans don’t really understand why it’s wrong to discriminate against “those people”, and the ones that do think it’s wrong, tend to wash their hands of it claiming it’s not the government’s job to fix it.
Yeah, energy policy isn’t really my forte. Just like I would assume you’d prefer to avoid an in depth debate of the criminal justice system or constitutional interpretation.
Not bad ideas, but I’d prefer something that involves real life and current events rather than 7th and 8th grade debate class. Anti-transgender laws? Same sex marriage? Abortion? Book banning? Obscenity?
See, all this talk about “understanding the other side”, and then you drop this stinker of a lie in. What you say about “the other side” is simply not true, and by saying it, you prove how very, very little you actually do understand.
All that you just said about the laptop is total BS, stuff that you and “your side” made up in order to have an argument, but doesn’t have any basis in reality.
So, you have failed at your own proposition, in that you have deliberately mischaracterized your opponent, even when it’s actually pretty damn easy not to do so, in an effort to avoid actually having to debate facts.
The only question is, are you just ignorant and wrong here, or are you deliberately lying. Given there’s no reason for you not to know this information, it seems as though it is a deliberate lie, but that also is pretty pointless, as it’s pretty easy to see.
So, yeah, getting into a flat earther’s head is probably easier than yours is, as they are at least marginally less delusional than you are.
See, you are a liar Sam. That isn’t true. There were not “reports from multiple news media” about it. There were tabloid stories and social media posts. That’s it. We looked for other reports. We looked for exactly what you are talking about, and couldn’t find them. Hence the skepticism.
Again, you are a liar. Look at what I said.
I was pretty careful to express that I was not going to say it was false, just that I was careful to believe it. That was because I didn’t have enough to say it wasn’t true. I never said that it never happened. Nobody else in the thread said that either. You are spreading lies.
This is why you have trouble on this board Sam. It’s not because you have political beliefs that clash with others. It’s because you lie. You say things that aren’t true. You make shit up. You are on a message board for a web site based around an old newspaper column that tries to give truthful answers to questions from people, and you spend your time here doing the opposite of that.
The “woe is me” bullshit falls flat when you’re clearly just a despicable liar who is exposed time after time again. You’re pathetic.
The Hunter Biden laptop story is all of those things. Hunter Biden is currently under investigation for at least tax evasion, the identity of ‘the big guy’ was asked by a grand juror in Hunter’s tax case, etc.
You seem to think it’s a ‘fact’ that Hunter Biden’s Laptop is a non-story, complete bullshit, nothing to see, and that I should be ashamed of myself for even bringing it up. I think that’s nuts. I don’t know if there will ever be indictments over it because there are still investigations ongoing, and I’ve always acknowledged that there could be Russian disinfo ‘salted’ in it. That’s the kind of thing you have investigations for.
But to say that it’s absolutely true that there’s nothing there, that it’s a completely ‘bullshit’ story, is ridiculous. Just like people on the right saying that the Mar-A-Lago raid is ‘ridiculous’, a set-up, a fake investigation to justify a fishing expedition… is also ridiculous. We don’t know what’s in any of those documents so far, so I am withholding judgment until we do, while accepting that what we do know suggests there is a problem there for Trump. I feel the same way about the Hunter Laptop. That would be the rational thing to do, IMO. And I’m not ashamed of it.
Now, now, we’ve yet to establish that Sam is not Earth shape questioning.
An investigation into Hunter Biden is a real story. But there’s not a shred of evidence the laptop has anything to do with it. Not a scintilla. Nothing. Not a single fact. Just rumors and innuendo.
You’re just spreading lies. Fuck you, liar.
But the identity of ‘the big guy’ was asked by a grand juror! I mean if that isn’t the same as the FBI and judges issuing search warrants what is?
Exactly.
We know Hunter has had problems. I would not be shocked if he is guilty of crimes. Addicts often commit crimes, both to support an addiction and because the addiction impairs judgement and can bring out the worst in a person. I support an impartial investigation (and I do believe that Joe Biden should play no part in it; it’s his son, it’s impossible for him to be neutral).
Justice should be served regardless of who your dad is, what political part you’re tied to, etc. If you did the wrong thing, you should be prosecuted.
From what I can tell, the laptop has nothing to do with any of this, though.
Remember when there was speculation for a brief time about Trump being arrested, or having a medical emergency, or some other dramatic event because he landed in DC looking disheveled? Even I fell for that. But it was quickly cleared up as being nothing, he was golfing nearby. Everyone forgot it in less than a day.
It seems like people on the right would hang onto something like that like a dog with a bone, and insist that it was something important, being ignored and covered up, and that someone needs to get to the bottom of it. To me, that’s one of the big differences between the sides.
There are still righties talking about MENA and Vince Foster.
Here’s where we will have a problem - I suspect we are on the same side on many of these issues. Although we may differ on tactics, I want a society where people are evaluated as individuals, not as people of a certain skin color, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. I’m not a ‘traditional conservative’. I can argue their point of view, though, since I grew up around them. I can also argue the other side. If you want to do this, I’m game. One caveat: this is a rather hot-button issue, and I’m not sure we could debate it without running afoul of mod instructions around these topics.
I’m against anti-transgender laws except perhaps in the case of young minors, strongly for same-sex marriage, pro-choice (except for perhaps third trimester when the mother’s life isn’t at risk), strongly against book banning by the left and the right, and I’m not sure what kind of opinion I’m supposed to have on obscenity. I don’t believe in censorship for almost any reason.
Does that leave any room for debate? If you want to debate abortion around the third trimester vs any time, we could try that. But being a man, I have been careful to limit my opinions on abortion. I think it’s an issue where women’s opinions should dominate. Social conservatives believe otherwise, because they think a life is involved that supercedes the woman’s rights. I disagree.
This is performative whining. Since you asked and all.