What's new

Donald is about to go through some things...

LOL. I didn't notice until you posted that link that even Biden referred to that speech as a call to "battle" against Americans he disagreed with politically.
Said battle to conducted without violence, as Biden said multiple times in the speech.

Not sure why, but dictators of the type that like to kill or jail their political opponents do seem to have a fondness for adorning their regimes with those colors.
Dictators don't eschew the use of political violence, as Biden did.

The more you overreact to the speech, the more scared you seem.
 
Do

Do you have any evidence to support that you’re engaging with these trolls is encouraging them to think more skeptically?
From time to time, the conservatives put out a bit of skepticism here, or a modification of a claim there. The liberal trolls don't show any sign of improving, but I have hope they may yet.

It's not only for the sake of the trolls.
 
Said battle to conducted without violence, as Biden said multiple times in the speech.
Trump also called for actions on January 6 to be carried out "peaceful and patriotically", but that brings up a bigger question. What do you consider to be political violence?

Hypothetically, if a dictator flanked by soldiers under his command, fully armed and clearly battle-ready, instructs a populace to submit with the implication that they will be wrong end of the gun if they resist, would you consider that to be the use of political violence even if no shots are fired and no blood is spilled? The hypothetical dictator is calling for action without violence, but is a threat of violence even if it is only an implied threat via a show of force enough to be 'use of political violence'? I think it is.

I don't want to detract from the more interesting question above, but here in the real world Biden's "battle against Americans" speech doesn't worry me. What does concern me with Biden is that he does not have the faculties to run the country, so who is running the country? In Florida I do believe DeSantis is running that show, and in California I do believe Newsom is running that show, but in Washington DC there is no way Biden is the actual Commander in Chief. The instruction cards he is constantly photographed with make that obvious. I believe in sunshine being the enemy of corruption and the Biden administration is the most cloistered administration to be in power in my lifetime.
 
Trump also called for actions on January 6 to be carried out "peaceful and patriotically", but that brings up a bigger question. What do you consider to be political violence?
Trump has a history of recommending violence, Biden does not.

Hypothetically, if a dictator flanked by soldiers under his command, fully armed and clearly battle-ready, instructs a populace to submit with the implication that they will be wrong end of the gun if they resist, would you consider that to be the use of political violence even if no shots are fired and no blood is spilled? The hypothetical dictator is calling for action without violence, but is a threat of violence even if it is only an implied threat via a show of force enough to be 'use of political violence'? I think it is.
I agree. Since the heckler at Independence Hall wasn't silenced or threatened, but Biden specifically called out that he had a right to heckle, That didn't happen here.

I don't want to detract from the more interesting question above, but here in the real world Biden's "battle against Americans" speech doesn't worry me. What does concern me with Biden is that he does not have the faculties to run the country, so who is running the country? In Florida I do believe DeSantis is running that show, and in California I do believe Newsom is running that show, but in Washington DC there is no way Biden is the actual Commander in Chief. The instruction cards he is constantly photographed with make that obvious. I believe in sunshine being the enemy of corruption and the Biden administration is the most cloistered administration to be in power in my lifetime.
Biden is laying out the general for approach for his administration, and appointing people to carry out the details. As you get older, the minutiae can escape you, but that does not mean you are incapable of an over-arching vision. If Biden is as infirm as you suggest, it will show up at the debates.
 
Hmm…


 
If Biden is as infirm as you suggest, it will show up at the debates.
I disagree. The debates are too stage managed, too short, and not indicative of competent leadership. Presidential debates are only an opportunity to make content that can be used in a campaign. Answers are scripted and focus group tested. The debates tell you nothing. If you wanted to see if Biden is as infirm as I suggest then watch him on a 3 hour Joe Rogan podcast without a radio earpiece. Joe Biden in 1993 could do that but Joe Biden in 2023 cannot and so it won't happen.
 
I disagree. The debates are too stage managed, too short, and not indicative of competent leadership. Presidential debates are only an opportunity to make content that can be used in a campaign. Answers are scripted and focus group tested. The debates tell you nothing. If you wanted to see if Biden is as infirm as I suggest then watch him on a 3 hour Joe Rogan podcast without a radio earpiece. Joe Biden in 1993 could do that but Joe Biden in 2023 cannot and so it won't happen.
I don't disagree with any of this, but if Biden is completely reliant on cards to manage his day, how will he memorize the 30-45 minutes of verbiage he needs for the debate?
 
I don't disagree with any of this, but if Biden is completely reliant on cards to manage his day, how will he memorize the 30-45 minutes of verbiage he needs for the debate?
He will drill, drill, drill, and drill. There will be some pharmaceutical help and a radio earpiece to feed him the lines he's practiced. It will go off without a hitch and his people will rave afterward at how he destroyed the doubters.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GMQLjzVGfw
 
Absolutely not. For proof you have to look no further than Hunter Biden. There is no one who thinks Hunter Biden is a paragon of virtue and he is being protected by the FBI and DOJ. Track record is nothing. Only the side of the political aisle matters.

Can you show me the track record of court losses by hunter biden?

See trump has been in trouble with the law repeatedly since before hunter was even born. Hunter is an amateur criminal. Trump is a pro.
 
Can you show me the track record of court losses by hunter biden?
I cannot and that is the point. I can show you the form where Hunter Biden broke firearms laws. I can show you evidence of tax crimes, Hunter's admission of guilt, apology, and subsequent payment. I can show you tons of evidence of illegal drug use, paying for prostitutes, and even evidence of sex with underage girls, but I cannot show you a track record of losses in court because for some strange reason he doesn't ever get charged for anything. All of his crimes are being "actively investigated" so no one can comment and they stay under investigation until the statute of limitation expires.
 
I cannot and that is the point. I can show you the form where Hunter Biden broke firearms laws. I can show you evidence of tax crimes, Hunter's admission of guilt, apology, and subsequent payment.
These are Federal crimes.

I can show you tons of evidence of illegal drug use, paying for prostitutes, and even evidence of sex with underage girls,
These are typically state-level crimes, if they happen in the US. Can you pinpoint dates and locations for these crimes? If not, who's supposed to prosecute them?
 
These are Federal crimes.


These are typically state-level crimes, if they happen in the US. Can you pinpoint dates and locations for these crimes? If not, who's supposed to prosecute them?
Using drugs isn't illegal. Buying and possessing them is. Just a little "well actually" for funsies
 
These are typically state-level crimes, if they happen in the US. Can you pinpoint dates and locations for these crimes? If not, who's supposed to prosecute them?
I'm sure you could geolocate and time some of the photos to daddy's house in Delaware where Joe stored his Corvette and classified documents, but does it really matter? Hunter Biden is protected by very powerful people in a way that no people on the political right are protected.
 
I'm sure you could geolocate and time some of the photos to daddy's house in Delaware where Joe stored his Corvette and classified documents,
You think Hunter Biden did drugs, paid for prostitutes, or had sex with underage girls in that house? Why not geolocate the crimes, if possible, to actual locations? Why does it only matter if it implicates Joe Biden? It almost seems like you're more motivated by politics than anything else. You don't care if Hunter Biden gets prosecuted unless some of the blowback is on his father, apparently.

but does it really matter? Hunter Biden is protected by very powerful people
Definitely not in red states. Both Abbot's and DeSantis's administrations would love to prosecute. Why not see if any of the videos geolocate to Texas or Florida?

in a way that no people on the political right are protected.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
I mean, do you possess your bloodstream?
They have to get from the outside to inside your bloodstream somehow. I suppose someone else could shoot one up if one is doing an intravenous drug, but otherwise one would have to possess them by hand or mouth.
 
They have to get from the outside to inside your bloodstream somehow. I suppose someone else could shoot one up if one is doing an intravenous drug, but otherwise one would have to possess them by hand or mouth.
I have also been in rooms that were so filled with cannabis smoke that I got high. I assume the same is possible with other smoked substances.

So, yeah, it is possible to use drugs without possessing them.

Then again, we do talk about bodily autonomy - for example, I cannot be forced to donate an organ, or even blood. Does that count as possessing it, in the sense of ownership?
 
Top