And of course the Biden family knew it wasn't fake/Russian disinformation, the whole time.

That particular comment wasn't directed at you, Kurt. You weren't one of the ones discussing the 2020 election. It most certainly was not whataboutism. It was germane to the discussion that Aggrad had initiated at that point in the thread.

An aside, that term has gotten so overused it's embarrassing, and I'm guilty of it too. Pointing out some one's hiprocacy is a legitimate line of discourse. "Whataboutism" has devolved into the blanket rebuttal of hypocrites.

I'm just telling you how I honestly feel. In the last 8 years I've gone from agreeing with you that the guy is an *******, to feeling like that guy is MY *******. He fights back at the people I despise, so, while I wish he would take the high road more, I understand his opposition is nasty and brutal. They have the mentally insane members of the party riled up to such irrational levels, which is clearly evident by the two assassinations attempts and their reactions since November 5th.

You are okay with Biden's influence peddling and taking showers with his 13 year old daughter, I'm ok with Trump talking a little ***** It is what it is.

1. Facebook / Twitter's response is a separate topic as the letter was created and released after Facebook and Twitter had already begun their efforts to block/reduce exposure of the articles.

2. It's true that the FBI had the laptop and believed it was Hunter's. As for sitting on it, even later Republican Congressional investigations into the laptop did not conclude it showed evidence of wrong doing on Joe Biden's part, so what did you expect them to do with it?

The quoted statement is honestly a bit useless. Who cares that the CIA was "aware" of the letter? Does the CIA have some obligation to prevent private citizens from writing political statements or to publicly disagree with their contents? And I'd remind you it was the FBI that had the laptop and was investigating it, not the CIA. Why should we expect the CIA to respond about an FBI investigation?

I'd be more sympathetic to this argument if Biden had been President at the time and had ordered people then employed by the FBI or CIA to write this letter, but neither of those things is the case here. Biden held no executive authority at the time and the people who wrote the letter were not government employees with privileged information on the topic.

I think the laptop issue, how those experts made assertions and how the old school media handled the hunter biden laptop was an embarrassment.

See how that works? You acknowledge reality and don't quake before the idea of criticism of your own side and only post whatsboutism or excuses.

But for the life of me I cannot imagine how an adult human being considerers that on equal or near even ground to a presidential candidate openly and blindly claiming fraud every time he loses and sometimes when he wins much much less trying to get his vice president to overturn an election. An event which would have proceeded had his vice president not has the dignity to deny the direct order. The list of actions a president can take that are more dangerous to our system of government is relatively short.

The laptop issue was big because of the media and three letter employee behavior. Ultimately it was an October surprise damning to hunter biden. A republican house oversight committee found no evidence of wrongdoing on bidens part. For my part I think he deserves criticism for condoning hunter's behavior and use of his name.

Frankly our three letter agencies have done much worse things. Doesn't justify it, but I simply don't get why you think that must be stated in the same breathe or consider it a counter of any real weight in comparison to Donald trumps personal behavior.

I'd argue the issue isn't as much the letter (which was pretty ambiguous) as it was the media portrayal of the letter. People presented the letter's doubt and request for caution as a confident rebuke of the article about the laptop which it pretty obviously was not.

Rocag said:

---

I'd argue the issue isn't as much the letter (which was pretty ambiguous) as it was the media portrayal of the letter. People presented the letter's doubt and request for caution as a confident rebuke of the article about the laptop which it pretty obviously was not.

---

I agree completely the medias lack due diligence, investigation and widespread overreaction to the letters content and taking its meaning beyond its verbiage was by far the bigger issue. It was outright suppressed on social media.

nortex97 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

There is just a tad bit of irony in the 'let's just unify now and be civil' argument from the left after they quite literally campaigned on 'the other guy is Hitler/nazi/racist/hates Puerto Rico' a week ago as their closing argument (and repeated 'very fine people' lies), also after threatening to imprison the conservative candidate for life if he lost.

---

Read the thread. . . . . Derm was the one that called for reconciliation and I'm asking him what his version of reconciliation looks like.

---

I mentioned Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan.

Both statesmen. Disagreed on issues but in a civil manner. And I think they both put the country before themselves.

And the media needs to start acting like adults when their candidate loses.

---

That was a completely different time/situation though. The vitriol, treason and hate spewed by the left do not warrant consideration and reconciliation/accommodation. None of Tip O'neil's members in the early/mid 80's supported open borders and human trafficking, nor did they accuse Reagan of being Hitler and support imprisoning him. I think it's a category error as such to compare the situations.

---

If you believe the right did not spew vitriol and hate you are being disingenuous. You spend a great deal of time on F16 so you know the things that are said by some (though I believe these are more extreme views). The victimhood when Biden was in office and equating with the Jews by claiming they'd have to wear yellow stars is some how soon forgotten. But the campaign on the right said things that were just as bad.
It is hilarious that people try to claim one spewed more hate and disrespect that the other. I also don't remember a presidential candidate calling another female a 'Dumb B*tch' a fascist, that they earned their way on their knees. Nor do I remember another presidential candidate talking about jailing their political opponents.
Get out of here with that. Tell me you truly believe in your heart that the language used in Trumps campaign . And to claim no reconciliation says you are not for forgiveness. So I guess Christian values are only to be applied to those who agree with us. This is why being a Christian should in no way be defined by a political party.

---

Let go of your anger, it's not rhetorically effective. Kamala was a terrible role model for young women/girls, as her early career/start typified, I would like to think we agree. Trump obviously campaigned with an open to all, embracing message, which is why he did so much better with hispanics etc (every single RGV county, oh by the way). I see him as more of a pluralist (as shown by his Jewish grandkids etc) than simply a christian leader. I don't seek moral/religious purity in our political class but some of that stuff you typed out seems to imply I do, so I want to note this difference. I sure don't recall the left excoriating Bill Clinton's multitudinous moral failings.

I saw nothing Trump said as equivalent to the fascist/Hitler claims Kamala herself made. Forgiveness is up to God, not me, but I see no reason to reconcile with the Democrats/communists on the left in America today. They were resoundingly rejected, and deserve to continue to be so rejected by Americans who reject their identity politics and human trafficking/infanticide sacraments.

---

Funny that you assigned anger in my post. Funny also that you think forgiveness is only for God. We can probably agree to disagree here. I pray that God might speak to your heart though and encourage you to revisit scripture. Particularly the 2 most important commandments Jesus gave in Mark. Triumphalism is not the Christian way

---

Because you are still angry and lying about what Trump campaigned on. There is no (christian) duty to forgive an unrepentant party (especially not one that is not a person). The party that wanted to imprison and censor their opposition, while empowering human trafficking and the downfall of our nation deserves no quarter, in a way that is akin philosophically to the justification for total war. (It is cruel and pointless to wage war without an objective to totally conquer an enemy/people.).

There have been no apologies or defenses for calling Trump Hitler/a fascist, because they are non-apologetic. Their goals are anathema to me and the safety of my family, and should not be accommodated. The Democrat party delende est.

---

Projecting your anger on me isn't the dunk you think it is. I am curious, when you speak of an unrepentant party, are you speaking only of those that ran the campaign, or anyone that voted for the Democratic nominee? If you're only speaking of those in power running the campaign, I could probably agree. If you are speaking of any person that voted democrat, then I would say that assumes you believe none of them by default are unrepentant, or Christian, and thus worthy of vengeance. If it is your take that the right is so perfectly good and sinless and the left is perfectly evil and unrepentant and thus justifies total war, well I think you are either hoping that is true to satisfy some inner schadenfreude, or you just need to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is the enemy.
Its silly to try and gaslight with silly things like claiming every Democrat empowered human trafficking. I was disappointed to see Trump and many other back down on IVF and a complete ban on abortion. Instead people are just justifying it with, "Dobbs was good enough, we've done our job" and have moved on. It is still allowing human life to be murdered....but I guess some are okay if its only some innocents. Don't give me the right is holy. And to assume everyone voting Republican is a Christian is asinine. How would you treat a Muslim republican? I imagine they wouldn't be repentant about a number of things you believe they should be. So it boils down to politics....which is evident by your quote from Cato, a conservative yes, but not a Christian. So you are using the quips of man, not the teachings of God.

Ah the rich judgment of all or none, and source criticism. Got it. Y'all crack me up. Thank you.

Fair post, what I should have said was "you tolerate it and still vote for them."

We cannot clean each other's houses. How much time have you spent criticizing your own side to you fellow Democrats? I promise you any time Trump says something out of line someone on our side says something about it. Blu is doing that in this very thread.

I almost never see liberals criticize the extensive abuses of power the DNC and it's various tentacles have wrapped themselves in. Just a few posts above you can see your fellow dems waiving away a blatant abuse of power because "Rudy said it first."

You ok with that? You gonna call them out for that nonsense?

Is that supposed to be a reference to me, because I don't see where anyone else has mentioned Rudy Giuliani. But it doesn't really make sense as I never tried to excuse anything in the way you've said. Not really sure what point you're trying to make.

Rocag said:

---

Is that supposed to be a reference to me, because I don't see where anyone else has mentioned Rudy Giuliani. But it doesn't really make sense as I never tried to excuse anything in the way you've said. Not really sure what point you're trying to make.

---

Quote:

---

How much trust do you really want to put into Rudy "Four Seasons Total Landscaping" Giuliani? That it was legitimate does not mean that the initial skepticism was unwarranted. I'd still today assume anything Giuliani said was BS until proven otherwise

---

Did your account get hacked, homie?

...
Well played. Jerk.
...

Sapper Redux said:

---

Larry Hagman said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

There is just a tad bit of irony in the 'let's just unify now and be civil' argument from the left after they quite literally campaigned on 'the other guy is Hitler/nazi/racist/hates Puerto Rico' a week ago as their closing argument (and repeated 'very fine people' lies), also after threatening to imprison the conservative candidate for life if he lost.

---

Read the thread. . . . . Derm was the one that called for reconciliation and I'm asking him what his version of reconciliation looks like.

---

I mentioned Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan.

Both statesmen. Disagreed on issues but in a civil manner. And I think they both put the country before themselves.

And the media needs to start acting like adults when their candidate loses.

---

That was a completely different time/situation though. The vitriol, treason and hate spewed by the left do not warrant consideration and reconciliation/accommodation. None of Tip O'neil's members in the early/mid 80's supported open borders and human trafficking, nor did they accuse Reagan of being Hitler and support imprisoning him. I think it's a category error as such to compare the situations.

---

Yes, only on the left. No vitriol on the right. Certainly not the presidential nominee calling for his opponents to be prosecuted and attacking immigrants and transgender people.

---

can you cite where he attacked legal immigration? same for trans people,

k thnx

---

His entire closing pitch on television were anti-transgender ads. Oh, and did you miss the first debate where he accused legal immigrants of eating dogs and cats?

---

1. Trans ad were not attacks on adult trans people. 2. Your use of the term legal here is funny, they entered because of biden gave them a special disposition which will now be closed thank god! They didnt' wait their turn in line to enter the legally.

Hope you are feeling well after the GOP curb stomped your team! Cheers

nortex97 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

There is just a tad bit of irony in the 'let's just unify now and be civil' argument from the left after they quite literally campaigned on 'the other guy is Hitler/nazi/racist/hates Puerto Rico' a week ago as their closing argument (and repeated 'very fine people' lies), also after threatening to imprison the conservative candidate for life if he lost.

---

Read the thread. . . . . Derm was the one that called for reconciliation and I'm asking him what his version of reconciliation looks like.

---

I mentioned Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan.

Both statesmen. Disagreed on issues but in a civil manner. And I think they both put the country before themselves.

And the media needs to start acting like adults when their candidate loses.

---

That was a completely different time/situation though. The vitriol, treason and hate spewed by the left do not warrant consideration and reconciliation/accommodation. None of Tip O'neil's members in the early/mid 80's supported open borders and human trafficking, nor did they accuse Reagan of being Hitler and support imprisoning him. I think it's a category error as such to compare the situations.

---

If you believe the right did not spew vitriol and hate you are being disingenuous. You spend a great deal of time on F16 so you know the things that are said by some (though I believe these are more extreme views). The victimhood when Biden was in office and equating with the Jews by claiming they'd have to wear yellow stars is some how soon forgotten. But the campaign on the right said things that were just as bad.
It is hilarious that people try to claim one spewed more hate and disrespect that the other. I also don't remember a presidential candidate calling another female a 'Dumb B*tch' a fascist, that they earned their way on their knees. Nor do I remember another presidential candidate talking about jailing their political opponents.
Get out of here with that. Tell me you truly believe in your heart that the language used in Trumps campaign . And to claim no reconciliation says you are not for forgiveness. So I guess Christian values are only to be applied to those who agree with us. This is why being a Christian should in no way be defined by a political party.

---

Let go of your anger, it's not rhetorically effective. Kamala was a terrible role model for young women/girls, as her early career/start typified, I would like to think we agree. Trump obviously campaigned with an open to all, embracing message, which is why he did so much better with hispanics etc (every single RGV county, oh by the way). I see him as more of a pluralist (as shown by his Jewish grandkids etc) than simply a christian leader. I don't seek moral/religious purity in our political class but some of that stuff you typed out seems to imply I do, so I want to note this difference. I sure don't recall the left excoriating Bill Clinton's multitudinous moral failings.

I saw nothing Trump said as equivalent to the fascist/Hitler claims Kamala herself made. Forgiveness is up to God, not me, but I see no reason to reconcile with the Democrats/communists on the left in America today. They were resoundingly rejected, and deserve to continue to be so rejected by Americans who reject their identity politics and human trafficking/infanticide sacraments.

---

Funny that you assigned anger in my post. Funny also that you think forgiveness is only for God. We can probably agree to disagree here. I pray that God might speak to your heart though and encourage you to revisit scripture. Particularly the 2 most important commandments Jesus gave in Mark. Triumphalism is not the Christian way

---

Because you are still angry and lying about what Trump campaigned on. There is no (christian) duty to forgive an unrepentant party (especially not one that is not a person). The party that wanted to imprison and censor their opposition, while empowering human trafficking and the downfall of our nation deserves no quarter, in a way that is akin philosophically to the justification for total war. (It is cruel and pointless to wage war without an objective to totally conquer an enemy/people.).

There have been no apologies or defenses for calling Trump Hitler/a fascist, because they are non-apologetic. Their goals are anathema to me and the safety of my family, and should not be accommodated. The Democrat party delende est.

---

Rocag said:

---

Quote:

---

Not very long ago basically everyone agreed...

---

I don't think that's a very good reason to continue any public policy. Not too long ago "basically everyone" agreed all manner of dehumanizing things about black people. Not too long ago "basically everyone" agreed that homosexuality should be criminalized with harsh accompanying punishments. Not too long ago "basically everyone" agreed we should round up all the Native Americans and force them on to reservations. Not too long ago "basically everyone" agreed women should have severe restrictions on their rights like their ability to work, to own property, to open a bank account, and so on.

Do I need to go on about things that were once considered acceptable in this country by "basically everyone" that we now recognize as unacceptable? You can't just state something is "reality" without backing up that claim.

---

Please do and make the additional leap of showing how they're comparable. None of these are a rejection of the material world around us for the mind.

Also no one is trying to take away trans people's rights, your counter examples are all about rights. This is a complete and utter lie.

Grown adults can cosplay as whatever they want. That doesn't give men the right to beat the **** out of women, and it doesn't give mentally deranged parents and the greedy medical establishment the right to conduct grotesque science experiments on children.

Also, no person has a right to force others how to talk.

Quote:

---

You can't just state something is "reality" without backing up that claim.

---

People who are born with and X and a Y are boys. People who are born with an X and an X are girls.

Reality.

Yes, there is an extremely small percentage of people who don't fit into either of those categories but we both know thats not what this debate is about at all.

You honestly don't see the long game they are playing?

California use to be red. It's now the bluest state in the country. Exactly how did the democrats pull that off, Sap?

Eta: For the record, I'm all for sensible LEGAL immigration. But, the asylum system is broken. Surely you can acknowledge that?