jakee

I understand that means there is currently no evidence available that Biden has done anything wrong. What is it you don't understand about that?

The two tier justice system in action yet again. Trump unleashes outrage at court clerk online barely an hour after gag order paused An hour after the lifting of the gag order, one of Trump’s inner circle, senior adviser Jason Miller, took to X, the social media site formerly known as Twitter. “There’s no way President Trump can receive a fair trial when Democrats are sending partisan attack dogs to do their dirty work,” he said. Then he linked to a website devoted to attacking Allison Greenfield, the clerk who has been assisting the judge in the case, Arthur Engoron, at the $250m civil lawsuit trial in which the fate of the former president’s New York-based family business, the Trump Organization, hangs. The site labels Greenfield a “Democrat operative and hack” and accuses her of “unethical partisan Democrat activities”. It also suggests that Engoron should be “investigated and removed from the bench”. Not long after that, Trump himself entered the fray. On his own social media platform, Truth Social, he attacked Greenfield as a “politically biased and out of control, Trump-hating clerk”. Fuck you very much, Judge Friedman. I wonder what exactly these First Amendment 'rights' are that Trump has, which do not exist for a single other criminal defendent in the entire country.

You have done a very special job of demonstrating beyond doubt that there is currently no evidence that Joe Biden has done anything wrong. Thank goodness you're here.

So you don't think Biden said anything wrong either?

But we both agree that right now, as far as Joe Biden is concerned, it's still a giant nothingburger. That is surprisingly independent minded of you. Kudos.

Or put another way, he spent time with his kid in hospital. Yeah, what a bastard. Nice deflection though that, unlike with Trump, you have zero evidence of corruption involving Joe Biden.

Three years of investigations and the House has announced nothing. Be honest, we both know what evidence they have of dodgy money flowing from Hunter to Joe. Nothing(burger).

So you think the 10% story is fake, why were you just spreading it?

According to your biased interpretation of a vague and ambiguous statement. And as you just pointed out - 3 years, 2 grand juries, a special prosecutor and a House Committee and not a single shred of evidence of it actually happening. So yeah, good luck pushing that nothingburger. And of course, in the meantime Jared Kushner got a $2Bn quid pro quo from the Saudis in return for his work for the Trump crime family and you’re still working to try and help get that big guy re-elected.

When you’re in this thread solely to criticise Biden for saying something that you think is right that’s surely a textbook case of BDS.

Hunter Biden’s firearm purchase. Ok, what does that have to do with Joe? Joe’s brother, ok, what is he involved with? Hunter’s gun purchase or something else? Does it have anything to do with Joe? Tax evasion and money laundering. Ok, I assume that’s Hunter again, does it have anything to do with Joe? Does any of it have anything to do with the actions of the man who is actually a politician up for election, or is it indeed just a big nothingburger?

Because you love everything Trump does and refuse to say a single word of criticism against him. Everyone who pays attention knows you are a MAGA zealot, not an independent.

What millions?

Yes yes, war is a scam but you’re on here nearly every day trying to convince us that the scammers should be rewarded. Funny that. And it looks like we can add averages to the list of things you’ve just discovered but don’t yet understand. Like ice.

"President Xi is a brilliant man. If you went all over Hollywood to look for somebody to play the role of President Xi, you couldn't find it. There's nobody like that. The look, the brain, the whole thing," said Trump.

What shenanigans?

The most bizarre thing I can ever remember in politics has just happened in the UK. For the last few years the Government has been trying to implement a policy of deporting asylum seekers in the UK to Rwanda, where their asylum claims will be judged by the Rwandan government and if successful, they are permanently settled in Rwanda. This has raced any number of legal challenges for various reasons, and delayed indefinitely at huge cost. It just been finally struck down by the Supreme Court because after extensive investigations they found as a matter of fact that Rwanda was not a safe country for refugees. There are numerous instances of refugees being discriminated against by the government in Rwanda (including being killed in detention by police) and of legitimate asylum claimants being deported back to countries where they are then detained, tortured or killed. This matter of fact and reality makes the policy illegal under UK law, retained European law and international law. The government’s response to this comprehensive loss is (and I still can’t quite believe this is what they actually said - but it is) pledging to rush through legislation to declare that Rwanda is a safe country after all. Again, the courts struck down the policy because reality makes it illegal, so the government will pass a new law that says reality is not what it actually is. How is it even possible for someone whose job it is to do politics to have so little understanding of how it works? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67432853

Neither is he, and no you’re not. You’re obviously voting for Trump. You love everything he does and refuse to say a single bad thing about him. Yes.

Why would I? You didn’t jump into a conversation I was having with him to say what you thought a comment he made to me meant.

Grown up debate at its finest

Sure, but in the context of the statement of the politician in question I thought we were contrasting people voting for representatives vs people voting directly on policy - not whether there should be constitutional limits on either system. In fact it would be a very odd way to interpret his words as a statement on whether constitutional limits should exist given that the vote he was talking about was for a constitutional limit on government power. The existence of constitutional limits is implicit in his statement and the entire conversation that follows.

Indeed. Last autumn Russia fired over 1,000 cruise missiles in the space of 6 weeks, on top of the huge amounts they’d already used since the invasion began. If Slim says they’ve now only got 800 available in total that’s very good news for Ukraine.

Interesting that 80% of the Republican campaign funds came from one rich guy but Democrat fundraising came from a grassroots campaign of numerous small donors. Remind me again which party is controlled by the ‘Elites’?

Why are you voting for Kennedy when you love Trump so much?

Any reasoning for that comment apart from plain old racism? Strange that in none of the thousands of words you've wasted trying to draw an equivalence between Trump and Hillary have you ever explaned why Hillary is so bad. Almost as if there's no rational thought behind your views at all.