President Biden thread

toomuchbaloney said:

Should I assume that you believe that Trump is a victim of a conspiracy to persecute him in NY?

I would think so since he called it a sham.  Mind made up and closed on the matter.  Maybe it's time we choose battles and move on to the next Trump controversy and indictment.  LOL

Beerman said:

It's not really a conspiracy.  It's out in the open for everyone to see.

What is it that you think you see? Do you see legal harassment and persecution of a completely innocent man? 

Meanwhile, the current president is the focus of a very public impeachment inquiry where the desire to impeach is ever so much stronger than the evidence of impeachable offenses.  It's almost like there it's an alternate reality that accompanies the alternative truths of modern conservatism.  

No one would find this story believable if it was a book.  

Beerman said:

There is different degrees of evidence in both the Trump case and the Biden family corruption.

As I said earlier, evidence as proof is often subjective.  In the case of the corrupt Biden family, you seem to want smoking gun with fingerprints proof.

In the case of Trump fraud case, you seem satisfied with what the NY AG tells us.

My opinion is based on what I've read, including  opinions here, and my life experiences.  Yes, I've heard Trump-favorable analysis.  Just like you've heard he opposite.   

Based on comments you've made over the years, you seem to think any conservative who has a differing opinion only does so because they are spitting out what they hear from "propaganda". 

Its tiring.

I believe we all can digest information from various sources (almost all of which is biased nowadays, to some degree) and form our own opinion.  

So you are disputing the facts of the Forbes article?  Comer's investigation hasn't come up with any hard evidence against Biden in this unworthy investigation.    Their "witness" has retracted his previous statement that he was a witness to anything more than a brief "hello" over a table in a restaurant; not a smoking gun.  Do you know something that everyone else doesn't know?  I am listening.

subee said:

So you are disputing the facts of the Forbes article?  Comer's investigation hasn't come up with any hard evidence against Biden in this unworthy investigation.    Their "witness" has retracted his previous statement that he was a witness to anything more than a brief "hello" over a table in a restaurant; not a smoking gun.  Do you know something that everyone else doesn't know?  I am listening.

I'm not sure that Trump defenders dispute the facts as much as they ignore them and pretend that they don't exist.  Disputing something requires that you actually acknowledge that something exists.  Trump defenders can't dispute the facts and evidence of Trump's dishonesty that they maintain do not exist. 

This is part of the reason that the same lies and misinformation continues to be repeated by Trump defenders, requiring others to debunk the same tired old Trumpisms over and over again.  

Beerman said:

I believe we all can digest information from various sources (almost all of which is biased nowadays, to some degree) and form our own opinion.  

This is a problem. Yes many sources will have a degree of bias, but that doesn't mean you can't find good solid reporting and be well informed of the facts. There are really good sources out there. And really bad ones. Then there are lots that lean one way or the other, and while not promoting propaganda may mislead because they are more concerned with protecting their political points of view then seeking the truth. 

Up until about 10 years ago I was deep into Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck etc. (I couldn't quite tolerate Sean Hannity). I thought the news and opinions I was hearing were right and that it was the mainstream that was totally biased, and promoting an agenda that was in direct opposition to everything I stood for. Thankfully I started questioning some things and in the end realized how much of what I was listening to was bull, missing important context and totally leaving out important facts in order to support certain political views. I lost my trust in the news and didn't know where to go. But I didn't give up, I just kept reading and looking for the bias in every source I came across. It is no longer a struggle for me to find good news and analysis. 

Some people just are not comfortable testing what they believe. For me, I wasn't comfortable accepting others opinions without questioning if they were based on facts.

I hope, Beerman, that you have the same willingness to confront your beliefs about Biden versus Trump. You can disagree with the viewpoints of the other party without demonizing the persons who represent them. It is okay to disagree with Biden and yet consider him a decent person. The facts to accuse him don't exist, but for some reason many Trump supporters and politicians think they can't make a case without dragging Biden down and making him out to be a criminal - just like Trump in order to take character out of the equation. 

Beerman said:

Documents presented by the plaintiffs, I imagine.  Aren't you at all curious as to how the judge came up with property values?  Don't care that there was no trial on this aspect of the case? 

At least some experts believe the judge is way off on the valuation of at least some properties.

And, let's still not forget a bank who is in the business of making big loans likely did their due diligence,  made the loan, was paid back, and then we should assume made a nice profit.

Do you read AP stories?  Warning...Trump favorable reporting:

https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2023/10/09/is-mar-a-lago-really-worth-1b-trumps-claim-core-fraud-trial/

 

The judge didn't come up with the property values. The prosecution presented the evidence and the defense offered what the judge characterized as "fantasy" and "bogus". A partial summary judgement was granted because the preponderance of the evidence clearly indicated that Trump was conducting business using fraudulent data and information.  Are you trying to claim that Trump didn't get to defend himself against the evidence in front of that judge? That's not true.  

It's interesting that you seem unaware that I cite the AP.

I've noticed that another day has gone by and no evidence that Joe Biden has committed high crimes or misdemeanors has emerged from the congressional inquiry.  

Meanwhile, the Biden team is working hard to stabilize global relations.  

https://www.axios.com/2023/11/08/biden-xi-jinping-china-military-communication

Beerman said:

Oh, thank you for your concern. 

Why keep a secret?  What unbiased and reliable news outlets do you recommend to me?

It's interesting that you say that the facts against Biden don't exist.  You're ready to declare that already?  A recent poll shows only 30% think he has done nothing wrong.  That would mean a good chunk of people who voted for him think he has.  Not necessarily illegal, but at least unethical.

What do you think led them to believe that?  Do you think that after the election they started watching Fox News and listening to Republicans?

 

 

No claim was made that "unbiased" sources are used.  

When no facts are presented that indicate illegal or unethical behavior, it's easy to deduce that there's currently no facts to present.  

People sometimes think something because they've heard something implied or suggested or discussed as a possibility, even though there's not really evidence to support that something. When media regularly discuss specious  theories or speculation it gives them weight they don't deserve.  Why do people believe that there was fraud in the 2020 election or that Covid might have been a plot or that Jewish space lasers might have started a wildfire?

When things get repeated people begin to think that just maybe...

Beerman said:

Correct.  He didn't get the same opportunity he would have if the trial had included this aspect of the case.

What do you mean? There was documentary evidence presented in a hearing where the defense attorneys argued that the evidence didn't show that Trump  committed fraud.  The judge characterized their arguments as insufficient or fantastical or bogus.  The defense couldn't articulate a cogent dispute to any of the material evidence on some of the charges, and so a partial summary judgement was issued.  Now the trial is wrapping up to determine liability for the other charges and what the penalties will be.  He had opportunity.