A moral outrage!

Pssst . . . Donald did NOT sleep his way up the political ladder whereas Kamala did. So tell us some about Dem Party standards of morality. Oh and don't forget that three of Hunter Bidens former business associates have identified Joe Biden as the infamous BIG GUY in the illegal money operation of Hunter's. Enjoy!

Certain people have spent 4 years calling everything fake news. Now you want to point to evidence provided by Rudy Giuliani? Maybe the accusations will bear fruit, but I doubt it. Get some actual evidence or pound sand. And honestly, at this point, you also need to convince people that whatever you are accusing Joe of is worse than what Trump has been accused of. Good luck with that.

And I don't care who Kamala slept with so long as they were consenting adults. Same with Trump. Just don't try to cover it up. And don't throw stones.

You rightists are a trip. Trump has tried to host international conferences at his properties. He stays at his properties and the secret service has to pay to stay. He meets with foreign leaders there and they and their staff has to pay.

Hunter was hired for his name. That is shady but not illegal. If someone offered me a ton of money because of who I was related to but I made no promises, if probably take it. It looks bad, but I'm not running for office. When they find out I won't use my connections like that, they might let me go, but I'll get paid until then. Now, them paying for the appearance of favor, to be able to name drop... Like I said, shady.

Provide evidence (not from Rudy and a laptop story so shady the reporter who wrote the story refused the byline) that demonstrates Joe himself was paid. I mean, he's in his 70's. You think he's waiting to enjoy all that money he somehow kept secreted away? Anything doesn't go. Provide credible evidence and Trump will probably win. And it would be deserved if Democrats chose someone so shady.

Propoganda, you say? I make it a point to look at sources on the left, right, and where they can be found, center. While it's always possible I'm still being manipulated, I can only act in what I know. Trump's lies are too frequent to be ignored. One of his tells is saying "as you know" before he lies. As you know,

It became about Trump properties when you mentioned Biden using his office to enrich himself. No evidence of that, but we know Trump uses his office to enrich himself and one of the ways is through his properties. The line there was pretty obvious.

Joe's taxes are out there. If he couldn't afford his houses with legal income I imagine somebody would have pointed that out. As far as four houses, he was held done if the highest offices and is paid accordingly. Care to compare Joe to some other senators?

I have my own opinions and only one vote. I have no need to defend him, though lies bother me regardless of source

I have quite a few things I don't like about Joe. But oddly, none of those seem to be lines of attack that are being run by conservatives.

I didn't mean to imply hunter was above anything. I perhaps went too far in inserting myself into the analogy. Whether Hunter would try to influence his father is unimportant unless Joe acted on it. And we are back to evidence.

You are assuming it was pay to play. It could have just as easily been for the implication of influence. Maybe prosecutors would be less likely to go after a company with the VP's son in the board. Maybe they wouldn't. Maybe just the name attracted investors. In that case it's more like advertising. But either way, it's circumstantial with regards to Joe.

Talk down to me more, son. I find your screeching adorable as you defend "your guy".

I thought I replied to this already....
Lies Trump told: I mean there are sites devoted to tracking then all.

If you want one: I can't these my taxes because I'm under audit. - the IRS has confirmed being under audit does not prohibit sharing returns.

If your want another:
We are rounding the corner on covid. - data suggests otherwise. We are at the beginning of cold and flu season. Now is when respiratory infections spread most easily.

Enriching himself debunked: source?

On a side note, is there a place you learn these broken tactics? Insult and pretend the person is too sensitive if they take offense. Accuse the other person of being hysterical. The tactic is almost like gaslighting, but it feels like there is more to it than that.

Dodging again - combative. I obviously addressed a lie.

He's been called in the taxes thing for years. Reporters have called him on it during interviews. The difference between a mistake and a lie is correcting yourself when you are wrong.

Meant to encourage vs deceive - people and businesses need to be able to plan. If a business owner believes him and plans accordingly they could face consequences. Parents tell comforting lies to children. When the government lies to the governed, that's usually not as innocuous.

They limited the scope of the impeachment. There was quite a bit of debate on that. Focus on the big crimes, or roll out the whole list of corruption. Also, the emoluments clause is actually specific to foreign gifts, it doesn't address enriching himself in general from internal sources.

Paint chips - tongue in cheek "Tommy boy" reference. I guess it didn't come across.

Maybe your lying? - doubling down on the dismissiveness and gaslighting. Your tactics are weak.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rightist

No, we leftists have no idea what a rightist could be. /S

So you refer to leftists, but rightist is made up? Did you eat paint chips as a kid?

All words are made up. We assign meaning to those words and then use them accordingly. Generally, to avoid mass confusion we try to stick to agreed meanings.

People on both sides are trying to control what you think. If you don't see the strings, I've got bad news. I have opinions and beliefs that are liberal. I look at left and right wing rhetoric and goals and the correct side seems obvious. I don't agree with everything, but we have a try party system You obviously disagree about the correct choice. Wonderful! We will vote and in accordance with our founding principles, the winner will become President.

You aren’t really discussing anything, you are just preaching and talking down. It’s getting old fast. I like to discuss and get other peoples points of view. I think such discussions are important to understanding others. This? This isn’t that.

Antifa has the goal of stopping fascism by any means. Any group that is willing to use “any means” is a concern. But fascism is right wing, totalitarian, nationalist, and often tied to racial identity. Antifa members are going to trend toward anarchists, not fascism. They aren’t anything like brown shirts unless you squint really hard.

Intolerance to intolerance is kind of a contradiction isn’t it? But that contradiction is necessary. A tolerant society must reject intolerance. Against live and let live? Gay , straight, trans, cis, Christian, atheist, pagan, Muslim. Live and let live. Can you perhaps frame that accusation with an example?

Right wing rhetoric is currently attacking and demonizing any idea that conflicts with your values. No live and let live. No gay marriage; no trans rights; racism doesn’t exist except reverse racism. Anyone who believes differently is clearly part of an organized plot to destroy America, children, plastic straws, etc. there is no concept that people might legitimately believe things that contradict what you believe. And it is super unaware of its own contradictions.

Our founding principles allow for amendment. If they didn’t, there would still be slaves and only male property owners could vote.

Who said anything about abolishment or abridging?

Our founding principles have never been amended. - that's fair. But our laws have not always reflected those principles.

The 16th amendment allowed taxes to be be gathered directly instead of tarrifs and excise taxes. It was supported by those hotbeds of progressive ideas like the South and West. And opposed by the conservative North. ;). It was supported by the working class abd opposed by wealthier areas and industry.

17th amendment was because the Senate had become an old boys club. Also state houses would get deadlocked resulting in vacancies for months or years. Congress only took action on it because States had started sending requests for a convention to address the issue in accordance with article 5 of the Constitution. How does a direct vote for Senate limit freedom?

How do you shove through an amendment when ratification by 3/4 of the states is required? 38 States have to agree.

Hate speech regulations are against the Constitution. SCOTUS has ruled and I agree. Emotionally, I feel like their should be a line...but in the end I'm against anything that restricts free speech. It feels too subjective and abusable. The current rulings that protect speech but not calls for action feel like a good balance. You can say what you want, but you can't call on people to break the law/harm others.

I'll admit I didn't know the details of when voting rights were established when and where. Another reason i like these debates. You learn something new every day. And, fair enough. States set voting criteria and rights previously, and I have no way of knowing what the state of voting rights and slavery would look like without constitutional amendment. But it is constitutional amendment that guarantees those rights now.

Then people should be pointing at her sleeping her way to the top. What I've seen (and am reacting to) is them pointing out he was married. Specifically, what I saw was a picture of the wife and kids abd making her out to be a home wrecker.

She was appointed positions by someone she was dating. Personally, I am more judgmental of the person in power who gives promotions or positions to people he/she has a personal relationship with than the people who accept those positions.

And on that point, Trump has hired how many members of his family for positions they aren't qualified for?

As far as I can tell Kamala was qualifies and did her job well.

Fair enough. I don't know her. I'll likely get to know more about her as VP.

Whatever will be, will be.

Any sane woman engaged in political activites would have kicked Trumps little nutsack up his throat if he ever dared to accost them...so technically, you are right about him.

This is also the reason why Trump had to resort to buying his wives from the used-hoe markets of Eastern Europe - they have a higher tolerance rate (in exchange for much money).

Oh...have I forgot to mention the children he fcuked together with his buddy Epstein?

Sorry, my fault. NY hasn't forgotten.

True analogy is true.

An analogy wasn't really the goal. Pointing out hypocrisy was. What is wrong with the analogy?

An analogy is saying something is like something else. I'm not doing that. Both have engaged in extramarital affairs. Saying "that's an apple, and those are apples" isn't an analogy.

You are trying to attach motive to establish a difference which wasn't implied in the OP.

Checked with a buddy who has a masters in English and you are wrong. This is not an analogy.

Hey! Calling out a logical fallacy. Good job. No sarcasm there. Too few people recognize them.

I hadn't intended it to be an appeal to authority, but I suppose it meets the criteria. I reached out to someone I know who is an expert for clarity. If he had said I was wrong, so be it. If you want to point me to something that defines or described analogy as you are using it, I'm receptive. But your opinion on the matter is insufficient to move me.