Biden guilty on all counts

[rowsdower88]

---

Members don't see this ad.

In order to adamantly prove that you are wrong in your assessment of behavior on this board, they swooped in and did exactly as you described. Even referred to you as a visitor. Overall, very welcoming and open to differences of opinion.

At least he's got friends to swoop in for defense.

 

[pgg]

In order to adamantly prove that you are wrong in your assessment of behavior on this board, they swooped in and did exactly as you described. Even referred to you as a visitor. Overall, very welcoming and open to differences of opinion.

It's technically correct that I'm a lib-

-ertarian

🙂


C'mon ... I'm hardly alone amongst the conservative and center-right people here. Or is anyone who holds Trump and his MAGA cult in contempt, by definition, a "lib" now? Every former R-voter who won't vote for that incurious and incompetent loser, is now a detestable lib?

Maybe the reason you feel outnumbered is because you're choosing to remain in a shrinking minority position?

There is and always has been a very large contingent of center, center-right, and conservative people here. It's a doctor forum, after all. The fact that the MAGA cult left the conservative bloc and dragged some of the uglier bits of the GOP way out right into their fantasyland doesn't make everyone who didn't go with them a lib.

 

[pgg]

I really don't think this matters all that much. I posted in the Trump is convicted thread that Biden will pardon Hunter as soon as it doesn't damage him politically.

That could be - but I sort of doubt it for the simple reason that I don't think sentencing will be especially harsh.

If Hunter doesn't get any jail time (or if it's a token amount) ... he'll probably just pay his fine and go do his community service or whatever, and move on with his life.

Either before the transition if he loses or at his leisure should he win. What father will allow his son to go to jail or carry a felony conviction if he could intervene? Although Biden has publicly stated he would not pardon Hunter, we know Joe is prone to.....tell yarns.

If you're rich, being a felon isn't a huge impediment to living a good life. Hunter's rich. He's not running for office. Not being able to vote isn't that big a deal. Loss of gun rights - well, he's already a prohibited person so no real harm there.

 

[aneftp]

It's technically correct that I'm a lib-

-ertarian

🙂


C'mon ... I'm hardly alone amongst the conservative and center-right people here. Or is anyone who holds Trump and his MAGA cult in contempt, by definition, a "lib" now? Every former R-voter who won't vote for that incurious and incompetent loser, is now a detestable lib?

Maybe the reason you feel outnumbered is because you're choosing to remain in a shrinking minority position?

There is and always has been a very large contingent of center, center-right, and conservative people here. It's a doctor forum, after all. The fact that the MAGA cult left the conservative bloc and dragged some of the uglier bits of the GOP way out right into their fantasyland doesn't make everyone who didn't go with them a lib.

If the republican right is ever shrinking. Than why are we even discussing the November elections. Seems to be like Biden is a slam dunk to win re election.

The last 3 elections have actually been pretty close because the way the electoral college is designed.

Obama swept all the swing states in 2012. Trump pretty much did the same in 2016. And Biden won the swing states in 2020.

On paper the population is moving towards the left. There is no doubt. But the overall population doesn’t count in an electoral college. Most democratic leaning voting live in states that are turning bluer and bluer (Virginia ) or blue to began with (California and New York and Illinois).

The democrats were relying on Texas to turn blue and it’s actually swung the other way back to pretty solid red. Same with Florida despite all the New Yorkers in south Florida.

 

[caligas]

I really don't think this matters all that much. I posted in the Trump is convicted thread that Biden will pardon Hunter as soon as it doesn't damage him politically. Either before the transition if he loses or at his leisure should he win. What father will allow his son to go to jail or carry a felony conviction if he could intervene? Although Biden has publicly stated he would not pardon Hunter, we know Joe is prone to.....tell yarns.

I disagree, don’t think Biden will pardon him

 

[rick roller pump]

Agree with pgg. Most on this board seem to be moderate in their political views. I suspect many anti-Trump people like myself would consider voting for a candidate such as Nikki Haley over Biden.

 

[Gern Blansten]

I disagree, don’t think Biden will pardon him

I am 50:50 on this. My gut says he will wait until his second term is underway or, if he loses, slip it into the final days on his way out. But, we will see if he sticks by his statement. Honestly, I would have no problem with him pardoning him. It is a perk of being president and if you can't use it for your own son, what good is it really? He would really have nothing to lose by doing that on his way out or once he has no further elections to worry about. But it looks better to state that he would not at this point because the people asking the question are looking for a "gotcha" moment to use against him.

 

[nimbus]

If the republican right is ever shrinking. Than why are we even discussing the November elections. Seems to be like Biden is a slam dunk to win re election.

The last 3 elections have actually been pretty close because the way the electoral college is designed.

Obama swept all the swing states in 2012. Trump pretty much did the same in 2016. And Biden won the swing states in 2020.

On paper the population is moving towards the left. There is no doubt. But the overall population doesn’t count in an electoral college. Most democratic leaning voting live in states that are turning bluer and bluer (Virginia ) or blue to began with (California and New York and Illinois).

The democrats were relying on Texas to turn blue and it’s actually swung the other way back to pretty solid red. Same with Florida despite all the New Yorkers in south Florida.

Then-than 😉

My apologies. I have poor impulse control.

 

[Gern Blansten]

Maybe the reason you feel outnumbered is because you're choosing to remain in a shrinking minority position?

It is not that I feel outnumbered. There is a decent mix of posters here with differing opinions. To me, the real issue is that dissenting opinions are shamed by many here. Blade has his opinions, as do others that lean right such as aneftp. But they generally tend to state their opinions and refrain from the shaming if someone does not agree. There does not seem to be much of a "live and let live" attitude from the left leaning group. It seems they feel that every idea they disagree with must be addressed with derogatory shaming comments to imply that no intelligent person could have that opinion. I see it happen a lot from the usual crowd. Maybe I am purposefully blind to it, but I don't see the other side doing any shaming. Disagreeing, yes, but implying that the ones they disagree with are morally and ethically repugnant and lacking of any perceivable intelligence? I don't recall that.

 

[Iso4ane]

It's technically correct that I'm a lib-

-ertarian

🙂


C'mon ... I'm hardly alone amongst the conservative and center-right people here. Or is anyone who holds Trump and his MAGA cult in contempt, by definition, a "lib" now? Every former R-voter who won't vote for that incurious and incompetent loser, is now a detestable lib?

There is and always has been a very large contingent of center, center-right, and conservative people here. It's a doctor forum, after all. The fact that the MAGA cult left the conservative bloc and dragged some of the uglier bits of the GOP way out right into their fantasyland doesn't make everyone who didn't go with them a lib.

I would admit I'm definitely on the moderate side, But, when some of the MAGA crowd at the end of the Putin-Trump human centipede crowd consider Fox News to be left-leaning, they probably consider me left-leaning too.

As for name calling, I seem to recall a lot of more derogatory remarks and plan coming out from the far-right than than anyone else.

 

[Gern Blansten]

As for name calling, I seem to recall a lot of more derogatory remarks and plan coming out from the far-right than than anyone else.

On this forum or in real life?

 

[Agast]

It is not that I feel outnumbered. There is a decent mix of posters here with differing opinions. To me, the real issue is that dissenting opinions are shamed by many here. Blade has his opinions, as do others that lean right such as aneftp. But they generally tend to state their opinions and refrain from the shaming if someone does not agree. There does not seem to be much of a "live and let live" attitude from the left leaning group. It seems they feel that every idea they disagree with must be addressed with derogatory shaming comments to imply that no intelligent person could have that opinion. I see it happen a lot from the usual crowd. Maybe I am purposefully blind to it, but I don't see the other side doing any shaming. Disagreeing, yes, but implying that the ones they disagree with are morally and ethically repugnant and lacking of any perceivable intelligence? I don't recall that.

Ah, you should become a pain doctor and join the pain forum. It’s a safe space to call other people libtards!

 

[pgg]

It is not that I feel outnumbered. There is a decent mix of posters here with differing opinions. To me, the real issue is that dissenting opinions are shamed by many here. Blade has his opinions, as do others that lean right such as aneftp. But they generally tend to state their opinions and refrain from the shaming if someone does not agree. There does not seem to be much of a "live and let live" attitude from the left leaning group. It seems they feel that every idea they disagree with must be addressed with derogatory shaming comments to imply that no intelligent person could have that opinion. I see it happen a lot from the usual crowd. Maybe I am purposefully blind to it, but I don't see the other side doing any shaming. Disagreeing, yes, but implying that the ones they disagree with are morally and ethically repugnant and lacking of any perceivable intelligence? I don't recall that.

I honestly don't see any shaming, except when it comes to voting for Trump, which as I wrote earlier, I think deserves some shaming. Being egregiously indefensible and all.

If you look at previous threads about other contentious subjects - gun control, abortion, even the rare religion thread - you'll find plenty of disagreement but not a whole lot of shaming.

OK, I guess I throw some shame at the tax fraudsters too. But that's brazenly criminal behavior.

 

[rowsdower88]

It is not that I feel outnumbered. There is a decent mix of posters here with differing opinions. To me, the real issue is that dissenting opinions are shamed by many here. Blade has his opinions, as do others that lean right such as aneftp. But they generally tend to state their opinions and refrain from the shaming if someone does not agree. There does not seem to be much of a "live and let live" attitude from the left leaning group. It seems they feel that every idea they disagree with must be addressed with derogatory shaming comments to imply that no intelligent person could have that opinion. I see it happen a lot from the usual crowd. Maybe I am purposefully blind to it, but I don't see the other side doing any shaming. Disagreeing, yes, but implying that the ones they disagree with are morally and ethically repugnant and lacking of any perceivable intelligence? I don't recall that.

We've been over this. Election subversion crosses the line of tolerable behavior for most people. You think subverting elections should be tolerated, like it's just a character flaw or something benign that we should just overlook.

This is the SDN equivalent of Alan Dershowitz getting indignant when Larry David doesn't want to talk with him at Martha's Vineyard.

Alan Dershowitz Confirms Larry David ‘Called Me Disgusting and Said He Could Never Talk to Me’

Alan Dershowitz said Larry David called him disgusting and told him to never talk to him again.

variety.com

 

[aneftp]

We've been over this. Election subversion crosses the line of tolerable behavior for most people. You think subverting elections should be tolerated, like it's just a character flaw or something benign that we should just overlook.

This is the SDN equivalent of Alan Dershowitz getting indignant when Larry David doesn't want to talk with him at Martha's Vineyard.

Alan Dershowitz Confirms Larry David ‘Called Me Disgusting and Said He Could Never Talk to Me’

Alan Dershowitz said Larry David called him disgusting and told him to never talk to him again.

variety.com

There is still 30-to even 40% of the USA population who still believe the election was stolen. That’s not a small number. Pretty big. Not 82% like trump claims. We aren’t talking 5-10% of people making all the noise. It’s a huge number that still believes a lot of fraud in 2020. Remember. The election was won by what amounts to 100k TOTAL VOTES in the swing states.

2020 was a tough year with Covid and all that entails.

“

• A Washington Post-University of Maryland pollfrom December found that 36% of respondents viewed Biden’s win as illegitimate.
• An August poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about 70% of respondents believed Biden was legitimately elected. Among Republicans, the number was 57%.
• A June Monmouth University poll found that 30% of respondents believe Biden won the 2020 election because of voter fraud. Among Republicans, the number was 68% — still lower than Trump claimed. That result “has been a nearly constant percentage in Monmouth’s polling since the November 2020 election,” Monmouth noted in its report.
• An early 2022 Axios-SurveyMonkey poll found that 55% respondents believed Biden won legitimately. SurveyMonkey and the AP-NORC polls have lower credibility ratings than Monmouth and The Washington Post with FiveThirtyEight.com, which analyzes polling methods.“

Fact check: Trump says 82% of Americans think 2020 election was 'rigged'

At a Greensboro, North Carolina, rally, former President Donald Trump, referring to 2020, said "82% of the country understands that it was a rigged election. Poll results and polling experts say the claim is way off base.

www.wral.com

 

[Gern Blansten]

I honestly don't see any shaming, except when it comes to voting for Trump, which as I wrote earlier, I think deserves some shaming. Being egregiously indefensible and all.

If you look at previous threads about other contentious subjects - gun control, abortion, even the rare religion thread - you'll find plenty of disagreement but not a whole lot of shaming.

OK, I guess I throw some shame at the tax fraudsters too. But that's brazenly criminal behavior.

I don’t want to get anyone riled up, but if a person chooses not to get a Covid vaccine, should they be fired from their job? I’ll hang up and listen…

 

[Arch Guillotti]

There is still 30-to even 40% of the USA population who still believe the election was stolen.

Nobody said there was any shortage of idiots in the USA.

 

[rowsdower88]

There is still 30-to even 40% of the USA population who still believe the election was stolen.

Trump's disinformation campaign has been very successful.

Those people ARE wrong. You defending their wrongness is weird.

 

[pgg]

I don’t want to get anyone riled up, but if a person chooses not to get a Covid vaccine, should they be fired from their job? I’ll hang up and listen…

Depends on the job.

Truck driver? Ridiculous.

Physician? Reasonable.

 

[aneftp]

Nobody said there was any shortage of idiots in the USA.

Well the idiots are close to electing trump in November 2024 than.

Just remember the smartest people do not actually run this country or make the most money. It’s the ones with the best strategies how to win the game.
In this case it’s the electoral vote game in November.

I did have a trump float in my pool (more as a joke) but threw it away in Dec 2020. Maybe I will rebuy another float November 2024.

I am not idiot about Trump though. I know he’s a scam artist, con man, womanizer, tax cheater (most business owners are). I just find him more entertaining than Biden.

He is a sore loser. We all know that. I’d be pissed off if I lost the election by a mere 100k swing state votes when he was up big in Feb 2020 before the Covid thing happened.

Look at this old vox (a liberal leaning website) article in Feb 2020 right before Covid went mainstream

New poll finds most voters believe Trump will win reelection — even many who don’t want him to

Voters also weighed in on Iowa and New Hampshire voting first for presidential nominee in new poll.

www.vox.com

Biden had no business winning had it not been for Covid. I believe that than.

Things happened.

It will be a dog fight this fall.

The country really wants neither one of these two guys. It’s the sad truth. I’d just go for the more entertaining guy.

And for those who feel he will behave like dictator. We do have checks and balances in than country.

 

[Gern Blansten]

Depends on the job.

Truck driver? Ridiculous.

Physician? Reasonable.

That is a much softer stance than previously on a thread started by Blade a couple of years ago.

 

[NumTacos]

This board is majority libs who swarm like a pack of flies over a dead fish when anything pro right comes up. This statement alone shows me how blind the left is.

I suggest moderators push this to the political forum where it belongs and can die.

You are welcome to head on over to the political forum if you like. I suspect you might be happier there. Godspeed friend.

 

[Blockit]

I disagree, don’t think Biden will pardon him

Can’t he “commute” the sentence instead of pardoning him?

 

[caligas]

I don’t want to get anyone riled up, but if a person chooses not to get a Covid vaccine, should they be fired from their job? I’ll hang up and listen…

Is that even a thing anymore?

 

[aneftp]

I’m sure this woman who got kicked off the flight has emotional support animal certificate so she can travel with her dog.

And since we are on the topic of criminal bogus charges. This is clearly criminal behavior. 100% assault by throwing the water bottle by the letter of the law everyone talks about (with trump and his business false filing and hunter biden false statements on gun purchase)

But delta airlines and the passenger she threw the water bottle at did not file charges. Any overzealous prosecutor could see the video and file charges as well. But they didn’t. Why? Because it’s not worth it for prosecutors. And frankly what this woman did by disruption of a flight probably by 30-45 min of travel time for affected passengers. It warrants criminal charges

Anna Dugan Is the lady name

Las Vegas bartender apologizes for outburst on Delta flight over dog

A woman on a Delta flight who was caught on video barking obscenities and throwing a bottle at another passenger after being asked to put her dog in a carrier has been identified as a Las Vegas bar…

nypost.com

They can dig deeper into her and see if she filed false claims why she needs the dog as well.

That’s what we mean by anyone can get stuff filed against them but most reasonable prosecutors will not do it. It became personal with trump and Biden with these overzealous prosecutors

 

[Southpaw]

if Hunter committed a crime he deserves to be held accountable.

 

[Gern Blansten]

Is that even a thing anymore?

The suggestion was that the strong feelings on this topic were isolated and therefore, shaming is allowable in this isolated topic because one side is so clearly correct. I am suggesting that the shaming is not isolated to one topic and there is a long history of it. If someone were to revive that old "fired over the covid vaccine?" thread, it would show complete intolerance of differing points of view to the point that some wished for loss of livelihood and celebrated loss of life for those who had differing opinions or who were skeptical.

Many here believe that 100% of others must agree with them on each topic AND have the same ferocity of strong feelings. For example, one cannot simply dislike Trump. Conforming to the idea that he is the devil himself is the only path to avoid being called unethical and unprincipled, even deluded or idiotic. The same thing happened during COVID. "Trust the science" was the battle cry when the reality was that the science was sparse, cloudy, and very rushed. The basic tenet of the scientific process is questioning everything in order to get to the real truth. Once COVID came on the scene, "trust the science" became "don't question anything" and forget what you knew before (mask effectiveness, viral particle size, natural immunity, what populations are at risk), because "I am science." I was not an anti-covid vax person and my initial feelings were of contempt for those who were, but I watched people who were skeptical get trashed in real life and on this forum. I got thrashed for suggesting a modicum of decency and patience should be extended to those who did not share the exact same point of view.

pgg admits he was a single issue voter related to gun right laws. He has now changed his stance and, it seems to me, he is adamant that all others arrive at the exact same conclusion as him, at the exact same moment as he did. He was adamant about gun rights as the most important issue, until he wasn't, and he expects that all others should arrive at the same conclusion exactly when he did. Is that reasonable or rational? I respect that he has changed his stance and has strong opinions, but it does not mean that I abandon all of my ideas in order to comply with his demands.

It reminds me of what a marriage expert said many years ago regarding fights with your spouse. Often, one spouse will decide to apologize during a fight and then get angry if there is not immediate acceptance of the apology and a complete forgiveness. The counselor stated, "what are the odds that you will arrive at the decision to apologize at precisely the same moment that your spouse will arrive at the decision to forgive you?" The point is, people arrive at different points at different times. Just because one person has an epiphany that "Trump's evil outweighs my rights to own a gun" does not mean that everyone else arrives at that point at the same time, or ever will arrive at that point. I believe we have to meet people where they are and that everyone has different life experiences that impact their opinions on a multitude of topics. We may adamantly disagree, but everyone has a right to their opinions. Someone who was vaccine skeptical or feels that Trump is a better choice than Biden will not be swayed by being told they're stupid and immoral anymore than your spouse will be swayed by you telling them "I said I'm sorry...you need to forgive me and get over it." I don't get the impression that people here are trying to change people's minds. It feels more like they just want to shout down other opinions in hopes that the person will be so shamed that they will never dare to speak of the topic again.

@emergentmd has now been "invited to leave" the forum by a couple of people for going against the lockstep ideas of this forum. I am simply pointing out that the Trump issue is not an isolated issue where this behavior occurs.

 

[rowsdower88]

The suggestion was that the strong feelings on this topic were isolated and therefore, shaming is allowable in this isolated topic because one side is so clearly correct. I am suggesting that the shaming is not isolated to one topic and there is a long history of it. If someone were to revive that old "fired over the covid vaccine?" thread, it would show complete intolerance of differing points of view to the point that some wished for loss of livelihood and celebrated loss of life for those who had differing opinions or who were skeptical.

Many here believe that 100% of others must agree with them on each topic AND have the same ferocity of strong feelings. For example, one cannot simply dislike Trump. Conforming to the idea that he is the devil himself is the only path to avoid being called unethical and unprincipled, even deluded or idiotic. The same thing happened during COVID. "Trust the science" was the battle cry when the reality was that the science was sparse, cloudy, and very rushed. The basic tenet of the scientific process is questioning everything in order to get to the real truth. Once COVID came on the scene, "trust the science" became "don't question anything" and forget what you knew before (mask effectiveness, viral particle size, natural immunity, what populations are at risk), because "I am science." I was not an anti-covid vax person and my initial feelings were of contempt for those who were, but I watched people who were skeptical get trashed in real life and on this forum. I got thrashed for suggesting a modicum of decency and patience should be extended to those who did not share the exact same point of view.

pgg admits he was a single issue voter related to gun right laws. He has now changed his stance and, it seems to me, he is adamant that all others arrive at the exact same conclusion as him, at the exact same moment as he did. He was adamant about gun rights as the most important issue, until he wasn't, and he expects that all others should arrive at the same conclusion exactly when he did. Is that reasonable or rational? I respect that he has changed his stance and has strong opinions, but it does not mean that I abandon all of my ideas in order to comply with his demands.

It reminds me of what a marriage expert said many years ago regarding fights with your spouse. Often, one spouse will decide to apologize during a fight and then get angry if there is not immediate acceptance of the apology and a complete forgiveness. The counselor stated, "what are the odds that you will arrive at the decision to apologize at precisely the same moment that your spouse will arrive at the decision to forgive you?" The point is, people arrive at different points at different times. Just because one person has an epiphany that "Trump's evil outweighs my rights to own a gun" does not mean that everyone else arrives at that point at the same time, or ever will arrive at that point. I believe we have to meet people where they are and that everyone has different life experiences that impact their opinions on a multitude of topics. We may adamantly disagree, but everyone has a right to their opinions. Someone who was vaccine skeptical or feels that Trump is a better choice than Biden will not be swayed by being told they're stupid and immoral anymore than your spouse will be swayed by you telling them "I said I'm sorry...you need to forgive me and get over it." I don't get the impression that people here are trying to change people's minds. It feels more like they just want to shout down other opinions in hopes that the person will be so shamed that they will never dare to speak of the topic again.

@emergentmd has now been "invited to leave" the forum by a couple of people for going against the lockstep ideas of this forum. I am simply pointing out that the Trump issue is not an isolated issue where this behavior occurs.

"Can't we all just get along guys? It's not like my preferred political candidate might subvert another election."

Your marriage counselor analogy is apt. You're expecting others to wait for you to abandon Trump when he's no longer politically useful, but you still want to vote for him this year. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You don't get points for reluctantly checking the box next to Trump's name lol.

Edit: If we stretch your marriage analogy further, election subversion would be equivalent to cheating in a marriage. A violation of trust and norms so significant it risks dissolution. Maybe that helps you understand why we think it's weird when you make arguments like "it wasn't so bad" or "it's unlikely to happen again".

 

[Southpaw]

The suggestion was that the strong feelings on this topic were isolated and therefore, shaming is allowable in this isolated topic because one side is so clearly correct. I am suggesting that the shaming is not isolated to one topic and there is a long history of it. If someone were to revive that old "fired over the covid vaccine?" thread, it would show complete intolerance of differing points of view to the point that some wished for loss of livelihood and celebrated loss of life for those who had differing opinions or who were skeptical.

Many here believe that 100% of others must agree with them on each topic AND have the same ferocity of strong feelings. For example, one cannot simply dislike Trump. Conforming to the idea that he is the devil himself is the only path to avoid being called unethical and unprincipled, even deluded or idiotic. The same thing happened during COVID. "Trust the science" was the battle cry when the reality was that the science was sparse, cloudy, and very rushed. The basic tenet of the scientific process is questioning everything in order to get to the real truth. Once COVID came on the scene, "trust the science" became "don't question anything" and forget what you knew before (mask effectiveness, viral particle size, natural immunity, what populations are at risk), because "I am science." I was not an anti-covid vax person and my initial feelings were of contempt for those who were, but I watched people who were skeptical get trashed in real life and on this forum. I got thrashed for suggesting a modicum of decency and patience should be extended to those who did not share the exact same point of view.

pgg admits he was a single issue voter related to gun right laws. He has now changed his stance and, it seems to me, he is adamant that all others arrive at the exact same conclusion as him, at the exact same moment as he did. He was adamant about gun rights as the most important issue, until he wasn't, and he expects that all others should arrive at the same conclusion exactly when he did. Is that reasonable or rational? I respect that he has changed his stance and has strong opinions, but it does not mean that I abandon all of my ideas in order to comply with his demands.

It reminds me of what a marriage expert said many years ago regarding fights with your spouse. Often, one spouse will decide to apologize during a fight and then get angry if there is not immediate acceptance of the apology and a complete forgiveness. The counselor stated, "what are the odds that you will arrive at the decision to apologize at precisely the same moment that your spouse will arrive at the decision to forgive you?" The point is, people arrive at different points at different times. Just because one person has an epiphany that "Trump's evil outweighs my rights to own a gun" does not mean that everyone else arrives at that point at the same time, or ever will arrive at that point. I believe we have to meet people where they are and that everyone has different life experiences that impact their opinions on a multitude of topics. We may adamantly disagree, but everyone has a right to their opinions. Someone who was vaccine skeptical or feels that Trump is a better choice than Biden will not be swayed by being told they're stupid and immoral anymore than your spouse will be swayed by you telling them "I said I'm sorry...you need to forgive me and get over it." I don't get the impression that people here are trying to change people's minds. It feels more like they just want to shout down other opinions in hopes that the person will be so shamed that they will never dare to speak of the topic again.

@emergentmd has now been "invited to leave" the forum by a couple of people for going against the lockstep ideas of this forum. I am simply pointing out that the Trump issue is not an isolated issue where this behavior occurs.

It is interesting to me you’ll vote for Trump yet seem put out by the lack of professional decorum on an anonymous online doctor forum. I guess I could be wrong, but you seem more put out by vector being a meanie than a president trying to set aside democracy to stay in power.

 

[Gern Blansten]

It is interesting to me you’ll vote for Trump yet seem put out by the lack of professional decorum on an anonymous online doctor forum. I guess I could be wrong, but you seem more put out by vector being a meanie than a president trying to set aside democracy to stay in power.

I am just not a fan of people foisting their opinions on others as if it is impossible for any sensible or ethical person to have a differing opinion or to value one issue over another.

 

[Gern Blansten]

"Can't we all just get along guys? It's not like my preferred political candidate might subvert another election."

That statement could be adjusted to reflect any number of issues with Biden and turned back on Biden voters.

 

[rowsdower88]

That statement could be adjusted to reflect any number of issues with Biden and turned back on Biden voters.

Repeating myself.

Election subversion is outside the bounds of acceptable political disagreement for most people.

What is the equivalent Biden policy to election subversion for you? "Securing the border"? Most people recognize that dictating immigration policy falls within the executive branch's established authority and that reasonable disagreements on enforcement are permitted under our Constitutional framework. If you think the border needs more security that's an acceptable policy position we can disagree on. We even see Biden responding to democratic pressure on this issue changing policy.

There is no objective line here. But you're pretending the line either doesn't or shouldn't exist for most people.

 

[UscGhost]

I’m sure this woman who got kicked off the flight has emotional support animal certificate so she can travel with her dog.

And since we are on the topic of criminal bogus charges. This is clearly criminal behavior. 100% assault by throwing the water bottle by the letter of the law everyone talks about (with trump and his business false filing and hunter biden false statements on gun purchase)

But delta airlines and the passenger she threw the water bottle at did not file charges. Any overzealous prosecutor could see the video and file charges as well. But they didn’t. Why? Because it’s not worth it for prosecutors. And frankly what this woman did by disruption of a flight probably by 30-45 min of travel time for affected passengers. It warrants criminal charges

Anna Dugan Is the lady name

Las Vegas bartender apologizes for outburst on Delta flight over dog

A woman on a Delta flight who was caught on video barking obscenities and throwing a bottle at another passenger after being asked to put her dog in a carrier has been identified as a Las Vegas bar…

nypost.com

They can dig deeper into her and see if she filed false claims why she needs the dog as well.

That’s what we mean by anyone can get stuff filed against them but most reasonable prosecutors will not do it. It became personal with trump and Biden with these overzealous prosecutors

If you don't want to get convicted, then don't commit the crimes.

If you get pulled over and you cuss out the cops, do you think you are more likely to get a ticket or get a warning?

If you constantly attack the prosecutors, judges, jurors, etc. Do you think you'll get a sympathetic decision?

It's called real life. I am sure Trump can handle it.

Should we elect a commission to determine if a prosecutor should file charges ahead of time?

A prosecutor looks at the potential cost, evidence, likelihood of conviction, etc. their personal opinion of the defendent is pretty low on the priority list.

Every guilty person just says they were targeted. What else are they going to say after a guilty verdict?

 

[Gern Blansten]

Edit: If we stretch your marriage analogy further, election subversion would be equivalent to cheating in a marriage. A violation of trust and norms so significant it risks dissolution. Maybe that helps you understand why we think it's weird when you make arguments like "it wasn't so bad" or "it's unlikely to happen again".

I don't disagree with this extension of the analogy. Would you say that all marriages that involve unfaithfulness are required to end in divorce and the unfaithful partner should never be trusted to marry again? Or, should the affected spouse be the one to decide, "Am I better off fighting to make this marriage work despite the imperfect situation?" If someone decides to try to make the marriage work, should they be deemed an idiot? If they walk away from that flawed marriage and then choose another spouse that is riddled with their own character and ethical flaws, is that okay? Who gets to decide the choices that person makes? The affected person? Or should we sit in judgment of the choices that person makes? Do we have different life experiences and the right to freedom of choice? Or should a select few get to sit in judgment of all others and ridicule those who have differing views and opinions?

 

[BLADEMDA]

Allowing 10 million + illegals into our country is just as bad or even worse than Jan 06. You may view that Biden has no authority to stop the illegal invasion but that's false. Biden has purposely reversed Trump immigration policy and opened the flood gates for highest numbers of illegal immigrants to enter in our nation's history. That is grounds for impeachment IMHO. When and if we get a terrorist attack due to his failure at the border the voters will react swiftly.

8 suspected terrorists with possible ISIS ties arrested in New York, L.A. and Philadelphia, sources say

The men from Tajikistan came to the U.S. through the southern border and their criminal backgrounds checks came back clean at the time they crossed, officials familiar with the matter said.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[BLADEMDA]

Border Patrol has recorded an uptick in migrants crossing the southern border illegally whose names appear on the terror watchlist, with such encounters increasing from 11 in the financial years 2017 through 2020 to 362 between financial years 2021 and April 2024, according to federal data.

Terror suspect from Tajikistan illegally crossed border into San Diego, was let in by officers: sources

ICE agents are also being warned they will likely have more terror-related migrant arrests to make — including possibly more from the same group from Tajikistan.

nypost.com

 

[Gern Blansten]

Repeating myself.

Election subversion is outside the bounds of acceptable political disagreement for most people.

What is the equivalent Biden policy to election subversion for you? "Securing the border"? Most people recognize that dictating immigration policy falls within the executive branch's established authority and that reasonable disagreements on enforcement are permitted under our Constitutional framework. If you think the border needs more security that's an acceptable policy position we can disagree on. We even see Biden responding to democratic pressure on this issue changing policy.

There is no objective line here. But you're pretending the line either doesn't or shouldn't exist for most people.

What about sending your son to foreign countries peddling access to the leader of the free world for untold million$ deposited to family member's accounts? Everyone who goes to DC gets rich. How is that? They are all corrupt. Why do you turn a blind eye to all of Biden's faults?

 

[rowsdower88]

Once again, more obfuscation without answering any questions posed to you.

Would you say that all marriages that involve unfaithfulness are required to end in divorce and the unfaithful partner should never be trusted to marry again?

No.

Or, should the affected spouse be the one to decide, "Am I better off fighting to make this marriage work despite the imperfect situation?"

Yes. (In this analogy, Biden voters are the victims to Trump's "infidelity".)

If someone decides to try to make the marriage work, should they be deemed an idiot?

Maybe. Some people are trapped in bad marriages, others should leave when it becomes obvious.

If they walk away from that flawed marriage and then choose another spouse that is riddled with their own character and ethical flaws, is that okay?

What? Is it OK? What does this mean in the context of the analogy?

Who gets to decide the choices that person makes?

The aggrieved party.

Or should we sit in judgment of the choices that person makes?

I'm judging you for voting for Trump. I don't know who is judging who in your hypothetical now.

Do we have different life experiences and the right to freedom of choice? Or should a select few get to sit in judgment of all others and ridicule those who have differing views and opinions?

You've lost me.

 

[rowsdower88]

What about sending your son to foreign countries peddling access to the leader of the free world for untold million$ deposited to family member's accounts? Everyone who goes to DC gets rich. How is that? They are all corrupt. Why do you turn a blind eye to all of Biden's faults?

Joe Biden didn't "send" Hunter anywhere. Now you're spreading misinformation. Hunter got a job with Burisma likely trading on his dad's name. That's different from Joe Biden sending him there.

You listed a fault of Hunter Biden, not Joe Biden.

They are all corrupt? Everyone at DC gets rich? C'mon man, you're grasping at straws.

 

[Gern Blansten]

You've lost me.

The point is, your opinion and top priority does not have to be everyone else's. The heavy handed approach to force your opinion on others is not valid. That is not your right, nor is it socially acceptable. Your issues are your issues and you vote in support of those issues. Others will choose their issues and vote in support of them. You must accept their right to do so and they do not owe you any explanation.

 

[rowsdower88]

The point is, your opinion and top priority does not have to be everyone else's. The heavy handed approach to force your opinion on others is not valid. That is not your right, nor is it socially acceptable. Your issues are your issues and you vote in support of those issues. Others will choose their issues and vote in support of them. You must accept their right to do so and they do not owe you any explanation.

Some people are just ok with subverting elections. You are OK with it, it's an acceptable thing for a candidate to have pursued.

It's just different strokes for different folks right?

 

[UscGhost]

What about sending your son to foreign countries peddling access to the leader of the free world for untold million$ deposited to family member's accounts? Everyone who goes to DC gets rich. How is that? They are all corrupt. Why do you turn a blind eye to all of Biden's faults?

For a minute I thought you were referring to Kushner

Jared Kushner’s $2 Billion Investment From Saudi Arabia: What To Know After Republicans Delay Subpoena

Democrats want to investigate a $2 billion investment Kushner received from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund despite having “no experience in private equity.”

www.forbes.com

 

[Gern Blansten]

Joe Biden didn't "send" Hunter anywhere. Now you're spreading misinformation. Hunter got a job with Burisma likely trading on his dad's name. That's different from Joe Biden sending him there.

You listed a fault of Hunter Biden, not Joe Biden.

They are all corrupt? Everyone at DC gets rich? C'mon man, you're grasping at straws.

Why would Hunter Biden get a job he is wholly unqualified for with Burisma if it was not his Dad's intervening? Maybe he went on Ziprecruiter.com? I guess that is possible, but I don't think it is likely.

Show me a poor politician in DC. Nancy Pelosi has done nothing other than be a "public servant" at a modest salary. Yet her net worth is estimated to be in the $115-120 million range. You can even follow a site that tells you which stocks she buys so you can try and mimic her insider trading knowledge.

 

[Gern Blansten]

Some people are just ok with subverting elections. You are OK with it, it's an acceptable thing for a candidate to have pursued.

It's just different strokes for different folks right?

...while others are okay with politicians peddling their governmental policy influence to foreign enemies to build family wealth in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Ten percent for the big guy adds up quickly.

 

[rowsdower88]

Why would Hunter Biden get a job he is wholly unqualified for with Burisma if it was not his Dad's intervening?

Trading on his dad's name. Hunter is a dick. I'm not relitigating the burisma stuff with you, you can read the House Republican investigation if you're curious about what evidence exists against Joe (none).

Nancy Pelosi has done nothing other than be a "public servant" at a modest salary. Yet her net worth is estimated to be in the $115-120 million range.

What does Paul Pelosi do for work again?

 

[rowsdower88]

...while others are okay with politicians peddling their governmental policy influence to foreign enemies to build family wealth in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Ten percent for the big guy adds up quickly.

You haven't read the Republican House investigation despite the years they put into it. You're repeating accusations that have been made for the 3+ years they've been investigating and come up with nothing tied to Joe.

 

[pgg]

pgg admits he was a single issue voter related to gun right laws. He has now changed his stance and, it seems to me, he is adamant that all others arrive at the exact same conclusion as him, at the exact same moment as he did. He was adamant about gun rights as the most important issue, until he wasn't, and he expects that all others should arrive at the same conclusion exactly when he did. Is that reasonable or rational? I respect that he has changed his stance and has strong opinions, but it does not mean that I abandon all of my ideas in order to comply with his demands.

I just can't emphasize enough how different Trump is, compared to previous presidents and candidates.

Until him, Republicans and Democrats differed on issues but they all governed in comparably sane and measured ways. They all had competent staff around them, that didn't change every couple months because of a petulant firing or morally exhausted resignation.

They all maintained friendly and working relationships with allies, and even if the office flipped from R to D or D to R, there was a consistent and measured opposition to geopolitical adversaries, and a common thread of leadership.

Those presidents' shortcomings were mitigated by the professional, career administrators and diplomats that filled the executive branch with knowledge and experience. (Of course the MAGA cult calls this the "deep state" which is right in line with their contempt for facts, education, experience.) I didn't like a lot of Obama's policies, but I never doubted that his administration wouldn't tell NATO allies to go **** themselves. I didn't like a lot of GWB's policies, but I never doubted that his administration wouldn't blow up trade agreements for the sake of a photo op.

All of that was GONE with Trump. He sucks up to Putin and Kim Jong Un. He trashed functional trade agreements (Mexico, Pacific Rim) and "renegotiated" new ones that didn't actually advance our interests but gave him the chance to brag about his deal-making prowess at a press conference.

And all that is completely separate from his moral bankruptcy and constant lying / bull****tery.


So yeah. He's that awful, and that dangerous, and that different from all of his predecessors, that I have changed my voting priorities. I think the country can survive any bad policy Biden puts forth in his second term, especially with some checks and balances from Congress and SCOTUS. Same with our longstanding alliances and our position in the world in opposition to Russia, China, and other assorted bad actors.

The above just isn't likely with Trump. His cult is happy for him to tear down all of our international partnerships with his perversely stupid America-first rhetoric. Domestically it'll be a mess of flashy showy nothingness.


And then there's his unprecedented contempt for the rule of law, as he and his cult undermine our laws (the sad cries and lies about "weaponization of the DOJ").

There's his work to delegitimize our elections.

There's his criminal conviction, and other pending criminal cases.

He's an adjudicated rapist.


I don't expect you to abandon your ideas about policy preferences any more than I've abandoned my care for 2A rights.

I expect people - especially intelligent and reasoned people like you - to see him for what he is: an incompetent, immoral, unethical loser who poses unique dangers to our country that far outweigh any single or handful of policy goals.

And I expect you to care, also. That you don't is disappointing.

 

[BLADEMDA]

There you go. Biden makes his case. I am voting for Trump. Biden's policy on the border is worse than January 06 (my opinion).

 

[Gern Blansten]

What does Paul Pelosi do for work again?

I think he is an investment banker, so strategically invest based on his "knowledge?" I suspect that job was pretty easy when he knew all the moves needed days in advance, allegedly...

 

[rowsdower88]

I think he is an investment banker, so strategically invest based on his "knowledge?" I suspect that job was pretty easy when he knew all the moves needed days in advance, allegedly...

When the facts don't line up, let's just push some conspiracies.

Trump tactics 101

(Why are we even talking about the Nancy Pelosi?)