Vid of Biden admit bribe of Ukrainian Pres. to fire prosecutor investigating son

[TwitchySeal]

When you are proven wrong, you just claim you didn't say that.  Even when there's an actual record of you saying it.  You just claim you didn't say that and insult anyone who says otherwise.  Are you actually convincing yourself that you didn't say it?

I said what I said, not what you want to interpret my words to mean. I don't give a fuck how convinced you are or how many of your buddies you call to stand around in a circle to jerk off your confirmation bias.

Did you say that Joe Biden admitted to a bribe of the Ukrainian President?

[1714761174]

1714761174

[1714761174]

1714761174

[1714761174]

1714761174

[1714761174]

1714761174

[TECSHARE]

Did you say that Joe Biden admitted to a bribe of the Ukrainian President?

Yes, I did, because he is on tape admitting to a quid pro quo, threatening to withhold tax payer funds in exchange for him firing the lead prosecutor looking into the Burisma Holdings case, of which his son was directly involved. I look forward to your semantic gymnastics.

[TwitchySeal]

Did you say that Joe Biden admitted to a bribe of the Ukrainian President?

Yes, I did, because he is on tape admitting to a quid pro quo, threatening to withhold tax payer funds in exchange for him firing the lead prosecutor looking into the Burisma Holdings case, of which his son was directly involved. I look forward to your semantic gymnastics.

Do you think Hillary is a criminal?

[nutildah]

Its hard to have a debate with someone who is physically incapable of admitting when they are wrong about something. The article linked in your opening post contained several inaccuracies and you stand by them all. You got caught posting flat out inaccurate "news" articles twice and you failed to acknowledge their inaccuracies. There's simply no debating you because you won't stand for rational criticism of your argument. You think posting a slew of personal attacks suffices for a counterargument. It doesn't.

[TECSHARE]

Did you say that Joe Biden admitted to a bribe of the Ukrainian President?

Yes, I did, because he is on tape admitting to a quid pro quo, threatening to withhold tax payer funds in exchange for him firing the lead prosecutor looking into the Burisma Holdings case, of which his son was directly involved. I look forward to your semantic gymnastics.

Do you think Hillary is a criminal?

She is absolutely and demonstrably a criminal. Just because she was not prosecuted doesn't change this. It is a matter of public record she knowingly over time was responsible for a pattern of allowing classified material to enter into the hands of multiple parties not cleared to receive it. This is a crime under federal law. There is so much more, but this particular accusation is not even debatable.

Its hard to have a debate with someone who is physically incapable of admitting when they are wrong about something. The article linked in your opening post contained several inaccuracies and you stand by them all. You got caught posting flat out inaccurate "news" articles twice and you failed to acknowledge their inaccuracies. There's simply no debating you because you won't stand for rational criticism of your argument. You think posting a slew of personal attacks suffices for a counterargument. It doesn't.

You don't care about any of this Nutilduhhh, just admit it. You have had a tiny little boner for me for some time. This is personal, not about debate, as demonstrated by your introducing unrelated forum matters into these discussions here, and political discussions into those unrelated forum matter discussions in other parts of the forum. You and your little friends are obsessed with me because I refuse to allow you collectively or individually to brow beat me into silence or compliance, thus you are compelled to try to get your narcissistic supply via any means necessary because my mere existence is a threat to your fragile state by introducing painful self awareness and cognitive dissonance.

I am not even sure what you are referencing, but I am not responsible for supporting EVERY SINGLE point in EVERY reference material I produce, that is just fucking insane. If you want to debate a specific point, fine, reference it. This generalized bullshit is meaningless and just you throwing shit like a chimp. I don't rely on personal attacks in lieu of an argument. My personal attacks are almost always accompanied by a logical argument first, then a nice parting shot for those who also engage in such personal attacks, such as yourself. There are plenty of people who disagree with me on this forum and engage in rational debate that I don't attack personally. You know why? Because they stick to debating me instead of fishing for turds out of their toilet bowl to throw.

[TwitchySeal]

Did you say that Joe Biden admitted to a bribe of the Ukrainian President?

Yes, I did, because he is on tape admitting to a quid pro quo, threatening to withhold tax payer funds in exchange for him firing the lead prosecutor looking into the Burisma Holdings case, of which his son was directly involved. I look forward to your semantic gymnastics.

Do you think Hillary is a criminal?

She is absolutely and demonstrably a criminal. .

Do you think Trump has a conflict of interest with Turkey because of Trump Tower Istanbul?

[TECSHARE]

Do you think Trump has a conflict of interest with Turkey because of Trump Tower Istanbul?

I am not playing your little Playskool prosecutor game. If you have a point make it. I made my views clear already in spite of your denials.

[TwitchySeal]

Did you say that Joe Biden admitted to a bribe of the Ukrainian President?

Yes, I did, because he is on tape admitting to a quid pro quo, threatening to withhold tax payer funds in exchange for him firing the lead prosecutor looking into the Burisma Holdings case, of which his son was directly involved. I look forward to your semantic gymnastics.

Do you think Hillary is a criminal?

She is absolutely and demonstrably a criminal. .

Do you think Trump has a conflict of interest with Turkey because of Trump Tower Istanbul?

I am not playing your little Playskool prosecutor game. If you have a point make it. I made my views clear already in spite of your denials.

You know, nobody would think less of you if you were to be critical of a politician you support.  It's pretty clear you have pledged total and blind allegiance to Trump -  If someone is critical of Trump, they are against you so you will attack them.  If someone is critical of Trumps opponents, they will be on your side and you will defend them.

If someone asks you if Trumps opponents are bad, you'll be happy to explain how bad they really are.

If someone asks you about a specific negative aspect of Trump that you know to be true, you will attack that person rather than simply answering.  It's borderline religious level with you.  Like if you say something bad about him, something bad will happen to you.

This kind of mentality makes you oblivious to what's actually happening.  You're missing out on all the negative aspect of one side, and all the positives of the other and it just makes your perception more and more polarized.  

[TECSHARE]

You know, nobody would think less of you if you were to be critical of a politician you support.  It's pretty clear you have pledged total and blind allegiance to Trump -  If someone is critical of Trump, they are against you so you will attack them.  If someone is critical of Trumps opponents, they will be on your side and you will defend them.

If someone asks you if Trumps opponents are bad, you'll be happy to explain how bad they really are.

If someone asks you about a specific negative aspect of Trump that you know to be true, you will attack that person rather than simply answering.  It's borderline religious level with you.  Like if you say something bad about him, something bad will happen to you.

This kind of mentality makes you oblivious to what's actually happening. You're missing out on all the negative aspect of one side, and all the positives of the other and it just makes your perception more and more polarized.  

There are plenty of things I don't like about Trump, but this thread isn't about Trump. Save the impartiality and psychoanalysis act. You are desperate to change the focus of discussion from Biden to Trump. It has been the constant theme of your posts in this thread here along with accusing me of everything you are doing. You know what I'm going to do now? That's right...

[Viper1]

It's pretty clear you have pledged total and blind allegiance to Trump

You mean "Dear Leader".

[Spendulus]

It's pretty clear you have pledged total and blind allegiance to Trump

You mean "Dear Leader".
... ridiculous image deleted ...

Mis direction is a debate tactic used when you've already lost the factual argument

The thread title is ... Re: Vid of Biden admit bribe of Ukrainian Pres. to fire prosecutor investigating son

I've watched the video, and Joe Biden appears pretty proud of how he pushed that guy around.

[Viper1]

I've watched the video, and Joe Biden appears pretty proud of how he pushed that guy around.

He is and he exagerates about it as well. But it's still not proof of what is being claimed.

[Spendulus]

I've watched the video, and Joe Biden appears pretty proud of how he pushed that guy around.

He is and he exagerates about it as well. But it's still not proof of what is being claimed.

We've already discussed the need or lack of, and the misdirection of claiming a need for "proof."

[Viper1]

I've watched the video, and Joe Biden appears pretty proud of how he pushed that guy around.

He is and he exagerates about it as well. But it's still not proof of what is being claimed.

We've already discussed the need or lack of, and the misdirection of claiming a need for "proof."

So anything you have to say on the matter is worthless cause you only deal in opinion, feelings and theories. Gotcha.

[Spendulus]

I've watched the video, and Joe Biden appears pretty proud of how he pushed that guy around.

He is and he exagerates about it as well. But it's still not proof of what is being claimed.

We've already discussed the need or lack of, and the misdirection of claiming a need for "proof."

So anything you have to say on the matter is worthless cause you only deal in opinion, feelings and theories. Gotcha.

Actually I have the opposite point of view, that your petty continual demands for "proof" cause anything you say on the matter to be worthless.

Particularly since Trumps asking their leader to look into the matter is so terribly objectionable to the left. I guess if you favor obfuscating and stalling any attempt to get at the truth, while continually demanding proof, some people might think you were a pretty smart dude.

I'd say that's just bullshit legal tactics.

[TwitchySeal]

I've watched the video, and Joe Biden appears pretty proud of how he pushed that guy around.

He is and he exagerates about it as well. But it's still not proof of what is being claimed.

We've already discussed the need or lack of, and the misdirection of claiming a need for "proof."

So anything you have to say on the matter is worthless cause you only deal in opinion, feelings and theories. Gotcha.

Actually I have the opposite point of view, that your petty continual demands for "proof" cause anything you say on the matter to be worthless.

Particularly since Trumps asking their leader to look into the matter is so terribly objectionable to the left. I guess if you favor obfuscating and stalling any attempt to get at the truth, while continually demanding proof, some people might think you were a pretty smart dude.

I'd say that's just bullshit legal tactics.

He's proud of getting the guy fired because it was something that the rest of the G8 and most of our allies were already pushing for.  It was a victory for us and a defeat for Russia.

[Spendulus]

....
He's proud of getting the guy fired because it was something that the rest of the G8 and most of our allies were already pushing for.  It was a victory for us and a defeat for Russia.

If that's true, then that's exactly what Zelensky will report to Trump or Guiliani.

Fine with me.

But I certainly wouldn't take your word for it. I think I'd like to hear it from Zelensky.

Do you have any problem with that? (I don't care if you do or do not, just curious.)

[TECSHARE]

He's proud of getting the guy fired because it was something that the rest of the G8 and most of our allies were already pushing for.  It was a victory for us and a defeat for Russia.

For the sake of argument, lets assume that is true. Does this exclude the possibility he did this primarily for self serving reasons?

[TwitchySeal]

He's proud of getting the guy fired because it was something that the rest of the G8 and most of our allies were already pushing for.  It was a victory for us and a defeat for Russia.

For the sake of argument, lets assume that is true. Does this exclude the possibility he did this primarily for self serving reasons?

No.

[TECSHARE]

He's proud of getting the guy fired because it was something that the rest of the G8 and most of our allies were already pushing for.  It was a victory for us and a defeat for Russia.

For the sake of argument, lets assume that is true. Does this exclude the possibility he did this primarily for self serving reasons?

No.

Then why make a non-sequitur argument to begin with?