Biden allies say president is ‘sharp’

[probinson]

Saying there are subgroups of people on both sides who don't have a problem with disenfranchising voters will not make what Trump did the same as what Hillary didn't do.

Quibbling over the methods attempted to disenfranchise voters doesn't change the fact that both parties would be more than willing to disenfranchise voters if it means they'll win.

You just don't seem to get it. The REAL equivalency here is that both parties will pay lip service to our "democracy" as long as it means they win. But if they lose, neither side will have any problem doing whatever is necessary to make others believe the election was rigged, stolen, or otherwise illegitimate, which undermines trust in our democracy. Both parties are equally guilty of this.

Does that not bother you? Are you OK with this disenfranchisement of voters so long as it's peaceful? I just don't understand why you're downplaying the fact that Democrats and Republicans alike don't really care all that much about our democracy. They care mostly about obtaining and retaining power.

 

[childeye 2]

Quibbling over the methods attempted to disenfranchise voters doesn't change the fact that both parties would be more than willing to disenfranchise voters if it means they'll win.

It's not an established fact that both parties would be more than willing to disenfranchise voters to win. That's actually a negative prejudice amounting to cynicism. However, I'd agree with you that it's plausible and probable that there are some people on both sides that would be willing to do that.

You just don't seem to get it. The REAL equivalency here is that both parties will pay lip service to our "democracy" as long as it means they win. But if they lose, neither side will have any problem doing whatever is necessary to make others believe the election was rigged, stolen, or otherwise illegitimate, which undermines trust in our democracy. Both parties are equally guilty of this.

Does that not bother you? Are you OK with this disenfranchisement of voters so long as it's peaceful? I just don't understand why you're downplaying the fact that Democrats and Republicans alike don't really care all that much about our democracy. They care mostly about obtaining and retaining power.

Propaganda is about turning positives into negatives and negatives into positives, but more commonly it is used to make a positive or negative appear as neutral so that people can't tell the difference. God is not the author of confusion.

I want to be guided by truth and not falsehood., facts not propaganda. I don't want to count the innocent equal to the guilty, the self-serving as equal to the self-sacrificing, the bad equal to the good, or God as equal to the devil. To that end, framing this as an issue of Democrats vs. Republicans is already an error in reasoning because we're actually talking about honesty vs. dishonesty. This is a false equivalence----> Democrats vs. Republicans = Honesty vs. dishonesty.

Forget the party labels. Let's say there are two candidates, candidate A and candidate B.

Let's say that both A and B run in separate races and they both lose, and after losing they both proclaim their belief that the election was stolen/rigged.
At first glance they look like they're the same and equal in that respect. But if the belief of A turns out to be correct and their race actually was stolen and B is incorrect and their race wasn't actually stolen, then it's a false equivalency to say they're the same, because one is right and one is wrong about their belief.

Here's another aspect to consider, since both A and B have proclaimed their beliefs about their races being stolen, that means it was their opinion, and assuming those are honest opinions, even if one turns out to be correct and the other incorrect, neither one of them count as being a dishonest candidate.

But if either candidate claims they know the election was stolen and even blames people, then they're claiming it is a fact these people stole it, and that necessarily means they have seen the proof and can show everyone. But if we then witness them proceed to try and find the evidence to prove it after proclaiming they knew who stole it, they're dishonest.

Assuming both A and B are running to be entrusted with power doesn't necessarily make them the same. If one desires to hold power so as to be lifted up above all others and subjugate all others, that is completely different than someone who doesn't actually want such responsibilities but runs anyway only because they don't want someone to hold power who intends to subjugate all others beneath them.

 

[probinson]

It's not an established fact that both parties would be more than willing to disenfranchise voters to win. That's actually a negative prejudice amounting to cynicism. However, I'd agree with you that it's plausible and probable that there are some people on both sides that would be willing to do that.

So then you agree that both parties are willing to disenfranchise voters. Exactly what I said.

Of course, not EVERYONE in the party would do that, but there are enough in both parties for it to be a legitimate concern.

I want to be guided by truth and not falsehood

Most people do.

Forget the party labels. Let's say there are two candidates, candidate A and candidate B.

Let's say that both A and B run in separate races and they both lose, and after losing they both proclaim their belief that the election was stolen/rigged.
At first glance they look like they're the same and equal in that respect. But if the belief of A turns out to be correct and their race actually was stolen and B is incorrect and their race wasn't actually stolen, then it's a false equivalency to say they're the same.

Here's another aspect to consider, since both A and B have proclaimed their beliefs about their races being stolen, that means it was their opinion, and assuming those are honest opinions, even if one turns out to be correct and the other incorrect, neither one of them count as being a dishonest candidate.

Wow. This is not being "guided by truth". If someone says "The election was stolen!", that is not the same thing as saying "It is my opinion that the election was stolen."

But if either candidate claims they know the election was stolen and even blames people,

Which both Trump and Hillary did. Heck, Hillary wrote a book about al the people to blame and went on a media tour telling anyone who listen how the election was stolen from them. Trump, Gore and Hillary all have something in common; they all believe the election was stolen from them. They're all wrong.

then they're claiming it is a fact these people stole it, and that necessarily means they have seen the proof and can show everyone. But if they then proceed to try and find the evidence to prove it after proclaiming they know who stole it, they're dishonest.

Which both Trump and Hillary were.

Assuming both A and B are running to be entrusted with power doesn't necessarily make them the same. If one desires to hold power so as to be lifted up above all others and subjugate all others, that is different than someone who runs because they don't want someone to hold power who will subjugate all others.

Irrelevant. We're talking about the willingness of people to disenfranchise voters and ignore election results that they don't like. There is ample evidence that both parties are willing to do this.

Additionally, the over-the-top rhetoric and "opinions" about the "stolen elections" incite violence. In the case of Trump, we had January 6. In the case of Hillary, we had multiple violent riots all over the country.

There are consequences to baselessly stating that an election was "stolen" or that the candidate elected is "illegitimate". Both parties are guilty of this.

 

[childeye 2]

So then you agree that both parties are willing to disenfranchise voters. Exactly what I said.

No, I don't. That's cynicism, a negative prejudice.

Of course, not EVERYONE in the party would do that, but there are enough in both parties for it to be a legitimate concern.

Then don't say both parties if you don't mean everyone. Respectfully, you should include qualifiers so as to not denote inaccuracies in your articulation. Even better, don't frame it as Republican vs. Democrat and make it carnal warfare in your psycholinguistics, since in reality it's about honesty vs. dishonesty.

Note that Republican/Democrat is not even a true dichotomy, but Honesty/dishonesty is a true dichotomy. I hope you pay attention here; Honesty is a virtue therefore when we reason upon this dichotomy ---->Honesty/dishonesty, we're looking at, and discerning, a spiritual war and not a carnal minded war.

Most people do.

I was responding to this:
I just don't understand why you're downplaying the fact that Democrats and Republicans alike don't really care all that much about our democracy.

Wow. This is not being "guided by truth". If someone says "The election was stolen!", that is not the same thing as saying "It is my opinion that the election was stolen."

That's why I qualified my hypothetical with belief and know; to make the distinction that they are not equal.

Which both Trump and Hillary did. Heck, Hillary wrote a book about al the people to blame and went on a media tour telling anyone who listen how the election was stolen from them. Trump, Gore and Hillary all have something in common; they all believe the election was stolen from them. They're all wrong.

This response is inconsistent in its articulation. First, you're making blank assertions; show me facts. Show me Hillary claiming definitively that she won.

Secondly, you say above: Trump, Gore and Hillary all have something in common; they all believe the election was stolen from them.

When just prior to that you said: "Which both Trump and Hillary did"....in response to: Childeye: "But if either candidate claims they know the election was stolen and even blames people,..."

They can't both be true. So did they claim to believe, or did they claim to know?

Use "believe" when you mean opinion, and use "know' when you mean fact.
Believe=know is a false equivalency.

Which both Trump and Hillary were.

I know Trump was. I never saw nor heard Hillary doing that.

Irrelevant. We're talking about the willingness of people to disenfranchise voters and ignore election results that they don't like. There is ample evidence that both parties are willing to do this.

I'm discerning the devil from God in people's thoughts and sentiments, not parties. It's therefore relevant, because a person who is self-serving, and desires to hold power, so as to be lifted up above all others, and subjugate all others beneath them, is Satanic and dishonest.

Additionally, the over-the-top rhetoric and "opinions" about the "stolen elections" incite violence. In the case of Trump, we had January 6. In the case of Hillary, we had multiple violent riots all over the country.

I doubt anyone can prove someone incited violence by voicing an opinion. One would have to convince others of a definitive right and wrong so as to justify violence. Trump's intent is to manipulate people's minds, so he stated definitively that it was stolen, and therefore he was not articulating an opinion that the election was stolen.

Trump:
Today we see a very important event though. Because right over there, right there, we see the event going to take place. And I'm going to be watching. Because history is going to be made. We're going to see whether or not we have great and courageous leaders, or whether or not we have leaders that should be ashamed of themselves throughout history, throughout eternity they'll be ashamed.

And you know what? If they do the wrong thing, we should never, ever forget that they did. Never forget. We should never ever forget.

We must stop the steal and then we must ensure that such outrageous election fraud never happens again, can never be allowed to happen again.

Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.

 

[probinson]

No, I don't. That's cynicism, a negative prejudice.

It is not. Both parties have demonstrated their willingness to disenfranchise voters. No one has succeeded yet, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't do it in a heartbeat if they could.

Then don't say both parties if you don't mean everyone.

When one says "Republicans" and "Democrats", they are generic terms. Of course any rational human being would understand that generalizations are common and by definition are not necessarily indicative of the entire group. Perhaps you should give some of that benefit of the doubt that you're touting to those you speak with.

Respectfully, you should include qualifiers so as to not denote inaccuracies in your articulation. Even better, don't frame it as Republican vs. Democrat and make it carnal warfare in your psycholinguistics, since in reality it's about honesty vs. dishonesty.

Not really. It's about a willingness to disenfranchise voters, which both parties have shown they are willing to do.

Note that Republican/Democrat is not even a true dichotomy, but Honesty/dishonesty is a true dichotomy. I hope you pay attention here; Honesty is a virtue therefore when we reason upon this dichotomy ---->Honesty/dishonesty, we're looking at, and discerning, a spiritual war and not a carnal minded war.

You're working very hard to misunderstand my point.

This response is inconsistent in its articulation. First, you're making blank assertions; show me facts. Show me Hillary claiming definitively that she won.

I did. Then you reprimanded me for providing you with copious video clips showing Democrats definitively claiming that the election was stolen and that Trump was an illegitimate president.

Secondly, you say above: Trump, Gore and Hillary all have something in common; they all believe the election was stolen from them.

When just prior to that you said: "Which both Trump and Hillary did"....in response to: Childeye: "But if either candidate claims they know the election was stolen and even blames people,..."

They can't both be true. So did they claim to believe, or did they claim to know?

Use "believe" when you mean opinion, and use "know' when you mean fact.
Believe=know is a false equivalency.

C'mon man. If you claim that something was STOLEN from you, you're saying that you know you're the rightful winner. This distinction you're trying to make between "believing" the election was stolen and "knowing" the election was stolen is foolishness. Straining at gnats and not seeing the forest though the trees comes to mind.

I know Trump was. I never saw nor heard Hillary doing that.

You never heard Hillary claim the election was stolen from her? I do not believe that's true.

I'm discerning the devil from God in people's thoughts and sentiments, not parties. It's therefore relevant, because a person who is self-serving, and desires to hold power, so as to be lifted up above all others, and subjugate all others beneath them, is Satanic and dishonest.

Well there it is. You believe Trump is Satanic. Alrighty then.

I doubt anyone can prove someone incited violence by voicing an opinion. One would have to convince others of a definitive right and wrong so as to justify violence. Trump's intent is to manipulate people's minds, so he stated definitively that it was stolen, and therefore he was not articulating an opinion that the election was stolen.

Hillary shouted from the rooftops that the election was stolen from her. She said that Trump was an illegitimate president. She led people to believe that they had been disenfranchised despite no credible evidence. There was an entire chorus of Democrats saying the same thing. That's why there were violent riots.

Trump did the same thing. Both of these politicians incited violent riots with their baseless accusations.

 

[childeye 2]

It is not. Both parties have demonstrated their willingness to disenfranchise voters. No one has succeeded yet, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't do it in a heartbeat if they could.

First of all, I can't agree because your articulation is too broad of a brush, lumping in the honest with the dishonest. It therefore creates a false premise, so why not Just fix it to accommodate this distinction between the honest and dishonest?

See this line: "No one has succeeded yet, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't do it in a heartbeat if they could". <---- It's cynicism.

cyn·i·cism
[ˈsinəˌsizəm]

NOUN

1. an inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest; skepticism:

To compound the problem, you add another layer to the over generalization by using the word "demonstrated" (past tense), which is just a blank and blanket assertion when you can't demonstrate any evidence showing every single democrat and Republican having demonstrated the willingness to lie, cheat and steal. In scripture Devil = accuser/slanderer.

Because of the fake elector scheme, I can agree some people in the Republican party have demonstrated a willingness to disenfranchise voters. But then again in that same event, I've also seen that some people in the Republican party have demonstrated an unwillingness to do so. Willingness = Unwillingness is a false equivalence. Thats why to be honest, I can't just accept the premise that they're all the same because that would be knowingly accepting something false.

I have not seen democrats do any such scheme, but since dishonesty and covetousness is a common disability in mankind, I can be certain that being Democrat doesn't make someone immune from sin, so I think it's safe to assume that there could be some dishonest Democrats capable of cheating in that party too.

When one says "Republicans" and "Democrats", they are generic terms. Of course any rational human being would understand that generalizations are common and by definition are not necessarily indicative of the entire group. Perhaps you should give some of that benefit of the doubt that you're touting to those you speak with.

What's rational about using so broad a brush you end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater? And who exactly do you expect me to give the benefit of the doubt to, the Republicans and Democrats you end up maligning all together, or you who I know is using too broad a brush?

Not really. It's about a willingness to disenfranchise voters,

Yes REALLY. Because being Republican or Democrat will never factor into any determination for what constitutes a willingness to disenfranchise voters any more than having white or black skin determines who wants to enslave others. To think it does is a negative prejudice. The Truth is that one must FIRST have to be dishonest to have any willingness to disenfranchise voters. Like I said honesty is a virtue, and we have to believe that people who desire to be honest do exist, otherwise we're dishonest.

which both parties have shown they are willing to do.

Too broad of a brush and a blank assertion.

You're working very hard to misunderstand my point.

It seems to me that you want to make Democrats just as bad as Republicans in the knowledge that Trump tried to disenfranchise voters, but why? After all, not all Republicans were complicit nor does voting for an honest Republican necessarily equate with dishonesty.

It's possible that the devil wants to deceive you or others into believing Biden would do the same as Trump if given the chance although that's slanderous, or that the Republicans that show fealty to Trump should not be voted out because Democrats do the same thing.

The point is that you should not accept any articulation in thought that has a false premise, because other lies can be built upon that premise, which is why such a broad brush allows blanket assertions.

I did. Then you reprimanded me for providing you with copious video clips showing Democrats definitively claiming that the election was stolen and that Trump was an illegitimate president.

If you're talking about the video you showed to Via Crucis, it's propaganda.

C'mon man. If you claim that something was STOLEN from you, you're saying that you know you're the rightful winner.

That's not true if the claim is articulated as a belief/opinion. I watched the video, there are snippets of people saying the words "stolen" and "election". It doesn't prove anything because it doesn't provide the generative syntax. The qualifiers for whether someone is saying it's their opinion could be intentionally omitted. Someone might have said, "a person CAN have an election stolen", but the snippet only shows the person saying, "election stolen". And what about Hillary? She could be saying she THINKS Trump is illegitimate because of Russian interference, which is a valid argument, but it still infers a possibility.

This distinction you're trying to make between "believing" the election was stolen and "knowing" the election was stolen is foolishness. Straining at gnats and not seeing the forest though the trees comes to mind.

No, it's not foolish to know the difference between a belief/suspicion and a provable fact whether an election was stolen. In sound reasoning it makes the differences between whether one is lying, telling the truth, or just stating an opinion.

You never heard Hillary claim the election was stolen from her? I do not believe that's true.

Nope, I've heard her express things like she "feels" it was unfair, or that elections can be stolen.

Well there it is. You believe Trump is Satanic. Alrighty then.

Saying someone is Satanic could be taken to mean they worship Satan. I believe Satan deceives people into doing what's against their own best interests, so I'd say Trump is carnal-minded and doesn't even see a spiritual war. I'd also add that anyone who deceives others are their selves deceived. My point is that in a government for the people and by the people, we need to vote for honest people who run for office to be servants of the people, and not people who project that they want power so as to have the people show fealty to them.

Hillary shouted from the rooftops that the election was stolen from her. She said that Trump was an illegitimate president. She led people to believe that they had been disenfranchised despite no credible evidence.

We know that Russia interfered in Trumps favor, and I've seen Hillary complain about that and voter suppression creating an unfair contest. Can you provide something other than snippets of moments to show where she knows it was stolen as a provable fact?

 

[probinson]

...

I think we're done with this line of discussion. I don't even know what your point is any more, and you're just saying the same things over and over again. In my opinion, you are spinning crazier than my washer on ultra-fast spin mode, which is certainly your prerogative, but it's making me dizzy.

So I'll let you have the last word on that (if you want it), and return to the original topic.

If you listen to Democrats, they like to talk about how "sharp" Biden is, and how when they're in meetings, they can't keep up with him. This is laughable nonsense to anyone with functioning eyeballs. Anyone who has watched Biden knows that there isn't anyone having trouble keeping up with him in any context. The more they protest, the more ridiculous it gets.

The Democrats know they have a problem in a wildly unpopular candidate in mental decline. That's why they're trying to gaslight the public into thinking everything is fine. Anyone here old enough to remember Baghdad Bob? That's what this whole thing feels like every time KJP walks up to the podium.

The Republicans have a prime opportunity to take back the presidency that they are absolutely squandering by choosing to run Trump, who is also wildly unpopular. And so, it seems voters will once again have two horrendous choices in November.