Why Biden Will Win

[HisArpy]

Sorry dipshit, but as an example - genetic parentage is a fact that can be in conflict with the legal status.

Someone who committed murder but gets off on a technicality, like say the police mixed up evidence, still in fact is a murderer, regardless of what the legal outcome is in court.

Actually, no it can't. If a court says that someone is the genetic parent, then that's a fact. Legal status has zero fucks to do with it because that's a construct.

For instance, someone can be a genetic parent and have no legal status as a parent (because parental rights were terminated). Both of those things are FACTS.

See, your problem is that you have issues with facts. You have feelings and beliefs which you'd very much like to be factual, but they're not. They're only your feelings and beliefs.

Which is why you have TDS and why you cannot see that you're in conflict with yourself when it comes to reality.

 

[adrina]

The age of the 2 candidates was an issue for lots of people Adrina, you know this.

It’s not a media fail to report this simple fact.

Biden flubbing whilst on camera isn’t the broadcasters fault, not is their fault that people seem to not care that Trump says weird shit too.

And again, the one sided focus. You are reflecting the media driven narrative.

It IS a media fail when they lazer focus in on one issue with one while ignoring the giant neon albatross around the neck of the other.

 

[HisArpy]

And the big question now, for Harris, if she ends up being the one, is funding. When will sget get it, where from, and will it be enough to even allow her to put up a fight?Obviously the MSM will give her a LOT of free air time, but still, ads ARE important for visibility....and $'s for running campaign. Biden's funding does not automatically switch to Harris.

Federal Election Commission (FEC) Chairman Sean Cooksey announced today (Sunday) that all donations made to Joe Biden for the November election “shall be either returned or refunded” or redesignated “as appropriate” following his departure from the presidential race. The exceptions and loopholes for redesignating or reattributing the funds are clearly covered in the regulations. They all need to be done in writing, and that will take time. Since Biden had not yet formally been nominated he may not be legally able transfer his $100 million fighting fund to Harris. Before the nomination officially goes to Mr. Biden, his campaign is limited to donating $2,000 to the Democratic nominee, whether that new standard bearer is Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer or Ms. Harris.

The Biden for President campaign states that the committee was the principal campaign committee for both Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris. At the time nobody had reason to question that maneuver, and if at the Democratic convention Biden and Harris emerged as their party’s nominees, then there won’t be a need to challenge the premature designation. If, however, Mr. Biden were to drop out before being nominated and attempt an unprecedented and possibly illegal unlimited transfer of funds to Ms. Harris, the courts would likely interpret the plain language of the statute to prohibit such a contribution.

If President Biden is committed to passing the torch to his vice president, and wants to be able to seed her campaign with the current Biden for President campaign war chest, he’ll first have to become his party’s legal nominee. After shuffling through the Democratic National Committee’s planned roll call vote he’d be free to drop out. Ms. Harris could seamlessly slip into the driver’s seat. That’s a risky strategy, as it requires maintaining an obvious fiction under intense public scrutiny for another six weeks.

OMG this is going to be fun to watch.

The briefing on the issues is going to be epic. Lots of "expert" witness declarations saying this or that according to their political ideology and who is paying them to spout it.

On the one hand I'd love to have the courts listen and decide that the rules are the rules and Harris doesn't get the war chest.

On the other hand, I'd prefer that the convention go off smoothly so that Trump can trounce their Democrat butts no matter who they pick.


However, the one thing we can all be assured of; Lit's progressives will get their panties twisted tighter than a tourniquet with a 3 foot long cheater bar.

 

[HisArpy]

^^ The key is to force Donny out.

Your team tried that, the shooter missed.

 

[AlexBailey]

That is awesome. I am very happy to hear that. Sincerely.

I really like that one called you.

Thank you for telling me. I really do appreciate it.

Now just make sure they follow up with their enthusiasm and get to the polls.

I can’t hold my kids’ hands anymore, especially since they

Actually, no it can't. If a court says that someone is the genetic parent, then that's a fact. Legal status has zero fucks to do with it because that's a construct.

For instance, someone can be a genetic parent and have no legal status as a parent (because parental rights were terminated). Both of those things are FACTS.

See, your problem is that you have issues with facts. You have feelings and beliefs which you'd very much like to be factual, but they're not. They're only your feelings and beliefs.

Which is why you have TDS and why you cannot see that you're in conflict with yourself when it comes to reality.

Sigh. Yes, you kind of get it even if you can’t fully understand your own words.

Legal status is a construct, not necessarily fact.

It is possible for someone to have factually committed illegal acts even if they were not convicted of doing them.

I have very valid reasons for disliking and distrusting Trump. Do you have complete faith in the man?

Unlike your shilling to your political interests I can be honest about mine. I both respect Joe Biden and think he is having issues with cognitive decline.

 

[AlexBailey]

Your team tried that, the shooter missed.

You mean the factually republican registered shooter?

 

[ShandyLeer]

And again, the one sided focus. You are reflecting the media driven narrative.

It IS a media fail when they lazer focus in on one issue with one while ignoring the giant neon albatross around the neck of the other.

They aren’t ignoring any of Trumps gaffes, errors, lies or whatever. They’re there for all to see and hear - the debate, his rallies, his interviews. It’s all there.

But you’re holding media responsible for how the parties - or the viewing public - respond, or in Trumps case don’t respond, to what they broadcast.

The reality is Biden caused a panic in the influential ranks that resulted in todays news.

 

[adrina]

I can’t hold my kids’ hands anymore, especially since they

I'm in the hold everyone I know accountable to vote camp. Cuz I'm a pain in the ass.

 

[adrina]

They aren’t ignoring any of Trumps gaffes, errors, lies or whatever. They’re there for all to see and hear - the debate, his rallies, his interviews. It’s all there.

But you’re holding media responsible for how the parties - or the viewing public - respond, or in Trumps case don’t respond, to what they broadcast.

The reality is Biden caused a panic in the influential ranks that resulted in todays news.

You're going in circles and your blatant lack of willingness to hold the media accountable is a non-starter.

If you wish to continue this "discussion", have fun. I am bowing out due to lack of acceptance of reasonable givens by my "debate" "opponent".

 

[RobDownSouth]

Yup, that’s the day up to lunchtime. Then a nice nap. Then bed.

Thinking back to many of the days of convicted felon Donald J. Trump's one-term presidency, when the hours of 7 a.m to 11 a.m. were blocked off as "Executive Time" (i.e. the dotard watches Fox 'n Friends et al) and all the four day extended "working" (i.e. golf) trips.

 

[HisArpy]

I can’t hold my kids’ hands anymore, especially since they


Sigh. Yes, you kind of get it even if you can’t fully understand your own words.

Legal status is a construct, not necessarily fact.

It is possible for someone to have factually committed illegal acts even if they were not convicted of doing them.

I have very valid reasons for disliking and distrusting Trump. Do you have complete faith in the man?

Unlike your shilling to your political interests I can be honest about mine. I both respect Joe Biden and think he is having issues with cognitive decline.

Legal decisions are FACT. For instance, "Corporations are people" is a legal construct. Thus, in FACT, they are people.

Or do you wish to try to tell the SCOTUS that they're wrong when they decided that?

 

[JoePepsiCo]

What's he going to win?

 

[adrina]

SCOTUS was wrong for deciding that.

There, that was easy.

 

[HisArpy]

SCOTUS was wrong for deciding that.

There, that was easy.

Lol, if only...

 

[HisArpy]

What's he going to win?

A Kewpie doll at the carnival of dreams.

 

[adrina]

They were also wrong about the immunity ruling.

And Dobbs.

In fact they've been wrong about all sorts of things. But at least 5 of them aren't real jurists. They're heritage foundation "judges". So, partisan bench legislators.

 

[HisArpy]

They were also wrong about the immunity ruling.

And Dobbs.

In fact they've been wrong about all sorts of things. But at least 5 of them aren't real jurists. They're heritage foundation "judges". So, partisan bench legislators.

I think I mentioned that we'd be seeing all kinds of rants from those who made decisions in haste as things fall apart for them.

I just didn't realize that the ranting had already started.

 

[adrina]

I think I mentioned that we'd be seeing all kinds of rants from those who made decisions in haste as things fall apart for them.

I just didn't realize that the ranting had already started.

Jeez you are truly boring.

Yawn.

 

[Pad_Foot]

Always vote FOR something, never merely against something. That's democracy, not corruption.

Unless you are voting for corruption
You aren’t, so congrats
You are just allowing it to rot America
We need money out of politics
This means a few justices need impeaching
Guess who won’t do that ?

 

[AlexBailey]

Legal decisions are FACT.

Oh cool!

So you finally admit that someone who has transitioned from male to female and had their birth certificate and identification legally changed is in FACT female.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I think I mentioned that we'd be seeing all kinds of rants from those who made decisions in haste as things fall apart for them.

I just didn't realize that the ranting had already started.

Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 and withstood many attempts to overturn it for 49 years.

49 years of decided case law does not appear to be a decision made "in haste".

Blithely overturning Roe to enact a desired political outcome strikes me as the epitome of the ends justifying the means.

I recognize that your desperate need to rationalize the Supreme Court's newfound habit of throwing out decades of Stare Decisis (precedent) to "legislate from the bench" requires tortuous legal interpretation of case law , i.e. a man found responsible for sexual abuse is technically "innocent" because he is a "responsible sexual abuser".

 

[HisArpy]

Oh cool!

So you finally admit that someone who has transitioned from male to female and had their birth certificate and identification legally changed is in FACT female.

Yup. Just like how the court said that abortion is a States Rights issue. Or that transgenderism is a mental illness.

What I don't get is how you don't EVER understand what my position is. I stand for the law. If the law says something is a fact, then I'm in agreement with that.

OTOH, if the law says something isn't a fact, then I'm not going to go all fucking hairbrained stupid trying to tell everyone the court is wrong.

You know, like you do.

 

[AlexBailey]

Yup. Just like how the court said that abortion is a States Rights issue. Or that transgenderism is a mental illness.

What I don't get is how you don't EVER understand what my position is. I stand for the law. If the law says something is a fact, then I'm in agreement with that.

OTOH, if the law says something isn't a fact, then I'm not going to go all fucking hairbrained stupid trying to tell everyone the court is wrong.

You know, like you do.

I’m talking about actual provable facts, and how law is a construct.

I understand your position and am pointing out how it is based on a construct, not actual reality.

Trump is a criminal. That’s a legal and actual fact. He mishandled classified documents - we’ve all seen him speaking about it, falsely claiming he had declassified them, claiming he had the right to keep them when he did not. Having the case dismissed does not take his words and admissions out of public knowledge.

The fact is that voters know the facts from Trumps own words.

Trump lies about the 2020 election being stolen. The investigations in several states have proven that he was lying, courts dismissed all of his legal claims.

You spin. You do not honestly represent fact, you represent legal positions that cast your opinion in the best light. That’s what you, as an attorney and a forum member , do.

 

[HisArpy]

I’m talking about actual provable facts, and how law is a construct.

I understand your position and am pointing out how it is based on a construct, not actual reality.

Trump is a criminal. That’s a legal and actual fact. He mishandled classified documents - we’ve all seen him speaking about it, falsely claiming he had declassified them, claiming he had the right to keep them when he did not. Having the case dismissed does not take his words and admissions out of public knowledge.

The fact is that voters know the facts from Trumps own words.

Trump lies about the 2020 election being stolen. The investigations in several states have proven that he was lying, courts dismissed all of his legal claims.

You spin. You do not honestly represent fact, you represent legal positions that cast your opinion in the best light. That’s what you, as an attorney, do.

Yawn, more fake drivel designed to promote a political narrative.

Yes Trump was convicted 34 times. What you don't include is the FACT that he hasn't been sentenced because the court is wrestling with the issue of immunity and that most of the testimony against Trump violates that immunity.

So, instead of citing FACTS, what you do is stop short and repeat a bumper sticker slogan because if the full TRUTH were told you'd have to admit that what you say isn't actually the truth, it's a HALF truth. Which means it's not a "fact" even though you want it to be.

So again I tell you that I stand for the law and I speak TRUTH and FACTS, not half truths or biased viewpoints masquerading as truth and fact. For instance, I have no issues with saying Trump was convicted 34 times for multiple felonies because that's a fact. However, in order for that fact to be the truth, I must include the more than likely possibility that those convictions will get an order of vacatur. Something you do not do. Why? Because it defeats your narrative.

I also have no issues with saying that Trump was found liable in the E. Jean Carroll case. What I WILL NOT do, which you and others like you actually do, is say he is a convicted rapist because that's a flat out lie. And of course I also include the statement that I believe the verdict will be overturned on appeal. Anyone who understands that the court reducing his bond amount will also understand why they did it.

These are things you don't have to like. What you have to do is accept them. That you refuse to do that only shows how desperate you are to find something/anything derogatory to say because YOU CANNOT ADMIT TO THE TRUTH.

Which is something that's all on you and only you.

 

[AlexBailey]

Yawn, more fake drivel designed to promote a political narrative.

Yes Trump was convicted 34 times. What you don't include is the FACT that he hasn't been sentenced because the court is wrestling with the issue of immunity and that most of the testimony against Trump violates that immunity.

So, instead of citing FACTS, what you do is stop short and repeat a bumper sticker slogan because if the full TRUTH were told you'd have to admit that what you say isn't actually the truth, it's a HALF truth. Which means it's not a "fact" even though you want it to be.

So again I tell you that I stand for the law and I speak TRUTH and FACTS, not half truths or biased viewpoints masquerading as truth and fact. For instance, I have no issues with saying Trump was convicted 34 times for multiple felonies because that's a fact. However, in order for that fact to be the truth, I must include the more than likely possibility that those convictions will get an order of vacatur. Something you do not do. Why? Because it defeats your narrative.

I also have no issues with saying that Trump was found liable in the E. Jean Carroll case. What I WILL NOT do, which you and others like you actually do, is say he is a convicted rapist because that's a flat out lie. And of course I also include the statement that I believe the verdict will be overturned on appeal. Anyone who understands that the court reducing his bond amount will also understand why they did it.

These are things you don't have to like. What you have to do is accept them. That you refuse to do that only shows how desperate you are to find something/anything derogatory to say because YOU CANNOT ADMIT TO THE TRUTH.

Which is something that's all on you and only you.

Now you’re caught in another of your spun lies. I have never factually claimed Trump is a rapist. I haven’t seen or heard proof of that myself and I don’t say that he is a “rapist”.

It is a fact - and a legal fact that Trump’s businesses have committed crimes while he was the primary decision maker. The fact that they happened too far in the past to prosecute him personally doesn’t change those facts.

So tell me, when two skilled attorneys represent different sides of a legal argument, is one representing actual fact while the other is lying? Or are they arguing legal positions based on the what is most likely to bring a judgment in their favor?

Ever lost a case, counselor? Are you a proven liar?