Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Endus]

We shouldn't be comparing who is more corrupt.

A position that could only ever be held by someone trying to cover up for those who are most corrupt, and deflect blame away from them.

[BronzeCondor]

Can you answer directly? Do you have evidence, yes or no?

Yes, the Democrats do have corruption in their party. No, it's not to the degree of corruption of the Republicans. The data backs it up. You are objectively wrong.

What kind of corruption do you think goes on within the Democratic Party?

A position that could only ever be held by someone trying to cover up for those who are most corrupt, and deflect blame away from them.

Not necessarily, because we are well aware of the corruption of the Republicans, they don't get to be off the hook. That is acknowledged. What is not acknowledged is that the possibility that Democrats are corrupt because of allegiances to political parties.

Move them goalposts!

This conversation has exploded from one point of engagement to many, all with different points of contention. If you don't think the point of individual discussions can get changed because of the nature of the conversation, then I don't know what to tell you.

[Machismo]

We shouldn't be comparing who is more corrupt. There is no gotcha, it's just an acknowledgement that this problem transcends party lines and to shed away the notion that being less corrupt is somehow more acceptable.

You said they were equally corrupt.

This is a gotcha, and you were got.

yes, being less corrupt is more acceptable. I find it to be more acceptable that someone smoked a joint, than someone deciding to murder kids. You are arguing that they are equally as bad.

[Elegiac]

We shouldn't be comparing who is more corrupt. There is no gotcha, it's just an acknowledgement that this problem transcends party lines and to shed away the notion that being less corrupt is somehow more acceptable.

Oh, so a strawman argument that no one besides the caricatures in your head actually made?

[Machismo]

What kind of corruption do you think goes on within the Democratic Party?

You still didn't answer my question. Why do you refuse to answer it? I answered yours.

This is called "moving goalposts."

[Edge-]

We shouldn't be comparing who is more corrupt.

When looking at a potential problem, it's important to qualify and quantify the problem to figure out how serious it is and what kind of remedy it may need.

It's inconvenient for your, "both sides" arguments, but that's how things usually work. Maybe you shouldn't have kicked this all off by claiming that Democrats were the party of corruption, in direct contradiction to all available evidence.

There is no gotcha, it's just an acknowledgement that this problem transcends party lines and to shed away the notion that being less corrupt is somehow more acceptable.

Being "less corrupt" is absolutely preferable to being more corrupt. No corruption is the ideal, but when presented with the choice between a party that's shown to be more corrupt or less corrupt, I'll take the less corrupt party every day of the week, absent other options.

[Machismo]

What kind of corruption do you think goes on within the Democratic Party?



Not necessarily, because we are well aware of the corruption of the Republicans, they don't get to be off the hook. That is acknowledged. What is not acknowledged is that the possibility that Democrats are corrupt because of allegiances to political parties.

You claimed they are equally corrupt, stop blaming others for the shit you said. You don't get to be off the hook for it.

[Edge-]

What kind of corruption do you think goes on within the Democratic Party?



Not necessarily, because we are well aware of the corruption of the Republicans, they don't get to be off the hook. That is acknowledged. What is not acknowledged is that the possibility that Democrats are corrupt because of allegiances to political parties.

What kind of corruption do you think goes on within the Democratic Party? And why isn't it discovered?

[BronzeCondor]

This is a lot of fun by the way, I don't think I've engaged with this many people before at one time. I'll try to get to everyone.

[Benggaul]

Trolls without evidence can be ignored without evidence.

Or something like that.

How many more pages of this can be expected? My eyes are sore from all of the rolling.

[cubby]

We shouldn't be comparing who is more corrupt.

Because there aren't varying levels of crimes that are more severe than others? Did you read this before you posted it?

You're literally arguing that a democrat who misuses $5.00 of campaign funds is the same as Trump organizing terrorists to subvert our democracy and then covering it up with his political party connections.

[Santti]

You sure? It links directly for me

Yeah, it works now. It kept saying there was some kind of unexpected error or something, but it works now. No idea what that was. Maybe Twitter had trouble processing his shit?

[Machismo]

This is a lot of fun by the way, I don't think I've engaged with this many people before at once. I'll try to get to everyone.

You stated they were equal, which is quite literally a quantifiable assertion. The fact that the data disagrees with you, and you admit you cannot quantify it, means you are simply talking out your ass... or don't know what words mean.

Which is it?

To put it more simply. You are saying that $140 equals $2.

[BronzeCondor]

You stated they were equal, which is quite literally a quantifiable assertion. The fact that the data disagrees with you, and you admit you cannot quantify it, means you are simply talking out your ass... or don't know what words mean.

Which is it?

To put it more simply. You are saying that $140 equals $2.

Equal in that they engage in corruption, yes.

I'm not talking out of my ass, Washington (Rs & Ds) is working hand in hand with Big Tech & Big Pharma, who have a lot of lobbyist dollars to throw around. Big Tech helped supplement a lot of election assistance funding through grants throughout the United States in 2020. You can't tell me they aren't politically involved to help their preferred candidate get elected in exchange for preferential legisilation.

- - - Updated - - -

Because there aren't varying levels of crimes that are more severe than others? Did you read this before you posted it?

You're literally arguing that a democrat who misuses $5.00 of campaign funds is the same as Trump organizing terrorists to subvert our democracy and then covering it up with his political party connections.

Well, it depends on your frame of reference of what corruption is. Some may have a narrower scope than others. Maybe we should define that to help with the discussion.

[Machismo]

Equal in that they engage in corruption, yes.

I'm not talking out of my ass, Washington (Rs & Ds) is working hand in hand with Big Tech & Big Pharma, who have a lot of lobbyist dollars to throw around. Big Tech helped supplement a lot of election assistance funding through grants throughout the United States in 2020. You can't tell me they aren't politically involved to help their preferred candidate get elected in exchange for preferential legisilation.

No, you said they were equal, which means you don't know what the word means.

So, let's see your data that shows they are equal.

Or, are you saying that a person smoking a joint is equal to a child murderer in your eyes?

[Endus]

Not necessarily, because we are well aware of the corruption of the Republicans, they don't get to be off the hook. That is acknowledged. What is not acknowledged is that the possibility that Democrats are corrupt because of allegiances to political parties.

Without data to support that conclusion, there's no more reason to entertain that possibility than, say, the possibility that Democrats are all lizardpersons wearing skinsuits and prepping humanity for the Great Consuming.

You want me to believe your "possibility"? Give me actual data and evidence. Otherwise, it's a nothing but a fantasy, and you can keep it to yourself.

[BronzeCondor]

What kind of corruption do you think goes on within the Democratic Party? And why isn't it discovered?

Me personally, I believe there's been an over-politicization of the courts & DOJ in favor of insulating Washington as a whole. This is something that doesn't really get prosecuted on either side but is abused for political reasons to help various individuals get into office at local, state, and federal levels. That's largely why I feel a lot of corruption goes unpunished on both sides.

You pay your dues in your respective position and you get to move up through the system, eventually making it into Congress, a presidential cabinet, or a federal court judge.

"Don't prosecute this person" seems to be a point of contention to help things move along more smoothly.

[Machismo]

Me personally, I believe there's been an over-politicization of the courts & DOJ in favor of insulating Washington as a whole. This is something that doesn't really get prosecuted on either side but is abused for political reasons to help various individuals get into office at local, state, and federal levels. That's largely why I feel a lot of corruption goes unpunished on both sides.

You pay your dues in your respective position and you get to move up through the system, eventually making it into Congress, a presidential cabinet, or a federal court judge.

"Don't prosecute this person" seems to be a point of contention to help things move along more smoothly.

Do you have any evidence to back up all these assertions, especially in relation to you saying that Democrats and Republicans do it equally?

[BronzeCondor]

When looking at a potential problem, it's important to qualify and quantify the problem to figure out how serious it is and what kind of remedy it may need.

It's inconvenient for your, "both sides" arguments, but that's how things usually work. Maybe you shouldn't have kicked this all off by claiming that Democrats were the party of corruption, in direct contradiction to all available evidence.

Being "less corrupt" is absolutely preferable to being more corrupt. No corruption is the ideal, but when presented with the choice between a party that's shown to be more corrupt or less corrupt, I'll take the less corrupt party every day of the week, absent other options.

As I indicated in a previous post, I believe the scope of corruption should be defined to help move the conversation along in a constructive manner. I think it's just cracking the egg with the notion that corruption is even a possibility is important way to move the conversation forward.

As for Democrats being the party of corruption, no, they are both corrupt, they are just in the spotlight right now in terms of politics because of who's in the White House and the support they've garnered from Corporate America admit the mess with Republicans & Trump.

[starlord]

Without data to support that conclusion, there's no more reason to entertain that possibility than, say, the possibility that Democrats are all lizardpersons wearing skinsuits and prepping humanity for the Great Consuming.

You want me to believe your "possibility"? Give me actual data and evidence. Otherwise, it's a nothing but a fantasy, and you can keep it to yourself.

what was your data that democrats are facists?