Publius
Well-known member
Sorry, you haven't provided on stitch of evidence that's worth more than sputum
You posited this question, prefacing it as a 'diagnostic', so clearly you are on a fishing expedition, the ulterior motive.
Are the events being called elections in the united states free and fair?
Your question about whether elections in the United States are "free and fair" has an assumed premise, and it’s clear you’re not asking this as an innocent diagnostic. You are utterly disingenuous and you are sure as hell not fooling me.
Your question has nothing to do with the topic we’re debating. It’s an attempt to sidetrack the conversation and test for weaknesses you can exploit (and no, that's not an admission, so don't twist my words, thank you). If you want to discuss Hunter and Joe Biden, stay on topic. Otherwise, maybe it’s your own assumptions about elections that need diagnosing. What exactly are you trying to prove here? Are you testing for my worldview, or are you trying to distract from the actual substance of the debate? Either way, it’s transparent, and I’m not taking the bait. Apparently you have me confused with a fish.
Ah, how delightfully predictable you are. You admit you’re fishing for contradictions but can’t seem to identify a single one without me answering your preposterously loaded questions. And instead of confronting your intellectual failure head-on, you retreat into vague accusations of absurdity and an amateurish misuse of philosophical terms, all to hide the fact that your argument is as hollow as a papier-mâché piñata.
Your response amounts to this: "I can’t prove you’re wrong until you give me answers to my rigged questions." Well, congratulations, Liberty, that’s not an argument; that’s a confession of inadequacy. The inability to substantiate your claim without demanding my acquiescence is the intellectual equivalent of walking into a chess match with checkers pieces and insisting the rules should change to suit your lack of preparation.
And then, for the pièce de résistance, ('scuse my French) you toss around the term epistemology like a toddler wielding a butcher knife, wildly out of context and wildly out of your depth. To claim that my alleged epistemological inconsistency somehow invalidates my views on Biden so-called corruption is not just wrong; it’s embarrassing. You’re not diagnosing contradictions; you’re exposing your own lack of understanding while pretending you’ve struck intellectual gold.
For your edification:
The term epistemology refers to the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. In academic contexts, it’s used to discuss questions like "What is knowledge?" "How do we know what we know?" and "What constitutes justified belief?" It’s not, as you’re clumsily attempting to wield it, a fancy buzzword to slap on garden-variety disagreements about investigative theories.You’ve dragged the term out of its natural philosophical habitat, much like a child pocketing a rare insect at the park, only to ruin it by insisting it belongs in your Tupperware collection. Your use of epistemology here is akin to using quantum mechanics to explain why your toaster isn’t working -- it’s not just wrong, it’s hilariously irrelevant.
So next time you want to play at intellectual combat, do yourself a favor: learn the rules of engagement before throwing out terms you don’t understand. In the meantime, try focusing on making an argument that doesn’t rely on rigged questions, vague accusations, or pretentious jargon. Because until you do, Liberty, the only absurdity here is your feeble attempt at debate.
My statement is factual. There is no evidence connecting Joe Biden in any financially beneficial arrangement with Hunter's biz deals. None.
Ah, Liberty, the sarcasm is noted, but much like your arguments, it’s hollow and uninspired -- a desperate attempt to salvage an untenable position by tossing out straw men and hoping no one notices. Let’s unpack your latest gem, shall we?
You’re trying to equate legitimate business dealings by legal U.S. citizens with bribery and corruption, but where’s your proof? Where’s your evidence? You don’t have any, so instead, you build a caricature of my argument -- claiming I’m dismissing money laundering or nepotism outright -- as if that’s what was said. It wasn’t. What I actually said, and what you clearly don’t want to address, is that your "Biden Family" narrative collapses the moment you fail to connect Joe Biden himself to any actual wrongdoing.
This is the problem with your argument, Liberty: it’s all insinuation and no substance. You’ve got Hunter Biden conducting legal business abroad, which you can’t prove was illegal, unethical, or tied to Joe Biden in any way. So, instead of facing the absence of evidence head-on, you retreat into sarcasm and start waving around nebulous terms like "money laundering" and "nepotism," hoping no one notices your house of cards teetering on the brink of collapse.
Let me make this simple for you: You’re accusing the President of the United States of corruption. That’s a serious charge, and it requires serious evidence. But all you’ve brought to the table are innuendos, assumptions, and a profound misunderstanding of what constitutes a legal burden of proof. Sarcasm is not evidence. Vague gestures at "what could happen" do not make your case. And if the best you can do is insinuate that anyone with a family member in business must somehow be laundering money, then, Liberty, your argument is as bankrupt as your credibility.
Now, for your education:
Bribery requires evidence of quid pro quo -- specific actions taken by Joe Biden in exchange for a benefit, which you haven’t provided. Nepotism, while a legitimate concern in politics, also requires actual proof of undue influence or improper appointments, not just hand-waving at Hunter Biden’s résumé. And money laundering? That’s a criminal accusation that, again, demands actual evidence of illegal activity -- evidence you conspicuously lack.So here’s a thought: Until you can provide actual evidence connecting Joe Biden to your fever-dream corruption theories, maybe cool it with the sarcasm. Because all you’re proving is that your argument, much like your credibility, is built on a foundation of nothing but hot air and partisan wishcasting
Listen to you! Do you know what 'weasel words' are? google it. Tsk tsk, they are the province of unskilled debaters, weak arguments.
Once again you misunderstand the law and declare your disdain for it in one breath. McDonnell v. United States absolutely applies, and your dismissive attitude doesn’t change that. The ruling clarified that bribery requires a direct quid pro quo for an official act -- not vague accusations or appearances. Comer and company lack any evidence tying Joe Biden to such a deal.
Your dismissal of case law because it’s inconvenient isn’t bold; it’s childish. McDonnell reinforced that corruption cases require clear evidence to avoid criminalizing normal political behavior. Contempt for this precedent reveals contempt for the rule of law itself.
Here’s the deal: To prove bribery, you need real evidence -- explicit quid pro quo linked to an official act. Until then, you’re flailing in frustration that the legal system demands more than your assumptions. And if you’re going to dismiss rulings, at least understand them first—because your argument is an embarrassment to serious debate.
Your argument is all noise and no substance -- a declaration of faith disguised as debate. Crowning yourself the arbiter of "sanity" and "honesty" doesn’t make your assumptions about Hunter Biden evidence; it makes them speculation. Eyebrow-raising isn’t proof of corruption, and years of Republican investigations have found no criminal conduct.
Your "two questions" about corruption are rhetorical sleights of hand -- insinuations without evidence, propped up by circular reasoning: "It’s true because I believe it." And when you declare, "I don’t care if you refuse to admit the obvious," you’re confessing that facts and reason have no place in your worldview. That’s not an argument; it’s intellectual dishonesty at its finest.
[...12k character limit reached...]
Last edited:
