US Election 2020 - Pt 3

Who do you think WILL win the 2020 US presidential election

  • Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D)

    Votes: 166 44.4%

  • Donald J. Trump (R)

    Votes: 208 55.6%
  • Total voters
    374
Status
Not open for further replies.
scudsucker said:
If this is true, it must be condemned. To ascertain if this is true it must be investigated.

Happy now?
Click to expand...

Better yes, the real test will be how the media and the left treat it in the USA. Who wants to take a bet.
 
konfab said:
The problem with that is that it depends on what you count as a B.S reason. And the cake baker's instance was the state wanting to force a baker to make a cake they didn't want to.
With your line of reasoning, having a different political opinion is also a B.S reason, therefore the likes of Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Patreon are obliged to accommodate people who disagree with the politics of the owners of the platform.

This rather frail definition of "B.S reason" is why I don't think it is a valid concept. This is why you simply use the concept of private property to do the heavy lifting.

If you don't want to provide a service to someone who is willing to pay for it, that is your problem. You don't need the state to enforce it. Just like the state cannot force a bigoted person to do their shopping at a certain place.
Click to expand...
Inb4 this mega-dose of hypocrisy goes completely unaddressed... :sleep:
 
SoldierMan said:
Crickets from the local Biden Boys here on MyBB as well. Wonder if they will comment on their corrupt comrade who takes a bribe. Doubt it.
Click to expand...

I know very little about this whole thing, aside from what I've just taken a look at, and it's a lot to absorb, to be honest. That said, is it correct to say that at this stage, the story is based on a Facebook post by this dude?

It goes without saying that if there's truth to the allegations, of course there should be consequences (I can't imagine anyone who would disagree).
 
State Department officials were explicitly ordered in spring 2019 to stop tracking 13 prominent Americans' social media accounts for information about the Joe Biden-Ukraine scandal because the monitoring violated federal law, according to emails that were originally redacted to hide the concerns from the American public.


"We are barred by law from actively monitoring the accounts of American citizens in aggregate — and particularly from identifying and monitoring individual, selected accounts," a State Department official wrote in an April 1, 2019 email to officials in Washington and the U.S. embassy in Kiev


The unredacted emails, obtained by Just the News, raise new questions about the accuracy of State Department officials' testimony during President Trump's impeachment proceedings. They also provide a window into how the department used redactions in a Freedom of Information Act case to hide the potentially explosive information just weeks before Election Day 2020.
Click to expand...

The emails show State Department officials under Trump openly worried a year before the 2020 election that the emerging storyline that Vice President Joe Biden may have engaged in a conflict of interest by presiding over Ukraine policy while his son worked for a corrupt Ukrainian gas company might prove to be "the mother load [sic] and main thread to play out, possibly thru Nov. 2020."


The illegal monitoring was, in fact, ordered specifically to counter that narrative as well as another storyline that involved the liberal megadonor George Soros, the newly unredacted passages of the emails show.
Click to expand...

justthenews.com

State Dept. officials told they broke law by monitoring Americans during Ukraine scandal

Revelation undercuts impeachment testimony; conservative watchdog claims coverup.
justthenews.com justthenews.com
 
copacetic said:
I know very little about this whole thing, aside from what I've just taken a look at, and it's a lot to absorb, to be honest. That said, is it correct to say that at this stage, the story is based on a Facebook post by this dude?

It goes without saying that if there's truth to the allegations, of course there should be consequences (I can't imagine anyone who would disagree).
Click to expand...
What does Derkatch have to do with the court case that is being reported on today?
 
CaptainOblivious said:
Oh, Snufflewums, your clownish antics always fails to disappoint. :giggle:
Click to expand...
* "fail" - antics is plural, fail is singular. The subject "your" means you should use the singular as you are addressing a specific person.

You are welcome.
 
scudsucker said:
* "fail" - antics is plural, fail is singular. The subject "your" means you should use the singular as you are addressing a specific person.

You are welcome.
Click to expand...
Well that's interesting, but I was actually talking about how each time your antics are tested, it fails to disappoint. Notice how I said "it" not "they".

But anyway, looks like I'm well on my way to winning that bet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X