Just because you do not like the story doesn’t mean it’s not true. You ask for proof, people provide that proof and you come back and say you want proof.
It kind of breaks up the flow of a discussion if you keep asking the same question, after it has been answered in spades and you won’t even look at what is provided.
It seems to me that you don’t want proof, you just want it not to be true. You are willfully ignoring everything people are giving you as proof and changing the definition of what constitutes proof after the proof is provided. So why engage?
Translation: “What about what Trump did?!”
I believe there is a bridge on the table, somewhere…
We’re good enough for Sebastián Gorka though.
He’s selling his own line of supplements on Fox News now! 
2 Likes
Yeah, @mnben87. Pat has provided proof in the form of links to unsubstantiated stories from questionable sources. He doesn’t want this story to be true, but his moral compass cannot overlook these facts. Occam’s razor certainly applies here:
The simplest explanation for a blind Trump supporter coming forward through Trump’s lawyer’s lawyer with unverified emails at the 11th hour when the election is slipping away is simply this: Joe Biden is corrupt and should be disqualified from the presidency.
1 Like
I’ll do this until proof is provided. You understand that it would be irrational to accept proof that doesn’t support the claim being made, right? I am asking for proof that Joe Biden did corrupt things because of Hunter Biden’s emails. That hasn’t happened yet.
We perhaps have proof that Hunter used a computer repair guy, but even that is hazy. The signature could be fake.
The evidence needs to support the conclusion. Do have that type of evidence? I am not interested in a mountain of evidence that doesn’t support the conclusion of Joe acting corruptly to help Hunter.
I have read many of these articles, they don’t support that conclusion. It would require faith for me to accept that as evidence.
1 Like
Yes, it has. Over and over on multiple threads. You wanted emails I provided emails, you wanted proof of the laptop, I provided proof of the lap top. You wanted proof Joe was actually involved, I provided that and others have provided that stuff too. You are just picking and choosing what you call evidence, now. You are moving the goal-posts as to what constitutes proof.
Look at the proof you have been provided and quit asking for what you have already been given. People have put in the work so you didn’t have to look for yourself and you still won’t accept it. You should be doing your own research.
LOL. I should have specified all along that the proof needs to support the conclusion that Joe Biden did corrupt things I guess. You got me on that one.
Okay. I am not convinced after looking. The proof isn’t adequate.
This is the nature of assessing the truth of a claim. It often make the people making the claim upset when their evidence is lacking.
I am not the one making claims.
Do your own research, then. I always invite people to look things up themselves. So go nuts.
You’ve made counter claims. So prove you’re right and we are all wrong. Our burden has been fulfilled. Go ahead and prove the info provided is false.
That’s not how this works. The burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it. This is called Hitchen’s razor.
Pat, I will look into this more myself as a courtesy. I honestly don’t see the evidence presented as enough currently. There are too many questions (both authenticity, and that the evidence doesn’t support the claim of Joe acting illegally) about it to say Joe is guilty of illegal corruption.
Does Pat not realize that each time he posts it is not from a different person? Who is this “we” that has provided mnben87 with a mountain of irrefutable proof?
1 Like
I have had this discussion with ntrojnky as well. Same complaints about the proof, and actually a good amount of overlapping articles that were posted as proof.
I get where Pat is coming from. I am guilty of the same thing on a few topics. I realize they can’t be proven now (at least by me), despite what my opinion is.
1 Like
This is the one thing I still stand on lol. Much much much better.
But the point is, they’re GoP not progressive left wing. And they’re being considered for cabinet posts. It would be a welcome return to normalcy to have a bipartisan cabinet.
Do it so your informed. And so you don’t ask the same questions over and over after they’ve already been answered, with references.
You won’t be doing me any favors, you do it for you. I can just not answer if I don’t want to.
I don’t mind discussions, unless they stop making progress due to ridiculous asks.
No, that burden has been met. If the evidence provided is a lie, you at least have to explain why it is so, if not provide evidence.
Like the whole, “This is Russia!” bullshit. I called it a lie, explained it and provided evidence that it was a lie. And guess what? It’s a lie.
1 Like
Ahh, the halcyon days after Obama was elected the first time, and the newspaper headlines quoted Obama talking about how he would be reaching across the aisle…
I’m sure Pelosi and Schumer will be 100% behind Joe’s bipartisan “plan”. 100%.
1 Like
Obama? I’m think way back to GHWB, Clinton, and even GW.
Pelosi and Schumer can stay the hell away from anything to do with government. I wish they’d quit.
I’m referring to your naivete in seemingly believing this BS rhetoric. Biden was OB1’s VP, remember? More relevant.
I realize he was the VP. I have no idea what you’re getting at. People in cabinet posts used to be hired because of policy chops and expertise. That’s what I’m getting at.
The only president I know of to have a bi-partisan cabinet was John Adams. Perhaps I am wrong, but I don’t know anybody else who stacked their cabinet with naysayers.
The good-ol’ days are gone. There is a fight for the core values of the nation. Are we going to stay American or are we going hard-left?
1 Like
Do you think there is enough for a reporter to ask Biden. “Are these emails legitimate?”
I do. I think it’s bizarre that reporting on this gets stiffled and the best response from the VP is this is a smear campaign and there is nothing on his official schedule.
2 Likes
I thought my point was clearly stated.