Presidential Debate 2020

[1972 Grad]

Why hasn’t the media challenged Biden on his history as a legislator?

This speaks for itself

I would like to see a debate between that Biden and today's Biden.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Can you highlight the word collusion, for me?

You already proved you were illiterate. No need to bolster the case.

LMFAO!

I’m going with stupid at this point based on the body of work.

 

[1972 Grad]

I bet Perry missed you as much as I did.

I'm sorry that I really didn't consider your feelings when I went away.

 

[RockyTop85]

LMFAO!

I’m going with stupid at this point based on the body of work.

Your image must not have loaded, I can’t see it. Where is the word “collusion” in that paragraph?

Bonus points: What does the report say about “collusion?” Why did they use “conspiracy,” instead?

 

[NorthDallas40]

I figured that he would have an ambulance to chase, or some divorcing couple to screw.........the man, figuratively, and the woman literally.

I’d like to see the case W/L history as I think he’s a criminal defense lawyer. If he pulls this level of pettifoggery in a court room I’d expect the judge to throw his ass out.

And on having to retype this...

 

[luthervol]

Because you defined your own scenario as proof that it did. Here I’ll drop this again.

stupid or willfully obtuse pettifogger?View attachment 310672

Nor did it establish that no collusion occurred.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Your image must not have loaded, I can’t see it. Where is the word “collusion” in that paragraph?

Bonus points: What does the report say about “collusion?” Why did they use “conspiracy,” instead?

So you’re going with they couldn’t prove conspiracy but clearly the campaign “colluded“ with the Russians?

Yep I’m honing in on stupid as the diagnosis.

Edit: and conspiracy is defined in the US code collusion isn’t. In this case for the last the two clearly have been used interchangeably and you know it.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Nor did it establish that no collusion occurred.

there ya go @RockyTop85 now you got Luther and his “logic” in your corner now you’re home free

 

[NorthDallas40]

Here ya go @RockyTop85

The Difference Between Collusion and Conspiracy - Defining the Trump Administration's Actions

Black's Law Dictionary defines collusion as "a deceitful agreement or compact between two or more persons, for the one party to bring an action against the other for some evil purpose, as to defraud a third party..." A conspiracy, on the other hand, is defined as "a combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purposes of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is innocent in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators." Got it? You can have collusion without having a criminal conspiracy, but you can't have a criminal conspiracy without some sort of collusion.

So as long as we’re willing to buy into your splitting hairs on collusion vs conspiracy which goes to say you define the criteria as you see fit which is what I’ve asserted all thru here then youve supported your position.

Sticking with stupid and you’re dismissed counselor.

 

[Ashevolle]

Not as funny as your posts I already showed you your assertion was wrong.

You showed me that my assertion was wrong with your own assertion. Riveting stuff.

If only your partisan nature wasn't on display through your countless posts, your assertion might actually hold value.

 

[NorthDallas40]

You showed me that my assertion was wrong with your own assertion. Riveting stuff.

You called me partisan on the debate after I’d already posted a non partisan stance. That’s dumb. Try again.

 

[RockyTop85]

So you’re going with they couldn’t prove conspiracy but clearly the campaign “colluded“ with the Russians?

Yep I’m honing in on stupid as the diagnosis.

This reads like an admission that it’s not there. If so, bravo. You’re making progress.

So, if I recall correctly, you’ve now admitted that the report details connections between the campaign and Russia and only concludes that the criminal definition of conspiracy could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Am I correct? The illiteracy and attempts at dishonesty make it a bit hard to follow.

 

[NorthDallas40]

You showed me that my assertion was wrong with your own assertion. Riveting stuff.

If only your partisan nature wasn't on display through your countless posts, your assertion might actually hold value.

On your edit so if I make partisan posts in one case then clearly all of my posts must be partisan. More dumbassery try again.

 

[Ashevolle]

You called me partisan on the debate after I’d already posted a non partisan stance. That’s dumb. Try again.

You are partisan full stop. Your claiming to take a nonpartisan stance in a single post doesn't make you nonpartisan. Own it.

 

[Ashevolle]

On your edit so if I make partisan posts in one case then clearly all of my posts must be partisan. More dumbassery try again.

You make a partisan post every 12 seconds.

 

[NorthDallas40]

This reads like an admission that it’s not there. If so, bravo. You’re making progress.

So, if I recall correctly, you’ve now admitted that the report details connections between the campaign and Russia and only concludes that the criminal definition of conspiracy could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Am I correct? The illiteracy and attempts at dishonesty make it a bit hard to follow.

More statements from the link

Let's agree, for now, that "collusion" is a political word, a media word, a polite word countless hacks have settled on because its use allows everyone to cover this catastrophe without having to actually accuse the president and his tribunes of something that sounds like a crime.

So if you use a political definition with no standard of proof you’ve proven your supposition.

Sticking with stupid. You’re dismissed again pettifogger.

 

[RockyTop85]

So as long as we’re willing to buy into your splitting hairs on collusion vs conspiracy which goes to say you define the criteria as you see fit which is what I’ve asserted all thru here then youve supported your position.

Can you repeat that paragraph in English?

 

[NorthDallas40]

On your edit so if I make partisan posts in one case then clearly all of my posts must be partisan. More dumbassery try again.

You are partisan full stop. Your claiming to take a nonpartisan stance in a single post doesn't make you nonpartisan. Own it.

Thanks for doubling down on the dumbassery. Move along.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Can you repeat that paragraph in English?

Waste of time clearly you can’t understand

sticking with my diagnosis

 

[RockyTop85]

Waste of time clearly you can’t understand

sticking with my diagnosis

You are correct, I cannot understand that paragraph/sentence/cluster of words.

 

[NorthDallas40]

You make a partisan post every 12 seconds.

LMFAO

 

[NorthDallas40]

You are correct, I cannot understand that paragraph/sentence/cluster of words.

Thanks for admitting my diagnosis of you pettifogger.

 

[BigOrangeD]

Trump CRUSHED Biden So Badly That They Will Now CUT OFF His Mic In Next Debates, Its All Rigged

 

[Carl Pickens]

He is on drugs or has the worst booger/snot problem ever.

It happens to people from time to time. .... at least he didn’t sht his pants...... I’m looking at you loother

 

[Y9 Vol]

Trump CRUSHED Biden So Badly That They Will Now CUT OFF His Mic In Next Debates, Its All Rigged

IMO, Trump needs to let Biden ramble and not interrupt. Joe will bury himself each time he loses his train of thought. (as long as they do not let him have his ear piece this time)