Bunny Trails: Politics

[GaryK]

You use that "I find it telling" line a lot, you know. Here, you find it telling that I will not change the subject to motives and assumptions about people, and that's often the case when you use this line.

This is flat out false. Please stop doing this. I said absolutely nothing about finding it telling that you will not change the subject to motives and assumptions...

Actually, you did. When you said this:

I find it telling that you have not denied making assumptions and assigning motives in this post.

Actually, I did not. Where did I say anything about finding it telling that you will not change the subject? Here are the posts in question.

If people are charged with serious crimes and facing trial, is that different from someone who has not been charged with a crime at all? I think it is. And if we talk as though these differences don't matter, I think it makes criminals really, really happy and makes it easier for them to get away with things.

I find it telling that you have not denied making assumptions and assigning motives in this post.

Here, you find it telling that I will not change the subject to motives and assumptions about people...

[Bootstrap]

Gary, I'll let you have the last word on assumptions and motivations. That seems to be the main thing you want to talk about. It's not what I want to talk about.

If you want to take a crack at how you think we would judge the cases of Trump and Hunter Biden using the same standards, I'd be interested in that.

[GaryK]

Gary, I'll let you have the last word on assumptions and motivations. That seems to be the main thing you want to talk about. It's not what I want to talk about.

If you want to take a crack at how you think we would judge the cases of Trump and Hunter Biden using the same standards, I'd be interested in that.

You said things that are not true about what I said and I'm simply calling you out on it. You have made some definitive statements about what people have said in this thread and apparently won't back them up. This has been a pattern over the years and I believe is the reason you get so much pushback.

If you are going to regularly mischaracterize what people say then don't be surprised when they don't want to discuss the things you want to discuss. And BTW this thread is not about Trump. Feel free to start your own thread on what you want to discuss.

[Bootstrap]

The obvious answer to your question is what I said above: people were saying it is a travesty that the evidence against Trump might be heard in court.

In this thread, which you started, several people are saying it would be a travesty if the charges against Hunter Biden are not heard in court.

Here you are making some definitive statements about what people on MN were and are saying. Please provide us with the posts so that we can see for ourselves if that is what they are saying. This goes to the heart of the assumptions and motives issue I brought up.

This thread actually opens with a comparison between Hunter Biden's case and Donald Trump's case:

I wanted to respond to this in a new thread.

This investigation has been going on for years and has concluded in a plea deal.

What I'm having a hard time understanding is why this relatively minor tax issues and gun related case took years to conclude. Yet in just a bit over one year of investigation, a former president is indicted and is going to stand trial in August.

How can the relatively minor case take years to conclude and the other one be so speedy?

What did you mean to imply here? Were you not saying that you think the system is unfair to Trump and coddling Hunter Biden? To me, it looked that way. And even more so as I read the thread, this seems to be a major theme: comparing Trump's legal troubles to Hunter Biden's legal troubles. Just search for "biden" and "trump" in the search bar, look for your own posts. Were you not trying to make that claim in this thread? If so, please explain what you were trying to do.

To me, the fairer comparison is Hunter Biden's taxes versus Donald Trump's taxes. I think Donald Trump's tax cases have dragged on for a very long time indeed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_retur ... nald_Trump

Both are in court now.

[Bootstrap]

You said things that are not true about what I said and I'm simply calling you out on it. You have made some definitive statements about what people have said in this thread and apparently won't back them up. This has been a pattern over the years and I believe is the reason you get so much pushback.

You posted this 45 minutes after asking me to back a claim I made. I have done so now. I think I am generally willing to provide information when asked, perhaps as willing as anyone here.

If you are going to regularly mischaracterize what people say then don't be surprised when they don't want to discuss the things you want to discuss. And BTW this thread is not about Trump. Feel free to start your own thread on what you want to discuss.

The post that initially triggered you does not say anything at all about what specific people say. And that's the irony for me, I think you really are mischaracterizing what I said, pointing directly at me, and making accusations that seem both strong and false.

I'm trying not to mischaracterize you. I'm trying not to characterize you at all. It's your job to say what you think and feel. I think it's my job to say what I think and feel. I imagine I'm just as bad at guessing what you think and feel as you are when you try to do that to me. If I mess up and start telling people what you think and feel, or what your motives are, please do point that out. Quote the specific post. I don't find generalized accusations helpful.

In a thread that is largely about comparing the treatment Trumps and Bidens get, claiming unfairness, I suggest that we explain our standards, and how we intend to be fair to both. There's no accusation at any individual or group of individuals in this post. There's no claim about what people were posting.

Here's the post that triggered you, for reference:

I'd like to hear people explain the level of proof we should apply to Donald Trump and Joe Biden, in the same way. Fairness and justice start there.

If there's enough evidence to warrant an impeachment hearing or a trial, by all means. Then, over time, we find out what evidence is actually there. If the evidence falls apart, that tells us something. If it is solid, that tells us something else. For both Trump and Biden. Regardless how any of us feels about either of them.

So far, Hunter Biden and Donald Trump have both been charged with serious crimes. There seems to be plenty of evidence to warrant trials, in both cases.

[GaryK]

The obvious answer to your question is what I said above: people were saying it is a travesty that the evidence against Trump might be heard in court.

In this thread, which you started, several people are saying it would be a travesty if the charges against Hunter Biden are not heard in court.

Here you are making some definitive statements about what people on MN were and are saying. Please provide us with the posts so that we can see for ourselves if that is what they are saying. This goes to the heart of the assumptions and motives issue I brought up.

This thread actually opens with a comparison between Hunter Biden's case and Donald Trump's case:

I wanted to respond to this in a new thread.

This investigation has been going on for years and has concluded in a plea deal.

What I'm having a hard time understanding is why this relatively minor tax issues and gun related case took years to conclude. Yet in just a bit over one year of investigation, a former president is indicted and is going to stand trial in August.

How can the relatively minor case take years to conclude and the other one be so speedy?

What did you mean to imply here? Were you not saying that you think the system is unfair to Trump and coddling Hunter Biden? To me, it looked that way. And even more so as I read the thread, this seems to be a major theme: comparing Trump's legal troubles to Hunter Biden's legal troubles. Just search for "biden" and "trump" in the search bar, look for your own posts. Were you not trying to make that claim in this thread? If so, please explain what you were trying to do.

To me, the fairer comparison is Hunter Biden's taxes versus Donald Trump's taxes. I think Donald Trump's tax cases have dragged on for a very long time indeed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_retur ... nald_Trump

Both are in court now.

See, here again you assumed something about my original post and my motives for posting it that are not true. I simply wanted to discuss how the same DOJ could handle 2 cases so differently. The focus of my post was not Hunter Biden or Donald Trump and yet you took it to mean that I think the system was unfair to Trump and coddled Hunter Biden.

Now 51 pages later you are finally asking what I meant, while at the same time, asking if your assumptions about my post are not true. All you would have had to do in your first response in this thread is ask for clarifications, if you had questions. But, no you just assumed you knew and responded accordingly. This gets old.

[GaryK]

You said things that are not true about what I said and I'm simply calling you out on it. You have made some definitive statements about what people have said in this thread and apparently won't back them up. This has been a pattern over the years and I believe is the reason you get so much pushback.

You posted this 45 minutes after asking me to back a claim I made. I have done so now. I think I am generally willing to provide information when asked, perhaps as willing as anyone here.

No, I posted this after you said you were going to allow me to have the last word on the assumptions and motives issue I've been focused on.

Are you suggesting that you have now provided proof for this post?

The obvious answer to your question is what I said above: people were saying it is a travesty that the evidence against Trump might be heard in court.

In this thread, which you started, several people are saying it would be a travesty if the charges against Hunter Biden are not heard in court.

Here you are making some definitive statements about what people on MN were and are saying. Please provide us with the posts so that we can see for ourselves if that is what they are saying. This goes to the heart of the assumptions and motives issue I brought up.

If this is what you are saying you have now backed up, you will need to show me how you backed up this claim. If you are suggesting that my original post in this thread is proof of your claim, it just proves once again that you quickly jump to conclusions about what's behind people's posts. Again, assumptions and motives.

[GaryK]

In a thread that is largely about comparing the treatment Trumps and Bidens get, claiming unfairness, I suggest that we explain our standards, and how we intend to be fair to both. There's no accusation at any individual or group of individuals in this post. There's no claim about what people were posting.

Really? This is what you think this thread is about???

Here's the post that triggered you, for reference:

I'd like to hear people explain the level of proof we should apply to Donald Trump and Joe Biden, in the same way. Fairness and justice start there.

If there's enough evidence to warrant an impeachment hearing or a trial, by all means. Then, over time, we find out what evidence is actually there. If the evidence falls apart, that tells us something. If it is solid, that tells us something else. For both Trump and Biden. Regardless how any of us feels about either of them.

So far, Hunter Biden and Donald Trump have both been charged with serious crimes. There seems to be plenty of evidence to warrant trials, in both cases.

This is not true on 2 levels. I was not triggered. I asked for some clarifications about something you wrote and my questions to you have nothing to do with the post you claim triggered me. Here is the post where I first started talking with you about assumptions and motives.

Does that mean that none of the things I said in my quote apply here in this thread?

Should Hunter Biden and Donald Trump be treated the same way or differently? Why? Should both be subject to trials between now and the election, despite political concerns? (I think they should, FWIW). Should both be considered subject to the rule of law in the same way? Should we treat "innocent until proven guilty" the same way for both of them?

If people are charged with serious crimes and facing trial, is that different from someone who has not been charged with a crime at all? I think it is. And if we talk as though these differences don't matter, I think it makes criminals really, really happy and makes it easier for them to get away with things.

May I ask who is talking as though these differences don't matter? Or is this just another case of you assuming something about someone and assigning motives?

And BTW, what criminals are reading MN and are really, really happy with what they are reading here and how does what they are reading here make it easier to get away with things? I didn't realize MN was that widely read.

[GaryK]

Almost everyone in this thread is drawing comparisons between Trump and Biden. Even the first post in this thread does that.

No it doesn't. The first post is about how the DOJ handled the legal cases involving these men.

[temporal1]

WJC: The stubborn nature of law-school educated sin:
No matter what, lie, plead not guilty, most of all: NEVER give up your office.

For Clinton, the truth came out. The fact that he had to testify was crucial. He testified before the grand jury. He testified in the impeachment proceedings. And the truth came out as a result.

So if we want the truth to come out, this kind of testimony is valuable. ..

i wasn’t trying to engage with you+Grace, merely noting “how things changed” by way of WJC’s refusal - to voluntarily acknowledge personal wrong, to voluntarily step aside for the good of all.

(Honor) used to be a much more common choice. Following WJC, there’s no regard for the office, the common good.
It’s all reduced to the “W” in human courts of law. Pure legalism.

A grave loss to the U.S. Top-down.