╌>

Washington Post’s Philip Bump Embarrasses Himself While Defending Joe Biden’s Corruption

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  s  •  3 weeks ago  •  90 comments

Washington Post’s Philip Bump Embarrasses Himself While Defending Joe Biden’s Corruption

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Imagine not knowing the difference between “proof” and “evidence,” plus retaining a voice two octaves above a normal man, and you’ll have a decent idea of what it’s like to be Philip Bump.

Bump is The   Washington Post writer   “focused largely on the numbers behind politics,” according to his bio, but he is most recently known for letting his ass hang out on the internet by way of a   highly embarrassing interview   with podcaster and Comedy Cellar owner Noam Dworman. In the interview, Dworman tells Bump that he wanted to talk with the “smartest” person who disagrees with him on the significance of the Joe Biden corruption saga as it relates to Biden’s son, Hunter. After an hour of innocuous questions from Dworman, Bump called the affair “a setup” and walked out.




Wild.

But during that hour, it was remarkable how frequently, in utter despair, Bump pleaded for Dworman to offer him “evidence” that the president is or was directly involved in his son’s comically unfathomable foreign business operation.

Dworman conceded that every exhibit he had to offer was simply evidence, rather than ironclad proof, before   playing clips   of Hunter’s former business partners, citing   Congressional testimony , and reading from   written communications , all of which indicate that Joe Biden not only knew but was a cognizant player in his son’s dealings. And those dealings, worth millions, were made possible purely by nature of the Bidens having high-level U.S. government influence via Joe having been a longtime senator and then a two-term vice president.

The evidence   is overwhelming . Even if nobody calls it “proof,”   it’s irrefutable .


Proof would be a video or audio recording of Biden and his son discussing the details of their shakedown schemes. To date, that’s not known to exist. Proof would be testimony that the former vice president signed contracts with his son’s business associates. To date, that’s not known to exist. Proof would be at least a photo of Biden with his son’s clients.

Wait, never mind. That last one   actually does exist . My fault!

All the while, Bump said over and over that none of it was “evidence” when, if he were a smart person, he would have said none of it was “proof.”

“You have no evidence that Joe Biden acted on Hunter Biden’s behalf, or that Joe Biden took money!”


“Find me evidence! There is none!”

“You’ve offered no evidence beyond your parsing…”

“This conversation is silly!”

“This is why I keep saying it’s silly!”

Curiously, Bump would, at times throughout the interview, reject anything Dworman said with the declaration that Dworman “refused” to “engage with” the contradictory “broader evidence.”

Okay, yes, there is contradictory evidence to suggest Joe Biden is actually an absolute moron who in no way had any idea that his son was using his high-ranking position in the U.S. government to rake in millions and that Biden in no way cooperated because he never directly accepted funds from the scheme. But one set of evidence doesn’t negate another. They compete. And the competition is only fair when people like Bump weigh them fairly, which he doesn’t.

He sets it aside and says it’s “not evidence.”

Criminal trials routinely conclude with a conviction not based on proof but on evidence. Alex Murdaugh this year   was found guilty   of murdering his wife and son, though he never admitted what he did. Instead, a jury convicted him based on where he claimed to be and where evidence showed he wasn’t.

Joe Biden has been caught in countless lies on this exact subject. Philip Bump is either too stupid or just as dishonest.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1  seeder  Sean Treacy    3 weeks ago

The whole podcast is interesting enough on its own.  You have a reporter from one of the most prestigious publications freaking out, throwing a tantrum and making arguments that resort to little more than "I'm a journalist. It's true because I said so."   This guy just destroys his credibility in an hour while demonstrating that his job is to act as a defense attorney for the Democrats, not provide any sort of objective reporting.

But's it also encapsulates so much of what's wrong with the media coverage of Joe Biden:

(1) Bump does the same thing many here do, conflating the meanings of "proof" and "evidence." 

(2)  This same reporter is the source of many of the wilder allegations about Trump that were subsequently proven false.  The difference in standards he uses to report on  Trump or Republicans vs Biden is in stark relief.  Speculation, or the merest hint of wrongdoing about Trump or a Republican justifies a national story, only literal proof of a crime by Biden is worth reporting.   He leaves it to the viewer to guess how proof is developed without investigative reporting. 

(3).  His total lack of curiosity about what Hunter Biden meant when he emailed his daughter that he has to give 50% of his income to his Dad is stunning. He just doesn't care what he meant and has no interest in finding out.  Never has a reporter so clearly demonstrated their preference to keep their head buried firmly in the sand rather than uncover something that might  hurt his team. 
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2  Tessylo    3 weeks ago

What corruption from President Biden?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

The question of "where's the evidence" is never asked in good faith.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    3 weeks ago

There is no evidence of wrongdoing on President Biden's part.  

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.1.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @3.1    3 weeks ago

There seems to be all kinds of evidence if anyone has an open mind.  As of now there is no iron clad proof.  

Funny how many dems seem to conflate the two terms.  When it has to do with Trump then evidence transforms into proof.  When it has to do with Biden evidence seems to stay evidence and they hang their hats on no proof.

Sad, but not a surprise.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.1.1    3 weeks ago

The sad thing is that people like you cant see the difference. 

Hundreds of people testified to Trumps wrongdoing to the Jan 6 committee. 

The Republicans have run a Joe Biden investigation for about 6 months now and have virtually NO testimony against Biden that wouldnt be impeached in court. The Republicans own leaders admit that they dont have anything concrete. But lets just keep pretending that Trump and Biden are the same, that will really /s  help our nation. 

 
 
 
Hallux
Senior Principal
3.1.3  Hallux  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.1.1    3 weeks ago
There seems to be all kinds of evidence if anyone has an open mind.

That kind of thinking went out the backdoor in 1692.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
3.1.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.1.1    3 weeks ago

When it comes to Trump we have testimony, recorded phone calls, texts/emails, video footage, and in the case of the classified documents the actual fucking documents were seized from his house.

There is enough evidence that multiple prosecutors across the country have filed charges and are going to jail his ass into court. That for me is the biggest sign of the strength of the evidence against trump.

With Biden you can’t even get GOP politicians to admit they have enough to even float the idea of taking action.

 
 
 
GregTx
Masters Guide
3.1.5  GregTx  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.1.4    3 weeks ago
With Biden you can’t even get GOP politicians to admit they have enough to even float the idea of taking action.

Which is pathetic considering that they have testimony, texts/emails and the actual fucking documents as well...

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.1.6  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    3 weeks ago
The sad thing is that people like you cant see the difference. 
ev·i·dence
 the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
proof
evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
"you will be asked to give proof of your identity"
 
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.7  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.1.4    3 weeks ago
With Biden you can’t even get GOP politicians to admit they have enough to even float the idea of taking actio

gop politicians can’t “take action.” Only Biden’s DOJ can.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Guide
3.1.8  Snuffy  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.7    3 weeks ago

About the only action the GOP politicians can do is start an impeachment inquiry.  And given our current partisan divide in Congress the Senate won't vote for conviction so the best that can be done is for the House to bring all the evidence forward to force Biden out of the '24 elections.  

I can only wonder if people will ever wake up and realize that the people they continue to send to Washington are not working for them, but instead are only working for themselves.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    3 weeks ago

How do you explain the Joe Biden proven lies then?

Why is Joe Biden lying to begin with?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
3.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    3 weeks ago

You have to show Joe was involved in his idiot sons garbage. Until then all there is so speculation which is not the same as guilt. 

I personally am not a big fan of guilt by association.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.2    3 weeks ago

The evidence is pointing that Joe Biden most certainly was aware of his son's business dealings despite his lies to the contrary.

The investigations are ongoing.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

Some or another right wing moron U.S. congressman was on right winger Greta Van Susterens tv show the other day. The moron expressed the need to impeach Joe Biden. Van Susteren asked him what the charges would be and asked if the Shokin dismissal would be one of them. The moron said yes it would and when asked what the evidence or proof was stumbled bummed through it by saying it was being "investigated". How many decades will we have to wait for proof, or evidence, that Shokin was fired by Biden to protect his own corruption? 

It is stone cold obvious that faced with the prospect of a year and a half of embarrassing court room revelations about Trump's waterfall of crime and corruption the Republicans have decided to play the both sides do it game full out and simply try to convince the American people that Biden is as bad, criminal, and corrupt as Trump. 

Jesus will appear driving a flying saucer in the skies over Las Vegas before that happens. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4    3 weeks ago

Joe Biden lied repeatedly whether you ever admit to it or not.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1    3 weeks ago

oh, the irony...

 
 
 
GregTx
Masters Guide
4.1.2  GregTx  replied to  devangelical @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

It does appear to be rather liberally applied in politics, doesn't it?..

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

there is no need to demonstrate you don't know what irony is.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
4.1.4  Ronin2  replied to  devangelical @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

The irony that Democrats put a lying. criminal, POS in the White House- and refuse to prosecute him or his family; while using the abusing legal system and government agencies to prosecute his top political opponent.

You are 100% correct.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1.4    3 weeks ago
The irony that Democrats put a lying. criminal, POS in the White House- and refuse to prosecute him or his family; while using the abusing legal system and government agencies to prosecute his top political opponent.

It took a while for the indictments against Trump to emerge.   I seem to recall people like you suggesting the allegations against Trump were unfounded because there were no indictments.   Now you want to claim that nobody is working on the Biden investigation because an indictment has not emerged.

Clearly evidence is emerging ... otherwise it would be impossible to discuss it.   So follow the evidence and attempt to moderate your emotions to correlate with the level and quality of the evidence.

And on Trump, attempt to comprehend that the charges against Trump are a result of his actions.   They are not political charges without merit.   Trump is running primarily to get useful people like you to repeat the mantra that these charges are purely political and that he has done nothing wrong.

Finally, Trump as the nominee is good for Biden and the Ds.   Trump almost certainly will not prevail in a general election.   An alternate nominee like Nikki Haley has a chance to win in the general election.    So the Ds prosecuting Trump for political reasons is stupid unless they are doing it to make him a martyr and that they knew the GOP would continue on its insane path of supporting Trump no matter what.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.6  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.5    3 weeks ago
It took a while for the indictments against Trump to emerge

Because it was a full 4 years to the next presidential election.

Can't let those indictments go down too early.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @4.1.6    3 weeks ago
Because it was a full 4 years to the next presidential election.

More likely it was because the prosecutors were very careful about bringing indictments against a former PotUS.

Read the indictments.   Understand the charges and the corresponding law they reference.   Compare that to evidence that all of us have seen (public domain) and then consider the likelihood that non-public evidence (e.g. evidence showing the fraudulent documents used to create and convince fake Trump electors) does indeed exist.

The mantra "this is all partisan; Trump did nothing wrong" or "Trump was indicted for exercising free speech"  or "Trump was indicted for questioning an election" is a feeble attempt to defend Trump.    Those who express these sentiments either do not understand the indictments or are ignoring the charges and evidence because they simply do not care.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
5  Greg Jones    3 weeks ago

"Biden is as bad, criminal, and corrupt as Trump." 

Much more so. He's putting our country in danger by his extremist policies.

It's fun to watch a bunch of Biden ass kissers and apologists in full denial mood, even though the evidence is overwhelming as to Brandon's involvement in Hunter's schemes and illegal dealings.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @5    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    3 weeks ago

All they have is projection, deflection, and denial.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Guide
5.2  Snuffy  replied to  Greg Jones @5    3 weeks ago

The two comments to your post must then have you rolling in laughter.  

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
5.2.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  Snuffy @5.2    3 weeks ago

It is amazing and somehow funny in a sad sort of way that some people constantly accuse others of things that are really true about themselves.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
5.2.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Snuffy @5.2    3 weeks ago

"The two comments to your post must then have you rolling in laughter." 

Yep! The first one always defaults to insults and taunting. The other one isn't worth responding to.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6  seeder  Sean Treacy    3 weeks ago

That NT's Biden cheerleaders  engage in the exact same evasions and logical fallacies as Bump does in the interview drives how exactly how partisan the media is.   The same people who spent years baselessly accusing Trump of all sorts of crimes, even treason,  can't even be bothered to wonder why Hunter had to give his dad 50% of his earnings, which is a crime in and of itself.   

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    3 weeks ago
The same people who spent years baselessly accusing Trump of all sorts of crimes, even treason,

You have lost your mind. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    3 weeks ago

Donald Trump is an obvious traitor. He tried mightily to obstruct the orderly transfer of power, going so far as to ignore the riot he caused in order to spend his time on Jan6 trying to get Republican congresspeople to go along, at the last minute, with his scheme. 

None of this is in serious dispute. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.2  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    3 weeks ago

Lol. You were making that claim years before any of that happened.  Funny how trump’s actions after he lost re-election are now used to justify their accusations against trump that happened years before and had nothing to do with his election claims

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.2    3 weeks ago

Trump is EASILY the most corrupt person ever to be president of the United States. Easily. 

 
 
 
GregTx
Masters Guide
6.1.4  GregTx  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.3    3 weeks ago
Trump is EASILY the most corrupt person ever to be president of the United States. Easily.
 You have lost your mind.
 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.3    3 weeks ago
Trump is EASILY the most corrupt person ever to be president of the United States.

That may be the single most stupid defense of Biden I have ever read.

Can you explain how anything Trump did is an excuse for Biden?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    3 weeks ago
Donald Trump is an obvious traitor. He tried mightily to obstruct the orderly transfer of power, going so far as to ignore the riot he caused in order to spend his time on Jan6 trying to get Republican congresspeople to go along, at the last minute, with his scheme.  None of this is in serious dispute. 

is THIS your sole defense of the indefensible?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
6.1.7  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    3 weeks ago
Donald Trump is an obvious traitor.

The trial of Donald Trump for treason:

Judge: Please present your case Mr. Prosecutor.

Prosecutor:  It is obvious Donald is a traitor.

Judge:  Oh it is obvious ..........guilty of all counts since it is obvious.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1.7    3 weeks ago

Yes there is a substantial difference between a personal opinion and a legal finding of guilt.

It is, for example, obvious that Trump lied (and continues to lie) about the 2020 election being rigged.    His lie has been thoroughly debunked.   A rational mind can effortlessly come to that conclusion and opine that Trump obviously lied.    (There are plenty of other examples like this.)

In court, however, the system involves drawing a conclusion based on the evidence and the arguments of a prosecuting vs. defense legal team according to time-tested methods of jurisprudence which are enforced by a judge.   No court will ever except:  "guilty because it is obvious" so you can take any obvious personal opinion and falsely place it into a legal scenario to make it look ridiculous.   But that is just sophistry; intellectual dishonestly.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.8    3 weeks ago

Equally as obvious that Biden has lied repeatedly about his son's business dealings.

 
 
 
GregTx
Masters Guide
6.1.10  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.8    3 weeks ago
so you can take any obvious personal opinion and falsely place it into a legal scenario to make it look "legitimate". 

Would that be sophistry as well?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1.7    3 weeks ago

They know there is no defending Biden lies, so the obvious solution is to attack Trump as though that legitimizes anything Biden does.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty!

LMMFAO!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.9    3 weeks ago

Yes, it is unlikely that Biden knew nothing of Hunter’s activities.

So it would be sophistry to present this:

Judge: Please present your case Mr. Prosecutor.

Prosecutor:  It is obvious Biden was not wholly ignorant of his son’s business activities.

Judge:  Oh it is obvious ..........guilty of all counts since it is obvious.

… in an attempt to suggest that an individual cannot reasonably opine that something is obvious.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.12    3 weeks ago
in an attempt to suggest that one cannot reasonably opine that something is obvious.

Some people recognize sarcasm and others show they do not by criticizing posters for posting it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.13    3 weeks ago

The ‘I was not really serious’ excuse.   

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.12    3 weeks ago
Yes, it is unlikely that Biden knew nothing of Hunter’s activities.

Unlikely?!?!

Where have you been lately where you haven't seen the news?

Of course Joe knew, because he actually MET with Hunters business associates!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.14    3 weeks ago
The ‘I was not really serious’ excuse.   

Not his or my problem if you didn't understand it was sarcasm. I keep telling people they have to post "/s" because some folks will think they are serious!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.15    3 weeks ago

The word unlikely is correct.   100% certainty is rare outside of a formal system like mathematics;  thus it is best to not presume to have 100% knowledge and instead leave room for the unknown.

When you have absolute proof, you are on solid ground for claiming 100%.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @6.1.10    3 weeks ago

You seem to be asking if I agree with my statement.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.17    3 weeks ago

probable would be more appropriate.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.19    3 weeks ago

‘Probable’ means the opposite of ‘unlikely’.

You need me to use ‘not probable’ or ‘improbable’ rather than ‘unlikely’?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.20    3 weeks ago

I do not now nor ever need you to do anything for me.

 
 
 
GregTx
Masters Guide
6.1.22  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.18    3 weeks ago

I was actually asking if you agreed with my re-wording of your statement, but based on your reply I will assume that to be an affirmative. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
6.1.23  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.9    3 weeks ago

Once again some are flip flopping between what is obvious and what needs proof.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
6.1.24  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.13    3 weeks ago
others show they do not by criticizing posters for posting it.

These are usually the people that take themselves way too seriously

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
6.1.25  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.16    3 weeks ago
I keep telling people they have to post "/s" because some folks will think they are serious!

Yes you do.  It is usually the same few that can not recognize it without the \s so I consider it their problem, not mine.  Besides it is fun when they try to tell me that I did not mean it as sarcasm.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.26  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @6.1.22    3 weeks ago
so you can take any obvious personal opinion and falsely place it into a legal scenario to make it look "legitimate". 

Oh now I see what you did.   You quoted me but you changed my language while keeping the blockquote style intact.

I will assume you did not intend to make it seem as though that is what I wrote.   I will also assume you now recognize that what you did is misleading.

So on your statement:

so you can take any obvious personal opinion and falsely place it into a legal scenario to make it look "legitimate". 

I do not see how that could be done unless the personal opinion was a sound legal conclusion and the presentation provided the legal details.   

One could, for example, take the personal opinion that Trump lied about the 2020 election being rigged and that Joe Biden is not the legitimate PotUS.   Then one could frame this in a legal argument providing evidence and logic that leads to the sound conclusion that the opinion is indeed correct.

But I do not see how an unsound (or, worse, false) personal opinion could be make to look legitimate in a legal scenario (i.e. with solid evidence and a sound legal argument).

Provide an example so we know what you have in mind.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.27  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1.25    3 weeks ago
Besides it is fun when they try to tell me that I did not mean it as sarcasm.

Adding a \s tag does not change the interpretation of your comment:

RDTC @6.1.7

The trial of Donald Trump for treason:

Judge: Please present your case Mr. Prosecutor.

Prosecutor:  It is obvious Donald is a traitor.

Judge:  Oh it is obvious ..........guilty of all counts since it is obvious.

This is implying that because jurisprudence requires more than simply a declaration of the obvious, JR's opinion (declaration of the obvious) is ridiculous.   Of course this is not a court a law but rather a media forum.   Our opinions (including declarations that something is obvious) do not require adjudication.

My comment applies whether or not you add a \s tag:

TiG @ 6.1.8

Yes there is a substantial difference between a personal opinion and a legal finding of guilt.

It is, for example, obvious that Trump lied (and continues to lie) about the 2020 election being rigged.    His lie has been thoroughly debunked.   A rational mind can effortlessly come to that conclusion and opine that Trump obviously lied.    (There are plenty of other examples like this.)

In court, however, the system involves drawing a conclusion based on the evidence and the arguments of a prosecuting vs. defense legal team according to time-tested methods of jurisprudence which are enforced by a judge.   No court will ever except:  "guilty because it is obvious" so you can take any obvious personal opinion and falsely place it into a legal scenario to make it look ridiculous.   But that is just sophistry; intellectual dishonestly.

In other words, the sarcastic argument @6.17 is intellectually dishonest.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1.25    3 weeks ago

And the thing is, they have convinced themselves that you were serious!

Pretty funny shit!

 
 
 
GregTx
Masters Guide
6.1.29  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.26    3 weeks ago
I will assume you did not intend to make it seem as though that is what I wrote. I will also assume you now recognize that what you did is misleading.

Of course not, I would assume that if you responded to a post, you read it...

Misleading to who, you? The author of the post that I replied to?

I do not see how that could be done unless the personal opinion was a sound legal conclusion and the presentation provided the legal details..

How could a personal opinion be a sound legal "conclusion "?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.30  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @6.1.29    3 weeks ago
Misleading to who, you?

I explained this in my post.   Stated differently, when you quote someone and especially if you do so with the prescribed method (the blockquote) people will take that quote as a single unit and trust that you, the author, faithfully quoted.

If you change that which you quoted and leave it still adorned as a quote, that is misleading.    The part you changed should NOT be shown as a quote.

How could a personal opinion be a sound legal "conclusion "?

Let's say your personal opinion is that Trump is NOT guilty of obstruction in the classified documents case.

If the verdict in the trial finds Trump NOT guilty of obstruction, then your personal opinion is the same as the sound legal conclusion.    

Now if this turns out to be the case, then logically you could take your opinion, apply principles of jurisprudence, offer evidence and with a sound argument conclude that Trump is NOT guilty.

In contrast, and this was my point, if your opinion is flawed (or just flat out wrong), I do not see how you could apply principles of jurisprudence, etc. and show a sound verdict that agrees with your opinion.


I asked you for an example of an unsound (or, worse, false) personal opinion that can be made to look legitimate in a legal scenario (i.e. with solid evidence and a sound legal argument).   You did not provide one.

 
 
 
GregTx
Masters Guide
6.1.31  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.30    3 weeks ago

No, then the personal opinion happens to concur with the legal conclusion, it's not the same...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.32  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @6.1.31    3 weeks ago
No, then the personal opinion happens to concur with the legal conclusion, it's not the same...

Yes the personal opinion would need to be the same as an eventual legal conclusion.   If the personal opinion would never be the same as an eventual legal conclusion then the personal opinion clearly would not be able to be framed with a sound legal construct to make it seem legitimate.

More simply stated, I do not see how an unsound (or, worse, false) personal opinion that can be made to look legitimate in a legal scenario (i.e. with solid evidence and a sound legal argument). 


I asked you for an example of an unsound (or, worse, false) personal opinion that can be made to look legitimate in a legal scenario (i.e. with solid evidence and a sound legal argument).   

Apparently you are unable to do so.

 
 
 
GregTx
Masters Guide
6.1.33  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.32    3 weeks ago

Richard Jewell....

 
 
 
GregTx
Masters Guide
6.1.34  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.32    3 weeks ago

Daniel Penny....

 
 
 
GregTx
Masters Guide
6.1.35  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.32    3 weeks ago

Kyle Rittenhouse....

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.36  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @6.1.35    3 weeks ago

These are names of people who had trials.   

I asked you for an example of an unsound (or, worse, false) personal opinion that can be made to look legitimate in a legal scenario (i.e. with solid evidence and a sound legal argument).  

 
 
 
GregTx
Masters Guide
6.1.37  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.36    3 weeks ago

And I replied,  if you can't see the relevance to your query I'm sorry....

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.38  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @6.1.37    3 weeks ago

Exactly how I figured you would play this.   Offer entirely vague 'answers' and then suggest I am too stupid to understand your answer.   

 
 
 
GregTx
Masters Guide
6.1.39  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.38    3 weeks ago

I don't think your stupid quite the opposite...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.40  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @6.1.39    3 weeks ago

Then do not imply it:  

... if you can't see the relevance to your query I'm sorry....

You do not want to honestly and directly respond to my request.   Either you cannot or will not.   And that is fine.    What is not fine is offering entirely vague answers (literally just names of people who have had trials) and pretend that this was a reasonable response and suggest the vagueness is my failing, not yours.

 
 
 
GregTx
Masters Guide
6.1.41  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.40    3 weeks ago
Then do not imply it:  

I didn't, that you took it that way is your problem.

I asked you for an example of an unsound (or, worse, false) personal opinion that can be made to look legitimate in a legal scenario (i.e. with solid evidence and a sound legal argument)

Which I did,  that you can't see that is also not my problem...

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
6.1.42  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.28    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
6.1.43  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.27    3 weeks ago

Thank you for an invite down the rabbit hole but I will decline. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.44  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1.43    3 weeks ago

A predictable response to a challenge.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
6.1.45  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.44    3 weeks ago
A predictable response to a challenge.

I agree.  When a "challenge " is made to a comment/meaning that was never made and there seems to be an expectation that the person "challenged" will defend a comment/meaning never made a decline to an invitation down the rabbit hole can often be predicted.

Did you ever notice how many people/times you are pretty much accused of the same thing over and over?  It can't always be the other guy.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.1.46  bugsy  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1.45    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.47  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1.45    3 weeks ago

Did you ever notice the consistent tactics used by select individuals?   The same tactic will illicit a similar response.   Defending Trump will get the same basic response no matter who is doing the defending.

Now climb down from your safe abstraction and engage in debate.   Get specific.   Deal with a rebuttal.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.48  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.47    3 weeks ago
Now climb down from your safe abstraction and engage in debate.   Get specific.   Deal with a rebuttal.

That ship sailed long long ago. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
6.1.49  Right Down the Center  replied to  bugsy @6.1.46    3 weeks ago

Exactly.  And then the accusations start when they don't get what they want.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
6.1.50  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.47    3 weeks ago

Deal with a rebuttal.

You mean the rebuttal to a comment never made? I did deal with it, I declined an invite down the rabbit hole. You seem to be having problems with my rebuttal to your nonsensical rebuttle.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
6.1.51  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.48    3 weeks ago

It is good that you recognize it. 

 
 
 
GregTx
Masters Guide
6.1.52  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.47    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
7  Greg Jones    3 weeks ago

Semantics and condescending word play aside....it is clear to the American people is that the Biden administration is in deep shit trouble politically, and they will not likely support him for a second term.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.1  Tacos!  replied to  Greg Jones @7    3 weeks ago

I really don’t think the vast majority of Americans have a clue what it’s all about (even if they have an opinion), and I doubt it will influence many votes. Partisan voters will vote the way they would anyway, and independents have other concerns.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
7.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  Tacos! @7.1    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

You think the vast majority of Americans give a shit about the Democrat's "Get Trump at all costs" vendetta? Or don't recognize it for what it is?

[Deleted]

Democrats are quickly bringing about the day when the rule of law will mean absolutely nothing. They will also be the ones screaming the loudest when that day occurs.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @7.1.1    3 weeks ago
Or don't recognize it for what it is?

I think that the majority of the general electorate recognizes that the charges against Trump are with merit and that Trump brought this on himself.   It is irrational to believe that a) the Ds do not want Trump as the GOP nominee and b) that these indictments are without merit and simply a partisan move to "get Trump at all costs".    

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  Ronin2 @7.1.1    3 weeks ago
You think the vast majority of Americans give a shit about the Democrat's "Get Trump at all costs" vendetta? Or don't recognize it for what it is?

Neither this seed nor my comment (to which you are replying) have anything to do with the indictments against Trump.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
8  Tacos!    3 weeks ago
Imagine not knowing the difference between “proof” and “evidence,”

Oh well, Hell! I see that a couple times a week right here.

Even if nobody calls it “proof,”   it’s irrefutable .

Evidence is often refutable. The mere act of declaring it to be irrefutable hardly settles the matter.

Proof would be a video or audio recording of Biden and his son discussing the details of their shakedown schemes.

No . . . Proof is a state where evidence is deemed by a finder of fact to have met their standard of proof sufficiently. One person may trust the evidence he has seen, and decided it is sufficient to establish proof of the matter. Others may disagree. This happens quite a lot in matters of crime, but even more so in matters of politics. Pretending there is some objective measure is silliness.

Okay, yes, there is contradictory evidence to suggest Joe Biden is actually an absolute moron who in no way had any idea that his son was using his high-ranking position in the U.S. government to rake in millions and that Biden in no way cooperated because he never directly accepted funds from the scheme.

Ok, so then the evidence isn’t really “overwhelming,” is it? Considering all the ordinary shit Joe gets wrong on a weekly basis, it’s pretty plausible that he didn’t have a clue what his son might have been up to.

And the competition is only fair when people like Bump weigh them fairly, which he doesn’t.

He’s neither judge nor jury, so who cares?

 
 

Who is online



Jeremy Retired in NC
TOM PA


54 visitors