Let's get some stuff straight about Hunter and Joe.

A logical fallacy isn't the same as a false equivalence.

 

Wow that's a whole lot of excuses and what about isms.

 

Are you sure? I guess one could claim that a logical fallacy is not the same thing as a false equivalence, but a false equivalence IS in fact a logical fallacy. Somehow, I do not believe that was you are trying to claim.

false equivalence
[ fawlsi-kwiv-uh-luhns ]

noun
a logical fallacy in which one assumes or asserts that two things are the same or equal when, while alike in some ways, they are not sufficiently similar to be considered equivalent.
False equivalence Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

 

How generous of you to give McTreason and the Senate Repubs a pass for filibustering a bill to establish a bipartisan commission, glossing over it by saying "the Senate rejected a proposed commission." One that had been negotiated in good faith for weeks. Their motivation is obvious as I pointed out.
Once again you appear to either be ignorant of the facts of purposely avoiding them. Pelosi refused to seat 2 of the 5 committee members McCarthy nominated. Justifiably so considering both are proponents of the Big Lie and were therefore compromised. In response, Kevin withdrew all 5 names and threatened to take away committee assignments from any Repub who agreed to be on the committee.

Your absolute blind loyalty and devotion is duly noted. Every party needs useful dupes and you are certainly doing your part.

 

Ok.

 

There is nothing especially magical about a "bipartisan" commission Lee.

 

A logical fallacy is an argument that can be disproven through reasoning. This is different from a subjective argument or one that can be disproven with facts; for a position to be a logical fallacy, it must be logically flawed or deceptive in some way.
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/logical-fallacies/

Keep trying, you'll get something right eventually.

 

It is not so much that I gave anyone a pass, rather I laughed at your specious reasoning that a Senate vote somehow forced Nancy to use only Democrats and a couple token Trump haters on her committee.

Everyone needs a spouse that stands by and defends them like you stand by and defend what amounts to indefensible Democrat propaganda.

 

So dictionary.com has their definition wrong when they call it a logical fallacy, because you think that the statement..."A logical fallacy is an argument that can be disproven through reasoning. This is different from a subjective argument or one that can be disproven with facts; for a position to be a logical fallacy, it must be logically flawed or deceptive in some way."... somehow invalidates its inclusion as a logical fallacy? LOL...Huh? How does that invalidate it? One can use reasoning to conclude that they are not substantively equivalent, hence the claim of equivalence is deceptive, and thus is properly titled a logical fallacy. Yeesh.

Good thing we have you around here to straighten out these damned unreliable dictionaries (sarcasm)



False equivalence is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone incorrectly asserts that two or more things are equivalent, simply because they share some characteristics, despite the fact that there are also notable differences between them.
False Equivalence: The Problem with Unreasonable Comparisons – Effectiviology


My goodness, there is apparently an epidemic out there of misinformation. Good thing we have you to straighten it out! (more sarcasm)


This is one of the more bizarre arguments I have seen you wage, and that is saying something! Its not like I had to hunt and peck for some obscure source calling it a logical fallacy. One could produce 100 plus such sources if they were so inclined.

 

No, Bill Clinton was guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice and not paying his taxes. Just the DNC senate decided that didn't constitute "high crimes and misdemeanours" despite being felonies that could earn you years in prison. He pleaded guilty after he left office and was duly fined and banned from practicing law. Hilary was also guilty, just the FBI arbitrarily decided not to prosecute her. Hunter Biden is a big time druggies and probably broke the law purchasing an illegal gun. He certainly exploited his position as the President's son, whether Biden himself was involved is debatable but certainly stands for investigation.

 

Actually, you gave Senate Repubs a pass for blocking the previously agreed upon bipartisan commission. Then you gave McCarthy a pass for nominating 2 of 5 Repubs who were unfit to be on the committee. Then you gave him a pass for withdrawing all the nominees instead of replacing Hicks and Jordan so he could claim, as you have, the committee was biased. I'm sure McCarthy appreciates your susceptibility to being easily manipulated.

 

Up until now I have not said one thing about my approval or disapproval of the actions in question of senate repubs ( you just make stuff up constantly don't you?), but if I WERE going to, I would agree that they absolutely should not have appointed a comission. That would be akin to starting a special prosecutor, and of course they would not want to open that can of worms. That would be like saying that Democrats should vote for a commission for Huner. Of course they would not.

With that being said, we were talking about the house, and for you to pretend that the House actions were forced by a Senate vote is downright silly. Admittedly, not as silly as your above argument claiming that a false equivalence is not a logical fallacy based on your incorrect interpretation and in opposition to certainly most sources on the topic, but it is silly nonetheless.

 

Why do people keep harping on Sarah Huckabee Sanders "lying" (resumably while she was press secretary for Donald Trump). It isn't the job of a press secretary to correct the lies of the person they serve. That's on the president (Trump in Sanders case).

 

There is plenty of available evidence that would warrant an investigation by the DOJ... Instead we are now relying on Congress to do criminal investigations...

 

Speaking of false equivalences.........that's a beauty. Comparing an investigation in to a failed coup orchestrated by the then President with........what exactly? Thus far unsubstantiated allegations about a private citizen because he's the prez's son. Can you hear yourself?

"I would agree that they absolutely should not have appointed a comission." Of course you do. What else can you say in light of McTreason's duplicity? If you are trying to display your hyper-partisan bona fides you are succeeding. We both know the only reason you object to the investigation is Trump's involvement whether you admit it or not.

"With that being said, we were talking about the house, and for you to pretend that the House actions were forced by a Senate vote is downright silly."

The eventual composition of the committee was not only forced by the Repub's Senate filibuster but by McCarthy's ploy. That's just fact. He had a choice on whether to put Repubs on the committee or withdraw all nominees so he could try to discredit it and chose the latter.

 

Wow, that was weak, even for you. Can we agree there is a vast difference between investigating one of the more significant historical events that took place in the US in the last 100 years, the attempted overthrow of the elected government by the now former prez, with whatever it is you folks are accusing Hunter, again, a private citizen, of doing?

 

An analogy is when you use the context and understanding of one thing to explain another, focusing on the ways in which they are comparable.

How are they comparable? They are both examples of one side opposing the political witch hunt generated by the other side. That is a 100% honest assessment which is something that you have time and time again demonstrated that you are incapable of putting forth.

Just because there is a vast difference between the riot on 1/6 and the dealings of Hunter Biden does not somehow invalidate the comparison between two opposing political parties being opposed to the political actions of their opposing parties.




You intimated that you do not know what is being investigated about Hunter....

Amongst other things.....Hunter, with no specific experience in the energy sector, was paid tens of millions of dollars to work with a foreign energy company with close ties to the Ukranian Government, at a time when his father was in a position to impact energy policy toward Ukraine. Could it be that he was hired and maintained that employment for that kind of money because of his influence with his father?

The notion that you would try to insist that there is just NOTHING there that could POSSIBLY require an investigation is just nonsensical. Maybe Hunter will not be proven to have done anything untoward, but you cannot credibly claim that it does not look suspicious as if those tens of millions were not some form of a quid pro quo involving his father and his influence at that time. Make no mistake about it, this investigation is about Joe, not Hunter. Hunter happens to be the conduit between Joe and the potential quid pro quo. Oh, and Joe withholding aid until they fired the prosecutor that was investigating Burisma is not a good look either even IF he put forth some lame excuse for his actions.

 

I wonder if there is any documented proof that Hunter actually did any work to earn those millions he was paid. Seems he had lots of free time to spend with hookers and blow.

 

You give yourself far, far too much credit by pretending your assessment is 100% honest. Until now I actually gave you credit for being a sincere, albeit misguided, debate partner. That was a mis-judgement on my part. The 1/6 investigation was warranted on multiple fronts. One of them being accessing the degree of culpability for it attributable to Trump. If you can't acknowledge that basic, irrefutable fact further discussion is pointless.

 

Stating that they are both examples of one side opposing the political witch hunt generated by the other side is 100% honest. It is not holding up my side as a paragon of virtue and the other side as devious dolts, rather it is simply telling it like it is. The respective sides feel as they do for 100% political reasons.

Your point about claiming that 1/6 is MORE warranted, is nothing other than your opinion. I happen to think that the Hunter tens of millions of dollars from a foreign energy company while his dad was in a position to influence energy policy to that country is a FAR greater reason. The difference here is that I 100% understand and acknowledge that my position is my opinion, while you 100% are convinced that you have spouted some sort of objective reality. You are devoid of the ability to look at a situation fairly. I am not, as evidenced by my recognition of when I'm spouting an opinion and my acknowledgment that most all of this is essentially political theater.

I am a realist, while you are in la la land, which is just another way of saying that you have an incurable case of TDS.

 

You un-ironically wrote........

"Your point about claiming that 1/6 is MORE warranted, is nothing other than your opinion."

"I am a realist, while you are in la la land,"

Your inability/unwillingness to admit to the cavernous difference between the importance of the 1/6 investigation, an examination of a threat to the foundation of our democracy, and looking in to whatever it is you folks are accusing Hunter of doing, exemplifies an irreconcilable difference in the way we view objective reality. Bye-bye.

 

That is your OPINION.

My OPINION is that Hunter being paid Tens of Millions of dollars while having no experience in the energy sector, working for a foreign company with strong ties to the Ukrainian government, WHILE his dad was in a position to impact energy policy toward Ukraine, is a FAR more legitimate reason for an in depth investigation.

The difference here is that I understand that my position is an opinion, and in your TDS delusion, you honestly believe that your OPINION is an example of you spouting objective fact. You CLEARLY lack the ability to differentiate between opinion and fact. Your position is sincerely indefensible. There is not a gray area when differentiating between opinion and fact that provides you with any sort of avenue to legitimately argue that your opinion is a fact. It is not. It is hard to fathom that I have to lecture a grown man on what is an opinion, but here we are.

 

Despite the rightist media fatwa that some parrot, there was insufficient evidence against Hunter Biden to justify prosecution throughout four years of the Trump Justice Department.

Conservative commentator Mona Charon, in an article entitled Why the Right Needs Hunter Biden that was published in The Bulwark, wrote:

“Hunter Biden seems to be corrupt. He traded on his father’s name. He has abused drugs and engaged in other unsavory practices. He’s a mess. But there is nothing relevant to public policy or civic virtue here. President Biden is hardly the first president to have troubled family members. But Joe Biden didn’t hire Hunter at the White House, and if there is any evidence of the president using official influence on Hunter’s behalf, we haven’t seen it. The Department of Justice under Trump opened an investigation into Hunter Biden. President Biden has left it alone. It’s ongoing.”
​

Donald, Jr., Ivanka, Eric, Tiffany, and Barron Trump also have a lowlife for a relative through no fault of their own.

 

There is more than enough evidence of the Biden crime family shady deals… spin it any way you can, cause it ain’t working….

 

If you have it, I'm certain their are many Biden-hating politicians and prosecutors eager to use it.

You might want to share it with them.