It’s called misquoting, a common tactic of propaganda. You’ve never heard of it?

There's a quote function for quoting, which I didn't use, and posts are right below each other. I know reading and thinking are difficult for you but I have a higher standard for people's average reading abilities than that.

There's a quote function for quoting, which I didn't use — Benkei

:up:

The paraphrase was totally clear in its form and its intention.

There's a quote function for quoting, which I didn't use, and posts are right below each other. I know reading and thinking are difficult for you but I have a higher standard for people's average reading abilities than that.

Perhaps you should use it instead of misquoting people. Then you'd see that when I using the phrase "bullying tactics" I was using the same exact phrase as my interlocutor, who used the phrase to explain why Trump ought to be condescended to. So not only did you misquote me, but you could not even paraphrase me properly. Like him, you just like to talk about me at the expense of the subject, apparently.

We've seen a lot about proving things to you. No one can prove anything to you, which you do not want proven. But anything which you want proven, you readily prove it to yourself. — Metaphysician Undercover

The subject being that you're totally partisan on anything to deal with US politics, which was an entirely accurate assessment by MU and which you then whine about as bullying tactics. And like any Trumpster, instead of reflecting on your own behaviour you double-down, by insisting a clear paraphrase is a misquote.

So I was on message and you're just trying to deflect.

I don't know whether he is a rapist or not. But surely your past and present presidents were capable of other terrible things if not worse than rape. — Hailey

Any man is capable of terrible things. Woman are too, but not nearly to the extent men are. Let's put women in charge for awhile, shall we, and see how they do? What do you say?

I don't know whether he is a rapist or not. But surely your past and present presidents were capable of other terrible things if not worse than rape. — Hailey

True, that. But the terms of defending a crime are not equal to whether one has kept faith with a sworn promise.

For instance, I take the vow of matrimony very seriously and view those who are adulterous as less trustworthy after finding out about it. This, of course, does not mean that such behavior is equal to betraying the promises to fulfill and protect the Constitution. The matter of public promises and personal trust do become entangled when self-interest is measured against serving a commonwealth.

The question of corruption is usually framed in terms of how much self-interest overtakes the purpose of serving as a public official or the interests of an enterprise. The Tyrant, in the Platonic Dialogues, is the one who uses the appearance of providing justice as a glove to hide their true end to further themselves above all others.

McConnel did not have the courage to face this problem as provided by the Constitution for this very purpose. I remember my grandfather complaining about the judicial system being blamed for the results of other institutions failing to do their jobs.

The subject being that you're totally partisan on anything to deal with US politics, which was an entirely accurate assessment by MU and which you then whine about as bullying tactics. And like any Trumpster, instead of reflecting on your own behaviour you double-down, by insisting a clear paraphrase is a misquote.

So I was on message and you're just trying to deflect.

A misquote, a mischaracterization, a laughing emoji, and of course it is aimed only at those with whom you disagree, namely me. On message, for sure, because if you had any clear standards and lacked your own partisanship none of this would be occurring. But as usual you like to insert yourself and aim your contempt in only one direction and at one person.

I'm not defending anyone's behavior or possible crime. I'm just pointing out that you got limited choices and that few of your most powerful political figures, such as your presidents, are innocent and morally unimpeachable. Can you say that Biden has done nothing worse than rape? You're just stuck with them. That's your dilemma.

Assuming that past presidents were rapists or worse in order to justify Trump’s crimes is what we call rationalizing in the US. — praxis

Thank you for your education on rationalization. But does it occur to you that I'm justfying a crime he might have carried. I'm merely saying that when given two awaful candidates, where one might be a rapist and has said a whole lot of stupid things, whereas the other may be corrupt and is definitely pro-war, you got to decide what is your red line to exclude one for your vote.

yawn Are you starting to cry? You're blaming me for what you're actually doing. I don't have a horse in this race so accusing me of partisanship just underlines your myopic worldview.

I'm merely saying that… — Hailey

You were trying to rationalize rape, and doing so very poorly. Do you dislike women?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that I don't actually care about the "rape" angle at all. I would prefer people to not rape, and I would prefer rapists to not be successful politicians, but it's not even really on my radar as one of the top reasons to not want trump as president.

Top reason is, I'm not ready for Americas first dictator, and him trying to wrest the election out of the hands of the voters clearly indicates that that's exactly what he wants to be. He's an existential threat to American democracy. I don't think about his rape allegations at all, it doesn't even register to me as something to consider when much more important things are on the line.

(I also don't trust him to do what's right for Ukraine. He's a lackey for Putin, it seems.)

You were trying to rationalize rape, and doing so very poorly. — praxis

How come? Nothing can rationalize rape. Rape is rape. Do you think seeing murder or war crime or other terrible stuff as awful as or even worse than rape is an action of rationalization?

Do you dislike women? — praxis

No.

Is rape, or we shall say, possible rape, the only thing you consider when choosing a president? Trump, suspected rapist, Pass. Biden, possibly not a rapist, Yes! Is this how your system work? Do you agree that it makes sense for people who are not sure whether Trump is a rapist and have other considerations when choosing president to support Trump over Biden?

I agree. It sounds politically incorrect; rape is by no means trivial, but it's true that more is at stake here.

Top reason is, I'm not ready for Americas first dictator, and him trying to wrest the election out of the hands of the voters clearly indicates that that's exactly what he wants to be. — flannel jesus

That might be valid. I just can't take sides here for I'm unable to relate to it. It never occured to me that you could see it from this angle, given my lack of cultural exposure. I don't know how Americans, living in the US with Trump, might feel on this. For me, living and raised in China, I think it takes a lot more to become a dictator. Do you think he can really be a dictator? Is dictatorship even possible in America under your political system?

That’s the biggest farce because in a republic one is allowed to believe an election was stolen and take steps to challenge it, especially after traditional elections were dismantled and jiggered so as to suit a particular party in that election.

Actually, we’ve got the dictator right now. For the first time since Lincoln was sworn in we had a massive military presence at an inauguration, quelling any and all viewers and protest. His justice department and state lackeys goes after people who challenged the legitimacy of his leadership and authority, especially his main political rival. His regime stifles any attempt to look into his increasingly corrupt dealings.

That’s the biggest farce because in a republic one is allowed to believe an election was stolen and take steps to challenge it, — NOS4A2

Are you allowed to call governors and ask them to find you some votes? Would you defend Bidens right to do that?

Yes. It’s not like he’s asking him to find illegal ballots.

Well, I applaud your consistency.

There was not and is not evidence that they exist. Where were they supposed to "find" them?

and why did he ask for the specific number of votes he'd need to win Georgia?

Trump was determined to be liable of sexual assault by a jury of his peers. Trump had the best lawyers that money could buy, it should be noted. His lawyers would not have allowed biased jurors. Those jurors were convinced that he was responsible.

Is rape not considered immoral in China?

There was not and is not evidence that they exist. Where were they supposed to "find" them?

Actually, after a quick read of the transcript, I’m pretty sure that Trump was speaking of the illegal ballots of his opponents, that if he found them and discarded them as fraudulent it would put him in the lead.

Is dictatorship even possible in America under your political system? — Hailey

The power of the Executive has been steadily increased, and a president may, upon declaring a national emergency (which the president may do unilaterally) exercise extraordinary powers, dictatorial in scope, such as deploying troops or limiting telecommunications. Trump has been claiming, in effect, a "national emergency" for quite some time, and we may be reasonably certain he will do so given the opportunity, if it serves his purpose.

It makes no difference whether he meant find votes that can be discarded as illegal. There was not and is not evidence they exist. He was repeatedly told by the Justice Department and Georgia officials that they did not exist.

It is one thing to question results, but quite another to reject the evidence.

Trump already has done so given the opportunity. There are currently 8 ongoing national emergencies stemming from Trump's administration. But there are still ongoing national emergencies from the 90's, under Clinton. There is still one from the Carter administration. Obama currently has 9 ongoing national emergencies. Biden has 8.

It makes no difference whether he meant find votes that can be discarded as illegal. There was not and is not evidence they exist. He was repeatedly told by the Justice Department and Georgia officials that they did not exist.

It is one thing to question results, but quite another to reject the evidence.

Why would someone trust the DOJ and Georgia officials?

It does make a difference because everyone who has criticized that particular remark never stipulate that he was requesting they look for illegal votes, which is evidence criminal activity, a far cry from some nefarious abuse of power or election fraud.

Why would someone trust the DOJ and Georgia officials? — NOS4A2

Right. Anyone or anything that does not support Trump and his claims cannot be trusted.

he was requesting they look for illegal votes — NOS4A2

That had already been done. He knew that but did not like that none of the multiple investigations supported his allegations.

Oh yes. Emergency Powers were granted to the President by Congress some time ago, and Presidents delight it making use of them. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I think those powers should be restricted more than they are.

Right. Anyone or anything that does not support Trump and his claims cannot be trusted.

Anyone who facilitates the worst conspiracy theory in the history of the United States in an attempt to subvert the duly elected president should not be trusted. These are the same crooks now trying to indict him. Given their history, they should not be trusted on principle alone.

That had already been done. He knew that but did not like that none of the multiple investigations supported his allegations.

Requesting that a governor look for election fraud in his state is nothing compared to spreading a conspiracy theory that Russia stole an election, instigating multiple investigations and fishing expeditions, spying, capturing the minds of the gullible, influencing elections, and eventually leading to a hot war. This is an actual attempt to defraud the United States. Given that you and others cry foul at one but not the other is enough reason to doubt any finger-wagging on the topic.

Anyone who facilitates the worst conspiracy theory in the history of the United States in an attempt to subvert the duly elected president should not be trusted. — NOS4A2

I am in complete agreement. This is exactly what Trump and his henchmen did.