candide

The WB claims concern an alleged covering up by the DOJ. The whistleblower you mentioned did not claim to have evidence against Joe. And most of the alleged covering-up occurred under Trump. Impeach Barr!

Money was transferred. Ok. Emails explain it was about fees and expenses related to the project of creating a JV (which would, for example, have invested in a liquefied gas unit in the U.S.). What's illegal about it? What has Joe to do with it? You have nothing!

Comer said it! That's your evidence?

Well, he could just have said that it is not comparable, or that both cases were bad. He said what he said (probably partly by stupidity). To re-use one of your previous forms of argument, it is obvious that former slaves were able to use what they have been forced to learn as slave. They why was it stressed (see Bkk Brian post before)? If not for suggesting that, after all, slavery was not that bad.

The main claims of the whistleblowers (if true) are about events which occurred during Trump's mandate (they were alegedly prevented to investigate Hunter further, interview his children, etc...). How can it be a ground to impeach Joe?

And the fact that he disagreed with both Barr's DOJ and Garland's DOJ suggests he's of a 'disagreeing' type.

Come on! It's only because they like Fox News! ???? (Sarcasm alert)

As usual, the context is important Gutfeld made a comparison between black people alegedly benefiting from slavery (sic), and concentration camps. He was replying to (quote from the OP): "Jessica Tarlov, a panelist on “The Five” who is Jewish, said she was “uncomfortable” with the implication that some Black people benefited from slavery and asked whether one could make a similar argument about Jews who were imprisoned at concentration camps during World War II, when Adolf Hitler’s genocidal regime murdered about 6 million Jews and also targeted Romany people, homosexuals and political dissidents." And....he did!

Changing target now?

Why didn't you tell it to your pal SunnyinBangrak in the first place?

Come on! Not that false equivalence B.S. again! The Dems never claimed there had been massive fraud, did not assault the Capitol, did not refuse to certify elections, etc... Calling Trump illegitimate because he is notably incompetent is quite a different thing.

Well, when one camp's propaganda is that elections have been stolen, despite all the evidence it's a lie, and a majority of its voters believe it, the country is surely divided.

Not tired of trolling?

To remain on the topic of the OP: of course, activists are in propaganda mode. However, it is unlikely that environmental issues such as climate change will improved without the participation of people. So It's not necessarily a bad thing if the media are a bit too alarming. Having said that, even the more cautious scientific forecasts are alarming enough.

And I gave an example (UK). Other examples are the right-wing governments which ratified the Paris agreement, or the European right-wing governments which voted EU policies at the Council. Precision: By right-wing I consider conservative parties such as the Tories. Extreme right-wing parties are another story.

I made the claim that right-wing governments, outside the U.S., often supported environmental policies, a claim you found idiotic.

So the Tories are left-wing? Me stupid! And I guess Bismarck too?

Me stupid! I thought that, for example, the UK government was right-wing.

Well, if you trust the NYPost then you should believe this: "VP Biden greeted the Ukrainians but spoke only in vague pleasantries during the short call, and in other such interactions with Hunter’s overseas business partners, Archer is expected to testify. " https://nypost.com/2023/07/23/hunter-biden-put-then-vp-dad-joe-on-the-phone-with-business-associates-at-least-2-dozen-times-ex-partner-devon-archer-to-testify/ What about those walls closing?

Well, let's guess why.....because they have a sense of the ridiculous?

It seems this right-wing/left-wing divergence about environmental issues occurs mainly in the U.S. (well, if the Democratic party could be considered as left-wing, lol! But never mind). In other countries, there are plenty of right-wing governments who support environmental policies. Only the U.S. right-wing is that stupid (or, as shown by other posters, is bribed by oil companies).

Blah blah! What is your evidence that an FD-1023 form is not what the FBI says it is?

Interesting poll with plenty of questions on different subjects. However, public opinion doesn't exempt from providing evidence... BTW, where did you get that slide? It's not on the document you linked.

Well, if it may diverge according to people's will (in your statement at the State level), why not simply at the individual level?

There is nearly no scientific controversy about global warming any more, since 10 years already (from scientific peer-reviewed papers, not pseudo-science sources) From a mera-analysis in 2013 "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research." https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024