placeholder

And, as I pointed out, Ash Sarkar is not a columnist for the Guardian. So you got that wrong.

Can you share with us a source that does represent the world?

Well, who would be so irrational as to claim that a newspaper subscribed to certain beliefs not endorsed by their editoral board because of the views of one columnist? Oh, that would be you. And once again, you try to wriggle out by claiming that I was "inferring" (actually the correct word would be "implying") something that I never actually wrote. It is perfectly possible for someone to perpetrate a falsehood and believe it to be true. But it doesn't speak well of them that they refuse to back it up with evidence.

First iff, you've just conceded that the policy in this forum means that it is incumbent upon you to back up your assertions. Second, I don't know why you are telling me that "They also frown on calling people a liar because they can't be bothered to do the research for someone else." I haven't called you a liar.

Just so you know, the Mods frown on people who make claims and then challenge others to disprove them. For obvious reasons.

As I pointed out if I were to assert that the Telegraph is a nazi paper because many of its columinists are Nazis, and you were to disagree, it would be incumbent upon you to prove me wrong?

It's clear he's trying to inveigle you into defending something you asserted which was made very clear by your use of "historical facts" in your original comment.

No, you made the original assertion. It's incumbent upon you to prove it. But you can't because your point is obviously ridiculous. As I pointed out above, the Guardian's editorial board supported the UK's participation in the Gulf war as did most Conservatives. But the left wing of the Labour party was mostly opposed.

You even got this wrong. Ash Sarkar is not a columnist for the Guardian. She was a columnist but that was years ago.

Really? You make an assertion and you expect others to do the homework to prove you wrong? The issue would never have arisen if you hadn't made that assertion.

The vapidity of your comment is easily. What if someone were to claim that the Telegraph had many columnists who were Nazis and you denied it. Would it be incumbent upon you to prove that each and every one of them was not?

Honorable people back up their assertions. Others say things like "Prove to me that they are not supporters of Communism."

The "documentary" 2000 mules is based on the information provided by True the Vote. And now, thanks to the those grifters, this is happening in Arizona. Voter Intimidation Investigation Underway in Arizona After Couple Was Allegedly Filmed, Followed, and Accused of Being a ‘Mule’ The Arizona secretary of state’s office referred a report of alleged voter intimidation to the Department of Justice and Arizona’s attorney general on Wednesday, reported local media. The complaint said that a man and his wife were filmed, followed, and accused of “being a mule” earlier in the week as they attempted to vote. Early voting began last Wednesday in the Grand Canyon State. https://www.mediaite.com/news/voter-intimidation-investigation-underway-in-arizona-after-couple-was-allegedly-filmed-followed-and-accused-of-being-a-mule/

I've noticed that the Russians are claiming that the need to evacuate citizens in Kherson because Ukraine plans to blow up the hydroelectric dam. I think Russia is planning to blow up the dam and blame Ukraine. I've had this suspicion since yesterday when I read the Russian comments. For what it's worth, these people agree with me. Although, obviously, their opinion is the valuable one. https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-october-19

So, you based your accusation on a falsehood. because you didn't bother to check the data. In other words, you were wrong.

The difference is that not only were Trump's travel expenses paid, but he actually made a profit from this trips.

So you mean Trump had no choice but to charge them those rates? And Eric Trump had no choice but to lie about it?

You're on to something. There actually were cases of voter fraud referred to the justice system in Georgia. State Election Board Refers Voter Fraud Cases for Prosecution The State Election Board on Wednesday referred 35 cases of election-law violations to the attorney general or local district attorneys for criminal prosecution. “Election fraud is not tolerated in Georgia. When there is evidence of it, the people responsible face prosecution,” said Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, chairman of the five-member board. https://sos.ga.gov/news/state-election-board-refers-voter-fraud-cases-prosecution-0 This changes everything!

Better yet they could have stayed in Washington DC. The farther from Trump the better.

Marijuana use soars among college students while alcohol use drops: research A National Institutes of Health (NIH) study has found that marijuana use among college students is soaring as alcohol consumption drops. In its “Monitoring the Future” report, the NIH found that 44 percent of college students reported using marijuana in the past year, a 6-point increase from 2015. Daily marijuana usage ticked up from 5 percent to 8 percent of respondents during that time. Meanwhile, 56 percent of college students said they consumed alcohol last year, dropping from 62 percent in 2019. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/medicare/571992-marijuana-use-soars-among-college-students-while-alcohol-use-drops/

This is believable Hannity Spins Durham Probe Acquittal: ‘I Never Really Cared That Much’ "Fox News host Sean Hannity on Tuesday tried to extract some good news from the acquittal of Igor Danchenko in what was Special Counsel John Durham’s final case, in part by minimizing his own past focus on the Steele dossier researcher.''... I never really cared that much about Igor Danchenko,” Hannity claimed... Hannity, who in May 2020 fretted that “the great American republic will disintegrate before your eyes” if Durham’s team didn’t bring “justice,” brought attention to Danchenko several times, for instance in August 2020 and in November 2021 on Twitter." https://news.yahoo.com/hannity-spins-durham-probe-acquittal-035806320.html

We've already seen what judges think of Cannon's legal prowess. Remember how a panel of the 11th circuit issued a very sharp rebuke to her over whether documents marked classified should be kept from the prosecutors. Raymond Dearie has distinguished himself with a lifetime of service. Judge Cannon is a Joanie-Come-Lately with a brief tenure of disservice. It turns out that there's very strong evidence that Trump's lawyers actually shopped for her by lying that they had to file an appeal in person because the computer system was down. Yet other lawyers filed on the same day via the system and had no problems. The Incredible Mystery of How Trump Got Judge Cannon in the Mar-a-Lago Case https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-incredible-mystery-of-how-donald-trump-got-judge-aileen-cannon-in-the-mar-a-lago-case

The points raised by Trump's lawyers are the kind of losing proposition a lawyer makes to appease a clueless client. They have to know that their grounds for opposing the DOJ are ridiculous.

Well, the odds do strongly favor a Republican majority in the House for the next term. That said, the assertion that the Republican committee is going to dig up incriminating evidence is absurd. John Durham tried his best. He was convinced that there was connivance in the DOJ and tried his best to discover it. He actually criticized the report of the Inspector General which, while harshly critical of the FBI, found no evidence of conspiracy. This is excerpted from Durhams astonishing statement about the IG's conclusion: "Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.” https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/statement-us-attorney-john-h-durham The thing is, even if Durham had succeeded in gaining convictions of Sussman and Donchencko, instead of failing in both cases, it still wouldn't have established any sort of malice on the part of the DOJ. After 3+ years and investigative carte blanche, he came up with nothing. To expect that a House or Senate committee is going to uncover some dark plot or plots, you'd have to be a believer in black magic or, even more absurdly, believe that the 2020 elections were stolen...oh, wait a minute...

You got me there.