The Omnibus P01135809 Criminal Investigation Thread

Biden has dementia. I don't think a dementia patient should have access to the nuclear codes and they shouldn't be in charge of anything. This makes him automatically disqualified. As for me spendinding a lot of time criticizing Biden, well, nobody else will. You people have spent the past eight years attacking Trump on a daily basis, I don't see you complaining about that. Why am I being singled out? It's a rhetorical question, by the way.

Unfortunately, sometimes in life, there are no viable, realistic third alternatives. In the case of the presidential election, there is no realistic chance that the next person to be elected will not be either a Democrat or a Republican. Now you can vote Jill Stein or whoever, but the chances of that person getting elected is essentially zero.

Read the text of Biden’s last speech and compare it to Trump’s last speech.

Neither Biden nor Trump has been judged to suffer from dementia by any medical expert with standing in the eyes of the United States government, we should add.

Biden's old.

Trump's fractionally less old but a fucking idiot.

Oh, has he been convicted of having dementia?

Thought experiment - presented with the option of Hitler or Himmler as Fuhrer, do you assess which is the lesser evil and go with it?

Obviously not an exact analogue but I mean, where's the limit to that logic? Is there one?

I would say that while of course people could try for third alternatives and what not, it's not a complicated issue. Either Hitler would be better than Himmler for X, Y, Z reasons, Himmler is better than Hitler for A, B, C reasons or they are functionally about the same.

In short, no, there's not really a limit to the logic of there only being three alternatives: A>B, B>A or A is roughly equivalent to B..

False equivalence writ large. Quisling vs Johan Nygaardsvold might be closer.

I don't believe that Rick was saying they were equivalent, but such broad exaggerations are useful to analyse the base logic.

The argument being used is that even if you think that both Biden and Trump are dangerous psychopathic war criminals, you should vote for the one who you consider to be the lesser of the two evils.

This sort of argument is often, but not always, used by people who disagree with that assessment of their preferred candidates character and so want to find reasons to make someone dismiss those views as having an influence on their vote.

Until Biden is impeached for being demented, he’s as sharp, if not more so, than @Steal Your Face

You don't understand, some of us are sick of the lesser of the two evils and we refuse to play along with this nonsense. I will not and have not voted for the lesser of the two evils and if you think I owe someone my vote then you are sorely mistaken. If you think voting third party is a throw away vote or is essentially a vote for Trump then fuck you.

I understand you think Trump's policies are better than Biden's.

Whether you voted for Trump or not, that makes you a horrific fucking cunt.

PS. Oh dear.

https://twitter.com/lawofruby/statu...^1762559278680830269|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=

Looks like this Fani ain't getting grabbed, and yes fuck you America for confusing poon with ass.

If you can't tell the difference between someone who has policies you disagree with and a traitor then FUCK YOU!

Wouldn't Voldemort vs Umbridge be a better comparison?

You clearly didn't understand my post.

Are you surprised?

And if you listen to him speak in uncontrolled settings, profoundly incoherent. I can say for sure what's going on in the brain, but what comes out of the mouth is either deeply out of touch with realty or an indecipherable word salad.

This, for example:

"Whether it's a water faucet that doesn't put out water, or a shower that no water, or a washing machine where you can be in the middle of the greatest waterfall, you know, you have states that can't get rid of their water, washing machines, they don't give enough water"

https://x.com/BidenHQ/status/1762518499342078325?s=20


There's also a clip from today in which Nichole Wallace said she has notebooks full of background quotes from people who worked in his administration who affirm he was batshit crazy the first time around.

And that's before we talk about who each man would empower if elected.

OH and then there's former Australian PM Malcom Turnbull that said it was clear Trump was totally crushing on Putin when they were together, like (he said) a little kid meeting his famous football hero.

Everything has its limit in the theoretical. This choice is not analogous to that one in literally ANY sense.

The closest one can come to saying they are similar is on Israel policy (where Biden is burning a fuckton of political capital in defense of a dude who's firmly in Trump's camp) and in Dems misguided, backward ass, an ongoing decade+ long effort to prove they are as "tough" on immigration as Republicans (which is a persuasion they will NEVER succeed at)

Other than that, they are essentially as opposite as they could reasonably be.

Still better than Biden, right ff?

The words "Israel policy" is doing a lot of work to conceal what that actually means in reality.

Since you concede that there's a limit to the "lesser of two evils" in the theoretical, understand that when people insisting on applying that argument here, for those who reject it, that line has been crossed. The actions of the current administration are not missteps on tax policy, a bit of petty corruption or incompetence. They are evil, in the literal sense. Of the kind that must not be put up with.

You fucking TERF! Get outta here!

And for those who think that Biden and Trump are equivalently close in the level of evil as Hitler and Himmler, they are simply wrong. I don't discount someone using criteria to say that Biden is more evil than Trump, although I would say they are probably using the wrong criteria.

And I think it would be fairer in 2016 or 2020 to have a different opinion of what Trump would have done or could do. But in 2023, we not have four years of Trump presidency and three years of his post presidency, plus three years of Biden's presidency to evaluate.

Someone who thinks they are equivalently evil just is either zeroing in on one or two issues and not the whole picture.

I have a friend who is of the mind that it's OK if Trump wins because that would be the first step in his mind to revolution that would then result in a fairer society. It is purely coincidence that he would probably not directly suffer any consequences as things get worse.

Defeatist thinking that guarantees more of the same.

I'm not saying they're equivalent. I'm saying that there must come a point (and it may be a different point for some than others) when even the lesser evil is so bad that voting for it is not justified. For many, that threshold has been reached with Biden and therefore arguing that he is the lesser evil (as you are doing) is irrelevant.

It's not defeatist thinking to believe that, say, only the 49ers or the Chiefs were going to win the most recent Super Bowl and to disbelieve that the Bears were going to somehow be named the champions. One can fantasize that the Bears are a Caleb Williams or a lucky break from winning the Super Bowl next year, but even that is a longshot.

Now if someone wants to work to the viability of a third party or to make one of the major parties incorporate aspects of whatever party, that's all well and good. But there is literally no possibility whatsoever that a third party can win the presidency in this immediate election cycle, and very little absent a massive shift in voting patterns in the next decade.

Or, they see voting "Uncommitted" in a meaningless primary as the only way they can force the Biden administration to reconsider their policies when it comes to Israel.

It seems to me that as a utilitarian, IF there is a lesser evil, it is by definition better to select that than the greater evil. It's a fair argument from another perspective that "I don't want to choose evil, so I abstain from participating." But from my perspective, that is contributing to the possibility of the greater evil winning, and thus is not the moral hand-washing that the person thinks it is. Again, there theoretically could be evils so close that there is no meaningful difference between the greater and lesser evil and you have two equivalent evils. But I'm doubtful such a choice has happened or would happen in the real world.

There will never be a chance as long as people think like you.

Some of them. It remains to be seen how many will follow through, and the number will only increase as things continue as they are.