The president often had a weak, raspy voice during his first debate against Trump, in what Democrats had hoped would be a turning point in the race.

  • btaf45@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    They argued in court via their lawyer.

    You literally have failed to prove that because you couldn’t show a single quote from any DNC member. And it is in fact NOT one of the 3 specific arguments made according to the document.

    That’s an absurd standard.

    Not in the slightest. There is absolutely know way we can judge anything without seeing a single actual quote of what was said. Vague meaningless accusations are what Traitorapist Trump does, and it is important to understand that vague claims are completely meaningless.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      It’s not vague though. Their paid legal representative articulated their position under oath in court. I quoted it, you moved the goalposts and said I needed the long-form version like some birther. I posted a link to that and now you claim I have to quote DWS herself saying “we can disregard the charter when we want to, mwahahahaha!” in order to satisfy you. The previous rounds of goalpost moving and the accompanying gaslighting indicate that you intend to dismiss whatever I provide you and have since the beginning.

      • btaf45@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        19 hours ago

        It’s not vague though.

        It is absolutely vague because it is a generalization with no specifics at all. Without any actual quotes, it is completely impossible to judge your claim. We would absolutely need to know exactly who said something and exactly what they said, not just to know if there is anything at all there but also to know how serious of a problem it would be. Specific details if they did actually exist would show us not only a smoking gun but who fired the gun and how much damage they did with the gun and if any other people carried guns. Those details would be enormously important. It’s true that if a former DNC chairman had incriminating quotes it would only directly implicate her. But a reporter would certainly want to ask the present DNC chairman if they agreed. And if the wrong answer was given, they would need to be fired.

        I quoted it,

        You gave absolutely no quotes from anybody in the DNC or their employee. Vague accusations are worthless

        you moved the goalposts and said I needed the long-form version like some birthe

        No ‘goalpost’ was moved. OF COURSE we need the specific details to judge whether vague claims are valid or not. We would absolutely need to know exactly who said something and exactly what they said. Any idiot can go around making vague claims. If actual incriminating quotes existed then how come Putin’s propaganda never provided them to you in all this time? With all the people like you that are desperate to find actual evidence do you really think that if any actual quotes existed – and which would be available in the public record for anybody to find – that Putin’s 50 billion dollars spent on intelligence services would not have already found those quotes and already made them widely available on the internet to people who are extremely eager to believe The Narrative?

        I told you before. Find the details to prove your case. Or waste time looking for quotes that do not exist because if they did exist, then not only would you already know about them, but everybody else would already know about them. I would already know about them. But look at it this way. If you did find actual incriminating quotes, that would make you a huge hero to all the people on the internet who want that incriminating evidence, and which Putin’s $50 billion intelligence service was not unable to find.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          You are determined to ignore any proof I give you. You have never argued in good faith and never will. I gave you a direct quote from the DNC’s lawyer, backing up what I said, and you made up excuses for ignoring it, with the heaviest dose of gaslighting I’ve ever seen.

          The only way to satisfy you is to lie and say you’re right.