| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 01:18 - Sep 29 with 235030 views | Dr_Parnassus |
Who will be watching? First one kicks off in 24 hours time.
The Democrats have pulled Joe back from his campaign trail recently to get him prepared, so hopefully it will be a decent exchange.
Unfortunately they don’t seem to have great confidence as they have spent the last month looking for any dirt they can dig up so Joe can use if he gets stuck.
It’s no coincidence that this vote influencing Facebook algorithm story is being shamelessly and inaccurately made into a race issue on the eve of the debates. So transparent and disingenuous, it’s a shame politics has come to this on this level where black people are being used in this way to score political points. I would be furious if I was them, but it does seem a lot of people are not falling for this one and calling it out for what it is.
People finally seem to be getting wise to this political race baiting which is refreshing to see.
It’s also telling that in the week of the debate they try and paint Trump as a tax evasion offender. I think that’s what they wanted the tax returns to show, they seem to have got annoyed when it turns out his tax returns were fine in accordance to what his companies profits were - but decided to run with it anyway. Any news is good news in their mind as it’s another thing Joe can use when in a tricky spot.
But I hope the discussions remain political and doesn’t turn into some form of gossip peddling reality TV episode.
Although I think there should be some kind of drinking game involved if it does turn that way, how many times Biden completely loses his thread of thought and blurts out “I mean, think about it...” you have to take a shot. 
I will be watching with great interest anyway.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 12:23 - Nov 24 with 1410 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 12:15 - Nov 24 by Dr_Parnassus |
Any specific examples of those observations? |
Didn’t think so. | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 12:25 - Nov 24 with 1408 views | ItchySphincter |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 12:23 - Nov 24 by Dr_Parnassus |
Didn’t think so. |
Crikey, you’re replying to yourself before I’ve even had a chance to read your response. 😂
#frenzy |  |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 12:27 - Nov 24 with 1403 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 12:25 - Nov 24 by ItchySphincter |
Crikey, you’re replying to yourself before I’ve even had a chance to read your response. 😂
#frenzy |
Oh good, so there is a chance you will come up with something still then?
Could be entertaining. | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 12:46 - Nov 24 with 1379 views | Professor |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:49 - Nov 24 by Dr_Parnassus |
Incorrect, both are fact.
Donald Trump was voted into office, historical fact. District court adjudicates on district issues, not national issues. These are facts, these aren’t interpretations or opinions.
Now we are on the subject, do you think it’s a good time to revisit the discussion on planned parenthood where you seemed to think you knew what points were being made only to emotionally jump in and make a fool of yourself.
You have since been taught the ins and outs of the situation so a retraction and a continuation is probably the order of the day. I understand it is always tempting to dip back on when you believe you can manipulate and steer topics away from original context, but that doesn’t wash with me.
Ready when you are... [Post edited 24 Nov 2020 11:52]
|
Now you have just shown up what a misguided fool you are. Of course law is based around interpretation. Why would you need a judge to adjudicate. History is only fact at GCSE level |  | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 12:48 - Nov 24 with 1377 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 12:46 - Nov 24 by Professor |
Now you have just shown up what a misguided fool you are. Of course law is based around interpretation. Why would you need a judge to adjudicate. History is only fact at GCSE level |
The only person who mentioned law was you.
That’s what you do. You know that all things being equal you simply cannot enter a debate. You have to change it and argue against a point nobody has made.
“Court processes” is what was said, not law. Which was led by a discussion of district and Supreme Court and their geographical areas of work.
Which of course was and still is factual.
Which historical discussion on this thread is not actually factual then? Or are you just being silly and obtuse?
If you are going to infect this forum with your nonsense at least try and follow what is being said... or have the good grace to address your previous misgivings, you have form for not being able to follow the discussion. Don’t you?
Happy to provide examples if needed, or would that be deemed too “aggressive” you think? [Post edited 24 Nov 2020 12:53]
| |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 13:06 - Nov 24 with 1358 views | Professor |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 12:48 - Nov 24 by Dr_Parnassus |
The only person who mentioned law was you.
That’s what you do. You know that all things being equal you simply cannot enter a debate. You have to change it and argue against a point nobody has made.
“Court processes” is what was said, not law. Which was led by a discussion of district and Supreme Court and their geographical areas of work.
Which of course was and still is factual.
Which historical discussion on this thread is not actually factual then? Or are you just being silly and obtuse?
If you are going to infect this forum with your nonsense at least try and follow what is being said... or have the good grace to address your previous misgivings, you have form for not being able to follow the discussion. Don’t you?
Happy to provide examples if needed, or would that be deemed too “aggressive” you think? [Post edited 24 Nov 2020 12:53]
|
History
https://www.historians.org/teaching-and-learning/teaching-resources-for-historia | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 13:08 - Nov 24 with 1355 views | Dr_Parnassus |
Yep.
So use that link to study what it is... then find a historical discussion in this thread that you believe is inaccurate and not indeed fact.
When you manage to do that we can move on to Planned Parenthood.
Take your time. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 13:20 - Nov 24 with 1340 views | Kilkennyjack |
|  |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 13:21 - Nov 24 with 1335 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 13:20 - Nov 24 by Kilkennyjack |
|
You are about two pages slow with that one Kilk. 
Even the Donald has had his lengthy say on the matter since. | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 13:35 - Nov 24 with 1325 views | Professor |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 13:08 - Nov 24 by Dr_Parnassus |
Yep.
So use that link to study what it is... then find a historical discussion in this thread that you believe is inaccurate and not indeed fact.
When you manage to do that we can move on to Planned Parenthood.
Take your time. |
I gave you the facts, legislation and ethical standpoint. You gave, as ever,
Opinion and propaganda.
Law, like the U.K. or US is based on common law. This is entirely based on precedent and judicial interpretation of legislation. Civil law is based on factual or defined statutes. Other than a little US state law it is irrelevant here.. | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 13:43 - Nov 24 with 1318 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 13:35 - Nov 24 by Professor |
I gave you the facts, legislation and ethical standpoint. You gave, as ever,
Opinion and propaganda.
Law, like the U.K. or US is based on common law. This is entirely based on precedent and judicial interpretation of legislation. Civil law is based on factual or defined statutes. Other than a little US state law it is irrelevant here.. |
You really need to start reading what people are saying to you. This is now the third time in this thread you have fallen foul of it.
Nobody is talking about law, other than you. The discussion was surrounding court procedures, more specifically their area of jurisdiction and whether they cover state or National cases. The discussion surrounding that was based entirely on facts. That is neither opinion nor propaganda.
In order to have “an in” because you struggle to debate on a normal level, you have taken upon yourself to change the discussion to “law isn’t fact”... which of course is not something anyone has said or even alluded to.
I really am in a quandary as to whether you genuinely have trouble in social situations and deducing what you read or are told - or whether you are so pent up that you are willing to be so intellectually dishonest that you are actively and shamelessly deciding to change people’s points to argue against the point you created and assume nobody will notice.
Which one is it? [Post edited 24 Nov 2020 13:55]
| |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 14:00 - Nov 24 with 1300 views | Professor |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 13:43 - Nov 24 by Dr_Parnassus |
You really need to start reading what people are saying to you. This is now the third time in this thread you have fallen foul of it.
Nobody is talking about law, other than you. The discussion was surrounding court procedures, more specifically their area of jurisdiction and whether they cover state or National cases. The discussion surrounding that was based entirely on facts. That is neither opinion nor propaganda.
In order to have “an in” because you struggle to debate on a normal level, you have taken upon yourself to change the discussion to “law isn’t fact”... which of course is not something anyone has said or even alluded to.
I really am in a quandary as to whether you genuinely have trouble in social situations and deducing what you read or are told - or whether you are so pent up that you are willing to be so intellectually dishonest that you are actively and shamelessly deciding to change people’s points to argue against the point you created and assume nobody will notice.
Which one is it? [Post edited 24 Nov 2020 13:55]
|
Not me who suggested history and court systems are ‘facts’. I have shown as usual you are talking absolute nonsense. You claim others are irrational, but cannot accept you can be and frequently are wrong. I don’t care what you and your cronies say. It means nothing | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 14:09 - Nov 24 with 1285 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 14:00 - Nov 24 by Professor |
Not me who suggested history and court systems are ‘facts’. I have shown as usual you are talking absolute nonsense. You claim others are irrational, but cannot accept you can be and frequently are wrong. I don’t care what you and your cronies say. It means nothing |
So now you have changed it back to “court systems” after realising your error... yet still appear to be expecting your argument against the fictitious “law is fact” opinion (that you made up) to hold any weight against the actual discussion that you are yet to address. Barmy.
You may get away with this sort of dishonest nonsense on the other forum, but you won’t get away with it here and especially not with me. That’s without even touching upon your made up argument on history, race and abortion. (It’s becoming a lengthy list and quite a habit).
Let’s give you a refresh.
Our new yank poster said that he enjoys reading this thread (key statement) because US history is being discussed as factual (I assume he was implying it wasn’t) and thinking we know US court systems.
Now, considering I was involved in both those discussions I replied with “that’s because they are both facts”.
So if you disagree with that statement, show me a part of US history discussed here (by me as I was the poster he referenced) that is not a fact or show me a how the discussion surrounding court systems is not fact. Just quote the piece will suffice.
Or you can keep pretending to not understand what the discussion is about and continue to make your dishonest and illogical approach to debate.
Over to you... [Post edited 24 Nov 2020 14:22]
| |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 14:23 - Nov 24 with 1269 views | Professor |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 14:09 - Nov 24 by Dr_Parnassus |
So now you have changed it back to “court systems” after realising your error... yet still appear to be expecting your argument against the fictitious “law is fact” opinion (that you made up) to hold any weight against the actual discussion that you are yet to address. Barmy.
You may get away with this sort of dishonest nonsense on the other forum, but you won’t get away with it here and especially not with me. That’s without even touching upon your made up argument on history, race and abortion. (It’s becoming a lengthy list and quite a habit).
Let’s give you a refresh.
Our new yank poster said that he enjoys reading this thread (key statement) because US history is being discussed as factual (I assume he was implying it wasn’t) and thinking we know US court systems.
Now, considering I was involved in both those discussions I replied with “that’s because they are both facts”.
So if you disagree with that statement, show me a part of US history discussed here (by me as I was the poster he referenced) that is not a fact or show me a how the discussion surrounding court systems is not fact. Just quote the piece will suffice.
Or you can keep pretending to not understand what the discussion is about and continue to make your dishonest and illogical approach to debate.
Over to you... [Post edited 24 Nov 2020 14:22]
|
No. You are trying to twist it again.
US laws and court systems are based on English Common Law. This based on interpretation of legislation or submitted material. The judgement sets a precedent, though over time and differences in the interpretation of the judiciary the precedent can change-regardless of the system, it is not based in fact. It makes the law a living and fluid system. Not unlike Thomas Kuhn's ideas in science and paradigm shift.
Civil law systems are defined. They are based on a statute that becomes a matter of fact. Judges work on the fact not an interpretation. In fact if the US had a Civil Law system your hero could not make challenges based on a judicial interpretation of legislation or the constitution. | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 14:27 - Nov 24 with 1267 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 14:23 - Nov 24 by Professor |
No. You are trying to twist it again.
US laws and court systems are based on English Common Law. This based on interpretation of legislation or submitted material. The judgement sets a precedent, though over time and differences in the interpretation of the judiciary the precedent can change-regardless of the system, it is not based in fact. It makes the law a living and fluid system. Not unlike Thomas Kuhn's ideas in science and paradigm shift.
Civil law systems are defined. They are based on a statute that becomes a matter of fact. Judges work on the fact not an interpretation. In fact if the US had a Civil Law system your hero could not make challenges based on a judicial interpretation of legislation or the constitution. |
Wow, just wow.
So now after understanding the discussion was about court systems, specifically what area they cover (state or National).... you change it back to the intricacies of actual law?
The discussion surrounding court systems was specifically the difference between Supreme Court and District Court. It was a geographical discussion.
And you have the audacity to claim I am twisting it? I was going to say, you couldn’t make it up... but you clearly do, often.
I ask again. Show me one single post of mine regarding the court systems that is not factual and implies that it is.
Just one. [Post edited 24 Nov 2020 14:32]
| |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 14:35 - Nov 24 with 1252 views | Dr_Parnassus |
As I thought. | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 14:37 - Nov 24 with 1250 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 14:23 - Nov 24 by Professor |
No. You are trying to twist it again.
US laws and court systems are based on English Common Law. This based on interpretation of legislation or submitted material. The judgement sets a precedent, though over time and differences in the interpretation of the judiciary the precedent can change-regardless of the system, it is not based in fact. It makes the law a living and fluid system. Not unlike Thomas Kuhn's ideas in science and paradigm shift.
Civil law systems are defined. They are based on a statute that becomes a matter of fact. Judges work on the fact not an interpretation. In fact if the US had a Civil Law system your hero could not make challenges based on a judicial interpretation of legislation or the constitution. |
I suggest before you go any further you read this.
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/comparing
Especially the very last section. | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 14:39 - Nov 24 with 1246 views | Dr_Parnassus |
Don’t confuse him, he doesn’t even know what the discussion is yet.
I’m sure his lackeys on the other site will be rallied by his injured wailing, prepare for an attack.
Should be fun....  | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 15:21 - Nov 24 with 1219 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 14:39 - Nov 24 by Dr_Parnassus |
Don’t confuse him, he doesn’t even know what the discussion is yet.
I’m sure his lackeys on the other site will be rallied by his injured wailing, prepare for an attack.
Should be fun.... |
I was concerned that he thought the US courts were based on the UK's when the UK didn't have a Supreme Court until 2009. | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 15:24 - Nov 24 with 1218 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 15:21 - Nov 24 by A_Fans_Dad |
I was concerned that he thought the US courts were based on the UK's when the UK didn't have a Supreme Court until 2009. |
He hasn’t managed to grasp that the discussion in question is regarding geographical jurisdictions yet, without even going into the history of the Supreme Court.
Baby steps. | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 16:00 - Nov 24 with 1201 views | Professor |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 14:35 - Nov 24 by Dr_Parnassus |
As I thought. |
Unlike you I have a real job and responsibilities-so don’t expect replies. And I see your lapdog has joined in.
And History? Clearly wrong but you will never admit to that either. | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 17:14 - Nov 24 with 1172 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 16:00 - Nov 24 by Professor |
Unlike you I have a real job and responsibilities-so don’t expect replies. And I see your lapdog has joined in.
And History? Clearly wrong but you will never admit to that either. |
I was merely trying to help you to stop digging a hole even deeper, by pointing out your error.
Because you certainly don't need my help digging them deeper as you have proved in the past. | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 (n/t) on 17:18 - Nov 24 with 1168 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 (n/t) on 12:22 - Nov 24 by ItchySphincter |
What are you going to do when it comes out in the wash that you’ve spent 90-odd pages talking a load of old guff? You’re going to lose this one 100% when Biden takes office. What are going to do then? Are you going to accept it or are you going to keep this up? I bet I can guess the answer.  |
So have you watched all 3 videos?
If you have and can still say that, then your powers of Observation and understanding of very basic arithmetic and statistical chance leave an aweful lot to be desired and you shouldn't be posting on a grown up's forum about stuff you do not understand. | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 18:05 - Nov 24 with 1138 views | Professor |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 17:14 - Nov 24 by A_Fans_Dad |
I was merely trying to help you to stop digging a hole even deeper, by pointing out your error.
Because you certainly don't need my help digging them deeper as you have proved in the past. |
Well your master is clearly wrong. History and courts are facts. I pointed out this was wrong as History as an active subject in not merely facts. He cannot dispute that. And notice he has not. I also pointed out the legal system in both countries is not based on facts or written rules but one of interpretation and precedent. He and you cannot argue that. I don’t care about the court structure.
My main point was about history and the legal systems.
Discussion and debate are not linear but you are both too thick or more likely obstinate to see that. I am aware of my own limitations, but work is a job where you have to be a bit bullish and become liable to a touch of hubris.
But you gang are beyond laughable. Experts in finding the answers on the internet.
Argue with experts (Scotia) and embedded in conspiracy theory. The most risible sort of expert. The one who cannot see the wood for the trees or truth from misdirection
I am not a law expert (other than elements related to my work) but have good friends who are senior corporate lawyers (one spent five years in the US office). I learned much from them. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
