The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: juner on February 04, 2021, 04:51:09 PM

Title: President Joe Biden
Post by: juner on February 04, 2021, 04:51:09 PM
I thought it may be useful to have a thread to discuss current events of the Biden administration without being drowned out by debating/rehashing the results of an election that was decided a long time ago. In the spirit of that idea, unless there is some new story that comes out about the election/fraud, keep the discussions on whether you think Biden is actually President or not out of this thread.

Biden signed a bunch of EOs undoing the policy set by the Trump admin. The current hot topic is the next covid relief package. Looks like student loan debt relief has been kicked down the road until summer or later. Also Pete Buttigieg is in charge of the trains now.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: garygreen on February 04, 2021, 04:52:58 PM
biden and senate dems are going to completely fuck up marijuana decrim. watch it happen.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on February 04, 2021, 04:54:40 PM
While I like free money (got my $600 yesterday) I hate the dems using reconceliation to push this through. 
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on February 04, 2021, 05:06:04 PM
While I like free money (got my $600 yesterday) I hate the dems using reconceliation to push this through.

Using reconciliation is better than including a bunch of free money for CEOs that the GOP would bargain for.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: juner on February 04, 2021, 05:29:56 PM
Reconciliation is pretty much the only tool they have since Republicans and Democrats are light years apart on what a relief deal should look like. The Republican goal would likely just end up being months of negotiations and then not voting for a Democrat bill anyway.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: JSS on February 04, 2021, 05:33:22 PM
While I like free money (got my $600 yesterday) I hate the dems using reconceliation to push this through.

I wish Republicans would negotiate.  They seem to have forgotten how in the past 12 years.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on February 04, 2021, 05:56:06 PM
While I like free money (got my $600 yesterday) I hate the dems using reconceliation to push this through.

I wish Republicans would negotiate.  They seem to have forgotten how in the past 12 years.

10 republicans went to the WH to negotiate.  I'd call that a good thing.

And did y'all read the republican proposal?  Sheesh.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: juner on February 04, 2021, 05:56:58 PM
While I like free money (got my $600 yesterday) I hate the dems using reconceliation to push this through.

I wish Republicans would negotiate.  They seem to have forgotten how in the past 12 years.

Probably closer to 40 years... That will be what probably ends up leading to abolishing the filibuster by Democrats, which will get Uno reversed on Democrats if Republicans take over during the midterms.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: JSS on February 04, 2021, 06:43:59 PM
While I like free money (got my $600 yesterday) I hate the dems using reconceliation to push this through.

I wish Republicans would negotiate.  They seem to have forgotten how in the past 12 years.

10 republicans went to the WH to negotiate.  I'd call that a good thing.

And did y'all read the republican proposal?  Sheesh.

Meeting is a good thing, sure.  It's a first step.  I read the proposal.

Demanding Biden throw out his proposal and use theirs instead isn't negotiating.

Biden has said he is open to targeting the stimulus checks better, and I agree that's a good idea.  But Republicans want to cut the entire plan by 70% and thats a non-starter.

Is Republicans were serious, you could get some of them to vote for it by doing things like raising the income threshold for better targeting like they want, maybe cut a few items they feel strongly about.

But Democrats have the majority, even if it's a slim one. They set the stage, just as Republicans did for four years. 

But demanding Democrats simply throw away their own package and pass the Republican's bill instead... that's not how this works.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on February 04, 2021, 07:22:40 PM
I've been watching a lot of Fox News and listening to the questions their reporters ask the press secretary and I feel confident in declaring that Joe Biden is history's greatest monster.

He says he wants unity but he won't agree to slash his bill proposals by 66% and he also won't meet Trump supporters half way and admit that he stole the election.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: juner on February 05, 2021, 02:05:47 PM
Reconciliation it is, then.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on February 05, 2021, 02:09:58 PM
Reconciliation it is, then.

Biden mentioned more targeted stimulus checks was a good idea. Was that part of this bill or is it intended for the $1,400 checks?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on February 05, 2021, 02:29:00 PM
Reconciliation it is, then.

Biden mentioned more targeted stimulus checks was a good idea. Was that part of this bill or is it intended for the $1,400 checks?

Thats something the republicans wanted.  They also wanted to drop it to $1,000.

And more targeted is a good idea.  Unemployed/child?  $1,000.  Employed?  $500.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on February 05, 2021, 02:42:55 PM
Reconciliation it is, then.

Biden mentioned more targeted stimulus checks was a good idea. Was that part of this bill or is it intended for the $1,400 checks?

Thats something the republicans wanted.  They also wanted to drop it to $1,000.

And more targeted is a good idea.  Unemployed/child?  $1,000.  Employed?  $500.

In Canada you could get $2k a month if you were unemployed or self employed and making less than $1k/month. They also subsidized wages for companies that showed revenue drops comparing months year over year and scaled it with the magnitude of the revenue drop. It’s kept things pretty stable but largely ignored that our poorest people largely worked in “essential services” and shouldered a disproportionate amount of COVID exposure.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on February 05, 2021, 05:04:04 PM
Hurrah!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-55949250
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on February 09, 2021, 12:35:10 PM
They got the $15 minimum wage in the relief bill. That’s pretty huge. Biden seems intent on maximizing his likely two years of productive time before mid-terms grind the country to a halt again.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on February 09, 2021, 12:41:54 PM
They got the $15 minimum wage in the relief bill. That’s pretty huge. Biden seems intent on maximizing his likely two years of productive time before mid-terms grind the country to a halt again.

Thats.... Ugh.
I mean, $15 is alot in some parts of America.  Like ALOT.  $10 sure but $15 for places like Kentucky or North Carolina?  Not good.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on February 09, 2021, 12:56:34 PM
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/01/politics/stimulus-check-gop-proposal/index.html

I don't see why it's so bad to NOT limit payments to people who are financially screwed?  Like if you have a job and you're earning enough money to support your family, you don't need a stimulus check.  Unless you want the economy to get a sudden sugar rush to help keep it going.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: JSS on February 09, 2021, 01:02:22 PM
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/01/politics/stimulus-check-gop-proposal/index.html

I don't see why it's so bad to NOT limit payments to people who are financially screwed?  Like if you have a job and you're earning enough money to support your family, you don't need a stimulus check.  Unless you want the economy to get a sudden sugar rush to help keep it going.

Buisnesses, people and the economy as a whole needs a boost right now.  Badly.

What we learned during the recession in the Obama years is the worst thing you can do is waste months delaying and fighting instead of getting money moving.  The current bill isn't perfect but a flawed bill NOW is going to be way better than a 'perfect' bill in 5 months when it's too late.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on February 09, 2021, 02:16:51 PM
They got the $15 minimum wage in the relief bill. That’s pretty huge. Biden seems intent on maximizing his likely two years of productive time before mid-terms grind the country to a halt again.

Thats.... Ugh.
I mean, $15 is alot in some parts of America.  Like ALOT.  $10 sure but $15 for places like Kentucky or North Carolina?  Not good.

Are you saying it's bad that MW got bumped up that high? Particularly in those areas? I would have thought itd be the other way around - too bad it didnt go higher for areas like NY, LA, SF - areas where cost of living is higher.

The best time to raise MW would have been 20 years ago. The second best time is now, even with the complexity of pandemic shutdowns and uncertainty of everything.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on February 09, 2021, 04:06:07 PM
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/01/politics/stimulus-check-gop-proposal/index.html

I don't see why it's so bad to NOT limit payments to people who are financially screwed?  Like if you have a job and you're earning enough money to support your family, you don't need a stimulus check.  Unless you want the economy to get a sudden sugar rush to help keep it going.

I believe the argument against it is we don't have an effective means test.  Someone could have lost their job, cut hours, live in a part of the country where that kind of money is only middle class.

I really do agree with a means test for this.  It seems like they haven't used the last year to lay the groundwork for an effective one though.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on February 09, 2021, 04:10:10 PM
Do US employers not issue some kind of record when an employee is laid off/terminated?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on February 09, 2021, 04:15:12 PM
They do but we're so decentralized that it's hard to pull that information together in a meaningful way in a reasonable time.

In short, we really don't have a shit together on this.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on February 09, 2021, 04:30:44 PM
They got the $15 minimum wage in the relief bill. That’s pretty huge. Biden seems intent on maximizing his likely two years of productive time before mid-terms grind the country to a halt again.
Won't need to wait until midterms to grind the country to a halt. Companies - "Be a pleasure to pay 15 an hour to you Jimmy. Simmons and Jethro, we need to let you go."
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on February 09, 2021, 04:35:01 PM
Corporations already employ as few people as possible. They’ll bitch and moan and Total Lackey’s like you will sympathize with them and then people will realize it was a good thing.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on February 10, 2021, 11:48:24 AM
Pleased you are finally admitting corporations do not need to employ people.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on February 10, 2021, 12:15:22 PM
I’ve never said they do. You play the silliest games.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: JSS on February 10, 2021, 12:21:15 PM
Pleased you are finally admitting corporations do not need to employ people.

This is a new one to me.

How exactly do you think companies get any work done without any employees?  Robots?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on February 10, 2021, 12:25:34 PM
Pleased you are finally admitting corporations do not need to employ people.

This is a new one to me.

How exactly do you think companies get any work done without any employees?  Robots?

Or outsourcing.  Why hire people when you can just pay someone to hire people for you?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: JSS on February 10, 2021, 03:35:47 PM
Pleased you are finally admitting corporations do not need to employ people.

This is a new one to me.

How exactly do you think companies get any work done without any employees?  Robots?

Or outsourcing.  Why hire people when you can just pay someone to hire people for you?

I suppose it depends on how pedantic you're feeling.  Still... is there ANY corporation that is 100% outsourced?  Even the CEO?  I have to imagine you need at least ONE person to actually sign the paperwork somewhere.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on February 10, 2021, 04:48:59 PM
Pleased you are finally admitting corporations do not need to employ people.

This is a new one to me.

How exactly do you think companies get any work done without any employees?  Robots?

Or outsourcing.  Why hire people when you can just pay someone to hire people for you?

I suppose it depends on how pedantic you're feeling.  Still... is there ANY corporation that is 100% outsourced?  Even the CEO?  I have to imagine you need at least ONE person to actually sign the paperwork somewhere.

You do need at least one person, yes.  But thats really it.

Shell companies, man.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Fortuna on February 11, 2021, 09:08:23 PM
A $15 minimum wage won't work in the US. It will just inflate prices for people who had the initiative to do something with their lives, and poor people will have the same spending power or worse. The entire culture here runs almost entirely on insatiable consumerism since we don't have much else to fill our lives with. If you don't like it, then stop feeding megacorps.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on February 11, 2021, 09:30:10 PM
This is the classic right-wing argument... "we cant raise the minimum wage because it'll make everything too expensive."
1. That's not true, and you can look at many other countries where the minimum wage has gone up on a curve that more closely parallels productivity and cost of living. Prices have inflated 20-30% on many high ticket items (cars, tuition, rent, many foods) without an increase in minimum wage.
2. Raising the minimum wage might also motivate people to "get their lazy asses off welfare" (paraphrased from republicans) because there is actually a monetary incentive to do so. I have friends that used to complain social services cheques were too high " why would they get a job when they're making 80% as much just to stay home and get paid by the government?!"
3. Corporations are cutting jobs anyways, so raising minimum wage isnt the primary factor in job loss/creation

4. Raising minimum wage to a living wage will actually free up hundreds of thousands of positions because people working two full-time minimum wage jobs will be able to afford to work just one (which was the original intent of a minimum wage in the first place).
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on February 11, 2021, 10:11:57 PM
A $15 minimum wage won't work in the US. It will just inflate prices for people who had the initiative to do something with their lives, and poor people will have the same spending power or worse. The entire culture here runs almost entirely on insatiable consumerism since we don't have much else to fill our lives with. If you don't like it, then stop feeding megacorps.

Also:
The prices at Taco Bell in DC (which has a $15 min. wage) and Pittsburgh,(which has $7.50) is the same.

https://www.menuwithprice.com/menu/taco-bell/washington-d-c/washington/164741/
https://www.menuwithprice.com/menu/taco-bell/pennsylvania/pittsburgh/161146/
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on February 12, 2021, 01:55:11 AM
No one in their right mind would eat this kind of filthy fast food. Any wonder our society is all obese and lazy? Get in the drive thru fat fks, were gonna clog your arteries. Just slide your welfare card here. Vote for me, more fries on your plate. The Dem way.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on February 12, 2021, 02:27:44 AM
No one in their right mind would eat this kind of filthy fast food. Any wonder our society is all obese and lazy? Get in the drive thru fat fks, were gonna clog your arteries. Just slide your welfare card here. Vote for me, more fries on your plate. The Dem way.

Seems like American obesity is decidedly bi-partisan, not just a Democrat thing - Actually, it looks like it actually leans Republican:

Adult Obesity Prevalence Maps
(https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/maps/brfss_2019_ob_all.svg)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on February 12, 2021, 02:50:06 AM
No one in their right mind would eat this kind of filthy fast food. Any wonder our society is all obese and lazy? Get in the drive thru fat fks, were gonna clog your arteries. Just slide your welfare card here. Vote for me, more fries on your plate. The Dem way.

Don’t worry. No one got fat eating crow.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Fortuna on February 12, 2021, 02:59:06 AM
A $15 minimum wage won't work in the US. It will just inflate prices for people who had the initiative to do something with their lives, and poor people will have the same spending power or worse. The entire culture here runs almost entirely on insatiable consumerism since we don't have much else to fill our lives with. If you don't like it, then stop feeding megacorps.

Also:
The prices at Taco Bell in DC (which has a $15 min. wage) and Pittsburgh,(which has $7.50) is the same.

https://www.menuwithprice.com/menu/taco-bell/washington-d-c/washington/164741/
https://www.menuwithprice.com/menu/taco-bell/pennsylvania/pittsburgh/161146/

Comparing a nationwide $15 minimum wage with the prices of food at one retailer in two cities is a bit silly, even for you.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on February 12, 2021, 03:12:26 AM
No one in their right mind would eat this kind of filthy fast food. Any wonder our society is all obese and lazy? Get in the drive thru fat fks, were gonna clog your arteries. Just slide your welfare card here. Vote for me, more fries on your plate. The Dem way.

Don’t worry. No one got fat eating crow.

I may have to try it someday. Is it true Biden wears a diaper again?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on February 12, 2021, 05:40:43 AM
A $15 minimum wage won't work in the US. It will just inflate prices for people who had the initiative to do something with their lives, and poor people will have the same spending power or worse. The entire culture here runs almost entirely on insatiable consumerism since we don't have much else to fill our lives with. If you don't like it, then stop feeding megacorps.

Also:
The prices at Taco Bell in DC (which has a $15 min. wage) and Pittsburgh,(which has $7.50) is the same.

https://www.menuwithprice.com/menu/taco-bell/washington-d-c/washington/164741/
https://www.menuwithprice.com/menu/taco-bell/pennsylvania/pittsburgh/161146/

Comparing a nationwide $15 minimum wage with the prices of food at one retailer in two cities is a bit silly, even for you.
I just wanted to show an example that prices did not shift in any measurable way.  Would you like me to choose a different industry?  Look at GDP per state?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2021, 03:26:13 AM
Australian news on dementia joe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nhm6VAIc90&ab_channel=SkyNewsAustralia
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on February 20, 2021, 05:45:43 AM
Australian news on dementia joe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nhm6VAIc90&ab_channel=SkyNewsAustralia

So you found the Sean Hannity of Australia. Good for you. This shabby opinion piece is pretty worthless, especially coming from this guy, Cory Bernardi. He's got a juicy pedigree according to wikipedia:

On 21 April 2007, Bernardi published an essay questioning whether global warming was caused by human activities. Then-environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull and other Liberal parliamentarians promptly distanced themselves from his views.

Bernardi has said that permitting same-sex marriages would lead to legalised polygamy and bestiality;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Bernardi#Global_warming

Bernardi is a far right pundit. What do you expect him say. Stay away from opinion pieces and stick to the news.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2021, 06:56:07 AM
What does his essay have to do with the fact that Joe Biden is a dementia-ridden embarrassment?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on February 20, 2021, 10:29:17 AM
What does his essay have to do with the fact that Joe Biden is a dementia-ridden embarrassment?
As a non American, I assure you that the rest of the world is laughing at you far less now there’s a grown up in the White House.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on February 20, 2021, 10:49:55 AM
What does his essay have to do with the fact that Joe Biden is a dementia-ridden embarrassment?

It means that he is not very good at evaluating facts.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Dr David Thork on February 20, 2021, 12:08:15 PM
What does his essay have to do with the fact that Joe Biden is a dementia-ridden embarrassment?
As a non American, I assure you that the rest of the world is laughing at you far less now there’s a grown up in the White House.
This is absolute nonsense. America is an absolute laughing stock now. They got rid of a man who could at least deliver a rousing speech and could legitimately worry rivals such as China and replaced him with a man who can't even remember what he had for breakfast. Just because the media isn't making a deal out of it (biased), doesn't mean regular people just accept the narrative that joe is somehow a good President. He's going to be the worst President America has ever known. Imagine how embarrassing gaff prone idiot George Bush was. Biden is going to be worse. We've got 4 years of him achieving nothing and sticking his foot in his mouth every time he opens it to come.

Yes, there are sycophants like AATW who will cosy up to absolutely anyone as long as its not Trump, so blinded by mainstream media outlets as he has been. But Trump is gone now ... and what you are left with is a weak and wretched embarrassment of a man. A shrivelled fossil. "At least it isn't Trump" doesn't cut it. This man is worse. He's got a lower IQ. He's got less of an idea of what is going on. He's surrounded himself with radical left wing activists. Its going to be an absolute shit show.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: JSS on February 20, 2021, 12:11:36 PM
What does his essay have to do with the fact that Joe Biden is a dementia-ridden embarrassment?

It shows he's a hack and not a credible news source.

Crazy ranting talk show hosts are good entertainment but not an authority on anything.  If this is where you get your news then you are going to continue to be uninformed.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: JSS on February 20, 2021, 12:15:29 PM
They got rid of a man who could at least deliver a rousing speech

A rousing speech? He could say a bunch of nonsense that got a crowd of people to jump up and down and chant USA but for the rest of the country and the entire world it was just painful to listen to him try and put together a coherent sentence.

Being able to whip your die-hard followers into a frenzy isn't anything the rest of the world looked at with envy, well except for maybe other politicians admired his ability to lie and get away with it.

Biden can actually write and deliver a speech that is more complex than repeating a few lies and telling everyone how smart he is.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on February 20, 2021, 01:42:21 PM
I dont think Biden was the right guy for the Dems to nominate. I dont think hes a very good speaker. I think hes another old white dude.

But my god is he ever a better example of presidential material than the Donald. Misspoke on vaccines, but hes increased vaccination rates and delivered a coherent plan for rollout. Misquoted grossly on talk against racism in China. The praise hes getting for doing the bare minimum in quickly delivering aid to Texas 'even though they didnt vote for him' is embarrassing...but it's somehow a notable contrast from 2016-2020.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: JSS on February 20, 2021, 02:14:43 PM
I dont think Biden was the right guy for the Dems to nominate. I dont think hes a very good speaker. I think hes another old white dude.

But my god is he ever a better example of presidential material than the Donald. Misspoke on vaccines, but hes increased vaccination rates and delivered a coherent plan for rollout. Misquoted grossly on talk against racism in China. The praise hes getting for doing the bare minimum in quickly delivering aid to Texas 'even though they didnt vote for him' is embarrassing...but it's somehow a notable contrast from 2016-2020.

He was exactly what we needed.  Boring and calm.  When disaster hits a state he makes sure they get help, and doesn't threaten to withhold aid because his fee-fees were hurt. It's nice having an adult in charge again.

Remember how Obama handled the New Jersey disasters and did everything Christie asked for because it was the right thing to do?  He didn't tell him to go rake leaves. 

Frankly as much as I'd love an aggressive, progressive President who REALLY rams some left wing shit through, it's time once again for Democrats to take one for the team and just put things back in order. Again.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: garygreen on February 20, 2021, 03:08:38 PM
why does literally every thread have to be about trump
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on February 20, 2021, 03:19:42 PM
why does literally every thread have to be about trump

It’s just the trolls bring him up here. Carry on!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on February 20, 2021, 03:29:53 PM
This is absolute nonsense.
You obviously talk to different people than I do. Most people I know are relieved there’s a grown up in the White House

People literally and openly laughed at Trump. Remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN2jqTilLOM

Quote
They got rid of a man who could at least deliver a rousing speech

Without wishing to go all Godwin’s Law on you, I know an Austrian fella who could do that.

And I thought Biden’s inauguration speech was excellent.

Quote
Yes, there are sycophants like AATW who will cosy up to absolutely anyone as long as its not Trump, so blinded by mainstream media outlets as he has been.

Oh, you’re one of them. Not a surprise really.
Let me guess, the real news is to be found on YouTube channels and right wing blogs which you happen to agree with. Right?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on February 20, 2021, 03:56:06 PM
Back to Biden. This addresses Tom’s lies in the meme thread where he posted a meme deliberately taking a small snippet of a quote out of context. I know that’s Tom’s MO, but here’s the context:

https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/feb/18/context-what-joe-biden-said-about-vaccine-supply-h/
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Dr David Thork on February 20, 2021, 07:26:02 PM
Biden can actually write and deliver a speech that is more complex than repeating a few lies and telling everyone how smart he is.
You think Biden writes his own speeches? And as for delivery ... this week he likes children more than people. The guy is out to lunch.

Most people I know are relieved there’s a grown up in the White House
What is grown up about Biden? He lets progressives run his administration for him? Is that grown up? Is playing Mario Kart all day grown up? Is sniffing little girls hair grown up. Is inviting voters to a push up contest to show them how fit you are grown up? Is challenging the then President of the USA to a fist fight behind a gym grown up? How about calling voters a lying dog-faced pony soldier ... grown up?

You seem to have a very short and very selective memory. Biden is an utter asshat. Corrupt to the core. Mad as a box of frogs.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on February 20, 2021, 08:39:45 PM
Biden can actually write and deliver a speech that is more complex than repeating a few lies and telling everyone how smart he is.
You think Biden writes his own speeches? And as for delivery ... this week he likes children more than people. The guy is out to lunch.

Most people I know are relieved there’s a grown up in the White House
What is grown up about Biden? He lets progressives run his administration for him? Is that grown up? Is playing Mario Kart all day grown up? Is sniffing little girls hair grown up. Is inviting voters to a push up contest to show them how fit you are grown up? Is challenging the then President of the USA to a fist fight behind a gym grown up? How about calling voters a lying dog-faced pony soldier ... grown up?

You seem to have a very short and very selective memory. Biden is an utter asshat. Corrupt to the core. Mad as a box of frogs.

I'm no Biden apologist. Nor am I a fan of whataboutism... but jesus it's like you've deleted the shitshow of the last 5 years from your memory entirely.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Dr David Thork on February 20, 2021, 08:57:45 PM
I'm no Biden apologist. Nor am I a fan of whataboutism... but jesus it's like you've deleted the shitshow of the last 5 years from your memory entirely.
Trump is gone.

This thread is about Biden.

America chose Biden and all I see is apologists for Biden. As though he is a 'grown up'? What is that about? He's been in office about 4 weeks and he behaves like an utter chimp.

No America. You don't get to walk away from this and celebrate it with a "better than Trump". You picked a cockwomble for a President. One who I am sure will prove to be far WORSE than the Trump boogieman. Trump got nothing done, his every path blocked. Every door is flung open for Biden. You are unleashing a total idiot and none of you are brave enough to stand up and say it.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on February 20, 2021, 10:40:25 PM
Biden can actually write and deliver a speech that is more complex than repeating a few lies and telling everyone how smart he is.
You think Biden writes his own speeches? And as for delivery ... this week he likes children more than people. The guy is out to lunch.

Most people I know are relieved there’s a grown up in the White House
What is grown up about Biden? He lets progressives run his administration for him? Is that grown up? Is playing Mario Kart all day grown up? Is sniffing little girls hair grown up. Is inviting voters to a push up contest to show them how fit you are grown up? Is challenging the then President of the USA to a fist fight behind a gym grown up? How about calling voters a lying dog-faced pony soldier ... grown up?

You seem to have a very short and very selective memory. Biden is an utter asshat. Corrupt to the core. Mad as a box of frogs.

What's grown up about him is that he doesn't name-call people he doesn't like.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: JSS on February 20, 2021, 10:59:32 PM
You seem to have a very short and very selective memory. Biden is an utter asshat. Corrupt to the core. Mad as a box of frogs.

I don't know what insane frothing at the mouth right wing talk show host you get YOUR news from, but it sounds like they need to calm down.  If Biden is your idea of the devil himself, well have fun in extreme crazy land.

Come visit the real world when you calm down too. :)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on February 20, 2021, 11:18:48 PM
No America. You don't get to walk away from this and celebrate it with a "better than Trump". You picked a cockwomble for a President. One who I am sure will prove to be far WORSE than the Trump boogieman.

Your predictive powers have been spot on so far:

Its not even close. Trump's gonna walk the election, despite what the Liberal media in the US tell you.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on February 21, 2021, 03:45:10 AM
Biden is such a bad president that Newsmax is spending time complaining  about the ppearance of his dog, a 12 year old Shepard.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on February 21, 2021, 04:50:29 AM
Trump is gone.

This thread is about Biden.

America chose Biden and all I see is apologists for Biden.

America chose Biden because the alternative was Trump. That the alternative was far worse is not irrelevant to the question of how we can justify Biden's election. Biden has said and done plenty of dumb and immature things, but there's no comparison between him and Trump there. There's no comparison between any well-known politician and Trump there. Also, I love how you took a picture of Biden playing Mario Kart with his grandkid and somehow got "Biden plays Mario Kart all day!" out of it.

Quote
Trump got nothing done, his every path blocked.

Trump never even tried to get anything done, outside of one or two dumb vanity projects like the unnecessary border wall. Trump had no real interest in or knowledge of governing or policy to begin with. His presidency was simply an ego trip and experiment in branding for himself, and it's embarrassing to think that millions of Americans voted for it.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Dr David Thork on February 21, 2021, 05:17:04 AM
America chose Biden because the alternative was Trump.
No ... alternatives included Yang, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, Klobachar and many many others who weren't suffering from mental incapacity. America chose Biden.

Trump never even tried to get anything done, outside of one or two dumb vanity projects like the unnecessary border wall. Trump had no real interest in or knowledge of governing or policy to begin with. His presidency was simply an ego trip and experiment in branding for himself, and it's embarrassing to think that millions of Americans voted for it.
He grabbed China by the pussy. He certainly wasn't out there patting them on the back for committing genocide. Trump's record is actually very good. Considering what he was up against and no president has ever had such an awful ride from the media and US institutions, he did a great job. Biden on the other hand has had nothing but backslapping and praise showered on him for doing nothing other than Presiding over the vaccine rollout that Trump put in place. And despite what Biden says (because he is telling lies), a vaccine was already available by the time he got into office.

The embarrassment is that you think Biden is a good President and that he is in someway going to improve America over what Trump was doing. We'll see about that when he borrows that $1.9 trillion.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on February 21, 2021, 06:01:13 AM
America chose Biden because the alternative was Trump.
No ... alternatives included Yang, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, Klobachar and many many others who weren't suffering from mental incapacity. America chose Biden.
This is technically inaccurate.  Only a small subset of voters are allowed to choose the party nominee.  Which vary by state.  Some states have open primaries so anyone can vote (like republicans can choose a democrat candidate) while others are limited to only party members.  America as a whole had two choices: Trump or Biden.  Democrats has many.

Quote
Trump never even tried to get anything done, outside of one or two dumb vanity projects like the unnecessary border wall. Trump had no real interest in or knowledge of governing or policy to begin with. His presidency was simply an ego trip and experiment in branding for himself, and it's embarrassing to think that millions of Americans voted for it.
He grabbed China by the pussy. He certainly wasn't out there patting them on the back for committing genocide. Trump's record is actually very good. Considering what he was up against and no president has ever had such an awful ride from the media and US institutions, he did a great job. Biden on the other hand has had nothing but backslapping and praise showered on him for doing nothing other than Presiding over the vaccine rollout that Trump put in place. And despite what Biden says (because he is telling lies), a vaccine was already available by the time he got into office.

The embarrassment is that you think Biden is a good President and that he is in someway going to improve America over what Trump was doing. We'll see about that when he borrows that $1.9 trillion.
So grabbing by the pussy is harmful?  And you like Trump doing it to women? Sheesh...

Trump's record is one of self prmotion and isolationism.  He also namecalled because he was too weak to take on people on their level, so he needed to weaken them in the public eye.

He attacked China and started a Trade war.  Do you know why?  Because they had the audacity to have a "China First" policy and not bow to Trump.  Had they simply sent him a big card with praise, he'd have given them anything they wanted.  It wasn't due to any attacks on their citizens, that's for sure.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on February 21, 2021, 09:37:08 AM
I'm no Biden apologist. Nor am I a fan of whataboutism... but jesus it's like you've deleted the shitshow of the last 5 years from your memory entirely.
Indeed.
It’s weird how Thork accuses me of a short and selective memory while carefully selecting certain things to “demonstrate” that Biden isn’t a grown up. One of which is him playing with his granddaughter at a level she will engage with which is very much what grown ups do.

Biden is a grown up because of how he conducts himself. I’m sure if you pore through every detail you can make him look bad. But he is taking seriously and dealing with things like the pandemic and the situation in Texas.
He isn’t just denying it’s happening, saying it’ll all go away, claiming he’s doing a brilliant job and buggering off to play golf.
He isn’t Tweeting lies every 5 minutes or attacking in puerile ways anyone who disagrees with him. He isn’t conducting international diplomacy with another nuclear power via a Twitter flame war.

If you watch documentaries about the Trump presidency you’ll know that people around Trump were regarded “the grown ups in the room”. Trump was not.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: JSS on February 21, 2021, 12:12:40 PM
He grabbed China by the pussy.

He withdrew us from the Trans Pacific Trade Agreement which put China in control and removed all the leverage we had over it.  China LOVED Trump for that.  He gave them a huge win.

Good job. He then threw up some tariffs, and China retaliated with the end result we had to put our own farmers on life support and nothing really changed. At the same time Trump did that to our allies, which again, CHina loved.

Trump sucked at everything he did.  That's why he lost.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 21, 2021, 10:28:05 PM
As a non American, I assure you that the rest of the world is laughing at you far less now there’s a grown up in the White House.
I'm not sure citizens of Brexitville are the best judges of character out there. Indeed, I'd take the UK's opinion as a great bellwether for what not to believe.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on February 22, 2021, 11:50:01 AM
As a non American, I assure you that the rest of the world is laughing at you far less now there’s a grown up in the White House.
I'm not sure citizens of Brexitville are the best judges of character out there. Indeed, I'd take the UK's opinion as a great bellwether for what not to believe.
I don't talk to stupids.
I'd take the Thork's opinion as a great bellwether for what not to believe.
But if you don't trust what people in the UK think (fairly sensibly), then it's not just us

https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/global-views-us-presidential-election

Internationally Trump is a laughing stock, Biden is viewed as a grown up.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Dr David Thork on February 22, 2021, 09:29:33 PM
As a non American, I assure you that the rest of the world is laughing at you far less now there’s a grown up in the White House.
I'm not sure citizens of Brexitville are the best judges of character out there. Indeed, I'd take the UK's opinion as a great bellwether for what not to believe.
You are free to go home any time you like.  ::)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 07, 2021, 11:04:14 AM
America is an absolute laughing stock now.

It became that shortly after the election in 2016, and the world is breathing a collective sigh of relief after the 2020 election.

They got rid of a man who could at least deliver a rousing speech and ... replaced him ...

Hitler delivered rousing speeches. Hitler worked his crowds into a frenzy. We see how that worked out. I don't think rousing speeches and crowd frenzy to the assembled (semi- or fully-brainwashed) faithful, with the opposition uninvited and absent, are a good indicator of a great leader. 

We've got 4 years of him ... sticking his foot in his mouth every time he opens it to come.

His job is running the country, not making speeches. The world should not care if he stutters over his lines, as long as he's running things properly.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 08, 2021, 01:17:53 AM
Why should the favorability of foreign countries factor into it? If someone were to suggest that America or China should decide on how British laws are made or how British public monies are spent they would be called a dunce.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 08, 2021, 07:34:32 AM
Why should the favorability of foreign countries factor into it? If someone were to suggest that America or China should decide on how British laws are made or how British public monies are spent they would be called a dunce.

One World, to borrow a song title.

America should work with the rest of the world, not against it. Yes, it's difficult to apply this to Russia, China, et al, but America is an ally to the UK, Europe, Canada, etc, and should not be removing itself from climate accords, and other international agreements.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on March 08, 2021, 07:51:34 AM
Why should the favorability of foreign countries factor into it? If someone were to suggest that America or China should decide on how British laws are made or how British public monies are spent they would be called a dunce.
Yes, they would be called a dunce, but you are conflating two things. I don’t want other countries telling us how to do things, but I’d rather not have a leader who is an international laughing stock. Trump was openly laughed at by the other leaders at the UN when he started spouting his usual bullshit.
This will blow your mind but the US, while powerful, does not exist in a vacuum. Having a leader who other national leaders feel they can work with and take seriously (and not just because he happened to be the POTUS, so they had to try and work with him even though he was a child) is probably a good thing. Why would you want your country to be an international laughing stock?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 08, 2021, 04:10:33 PM
Why should the favorability of foreign countries factor into it? If someone were to suggest that America or China should decide on how British laws are made or how British public monies are spent they would be called a dunce.

One World, to borrow a song title.

America should work with the rest of the world, not against it. Yes, it's difficult to apply this to Russia, China, et al, but America is an ally to the UK, Europe, Canada, etc, and should not be removing itself from climate accords, and other international agreements.

America is paying a lot more than "developing" countries like China and other countries in the Paris Climate Accord. Your argument is that foreigners want America in the agreement to take advantage of America.

Why should the wants of other countries be what is best for America?

https://www.heritage.org/testimony/paris-climate-promise-bad-deal-america

"The funding required by the Paris Agreement will be significant and continuing. The principal depository for such funds is the Green Climate Fund (GCF), which assists developing countries in adapting to climate change. The GCF was established by the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, which committed developed countries by 2020 to provide $100 billion per year, every year, seemingly in perpetuity.[9] The Paris Agreement obligates developed countries such as the U.S. to “provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation.”[10] In the decision adopting the Paris Agreement, the COP-21 set the goal of these funds at “a floor of USD 100 billion per year.”[11] Only developed nations like the U.S. are obligated to contribute to the GCF, while developing nations are “encouraged” to make “voluntary” contributions.[12]

Sen. Barrasso-

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/11/05/president-trump-leave-bad-paris-agreement-john-barrasso-editorials-debates/4170938002/

"According to the National Economic Research Associates, if we met all of our commitments as part of the Paris climate agreement, it would cost the American economy $3 trillion and 6.5 million industrial sector jobs by 2040. We don’t need to cripple our economy to protect our environment."

"As the climate deal punished America’s energy producers with expensive and burdensome regulations, it gave other countries U.S. taxpayer-funded subsidies and generous timelines.

Countries like China got a free pass to pollute for over a decade. With abundant low-cost coal, China and India would put our manufacturers at a huge competitive disadvantage. Economic costs would be severe."
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 08, 2021, 04:18:05 PM
America is making a lot of money off of the pollution they create, which is substantial  Obviously they should be one of the biggest contributors to any fund of this nature.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 08, 2021, 04:37:30 PM
America is making a lot of money off of the pollution they create, which is substantial  Obviously they should be one of the biggest contributors to any fund of this nature.

Maybe you should try breathing the air in a large city in the US versus a large city in China before making such an atrocious statement.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 08, 2021, 05:08:01 PM
America is paying a lot more than "developing" countries like China and other countries in the Paris Climate Accord. Your argument is that foreigners want America in the agreement to take advantage of America.

No, I'm not arguing anything about financials at all.

I want America to play nice with the rest of us for the good of the planet, and the overall good of humankind. America is supposed to be our friend and ally, not the evil cousin.

To draw an analogy, if America selfishly decides that it's OK for them to pee in the pool, and there's only one pool, then the rest of us have to suck up America's pollution of the pool. Even if you can put up with polluted water down your end, you gotta have some consideration for others in the pool. Surely.

Why should the wants of other countries be what is best for America?

So that we all get along. So that the planet doesn't wheeze to a halt under the fog of pollution.

You don't really want to be mean to everyone else in the world, do you? Surely you must want to get along with some of us?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on March 08, 2021, 05:10:52 PM
America is making a lot of money off of the pollution they create, which is substantial  Obviously they should be one of the biggest contributors to any fund of this nature.

Maybe you should try breathing the air in a large city in the US versus a large city in China before making such an atrocious statement.
You're right, actually. I've been to Beijing and while it comes and goes a bit, at times it's pretty horrible there.
Not has bad as Delhi though.

From the data I saw, China pollutes twice as much as you guys in terms of CO2 emissions.
But...they have what, 3 or 4 times as many people. So per capita you are leading the way.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 08, 2021, 05:30:11 PM
America is making a lot of money off of the pollution they create, which is substantial  Obviously they should be one of the biggest contributors to any fund of this nature.

Maybe you should try breathing the air in a large city in the US versus a large city in China before making such an atrocious statement.
You're right, actually. I've been to Beijing and while it comes and goes a bit, at times it's pretty horrible there.
Not has bad as Delhi though.

From the data I saw, China pollutes twice as much as you guys in terms of CO2 emissions.
But...they have what, 3 or 4 times as many people. So per capita you are leading the way.

No. China is the biggest polluter regardless of whether they had 1 person in their country or 3 billion.

Why should the US pay more than the largest polluter on earth?

If tomorrow there was another country with 10 billion people that was the biggest polluter is it also the US's job to pay far more money then they are to clean up their environment too? Why should that be?

You are arguing that America should take care of the world and put in far more resources than anyone else without basis. Why should the world's desire to loot Anerica favor into anything?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on March 08, 2021, 05:38:17 PM
Why should the US pay more than the largest polluter on earth?
I didn't say you should. But you're the second worst in the world and per capita you are the highest.
So, you know, you could do your bit.

I must admit on trips to Delhi - I've been there for work a few times - it does all feel a bit pointless recycling.
What's the point when there's a country of a billion people pumping out that amount of shit into the atmosphere?
But I guess we all have to do our bit but as individuals and as countries. What's the alternative?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 08, 2021, 05:45:32 PM
America is putting in more than you too. The argument revolving around the world's desire to loot America isn't a good one to prove that the world knows what's best for America.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on March 08, 2021, 06:03:34 PM
America is putting in more than you too. The argument revolving around the world's desire to loot America isn't a good one to prove that the world knows what's best for America.
I don’t know who you’re arguing with here.
It doesn’t seem to be me as you’re arguing against things I haven’t said.
But thankfully we now have a President who understands that climate change is a serious issue which demands a response.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on March 08, 2021, 06:06:59 PM
America is putting in more than you too. The argument revolving around the world's desire to loot America isn't a good one to prove that the world knows what's best for America.

Looting America?

We out consume every country on this planet per capita.

“With less than 5 percent of world population, the U.S. uses one-third of the world's paper, a quarter of the world's oil, 23 percent of the coal, 27 percent of the aluminum, and 19 percent of the copper,”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/american-consumption-habits/

But I'm guessing that's all liberal lies...


Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on March 08, 2021, 06:07:49 PM
Developing solutions that are too expensive or too complicated to implement is an exercise in futility.

This is why money needs to be set aside to assist up and coming countries build around more sustainable tech and infrastructure that is (currently) too expensive for them to implement on their own.

We've all been guilty of the exact same thing AATW describes at some point, but persistence of that idea is what will hold us back.

Should the US be forced to pay the most? Absolutely not. But can it justify sitting on the side and playing by it's own set of rules? Fuck no.

Take global warming (the over-politicised part of it) and look at it from a pollution and public health point of view. The economics of taking positive action rapidly start to work out favorably at all scales, from local to global.

The best time time to take action was years ago, the second best time is today. Stupid clichés stick for a reason...
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 08, 2021, 06:22:36 PM
No. China is the biggest polluter regardless of whether they had 1 person in their country or 3 billion.

Why should the US pay more than the largest polluter on earth?

It's not a question of financials. It's a question of America working with its friends and allies, not being selfish and turning its back on them.

To extend my analogy above; if America stops peeing in the pool, the pool will be cleaner. There may be others still peeing, those who we cannot persuade, but if enough of us, including America, stop doing this, then we will have a cleaner pool. And we all want a cleaner pool, don't we?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 08, 2021, 06:24:03 PM
America is putting in more than you too. The argument revolving around the world's desire to loot America isn't a good one to prove that the world knows what's best for America.

Looting America?

We out consume every country on this planet per capita.

“With less than 5 percent of world population, the U.S. uses one-third of the world's paper, a quarter of the world's oil, 23 percent of the coal, 27 percent of the aluminum, and 19 percent of the copper,”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/american-consumption-habits/

But I'm guessing that's all liberal lies...

I don't see why consuming more should have anything to do with why someone should use an unfair level of their resources to clean up other countries.

If I go to Costco more often than you to buy home cleaning supplies am I therefore responsible for your maid service because you live like a pig and are unwilling to clean your own house?

In a Home Owner's Association everyone is responsible for maintaining the exterior of their own homes under the same regulation. Why should the regulation between the US and China be any different?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 08, 2021, 06:30:57 PM
'Looting' America for what? If America spends on climate improvement, America and the rest of the world gets a cleaner planet. You do want that, don't you?

What do you see as being looted? Do you think America's expenditure on this simply drops into other's pockets, like some extra disposable income, for spending on leisure goods?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 08, 2021, 06:53:08 PM
China is perfectly capable of taxing its companies and setting regulations to clean up their pollution. There is zero reason for America to provide its public funds to provide maid service to other countries.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on March 08, 2021, 06:55:41 PM
If I go to Costco more often than you to buy home cleaning supplies am I therefore responsible for your maid service because you live like a pig and are unwilling to clean your own house?

In a Home Owner's Association everyone is responsible for maintaining the exterior of their own homes under the same regulation. Why should the regulation between the US and China be any different?
You understand we all live on the same street, right? So you guys throwing garbage around blows all over the street and we all suffer.

The fact that there are other jerks on the street making it less nice doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do your bit. Maybe, as you like to think of yourself as the “Best Country on Earth” you should be setting an example.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 08, 2021, 07:04:39 PM
If I go to Costco more often than you to buy home cleaning supplies am I therefore responsible for your maid service because you live like a pig and are unwilling to clean your own house?

In a Home Owner's Association everyone is responsible for maintaining the exterior of their own homes under the same regulation. Why should the regulation between the US and China be any different?
You understand we all live on the same street, right? So you guys throwing garbage around blows all over the street and we all suffer.

The fact that there are other jerks on the street making it less nice doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do your bit. Maybe, as you like to think of yourself as the “Best Country on Earth” you should be setting an example.

Your examples say that countries should be responsible for themselves.

If I am tossing garbage into the streets why should it be your responsibility to follow me around and clean up for me? It's my responsibility to appropriately dispose of my own garbage, obviously.

People should be responsible for themselves and operate under the same regulation. Your own example says that the US is not responsible for China.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 08, 2021, 07:13:53 PM
If I am tossing garbage into the streets why should it be your responsibility to follow me around and clean up for me? It's my responsibility to appropriately dispose of my own garbage, obviously.

... why wouldn't you want to join an association that teams up amongst the neighbours to help everybody pick up the garbage?

We're all on the same street (= We're all on the same planet)


People should be responsible for themselves and operate under the same regulation. Your own example says that the US is not responsible for China.

There might be one person on the street who doesn't want to join in, and still casts their garbage, but don't you think the street would be a better place if the decent folks got together and cleaned up what they can?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 08, 2021, 07:24:55 PM
There might be one person on the street who doesn't want to join in, and still casts their garbage, but don't you think the street would be a better place if the decent folks got together and cleaned up what they can?

If the person doesn't want to join in then they get fined for littering. That's usually how it works.

Decent folks are already taking care of themselves and their own environment. It would be unfair to extend that responsibility to others when they are already responsible for themselves.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 08, 2021, 08:10:42 PM
America is making a lot of money off of the pollution they create, which is substantial  Obviously they should be one of the biggest contributors to any fund of this nature.

Maybe you should try breathing the air in a large city in the US versus a large city in China before making such an atrocious statement.

China is also a big polluter and should also be contributing substantial amounts.  These are not exclusive ideas and you trying to play this whataboutism is pretty pathetic.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on March 08, 2021, 08:27:51 PM
Your examples say that countries should be responsible for themselves.

If I am tossing garbage into the streets why should it be your responsibility to follow me around and clean up for me? It's my responsibility to appropriately dispose of my own garbage, obviously.

People should be responsible for themselves and operate under the same regulation. Your own example says that the US is not responsible for China.
I never said the US is responsible for China.
Why do you keep arguing against a position I am not stating?

I do think counties are responsible for their own mess. I do also think that international cooperation on this issue is a good thing.
These are not contradictory ideas.

And countries who can afford to should probably contribute a bit more to that collective effort. Especially a country who like to think of themselves as the “Best Country in The World”. Shouldn’t you be setting an example?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 08, 2021, 09:04:32 PM
It’s also relevant that some pollution spreads itself past political boundaries, so some of the US’s mess (and China’s and Canada’s; everyone’s) is the the globe’s problem
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on March 08, 2021, 10:23:11 PM
You know what happens when people throw garbage into the streets?
The community pays a bunch of people to drive through and pick it up.  Maybe fine the one throwing it into the street as good measure, telling him to put it next to the street for easy pickup like everyone else.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 08, 2021, 10:28:29 PM
If the person doesn't want to join in then they get fined for littering. That's usually how it works.

Decent folks are already taking care of themselves and their own environment. It would be unfair to extend that responsibility to others when they are already responsible for themselves.

So you accept that the one who does not join in is the bad guy, then? If they get fined .....   Doesn't your America want to be one of the good guys?

Here's the thing; you don't get your "own" environment. We all share it, It's planet-wide. You can't make your sh*t stop at your own border.

Just like the street; once the garbage,whether that's litter, overflowing drains, fallout from fires, etc. hits the (city-owned) street, everyone shares the bill for cleaning it up, through taxes and utility bills. Those who dodge out of this are the bad guys. Is that who you want to be?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 08, 2021, 11:57:43 PM
The President of the United States can’t even keep 435 viewers watching and sticking around until the end of his speech on the official White House YouTube channel.

(https://i.imgur.com/eQjS1OO.jpg)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 09, 2021, 12:01:48 AM
The President of the United States can’t even pull 435 viewers on the official White House YouTube channel.

IMG

So what? It could be reasonably argued that gaining social media numbers is not a key indicator of his performance.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on March 09, 2021, 02:03:55 AM
I just think it's refreshing having a president that isn't obsessed with his own celebrity.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on March 09, 2021, 02:09:49 AM
I just think it's refreshing having a president that isn't obsessed with his own celebrity.

Definitely true, but we need to start comparing Biden to an actual president. Improving the vaccine acquisition and rollout has been impressive but hes got a lot of work to do.

Anyone who's evaluating Biden on live stream numbers and not a measure of tangible results is missing the point by a wide margin...
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 09, 2021, 03:38:19 AM
In that same event Biden forgot the name of his Secretary of Defense (https://meaww.com/joe-biden-white-house-gaffe-cant-remember-lloyd-austin-secretary-defence-name-in-trouble-that-guy), standing right behind him. He called him 'General', stumbled for his name, came up empty and said:

"The guy who runs that outfit over there."

At least Catturd is capable of being honest with us.

(https://i.ibb.co/9YB0rYt/nNeVepSy.jpg)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 09, 2021, 06:44:05 AM
In that same event Biden .... stumbled for his name, came up empty and said:

Honestly, all you folks seem to do is come up, second-hand, with stuff that DJT already does or did....

Do we need to mention....  "Rudy? Where's Rudy?" (He was right in front of DJT, opposite him at the table)

EDIT - I missed the one where DJT confused 9/11 with Seven Eleven -

"“I was down there, and I watched our police and our firemen, down on 7-Eleven, down at the World Trade Center, right after it came down. And I saw the greatest people I’ve ever seen in action.” April 18, 2016, speech in Buffalo, New York, misidentifying the 9/11 attacks."

There's more;

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-biggest-fatal-gaffes-mistakes-offensive-214289/



Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on March 09, 2021, 06:54:02 AM
Have you read transcripts of Trump speeches? If you were less biased you’d see them for the rambling nonsense they are.
The standards you judge people by vary greatly depending on whether you like them and their policies or not.
To give an illustration you may understand, you repeatedly point out the splinter in Biden’s eye having spent the last 4 years ignoring the log in Trump’s.

From an outside point of view, Trump was a complete embarrassment to the US. The rest of the world have spent 4 years laughing at you, the UN literally and openly laughed at Trump when he started spouting his bullshit there. It might play well with MAGA idiots, it didn’t work so well with serious people.

The world is mostly relieved that we now have a grown up in the White House again.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on March 09, 2021, 11:43:26 AM
Tom can only project Trump's flaws onto Biden. 
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 09, 2021, 08:21:30 PM
By arguing "but Trump" you are telling us that you believe that Biden is as embarrassing like you believe Trump was. You are saying that Joe Biden is an embarrassment. What kind of defense is that, to argue on the position that Joe Biden is an embarrassing president? Biden is embarrassing independent of anyone and anything else in the world.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on March 09, 2021, 08:36:54 PM
By arguing "but Trump" you are telling us that you believe that Biden is as embarrassing like you believe Trump was
No. Because I don’t believe that someone stumbling over words is in itself embarrassing.

What I’m saying, as I’m sure you understand, is that you constantly apply completely different standards to people depending on whether you like them or their policies.

Trump was an embarrassment not just because of the rambling speeches, but because of the constant lies and the way he conducted himself. The infamous hurricane incident is an example. Trump Tweeted that it was going to hit Texas. The weather service quickly corrected that. Instead of admitting his mistake, like a grown up would have, he appears in the Oval Office with a map showing the cone - which didn’t include Texas - and Texas added in sharpie. I mean, come on! This is not the action of a well man.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 09, 2021, 09:29:54 PM
Biden is not Trump. That is like arguing that is okay for someone to commit murder because you think, rightly or wrongly, that another person committed murder. That is not a valid justification. Anyone who commits murder is still a murderer and Biden is still an embarrassment.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 09, 2021, 09:36:42 PM
Biden is not Trump. That is like arguing that is okay for someone to commit murder because you think, rightly or wrongly, that another person committed murder. That is not a valid justification. Anyone who commits murder is still a murderer and Biden is still an embarrassment.

“Biden is an embarrassment because I said so”

Another vapid argument from Tom.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 09, 2021, 09:40:25 PM
By arguing "but Trump" you are telling us that you believe that Biden is as embarrassing like you believe Trump was.

Not what is being argued at all. Nobody is accepting that Biden is as bad as Trump, but I/we are stating that you are trying to imbibe Biden with qualities and acts that Trump has already shown in abundance. That is not acceptance of Biden showing those qualities, that is criticism of you for trying to make the equivalence.

EDIT - Trump surpasses (trumps?) Biden a hundred-fold in the 'national embarassment' stakes, even though I can't see what embarassment we can attribute to Biden.  This is especially apparent to those outwith the USA, in all manner of ways;

the false claim of his inaugural crowd size,
the whiny drone of his malformed run-on sentences,
his ongoing obsession with low-flow toilets and other bathroom fittings,
his callous disregard for human life,
the nepotistic appointment of unqualified daughter and son-in-law to positions within the WH,
the blatant lack of desire to actually carry out the job he was elected to (evidenced, amongst other things, by 300+ days of his term spent at his own golf clubs, mostly on the course), and
his near-total disappearance from public view and presidential activity once he had been voted out.....
etc
etc
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 09, 2021, 09:53:33 PM
By arguing "but Trump" you are telling us that you believe that Biden is as embarrassing like you believe Trump was.

Not what is being argued at all. Nobody is accepting that Biden is as bad as Trump, but I/we are stating that you are trying to imbibe Biden with qualities and acts that Trump has already shown in abundance. That is not acceptance of Biden showing those qualities, that is criticism of you for trying to make the equivalence.

The subject of this thread is not Trump. The subject of this thread is Joe Biden. He's an embarrassment. Trying to talk about other people does nothing to take away from Joe Biden's embarrassing behavior.

Are you next going to justify your pedophile prince with the same tactic?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Dr David Thork on March 09, 2021, 09:54:36 PM
Are you going next going justify your pedophile prince with the same tactic?
Without a conviction, that's just libel.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 09, 2021, 10:01:39 PM
The subject of this thread is not Trump. The subject of this thread is Joe Biden.


... in which your misplaced accusations against him are being rebutted, a rebuttal which may involve discussion of the previous incumbents' behaviour by point of comparison.

Happy to pick this up in the Trump thread if mods want to move the posts there. I'm easy-going that way.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 09, 2021, 10:46:29 PM
By arguing "but Trump" you are telling us that you believe that Biden is as embarrassing like you believe Trump was.

Not what is being argued at all. Nobody is accepting that Biden is as bad as Trump, but I/we are stating that you are trying to imbibe Biden with qualities and acts that Trump has already shown in abundance. That is not acceptance of Biden showing those qualities, that is criticism of you for trying to make the equivalence.

The subject of this thread is not Trump. The subject of this thread is Joe Biden. He's an embarrassment. Trying to talk about other people does nothing to take away from Joe Biden's embarrassing behavior.

It’s pretty shallow to consider a confusion in speech as making someone an embarrassment. Very glad I’ve left middle school behavior like that behind.

Quote
Are you next going to justify your pedophile prince with the same tactic?

Well that was an awkward pivot.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on March 10, 2021, 09:43:02 AM
Biden is still an embarrassment.
This is subjective. All you're doing is stating something as an objective fact when it's simply a subjective opinion.

Personally, I find him much less of an embarrassment than the previous president.
It seems many people agree with me. Biden's approval rating is higher than Trump's ever was:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/

And Biden is preferred outside the US in multiple countries:

https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/global-views-us-presidential-election
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 10, 2021, 10:24:44 AM
Biden was criticised in the run-up to the election for being 'Sleepy Joe', 'in his basement' and such;

Now in office, his absence from the golf course is actively saving the American taxpayer thousands of dollars each weekend. 

This is not embarassing, this is praiseworthy
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 10, 2021, 12:12:12 PM
I just think it's refreshing having a president that isn't obsessed with his own celebrity.
Since when?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 10, 2021, 12:14:47 PM
Biden is not Trump. That is like arguing that is okay for someone to commit murder because you think, rightly or wrongly, that another person committed murder. That is not a valid justification. Anyone who commits murder is still a murderer and Biden is still an embarrassment.

“Biden is an embarrassment because I said so”

Another vapid argument from Tom.
Biden is an embarrassment, regardless of what Tom states.

The mental degenerate cannot even hold a news conference.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 10, 2021, 12:25:54 PM
Biden is not Trump. That is like arguing that is okay for someone to commit murder because you think, rightly or wrongly, that another person committed murder. That is not a valid justification. Anyone who commits murder is still a murderer and Biden is still an embarrassment.

“Biden is an embarrassment because I said so”

Another vapid argument from Tom.
Biden is an embarrassment, regardless of what Tom states.

The mental degenerate cannot even hold a news conference.

You know he has been doing Q&As with press regularly?  He just hasn't done it in the WH press room.  Did you know that?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 10, 2021, 12:37:55 PM
Biden is an embarrassment, regardless of what Tom states. The mental degenerate cannot even hold a news conference.

In these times, that is not an embarassment, it's a praiseworthy act. Safety first.

For a "mental degenerate", he performed rather well straight out of the blocks, with a full programme on inauguration day, and not much slacking since.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on March 10, 2021, 01:27:20 PM
Biden is an embarrassment, regardless of what Tom states. The mental degenerate cannot even hold a news conference.

Lol.....   this has to be an epic troll. Does anyone remember Sharpie gate?

Here are a few highlights from the Trump Administration:


https://youtu.be/9YQdnsWct08
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/07/us/politics/trump-books-four-seasons.html
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/shameful-disturbing-and-an-embarrassment-congress-reacts-to-trumps-press-conference-with-putin-2018-07-16
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-embarrasing-gaffes-speeches-twitter-a9659916.html
https://www.motherjones.com/coronavirus-updates/2020/04/trump-disinfectant-injection-hoax-tweets/


Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on March 10, 2021, 02:03:08 PM
I just think it's refreshing having a president that isn't obsessed with his own celebrity.
Since when?

Why, since we lost the game show host who used to be our president, obviously.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Snupes on March 10, 2021, 09:08:26 PM
The subject of this thread is not Trump. The subject of this thread is Joe Biden. He's an embarrassment. Trying to talk about other people does nothing to take away from Joe Biden's embarrassing behavior.

...is the Crown Prince of Whataboutism really whining about nonexistent whataboutism? Like, do you understand the concept of bringing up someone's past arguments and defenses to show them inconsistencies with their current argument?

TIM BOSHIP (thread 1): Trump can kill people, that's fine, you guys are being dumb. It's not murder if the president kills someone.
TIM BOSHIP (thread 2): Wow, Biden killed people? He's a murderer, we should lock him up.
RANDO-MAN (thread 2): I don't think you're arguing in good faith, you've previously said presidents killing people isn't murder.
TIM BOSHIP (thread 2): This thread is about Biden, not Trump. Stop pivoting.

People are trying to point out your endless inconsistencies in who and what you'll criticize for what and why. If someone consistently refuses to argue in good faith or ever acknowledge being wrong, what's the point in engaging with them? And, yes, if I get a response I almost expect a "ha ha that why i shouldnt engage with you guys"
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 10, 2021, 09:51:04 PM
Crown Prince of Whataboutism

Nope. You guys are the ones here desperate to try to talk about Trump when Joe Biden embarrasses himself.

It is almost as if you are conceding that Joe Biden is an embarrassment and need to try to hide that fact by accusing someone else of something. It is a pretty pathetic defense if you have to implicitly concede that Joe Biden is an embarrassment in your argument.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 10, 2021, 10:00:57 PM
... need to try to hide that fact by accusing someone else of something.

Nobody "needs" to accuse Trump of anything. It's all out in the open, for all to see how unspeakably bad he was and is.

When you project things that Trump has done to excess onto Biden, there's really no alternative but to discuss what Trump did.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 10, 2021, 10:02:00 PM
It is almost as if you are conceding that Joe Biden is an embarrassment

True if you ignore all the times people have said he isn't.  Which I am sure you are keen to do.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on March 10, 2021, 10:03:25 PM
Self awareness is over-rated, to be fair.
What many of us are pointing out is the hypocrisy of you declaring one person “an embarrassment” when you have spent the last 4 years defending everything another person has done, no matter how embarrassing.

And as I said, how embarrassing you find someone is subjective. But I’ve given the data which shows that people in the US and outside are more supportive of Biden than Trump. So, objectively, the data shows that people in general don’t find Biden anywhere near as embarrassing as the previous incumbent.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Snupes on March 10, 2021, 10:06:14 PM
Nope. You guys are the ones here desperate to try to talk about Trump when Joe Biden embarrasses himself.

It is almost as if you are conceding that Joe Biden is an embarrassment and need to try to hide that fact by accusing someone else of something. It is a pretty pathetic defense if you have to implicitly concede that Joe Biden is an embarrassment in your argument.

You're not reading. Use your eyes, my dude. Several people have said his speech gaffes aren't an embarrassment, but that you treat those gaffes as such while you defended Trump for his. The argument isn't "Biden's embarrassing, but so was Trump", it's "why do you consider Biden's gaffes embarrassing but defended Trump's?" It's about your inconsistency. You must be actually ignoring entire sentences and paragraphs of others' posts if you don't understand that.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 10, 2021, 10:23:04 PM
Several people have said his speech gaffes aren't an embarrassment

Why would someone need to justify Biden's behavior if they didn't think it was embarrassing? Whenever you justify a bad or embarrassing behavior you are conceding that it is bad or embarrassing.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Snupes on March 10, 2021, 10:31:20 PM
What? If I don't think it's embarrassing, justifying it doesn't mean I think it's embarrassing. You're trying to be weirdly tautological. Unless you're legit trying to tell me that any time anyone justifies anything (which, quick refresher, means "show or prove to be right or reasonable") that means the thing is bad or embarrassing. So, say, all your justifications for not murdering someone would be irrelevant because justifying it means it's bad or embarrassing.

Because if you're being completely literal with your sentence, I sincerely hope you can see the vapidity of "if we accept his behavior is bad and embarrassing, justifying it means it's bad or embarrassing". I really hope you're not loading the premise that blatantly, because that would be pretty dang bad or embarrassing. (also, if you justify the bad or embarrassing phrasing, you're conceding it's bad or embarrassing, so you're not allowed to defend it I guess)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on March 10, 2021, 10:40:37 PM
Several people have said his speech gaffes aren't an embarrassment

Why would someone need to justify Biden's behavior if they didn't think it was embarrassing? Whenever you justify a bad or embarrassing behavior you are conceding that it is bad or embarrassing.
Are you doing this deliberately? You're turning into a Life of Brian sketch

Brian: "Please listen to me. I'm not the Messiah, honestly"
Woman: "Only the true Messiah denies his divinity"
Brian: "What?! Well what sort of chance does that give me? Alright! I am the Messiah!"
Crowd: "He is! He is!"

So if we agree with you that Biden is embarrassing then we are conceding the point.
If we don't agree with you and point out why it's not embarrassing then that's us "justifying" it and thus conceding the point that there's something to justify. Are you just trolling now?

I don't think anyone stumbling over words is in itself embarrassing. We all do it. Trump certainly did, if you read transcripts of his speeches it's just a ramble of words.

But finding something embarrassing is subjective. I have shown the data which shows that more people approve of Biden in the US than they ever did Trump. And I've shown data which shows that in multiple countries more people support Biden than Trump - the only counter example in the data I showed was Russia, which might give you pause.

So, overall, it's pretty clear that people don't find Biden embarrassing. You do, it seems. OK. But I doubt we'll see Biden drawing on maps in Sharpie rather than admitting he'd made a mistake or being openly laughed at by the UN when the sort of rhetoric which goes down well with people in MAGA hats didn't play so well to an audience of grown ups.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 11, 2021, 02:49:51 AM
What? If I don't think it's embarrassing, justifying it doesn't mean I think it's embarrassing. You're trying to be weirdly tautological. Unless you're legit trying to tell me that any time anyone justifies anything (which, quick refresher, means "show or prove to be right or reasonable") that means the thing is bad or embarrassing. So, say, all your justifications for not murdering someone would be irrelevant because justifying it means it's bad or embarrassing.

If you were in a position that you had to justify that you didn't murder someone you are conceding that there is a reason for that you needed to justify that. You are conceding that there is evidence that you murdered someone, or that it looks like you murdered someone. No one needs to justify that they didn't murder someone if there was nothing there suggesting that they murdered someone.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 11, 2021, 02:52:39 AM
What? If I don't think it's embarrassing, justifying it doesn't mean I think it's embarrassing. You're trying to be weirdly tautological. Unless you're legit trying to tell me that any time anyone justifies anything (which, quick refresher, means "show or prove to be right or reasonable") that means the thing is bad or embarrassing. So, say, all your justifications for not murdering someone would be irrelevant because justifying it means it's bad or embarrassing.

If you were in a position that you had to justify that you didn't murder someone you are conceding that there is a reason for that you needed to justify that. You are conceding that there is evidence that you did, or that it looks like you did. No one needs to justify that they didn't murder someone if there was nothing there suggesting that they murdered someone.

Or the accuser is incorrect.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 11, 2021, 02:59:44 AM
What? If I don't think it's embarrassing, justifying it doesn't mean I think it's embarrassing. You're trying to be weirdly tautological. Unless you're legit trying to tell me that any time anyone justifies anything (which, quick refresher, means "show or prove to be right or reasonable") that means the thing is bad or embarrassing. So, say, all your justifications for not murdering someone would be irrelevant because justifying it means it's bad or embarrassing.

If you were in a position that you had to justify that you didn't murder someone you are conceding that there is a reason for that you needed to justify that. You are conceding that there is evidence that you did, or that it looks like you did. No one needs to justify that they didn't murder someone if there was nothing there suggesting that they murdered someone.

Or the accuser is incorrect.

You guys didn't even argue that your opponents were mistaken about what Biden did. The argument was "But Trump."  ::)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on March 11, 2021, 03:07:19 AM
What? If I don't think it's embarrassing, justifying it doesn't mean I think it's embarrassing. You're trying to be weirdly tautological. Unless you're legit trying to tell me that any time anyone justifies anything (which, quick refresher, means "show or prove to be right or reasonable") that means the thing is bad or embarrassing. So, say, all your justifications for not murdering someone would be irrelevant because justifying it means it's bad or embarrassing.

If you were in a position that you had to justify that you didn't murder someone you are conceding that there is a reason for that you needed to justify that. You are conceding that there is evidence that you did, or that it looks like you did. No one needs to justify that they didn't murder someone if there was nothing there suggesting that they murdered someone.

Or the accuser is incorrect.

You guys didn't even argue that your opponents were mistaken about what Biden did.

Sure they did. They told you over and over again that they don't find Biden an embarrassment. They may have compared him to Trump at a point but that was to expose your hypocrisy, not to make an excuse for Biden. That Trump was such an embarrassment is irrelevant to the point that Biden is not.

At this point you're the only one trying to make this about Trump.   ::)

Now back to the top of the circle...
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Snupes on March 11, 2021, 03:27:41 AM
You guys didn't even argue that your opponents were mistaken about what Biden did. The argument was "But Trump."  ::)

Several people have said his speech gaffes aren't an embarrassment, but that you treat those gaffes as such while you defended Trump for his. The argument isn't "Biden's embarrassing, but so was Trump", it's "why do you consider Biden's gaffes embarrassing but defended Trump's?"

That's literally what many of us have been saying. That they aren't embarrassing. Nobody is conceding that. We're asking you why you're inconsistent on this issue depending on who we're talking about. If we can't even trust you to have a standard of logic or morality that you apply to situations, but instead make it up on the spot depending on who the conversation pertains to, what's the point of ever engaging anything you say? It's wild to me you can't seem to answer that. If you have some system of logic or morality you follow, it should be super easy.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 11, 2021, 04:55:50 AM
You guys didn't even argue that your opponents were mistaken about what Biden did.

Quote from: Снупс
That's literally what many of us have been saying.

Where was it argued that I was mistaken about what Biden did?

Quote
That they aren't embarrassing. Nobody is conceding that.

If you guys didn't think that it was embarrassing enough to justify with "But Trump" then you would not have done a "But Trump," as there would be nothing embarrassing to try and justify.

The next time Biden does something embarrassing you will also "But Trump", simply because Joe Biden is an embarrassment and you have no good defense.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on March 11, 2021, 05:02:11 AM
You guys didn't even argue that your opponents were mistaken about what Biden did.

Quote from: Снупс
That's literally what many of us have been saying.

Where was it argued that I was mistaken about what Biden did?


You were mistaken that anybody you are arguing with finds the things you say are embarrassing about Biden embarrassing about him. And that has been pointed out many times.

I'm starting to worry, I feel like your rhetorical prowess used to be much better. Now you just seem to argue in endless circles, flat-out ignoring even the things that you're responding to. It's gotten sad.  :(
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on March 11, 2021, 08:54:33 AM
If you guys didn't think that it was embarrassing enough to justify with "But Trump" then you would not have done a "But Trump," as there would be nothing embarrassing to try and justify.

Sigh. There are two separate points here. I genuinely can't work out if you really don't understand this or are just pretending not to

Point 1 is - no, I don't find someone making a mistake in a speech or a word slipping their mind embarrassing. I do it, so do you, and so does everyone. And Trump certainly did. Which brings us on to...

Point 2 - why are you declaring Biden embarrassing for doing this when you've spent the last 4 years defending everything Trump has done when he did the exact same thing and many things significantly more embarrassing during his tenure? It's a rhetorical question of course, we know why. It's because the standards you judge someone by depends entirely on whether you agree with them or not.

Quote
The next time Biden does something embarrassing you will also "But Trump", simply because Joe Biden is an embarrassment and you have no good defense.

Well, again, embarrassment is subjective. But yes, the next time you declare something Biden does as embarrassing when there are plenty of examples of Trump doing the same thing which you didn't declare an embarrassment or even defended then we will point out your hypocrisy again.

The way to take out the subjective factor is to look at data across populations. I have supplied that data which shows that Biden is more popular within the US than Trump ever was and that in multiple other countries Biden is significantly more popular than Trump. You may find Biden an embarrassment but many don't.
And if you fancy a bit of introspection you might want to consider why you repeatedly defend one person for doing something and then criticise another person for doing the exact same thing, apparently based entirely on whether you like that person and what they say.
Try to be a bit more objective if you want to be taken seriously.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Shifter on March 11, 2021, 05:32:15 PM
Joe Biden has a speech impediment. His stutters are not something I find embarrassing but inspiring. Honestly for a guy to have that kind of disorder in a judgmental world and spend his entire career in public life, good on him and more power to him

To those that ridicule or make fun of a man who stutters, well you are just scum

I prefer to hear the words out of Bidens mouth then the constant lies, hate, uncouth vile diatribe constantly out of Trumps mouth.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on March 11, 2021, 07:36:21 PM
You guys didn't even argue that your opponents were mistaken about what Biden did.

Quote from: Снупс
That's literally what many of us have been saying.

Where was it argued that I was mistaken about what Biden did?

Quote
That they aren't embarrassing. Nobody is conceding that.

If you guys didn't think that it was embarrassing enough to justify with "But Trump" then you would not have done a "But Trump," as there would be nothing embarrassing to try and justify.

The next time Biden does something embarrassing you will also "But Trump", simply because Joe Biden is an embarrassment and you have no good defense.

It's painfully clear you have simply ignored what anyone has written. And you should be embarrassed.

What basically everyone has been saying over and over again is, "I don't find that embarrassing, period. But holy heck I did find an innumerable amount of embarrassing gaffes, events, statements, etc., with our former President. And as a consequence of your hypocrisy, Tom, why do you find something embarrassing for Biden, but nothing for Trump when there are four years of what anyone would consider embarrassments?"

I mean c'mon, what's more cringe-worthy embarrassing than the leader of the free world begging a State official in Georgia to find 11k+ votes for him? And you think having a stutter and stumbling over a word or forgetting a General's name is "embarrassing"? We obviously have different criteria for the application of the word.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on March 11, 2021, 10:15:13 PM
I mean c'mon, what's more cringe-worthy embarrassing than the leader of the free world begging a State official in Georgia to find 11k+ votes for him?

How about the leader of the Free World threatening those same state officials because they wouldn't lie for him?

Actually, maybe that's not embarrassing so much as frightening.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 12, 2021, 04:17:12 AM
It's painfully clear you have simply ignored what anyone has written. And you should be embarrassed.

What basically everyone has been saying over and over again is, "I don't find that embarrassing, period."

Actions speak louder than words. If you have to argue "But Trump" you are conceding that your opponent's accusations have merit. No one justifies anything if they didn't think there was merit of the opposite.

Quote
I mean c'mon, what's more cringe-worthy embarrassing than the leader of the free world begging a State official in Georgia to find 11k+ votes for him? And you think having a stutter and stumbling over a word or forgetting a General's name is "embarrassing"? We obviously have different criteria for the application of the word.

If I were arguing this I wouldn't argue "But Biden". That would be conceding that there might be something to be embarrassed about. I would probably call into question your competency in determining context, because it was "There is clearly significant evidence of fraud. You only need to legally establish xx number of votes. You must be either incompetent or compromised because you are not doing your job."
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on March 12, 2021, 04:19:22 AM
And round and round we go!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on March 12, 2021, 05:22:10 AM
It's painfully clear you have simply ignored what anyone has written. And you should be embarrassed.

What basically everyone has been saying over and over again is, "I don't find that embarrassing, period."

Actions speak louder than words. If you have to argue "But Trump" you are conceding that your opponent's accusations have merit. No one justifies anything if they didn't think there was merit of the opposite.

Quote
I mean c'mon, what's more cringe-worthy embarrassing than the leader of the free world begging a State official in Georgia to find 11k+ votes for him? And you think having a stutter and stumbling over a word or forgetting a General's name is "embarrassing"? We obviously have different criteria for the application of the word.

If I were arguing this I wouldn't argue "But Biden". That would be conceding that there might be something to be embarrassed about. I would probably call into question your competency in determining context, because it was "There is clearly significant evidence of fraud. You only need to legally establish xx number of votes. You must be either incompetent or compromised because you are not doing your job."

The only reason Trump came up was in pointing out your hypocrisy. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. 

And you can spare us your lack of competency when it comes to the context that Biden won and Trump lost. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. 
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 12, 2021, 08:19:12 AM
Actions speak louder than words.

So what? All we have on a forum like this IS words.

If you have to argue "But Trump" you are conceding that your opponent's accusations have merit.

No, this is not a concession, despite you claiming as such
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on March 12, 2021, 09:30:42 AM
If you have to argue "But Trump" you are conceding that your opponent's accusations have merit. No one justifies anything if they didn't think there was merit of the opposite.

Why are you ignoring my post where I clearly explained this? There are two separate points.
The first is that none of us find Biden an embarrassment.
The second "but Trump" point exposes your hypocrisy.

This is not difficult to understand.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 12, 2021, 11:28:03 AM
If you have to argue "But Trump" you are conceding that your opponent's accusations have merit. No one justifies anything if they didn't think there was merit of the opposite.

Why are you ignoring my post where I clearly explained this? There are two separate points.
The first is that none of us find Biden an embarrassment.
The second "but Trump" point exposes your hypocrisy.

This is not difficult to understand.

Me: Biden Bad

You: You are a hypocrite because something about Trump Bad.

In this argument you are accepting the argument that Biden Bad and try to counter it with something about Trump Bad. If Biden Bad had no merit you would have countered that I was wrong about what what he actually said, misinterpreted context, etc. This was not even attempted. You accepted the argument and went directly to Trump Bad.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on March 12, 2021, 11:30:45 AM
Me: Biden Bad

You: You are a hypocrite because something about Trump Bad.
No. Once more for the hard of thinking:

You: Biden Bad

Me: 1) Biden not bad. 2) You are a hypocrite saying Biden Bad when you have spent 4 years saying Trump Good when he does the exact same things and worse.

See? Two separate points. I don't know how to make this clearer.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on March 12, 2021, 11:33:19 AM
If Biden Bad had no merit you would have countered that I was wrong about what what he actually said, misinterpreted context, etc. This was not even attempted.
Liar

By arguing "but Trump" you are telling us that you believe that Biden is as embarrassing like you believe Trump was
No. Because I don’t believe that someone stumbling over words is in itself embarrassing..

And I note you continue to ignore the data I have provided that Biden is more popular than Trump ever was in the US
And that he is more popular than Trump in many foreign countries.

So, OK, you find him embarrassing. We know why. But a lot of people don't.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 12, 2021, 11:43:43 AM
Me: Biden Bad

You: You are a hypocrite because something about Trump Bad.
No. Once more for the hard of thinking:

You: Biden Bad

Me: 1) Biden not bad. 2) You are a hypocrite saying Biden Bad when you have spent 4 years saying Trump Good when he does the exact same things and worse.

See? Two separate points. I don't know how to make this clearer.

The problem is that you should have stopped at 1. In a discussion on Prince Andrew you don't need to justify Prince Andrew's alleged pedophilia by pointing out the famous pedophiles and criminal child abusers you think exist in America and the 'hyprocracy' of criticizing Prince Andrew. That's basically accepting the arguments against Prince Andrew and justifying his criminal behavior.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 12, 2021, 11:54:22 AM
Tom keeps using the operator "Yes" + "But" between the first and second points instead of "No" + "And"

1st point: Biden Bad
2nd point: Trump Bad

Tom keeps claiming its being said "Yes Biden bad but Trump bad"

The reality is whats being claimed is "No, Biden not bad and Trump bad"

He obviously is just trolling because its all he has now that its obvious that Trump really did lose and that he isn't getting back in.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 12, 2021, 11:58:31 AM
In other news, Biden is well ahead of his stated goal of having 100M vaccinated in 100 days.  At 50 days the USA had over 75M vaccinated.  Nice job, Canada is jealous.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on March 12, 2021, 12:21:37 PM
In a discussion on Prince Andrew you don't need to justify Prince Andrew's alleged pedophilia by pointing out the famous pedophiles and criminal child abusers you think exist in America and the 'hyprocracy' of criticizing Prince Andrew.

OK. Firstly, I don't think there's any debate to be had about whether paedophilia is a bad thing.

But there are still 2 separate points here. Pointing out inconsistency - the way a person criticises Person A for doing something when they have previously not criticised Person B, or even defended them, for doing the same thing - is completely separate from whether you agree with their criticism of Person A.

I can agree with someone's criticisms of Prince Andrew and also question why they didn't criticise, or even defended, Gary Glitter for the same thing (you might need to Google him, not sure if he ever made it in the US). Doing that is NOT a justification of the alleged actions of Prince Andrew.

Or I can disagree with someone's criticisms of Biden and also question why they didn't criticise or even defended Trump for the same thing.

I can say "yes, I agree with you but why were you fine with this other person doing the same thing?"
Or can say "I disagree with you and why were you fine with this other person doing the same thing?"

See? These are two independent points. The latter point does not imply agreement with the first.

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: garygreen on March 12, 2021, 02:22:49 PM
Whenever you justify a bad or embarrassing behavior you are conceding that it is bad or embarrassing.

i'm glad you agree that trump's loss to biden in the 2020 general was extremely embarrassing
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: HereForResearch on March 16, 2021, 12:35:20 AM
I think he's alright
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 17, 2021, 10:56:05 AM
I mean c'mon, what's more cringe-worthy embarrassing than the leader of the free world begging a State official in Georgia to find 11k+ votes for him?

How about the leader of the Free World threatening those same state officials because they wouldn't lie for him?

Actually, maybe that's not embarrassing so much as frightening.
Actually, there were no threats. Fake news diet can be bad for your reputation.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 19, 2021, 10:43:45 AM
This video clip seems greenscreened, clearly demonstrating such at one prominent point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ml7lhL3yw0
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 19, 2021, 11:16:22 AM
This video clip seems greenscreened, clearly demonstrating such at one prominent point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ml7lhL3yw0

Yeah that’s weird.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 19, 2021, 11:57:00 AM
This video clip seems greenscreened, clearly demonstrating such at one prominent point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ml7lhL3yw0

Yeah that’s weird.
Crazy the PTB would allow such a thing to be aired, don't you think.

Whichever consortium (obviously NOT INCLUSIVE of Hairy Legged Uncle Joe) is now in control of the US evidently sees fit to be right out in the open with all of it.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 19, 2021, 12:13:35 PM
Crazy the PTB would allow such a thing to be aired, don't you think.

Whichever consortium (obviously NOT INCLUSIVE of Hairy Legged Uncle Joe) is now in control of the US evidently sees fit to be right out in the open with all of it.

After having looked in to a bit, it doesn't really seem obvious it's a green screen.  This guy recreates the effect (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_QQ2xj-nwQ&t).  Combined with other videos and photos from the event, along with the eye witnesses it seems more likely that our ape brains have had a hard time processing visual information.

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 19, 2021, 12:23:38 PM
Crazy the PTB would allow such a thing to be aired, don't you think.

Whichever consortium (obviously NOT INCLUSIVE of Hairy Legged Uncle Joe) is now in control of the US evidently sees fit to be right out in the open with all of it.

After having looked in to a bit, it doesn't really seem obvious it's a green screen.  This guy recreates the effect (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_QQ2xj-nwQ&t).  Combined with other videos and photos from the event, along with the eye witnesses it seems more likely that our ape brains have had a hard time processing visual information.
What did you look into?

He didn't recreate this parade. He simply showed the original.

The image presented is clearly green screened.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 19, 2021, 12:28:59 PM
Crazy the PTB would allow such a thing to be aired, don't you think.

Whichever consortium (obviously NOT INCLUSIVE of Hairy Legged Uncle Joe) is now in control of the US evidently sees fit to be right out in the open with all of it.

After having looked in to a bit, it doesn't really seem obvious it's a green screen.  This guy recreates the effect (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_QQ2xj-nwQ&t).  Combined with other videos and photos from the event, along with the eye witnesses it seems more likely that our ape brains have had a hard time processing visual information.
What did you look into?

He didn't recreate this parade. He simply showed the original.

The image presented is clearly green screened.

No it’s not clearly green screened. The video I linked to shows the same “green screen” effect being recreated. An optical illusion seems very possible and also seems more likely. If you want convince me, I will need more evidence than “hand in front of microphone”.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 19, 2021, 12:36:22 PM
Crazy the PTB would allow such a thing to be aired, don't you think.

Whichever consortium (obviously NOT INCLUSIVE of Hairy Legged Uncle Joe) is now in control of the US evidently sees fit to be right out in the open with all of it.

After having looked in to a bit, it doesn't really seem obvious it's a green screen.  This guy recreates the effect (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_QQ2xj-nwQ&t).  Combined with other videos and photos from the event, along with the eye witnesses it seems more likely that our ape brains have had a hard time processing visual information.
What did you look into?

He didn't recreate this parade. He simply showed the original.

The image presented is clearly green screened.

No it’s not clearly green screened. The video I linked to shows the same “green screen” effect being recreated. An optical illusion seems very possible and also seems more likely. If you want convince me, I will need more evidence than “hand in front of microphone”.
I cannot watch the video you linked.

I posted a video for everyone to see.

You can see the video I posted.

You didn't post anything but a link to what you purport to be a recreation.

The video I posted is a clip from a clearly green screened faked news conference aired by the MSM.

Whether you want to admit or not is of no consequence.

Truth is truth.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 19, 2021, 01:01:06 PM
I cannot watch the video you linked.

I posted a video for everyone to see.

You can see the video I posted.

YouTube doesn’t work for you now? Maybe just ask for it to be embedded? I wanted to clean up the post a bit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_QQ2xj-nwQ&t

Quote
You didn't post anything but a link to what you purport to be a recreation.

The video I posted is a green screen news conference aired by the MSM.

You posted a video to what you purport to be a green screen news conference.

Quote
Whether you want to admit or not is of no consequence.

I admitted it looked weird and then did some research. Currently I’ve seen more evidence of an optical illusion than a green screen. Can you explain why a green screen is the only explanation?

Quote
Truth is truth.

Brings a tear to the eye.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 19, 2021, 03:09:54 PM
I cannot watch the video you linked.

I posted a video for everyone to see.

You can see the video I posted.

YouTube doesn’t work for you now? Maybe just ask for it to be embedded? I wanted to clean up the post a bit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_QQ2xj-nwQ&t

Quote
You didn't post anything but a link to what you purport to be a recreation.

The video I posted is a green screen news conference aired by the MSM.

You posted a video to what you purport to be a green screen news conference.

Quote
Whether you want to admit or not is of no consequence.

I admitted it looked weird and then did some research. Currently I’ve seen more evidence of an optical illusion than a green screen. Can you explain why a green screen is the only explanation?

Quote
Truth is truth.

Brings a tear to the eye.
Nice try.

Your video does nothing to address the obvious blurring of the mic sock, nor does it portray the obvious angles found in the original photo op.

Biden was nowhere near to the front of the mic socks present in the shot.

Like I wrote, the PTB are right out front in their made for TV government.

You guys in Canada are really over the top.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 19, 2021, 03:38:50 PM
He literally recreates the angles in the press conference. The mic sock has many small hairs so of course it looks blurry. How do you know he wasn’t near the front of the mic socks? Can you post a picture from an angle that allows for better depth perception and shows he was not close to them? The lower angle shot in the video I posted seems to disagree with you. You talking about what you think is credible isn’t evidence and your xenophobia towards Canada doesn’t help either.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on March 19, 2021, 03:53:06 PM
Bunch of syrup-sucking socialists...
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on March 19, 2021, 04:33:58 PM
He literally recreates the angles in the press conference. The mic sock has many small hairs so of course it looks blurry. How do you know he wasn’t near the front of the mic socks? Can you post a picture from an angle that allows for better depth perception and shows he was not close to them? The lower angle shot in the video I posted seems to disagree with you. You talking about what you think is credible isn’t evidence and your xenophobia towards Canada doesn’t help either.
I don't understand this one. On initial view it looks a bit weird but it's well explained by the other video.
And why on earth would they green screen this? To what end?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on March 19, 2021, 04:38:44 PM
And why on earth would they green screen this? To what end?

BeCaUsE bIdEn Is DeAd AnD KaMaLa + AoC aRe RuNnInG tHe CoUnTrY iNtO a SoCiAliSt HeLl

...Or something
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on March 19, 2021, 05:38:14 PM
So I have some issues with the video.

First off: The poster is very biased.  He spent more time talking about Biden's walk, camera editing cuts, and inserting movie clips than he did the actual thing the video is about.  He also insults the man's walk.  Now, that's just petty and really makes me question the validity of the video.

Second:
This actually looked more like an insert than a greenscreen.  The mic goes from foreground to background back to foreground.  Which doesn't make sense unless you are inserting the damn thing into the video to make it look bad.  Third, when Biden's hand goes in front of the fuzzy (and very very blurry) blob, it and his jacket have a dark, black line.  Like someone literally cut it out frame by frame and did it with all the skill and grace of a 5 year old cutting paper.

Third:
The video is low quality: A trick often used to hide editing imperfections when amateures insert things.  Given that the original is likely recorded from a news camera and is not such low quality, it makes me suspecious.

Finally:
That's not how green screens work.
I assume all the press are not really there and its all fake questions by fake voice actors that the MSM, like Fox and CNN, simply took from some other source and used it because otherwise it makes no sense why you would need to.
Then there's the technical level.  To do this you would have a foreground and background layer.  The background would be things behind him and the foreground would be the mics waving about since they should be in front.
So its very odd that they would have ONLY ONE MIC that switches between foreground and background within seconds.  It really doesn't make any sense. 

Honestly, if it wasn't for RAMA's video, I'd have assumed that it was a hoax video made by some no talent dick to make Biden look like he was faking a press conference.  I mean, it probably was, but at least I can be fairly sure he didn't alter the video aside from lowering the quality.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on March 19, 2021, 07:44:30 PM
From the guy weilding the big fuzzy gray mic:

"Steve Herman, the White House correspondent for Voice of America, was the one holding the large fuzzy gray microphone that Biden’s hand appears to go through. On Twitter, he shut down the claims as “nonsense.”

(https://i.imgur.com/n1XQEEV.png)

Alternate angle:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ews6D02WgAQybCo?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)

CGI claim is bullshit.

Additionally, just for reference, old man walking:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tszIXno2Q8
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on March 19, 2021, 08:30:07 PM
A green screen fake press conference?

The conservative movement in America has been overrun by lizard hunting, pizzagate, conspiracy freaks. Normal conservatives no longer have a voice in this country.

BTW Republicans need to keep their stupid mouths shut about screwed up press conferences.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2021/02/08/new-documentary-will-detail-the-wild-ride-of-rudy-giulianis-infamous-four-seasons-total-landscaping-press-conference/
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on March 19, 2021, 08:33:37 PM
Are we seriously having a discussion on whether or not Biden is putting out weird green-screen productions instead of just speaking with journalists like normal?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 19, 2021, 08:56:44 PM
Yes. Yes we are.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on March 19, 2021, 09:02:55 PM
Yep. It's remarkable this conversation even exists.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on March 19, 2021, 09:31:34 PM
I refuse to take this seriously, given the obvious ridiculousnessicity.

 Here are four words:
Wagon
Donut
Bubbles
Sneakers
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Dr David Thork on March 20, 2021, 08:29:08 AM
"Trump is so embarrassing" ... hahahaha!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5Mwc12LtRY

Your President is a complete and utter tool.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 20, 2021, 09:41:45 AM
VID

Your President is a complete and utter tool.

I refuse to take this seriously.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 20, 2021, 09:54:08 AM
VID

Your President is a complete and utter tool.

I refuse to take this seriously.

It’s pretty sad that Tom and Thork have only been making fun of him being old. One day they might have something of substance to say.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on March 20, 2021, 11:33:10 AM
VID

Your President is a complete and utter tool.

I refuse to take this seriously.

It’s pretty sad that Tom and Thork have only been making fun of him being old. One day they might have something of substance to say.

Again, projecting.
Trump is younger by only 4 years.  So they're projecting their own concerns and criticism about Trump onto Biden.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 20, 2021, 02:30:33 PM
"Trump is so embarrassing" ... hahahaha!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5Mwc12LtRY

Your President is a complete and utter tool.

Trump could walk up the steps to Air Force One just fine: https://mobile.twitter.com/DanScavino/status/1372964618495213571

I don't know what Biden's problem is. Maybe people shouldn't be voting for a clumsy old fool for president.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 20, 2021, 02:43:39 PM
Trump could walk up the steps to Air Force One just fine: https://mobile.twitter.com/DanScavino/status/1372964618495213571

You DID look at all the comments, and the videos they included, in response to that tweet, didn't you?

You didn't?

Maybe you should.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on March 20, 2021, 03:03:56 PM
Trump could walk up the steps to Air Force One just fine: https://mobile.twitter.com/DanScavino/status/1372964618495213571

Actually, at 3 seconds into the video, looking closely at the hand railing, there is a blurriness. Obviously, a poorly done green screen.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 20, 2021, 03:41:25 PM

Trump could walk up the steps to Air Force One just fine: https://mobile.twitter.com/DanScavino/status/1372964618495213571

He could walk up steps better than he could lead a country.  That's for sure.

Quote
I don't know what Biden's problem is.

He is old.  Old people have trouble walking sometimes.  One day you will too.  Will you treat yourself as shittily?

Quote
Maybe people shouldn't be voting for a clumsy old fool for president.

Then why did you vote for Trump in 2016?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Shane on March 20, 2021, 06:59:44 PM
I honestly do think Biden has cognitive issues,  but also people trip. Even geniuses trip! Embarrassing,  for sure but I've tripped in front of people before!

And perhaps on his first stumble he hurt himself,  being an old man,  and didn't instantly recover.  Weird!


What I mean to say is,  if you have a problem with him and think he's not "all there", that's fine. But "haha old man slipped" is kinda silly
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on March 20, 2021, 07:01:55 PM
Trump could walk up the steps to Air Force One just fine: https://mobile.twitter.com/DanScavino/status/1372964618495213571

A ringing endorsement.
I definitely think a person’s ability to competently run a country should be judged by their ability to walk up stairs.
Maybe next time the Presidential Debate could be replaced by a stair climbing competition rather than looking at their policies and politics.

Quote
Maybe people shouldn't be voting for a clumsy old fool for president.
Maybe people should vote for someone whose policies they agree with and who they trust rather than looking at trivial bullshit like this.

This is the exact sort of nonsense which you lot have been accusing people of TDS for focusing on.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 20, 2021, 08:29:26 PM
Wrong. Biden's stumbles and clumsiness is being reported all over by the MSM as news:

The Hill - #BREAKING​: President Joe Biden FALLS multiple times while boarding Air Force One (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST9cmttj1kY&ab_channel=TheHill)

NBC News - "Watch: Biden Stumbles As He Boards Air Force One | NBC News NOW" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzb-0reGWTo&ab_channel=NBCNews)

The Guardian - Joe Biden stumbles on steps of Air Force One (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwjmyZUA2O8&ab_channel=GuardianNews)

Bloomberg Politics - Biden Falls Three Times Getting on Air Force One (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf_hteNTIrU&ab_channel=BloombergPolitics)

MSN - Watch: Biden stumbles as he boards Air Force One (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/watch-biden-stumbles-as-he-boards-air-force-one/vi-BB1eLej4)

UK:

Metro.co.uk - Video: Biden stumbles on steps while boarding Air Force One (https://metro.co.uk/video/biden-stumbles-steps-boarding-air-force-one-2380082/)

Telegraph.co.uk - Joe Biden Trips and Stumbles Three Times Boarding Airforce One (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/19/joe-biden-trips-stumbles-three-times-boarding-air-force-one/)

-

This is apparently one of the few idiots who can manage to fall UP the stairs.  ::)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on March 20, 2021, 08:32:55 PM
This is apparently one of the few idiots who can manage to fall UP the stairs.  ::)

Yep, one of the few and the proud. Here's Pence's version. Nice recovery with the pirouette wave at the end.

https://youtu.be/yAJQIlSJ8kQ
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 20, 2021, 08:50:16 PM
Pence didn't really have a reputation for being an aging fool with impaired cognitive abilities.

The Telegraph agrees Biden's tumbles are pretty humiliating:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/19/joe-biden-trips-stumbles-three-times-boarding-air-force-one/

"It was the never-before-seen Air Force One triple tumble. And for extra global humiliation Joe Biden managed to do it while going up the stairs.

In one - well, three - moments of imbalance, Mr Biden inflicted more damage on his own presidency than the Mexico border crisis, China, and Vladimir Putin put together.

You could almost hear the cackling echoing around the Kremlin.

What it means is this. America, particularly Democrats, can no longer turn a blind eye to Mr Biden's age."
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 20, 2021, 09:09:46 PM
Wrong.

About what exactly? Maybe you also suffer from cognitive impairment?  Did anyone say this wasn’t being reported on?

So do you trust the MSM now? You sure seem to be interested in citing them now they are saying something you like.

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on March 20, 2021, 09:55:25 PM
Wrong. Biden's stumbles and clumsiness is being reported all over by the MSM as news:
Of course.
He’s the POTUS.

But what am I wrong about, exactly?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on March 20, 2021, 10:24:09 PM
I honestly do think Biden has cognitive issues,  but also people trip. Even geniuses trip! Embarrassing,  for sure but I've tripped in front of people before!

It’s definitely embarrassing and a gift to his detractors, but it’s a bit sad that we live in an era where everything a person in power does is scrutinised to this degree - that happened to Trump too of course.
If “ability to walk up stairs” is the hallmark of a great President then have to admit Trump is right up there. But is that really how you pick or assess a world leader?

I note that Tom “accidentally” left these bits out of the quotes he took from that article:

Quote
Mr Biden's latest medical report showed no signs of any degenerative disease.

Quote
Despite this, a new poll shows the number of Americans who approve of Mr Biden has grown steadily since he took office, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling released on Friday, driven by concrete steps his administration has taken to address the public health and economic crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic.

The March 17-18 national opinion poll found that 59 per cent of adults in the US approved of Biden’s overall job performance, while 35 per cent disapproved and 6 per cent said they were not sure.

The number of adults who approve of Mr Biden is up by about 4 percentage points since a poll that ran in late January, and the increase is largely due to a rise in Mr Biden's popularity among independents.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 20, 2021, 10:36:38 PM
Wrong. Biden's stumbles and clumsiness is being reported all over by the MSM as news

So what? They also report funny animal videos. They also reported Trump climbing the same stairs with toilet paper stuck to his shoe. Also, Trump ascending the same stairs with an umbrella, not knowing how to fold it, and simply discarding it for someone else to deal with. Also, Trump falling on the stairs at some campaign event.

3-1 against Trump.

How DO you manage to arrive at a plane, having been taken there in a car, and STILL get out of the car with toilet paper sticking to your shoe? How DO you even manage to exit the toilet, carrying some paper on your shoe?

EDIT - Modified in error, when intention was to quote- restored to original text manually
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 21, 2021, 06:00:28 AM
Wrong. Biden's stumbles and clumsiness is being reported all over by the MSM as news:
But what am I wrong about, exactly?

The world is publicizing and laughing his foolishness, not just us.

Trump could walk up the steps to Air Force One just fine: https://mobile.twitter.com/DanScavino/status/1372964618495213571

You DID look at all the comments, and the videos they included, in response to that tweet, didn't you?

You didn't?

Maybe you should.

I saw this video in the comments. Why do you want to bring it to light?

https://youtu.be/QUu0B7lmQDY
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Snupes on March 21, 2021, 09:18:38 AM
Is "this president fall more than this president" really the level of political discourse we're interested in engaging in?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 21, 2021, 09:57:37 AM
I saw this video in the comments. Why do you want to bring it to light?

This does not help you to portray Biden in a poor light, not at all. No matter where it was found.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on March 21, 2021, 12:07:58 PM
 Comparing Joey no pulse tripping up stairs to the orange blowhole's ugly, inflexible golf swing means the arguments have essentially reached the 'my dad could beat up yer dad' level.

Amazing.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on March 21, 2021, 02:14:08 PM
I tripped on the stairs last week.  I'm 67.  Just thought I'd put it out there. 

"I am Spartacus"!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 21, 2021, 11:21:43 PM
How DO you manage to arrive at a plane, having been taken there in a car, and STILL get out of the car with toilet paper sticking to your shoe? How DO you even manage to exit the toilet, carrying some paper on your shoe?

...and, let's not forget, this is the man whose supporters were enthusiastically chanting "Toilets! Toilets!" at his rallies.

That's quite a fixation.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 21, 2021, 11:32:41 PM
Did you just reply to yourself to add on to your own joke? Why?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 22, 2021, 08:28:03 AM
Did you just reply to yourself to add on to your own joke? Why?

An afterthought related to my original thought.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 22, 2021, 12:13:05 PM
He literally recreates the angles in the press conference. The mic sock has many small hairs so of course it looks blurry. How do you know he wasn’t near the front of the mic socks? Can you post a picture from an angle that allows for better depth perception and shows he was not close to them? The lower angle shot in the video I posted seems to disagree with you. You talking about what you think is credible isn’t evidence and your xenophobia towards Canada doesn’t help either.
Xenophobia for a country that sees fit to lock up pastors and attack their citizenry in their own homes seems a good stance to take.

The mic sock looks blurry simply because the entire thing was shot in front of a green screen.

Simplest explanation, which you all like to chime so frequently.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 22, 2021, 12:16:56 PM
I'd have assumed that it was a hoax video made by some no talent dick to make Biden look like he was faking a press conference.  I mean, it probably was, but at least I can be fairly sure he didn't alter the video aside from lowering the quality.
Yes, it was all a hoax video.

That is the point.

Made by the no talent dicks occupying NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox.

And aired by all of them exactly as shown in the video here.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: JSS on March 22, 2021, 12:27:09 PM
He literally recreates the angles in the press conference. The mic sock has many small hairs so of course it looks blurry. How do you know he wasn’t near the front of the mic socks? Can you post a picture from an angle that allows for better depth perception and shows he was not close to them? The lower angle shot in the video I posted seems to disagree with you. You talking about what you think is credible isn’t evidence and your xenophobia towards Canada doesn’t help either.
Xenophobia for a country that sees fit to lock up pastors and attack their citizenry in their own homes seems a good stance to take.

The mic sock looks blurry simply because the entire thing was shot in front of a green screen.

Simplest explanation, which you all like to chime so frequently.

So you think that the simplest explanation is that they shot multiple videos from several angles on a green screen sound stage along with dozens if not hundreds of photographs and audio recordings and then used large amounts of CGI to create Biden walking, talking and interviewing outside and somehow getting dozens of people to agree to lie about being there including the guy holding the mic and the secret service and everyone else involved and all the witnesses and got this all done in record time... instead of just... filming him standing and talking outside.

You really think THAT is the simplest explanation?

Makes me wonder what you imagine a complex conspiracy would involve if this one is so simple. ???
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 22, 2021, 12:30:21 PM
He literally recreates the angles in the press conference. The mic sock has many small hairs so of course it looks blurry. How do you know he wasn’t near the front of the mic socks? Can you post a picture from an angle that allows for better depth perception and shows he was not close to them? The lower angle shot in the video I posted seems to disagree with you. You talking about what you think is credible isn’t evidence and your xenophobia towards Canada doesn’t help either.
Xenophobia for a country that sees fit to lock up pastors and attack their citizenry in their own homes seems a good stance to take.

The mic sock looks blurry simply because the entire thing was shot in front of a green screen.

Simplest explanation, which you all like to chime so frequently.

So you think that the simplest explanation is that they shot multiple videos from several angles on a green screen sound stage along with dozens if not hundreds of photographs and audio recordings and then used large amounts of CGI to create Biden walking, talking and interviewing outside and somehow getting dozens of people to agree to lie about being there including the guy holding the mic and the secret service and everyone else involved and all the witnesses and got this all done in record time... instead of just... filming him standing and talking outside.

You really think THAT is the simplest explanation?

Makes me wonder what you imagine a complex conspiracy would involve if this one is so simple. ???
The MSM are proven liars.

Period.

How many examples do you need?

Of course it is the simplest explanation.

There is no conspiracy here.

They are doing it right out in the open, putting it right in front of everyone's face.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on March 22, 2021, 01:05:32 PM
He literally recreates the angles in the press conference. The mic sock has many small hairs so of course it looks blurry. How do you know he wasn’t near the front of the mic socks? Can you post a picture from an angle that allows for better depth perception and shows he was not close to them? The lower angle shot in the video I posted seems to disagree with you. You talking about what you think is credible isn’t evidence and your xenophobia towards Canada doesn’t help either.
Xenophobia for a country that sees fit to lock up pastors and attack their citizenry in their own homes seems a good stance to take.

The mic sock looks blurry simply because the entire thing was shot in front of a green screen.

Simplest explanation, which you all like to chime so frequently.

So you think that the simplest explanation is that they shot multiple videos from several angles on a green screen sound stage along with dozens if not hundreds of photographs and audio recordings and then used large amounts of CGI to create Biden walking, talking and interviewing outside and somehow getting dozens of people to agree to lie about being there including the guy holding the mic and the secret service and everyone else involved and all the witnesses and got this all done in record time... instead of just... filming him standing and talking outside.

You really think THAT is the simplest explanation?

Makes me wonder what you imagine a complex conspiracy would involve if this one is so simple. ???
The MSM are proven liars.

Period.

How many examples do you need?

Of course it is the simplest explanation.

There is no conspiracy here.

They are doing it right out in the open, putting it right in front of everyone's face.

And their movtive for this one is?  Why greenscreen it?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 22, 2021, 01:10:32 PM
He literally recreates the angles in the press conference. The mic sock has many small hairs so of course it looks blurry. How do you know he wasn’t near the front of the mic socks? Can you post a picture from an angle that allows for better depth perception and shows he was not close to them? The lower angle shot in the video I posted seems to disagree with you. You talking about what you think is credible isn’t evidence and your xenophobia towards Canada doesn’t help either.
Xenophobia for a country that sees fit to lock up pastors and attack their citizenry in their own homes seems a good stance to take.

I’m not sure what specifically you are referring to but the USA has the largest number of imprisoned citizens in the world. They prosecute 6 year olds for picking tulips. So physician heal thyself.

Quote
The mic sock looks blurry simply because the entire thing was shot in front of a green screen.

Simplest explanation, which you all like to chime so frequently.

It’s not simple in the slightest. Don’t mistake an answer that brings comfort to your impotent rage as simple.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: JSS on March 22, 2021, 02:47:40 PM
Of course it is the simplest explanation.

There is no conspiracy here.

Filming Biden in a green screen from multiple angles, hundreds of photographs, a dozen reporters and crew and using CGI to place in a background making it all mach is a much more reasonable assumption than... he just talked to some reporters.

You seriously think THAT is the most reasonable, simplest explanation to a video of someone standing outside talking to people. Why would they even bother?

The conspiracy you are claiming is that dozens of CGI experts, producers, reporters, government officials, travel agents, the secret service, bystanders, witnesses and whoever is paying for it all being in on it.

Just a simple little conspiracy, sure.  ::)

As for lying... you do know Fox News went to court, and won the right to outfight lie to their viewers and order their hosts to knowingly lie as well?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 22, 2021, 03:25:19 PM
He literally recreates the angles in the press conference. The mic sock has many small hairs so of course it looks blurry. How do you know he wasn’t near the front of the mic socks? Can you post a picture from an angle that allows for better depth perception and shows he was not close to them? The lower angle shot in the video I posted seems to disagree with you. You talking about what you think is credible isn’t evidence and your xenophobia towards Canada doesn’t help either.
Xenophobia for a country that sees fit to lock up pastors and attack their citizenry in their own homes seems a good stance to take.

The mic sock looks blurry simply because the entire thing was shot in front of a green screen.

Simplest explanation, which you all like to chime so frequently.

So you think that the simplest explanation is that they shot multiple videos from several angles on a green screen sound stage along with dozens if not hundreds of photographs and audio recordings and then used large amounts of CGI to create Biden walking, talking and interviewing outside and somehow getting dozens of people to agree to lie about being there including the guy holding the mic and the secret service and everyone else involved and all the witnesses and got this all done in record time... instead of just... filming him standing and talking outside.

You really think THAT is the simplest explanation?

Makes me wonder what you imagine a complex conspiracy would involve if this one is so simple. ???
The MSM are proven liars.

Period.

How many examples do you need?

Of course it is the simplest explanation.

There is no conspiracy here.

They are doing it right out in the open, putting it right in front of everyone's face.

And their movtive for this one is?  Why greenscreen it?
The same motive as they always have.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 22, 2021, 03:28:15 PM
He literally recreates the angles in the press conference. The mic sock has many small hairs so of course it looks blurry. How do you know he wasn’t near the front of the mic socks? Can you post a picture from an angle that allows for better depth perception and shows he was not close to them? The lower angle shot in the video I posted seems to disagree with you. You talking about what you think is credible isn’t evidence and your xenophobia towards Canada doesn’t help either.
Xenophobia for a country that sees fit to lock up pastors and attack their citizenry in their own homes seems a good stance to take.

I’m not sure what specifically you are referring to but the USA has the largest number of imprisoned citizens in the world. They prosecute 6 year olds for picking tulips. So physician heal thyself.
Too late for that.

You are cool with all of it.

You have got what you wanted all along.

Quote
The mic sock looks blurry simply because the entire thing was shot in front of a green screen.

Simplest explanation, which you all like to chime so frequently.

It’s not simple in the slightest. Don’t mistake an answer that brings comfort to your impotent rage as simple.
[/quote]
Of course it's simple.

All the gaslighting can be dropped off prior to your typing.

Like I wrote, the sky is blue and this is a greenscreened video.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 22, 2021, 05:05:49 PM
Too late for that.

You are cool with all of it.

You have got what you wanted all along.

I am cool with what?  I never said I was "cool" with anything.  I said you were xenophobic.  Don't lie.

Quote
Of course it's simple.

All the gaslighting can be dropped off prior to your typing.

Like I wrote, the sky is blue and this is a greenscreened video.

So it's easier to hire reporters to give a Biden stand in, then film Biden responding to that interview, then compositing it, then releasing it and having the fake reporter say it all happened?  That is simpler than actually doing the interview? Perhaps the word "simpler" means something different to you than the rest of us.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 22, 2021, 06:09:59 PM
Wow, Biden isn't even spacing the children and immigrants six feet apart when he makes them sleep on the floor in thermal blankets.

https://youtu.be/xff5mHG2hy8
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on March 22, 2021, 06:12:49 PM

Quote
And their movtive for this one is?  Why greenscreen it?
The same motive as they always have.

Which is?  I really want to know why they needed to greenscreen (and poorly apparently) this interview.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 22, 2021, 06:15:37 PM
Wow, Biden isn't even spacing the children and immigrants six feet apart when he makes them sleep on the floor in thermal blankets.  VID

Wow, Biden has been in office 50 days or so, and someone else was there for the previous four years (1,460 days).


Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on March 22, 2021, 06:37:05 PM
Wow, Biden isn't even spacing the children and immigrants six feet apart when he makes them sleep on the floor in thermal blankets.

So now that a democrat is in the WH, it's time to support whistleblowers and publicly decry the terrible conditions created at border detention centers?

I just want to know where it's safe to direct my moral outrage according to the current political winds. /s

Seeing kids detained and huddled sleeping on the floor is a travesty. Full stop. Who is to blame?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on March 22, 2021, 06:41:49 PM
Wow, Biden isn't even spacing the children and immigrants six feet apart when he makes them sleep on the floor in thermal blankets.

So now that a democrat is in the WH, it's time to support whistleblowers and publicly decry the terrible conditions created at border detention centers?

I just want to know where it's safe to direct my moral outrage according to the current political winds. /s

Seeing kids detained and huddled sleeping on the floor is a travesty. Full stop. Who is to blame?

I think you misunderstand.

Tom isn't upset that it happens.  He's upset that Biden didn't say he would do it before doing it.  Trump happily told people he'd make immigrants suffer but Biden hasn't.  Thus, Tom's outrage.  If Biden just comes out and says he hates immigrant children, Tom would be fine.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 22, 2021, 06:47:43 PM
Wow, Biden isn't even spacing the children and immigrants six feet apart when he makes them sleep on the floor in thermal blankets.  VID

Wow, Biden has been in office 50 days or so, and someone else was there for the previous four years (1,460 days).

Biden made drastic changes to immigration. This problem is all on him.

From Jan 20 - https://apnews.com/article/biden-inauguration-joe-biden-mexico-immigration-us-news-8d565946dfdec1f365befdada879023e

Quote
Eager to avoid a rush on the border, Biden aides signaled that it will take time to unwind some of Trump’s border policies, which include making asylum-seekers wait in Mexico for hearings in U.S. immigration court. Homeland Security said that on Thursday it would stop sending asylum-seekers back to Mexico to wait for hearings but that people already returned should stay put for now.

Mar 15 - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-biden-made-border-crisis/ar-BB1eD3yM

Quote
The Biden-made border crisis

There is a crisis at our southern border, and President Biden’s immigration policies are responsible. Biden has halted border wall construction, released illegal immigrants into our communities, and promised amnesty for millions more. These are disastrous policies that have contributed to the surge in illegal immigration, the spread of COVID-19, and the humanitarian crisis at the border.

Mar 20 - https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/03/a-man-made-disaster-at-the-border/

Quote
What’s happening on the southern border is the most preventable emergency in years. And Joe Biden created it. No matter how often he tells asylum-seekers that now is not the time to enter the United States, migrants won’t listen. That’s because the policies he put into place incentivize the dangerous trek.

Mar 22 - https://www.heritage.org/homeland-security/commentary/yes-its-joe-biden-created-crisis-the-southern-border

Quote
Yes, It’s a Joe Biden-Created “Crisis” at the Southern Border

The crisis at the border is a direct result of the Biden administration’s radical immigration agenda. It has been created for the purposes of increasing immigration to the United States through illegal means. This is part of the left’s agenda to take over elections and get as many illegal aliens as possible voting or on the path to voting. It’s a purely political play at the expense of American sovereignty, security, and well-being.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 22, 2021, 10:12:00 PM
Biden made drastic changes to immigration. This problem is all on him.

Sure. It was all working SO WELL before Biden's inauguration, wasn't it?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 23, 2021, 05:14:59 AM
Now POTATUS is advocating for a return to Trump Immigration Policy

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2021/03/22/wait-what-biden-says-he-wants-to-return-to-trump-border-and-immigration-policy-that-existed-before/

Quote
The question is about the border crisis. “what more can be done sir?”

BIDEN: “A lot more. We are in the process of doing it now. Including making sure that we reestablish what existed before; which was, they should stay in place and make their case from their home countries. Thank you”

Video in link.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 23, 2021, 08:59:12 AM
It’s too bad he decided to do that.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 23, 2021, 10:35:31 AM
Too late for that.

You are cool with all of it.

You have got what you wanted all along.

I am cool with what?  I never said I was "cool" with anything.  I said you were xenophobic.  Don't lie.
You are cool with it.

I brought up the pastor being jailed, and rather than condemn that, you wrote, "USA TERRIBLE."

Millions of people want to come to our terrible shithole, whereas no one wants to get close to yours.
So it's easier to hire reporters to give a Biden stand in, then film Biden responding to that interview, then compositing it, then releasing it and having the fake reporter say it all happened?  That is simpler than actually doing the interview? Perhaps the word "simpler" means something different to you than the rest of us.
Yes.

I have a firm grasp on its meaning, whereas you do not.

You can stop referring to yourself as "us," unless of course you have numerous alts, which wouldn't be surprising.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 23, 2021, 10:39:52 AM
Seeing kids detained and huddled sleeping on the floor is a travesty. Full stop. Who is to blame?
Yes, of course. The kids should be kicked outside to find food and shelter on their own.

Never mind the fact they were unaccompanied and being sexually assaulted on the trip here and never mind the medical treatment and meals they are receiving.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: JSS on March 23, 2021, 11:36:08 AM
So it's easier to hire reporters to give a Biden stand in, then film Biden responding to that interview, then compositing it, then releasing it and having the fake reporter say it all happened?  That is simpler than actually doing the interview? Perhaps the word "simpler" means something different to you than the rest of us.
Yes.

I have a firm grasp on its meaning, whereas you do not.

You can stop referring to yourself as "us," unless of course you have numerous alts, which wouldn't be surprising.

He is likely referring to "us" as the group of people here who think that it's not simple to film and photograph an interview from multiple angles and green-screen it all together with a separate group of fake reporters, and it is simple to just stand in front of real reporters and answer questions.

You may think involving dozens of people in a conspiracy to fake an interview for no good reason is simple, many of us do not.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 23, 2021, 12:00:05 PM
Sure. It was all working SO WELL before Biden's inauguration, wasn't it?
Is "b-but the other guy!!!1!" the best defence of Biden's policy there? I thought this thread was meant to discuss President™️ Joe Biden.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 23, 2021, 12:05:12 PM
So it's easier to hire reporters to give a Biden stand in, then film Biden responding to that interview, then compositing it, then releasing it and having the fake reporter say it all happened?  That is simpler than actually doing the interview? Perhaps the word "simpler" means something different to you than the rest of us.
Yes.

I have a firm grasp on its meaning, whereas you do not.

You can stop referring to yourself as "us," unless of course you have numerous alts, which wouldn't be surprising.

He is likely referring to "us" as the group of people here who think that it's not simple to film and photograph an interview from multiple angles and green-screen it all together with a separate group of fake reporters, and it is simple to just stand in front of real reporters and answer questions.

You may think involving dozens of people in a conspiracy to fake an interview for no good reason is simple, many of us do not.
The reporters were standing in front of him and their mics were in front of him also.

Having seen numerous examples of green screen effects and what happens when it goes wrong leads to the simple conclusion it was all a green screened TV production, aired a lot of the 5 o'clock news feeds.

No conspiracy necessary when they are all complicit.

I realize that doesn't sit too well with you.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 23, 2021, 12:21:08 PM
Too late for that.

You are cool with all of it.

You have got what you wanted all along.

I am cool with what?  I never said I was "cool" with anything.  I said you were xenophobic.  Don't lie.
You are cool with it.

I brought up the pastor being jailed, and rather than condemn that, you wrote, "USA TERRIBLE."

That’s a lie. I said I wasn’t aware what you were talking about. I can’t condemn something out of ignorance.

EDIT: Are you talking about this?

https://www.christianlegalfellowship.org/blog/2020/5/25/criminal-charges-dropped-against-toronto-street-preacher

If so, I’m happy the charges were dropped and he probably shouldn’t have been arrested in the first place.

Quote
Millions of people want to come to our terrible shithole, whereas no one wants to get close to yours.

300,000/year is no one? I’m starting to understand how much you struggle day to day.

EDIT: The US let’s in about 850,000/year so hardly millions


Quote
Yes.

I have a firm grasp on its meaning, whereas you do not.

If you think unnecessarily green screening something is simpler than not green screening at all, then you obviously don’t. Even if they were staging a fake presser, it would be simpler to just have them together. I’m sorry that’s difficult for you to grasp.

Quote
You can stop referring to yourself as "us," unless of course you have numerous alts, which wouldn't be surprising.

I suppose I can’t expect you to realize that several people in this thread disagree with you. Shame on me for that.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 23, 2021, 12:21:52 PM
Sure. It was all working SO WELL before Biden's inauguration, wasn't it?
Is "b-but the other guy!!!1!" the best defence of Biden's policy there? I thought this thread was meant to discuss President™️ Joe Biden.

Wouldn't be mentioned had Tom not spent 4+ years espousing the supposed merits of the other guy.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: JSS on March 23, 2021, 12:32:56 PM
So it's easier to hire reporters to give a Biden stand in, then film Biden responding to that interview, then compositing it, then releasing it and having the fake reporter say it all happened?  That is simpler than actually doing the interview? Perhaps the word "simpler" means something different to you than the rest of us.
Yes.

I have a firm grasp on its meaning, whereas you do not.

You can stop referring to yourself as "us," unless of course you have numerous alts, which wouldn't be surprising.

He is likely referring to "us" as the group of people here who think that it's not simple to film and photograph an interview from multiple angles and green-screen it all together with a separate group of fake reporters, and it is simple to just stand in front of real reporters and answer questions.

You may think involving dozens of people in a conspiracy to fake an interview for no good reason is simple, many of us do not.
The reporters were standing in front of him and their mics were in front of him also.

Having seen numerous examples of green screen effects and what happens when it goes wrong leads to the simple conclusion it was all a green screened TV production, aired a lot of the 5 o'clock news feeds.

No conspiracy necessary when they are all complicit.

I realize that doesn't sit too well with you.

Everyone knowingly involved in a conspiracy is complicit, that's what a conspiracy is, a group of people all being in on it. ::)

So let me get this straight, the entirety of your evidence that a press conference filmed from several angles with dozens of reporters and cameramen and witnesses is fake because... you know a green screen when you see it.  Clearly there can be no other simpler explanation because you, the expert on green screens have declared it so.

Sorry, the "rest of us" that don't see conspiracy theories everywhere disagree with you.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 23, 2021, 01:10:08 PM
Wouldn't be mentioned had Tom not spent 4+ years espousing the supposed merits of the other guy.
So your response to that criticism is also "b-but the other guy!!1!"

Huh.

Given that this thread is about President Joe Biden, and not Trump or Tom, I guess that means you just don't have a line of defence for his policy?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 23, 2021, 02:24:35 PM
Wouldn't be mentioned had Tom not spent 4+ years espousing the supposed merits of the other guy.
So your response to that criticism is also "b-but the other guy!!1!"

Huh.

Given that this thread is about President Joe Biden, and not Trump or Tom, I guess that means you just don't have a line of defence for his policy?

Yeah, I have never expected Biden to be perfect and this is a prime example.  Regardless of intentions there is bound to be a certain amount of inertia in changing these institutions, but the messaging around it makes it seem like he is fine with continuing the isolationist and xenophobic trends in American border policy.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 23, 2021, 02:31:02 PM
the messaging around it makes it seem like he is fine with continuing the isolationist and xenophobic trends in American border policy.
To be fair, he probably is, and that shouldn't be surprising. It's not like America stopped being a xenophobic country the moment Biden got elected - it's been decades in the making, and is probably not getting undone anytime soon.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 23, 2021, 03:26:28 PM
Too late for that.

You are cool with all of it.

You have got what you wanted all along.

I am cool with what?  I never said I was "cool" with anything.  I said you were xenophobic.  Don't lie.
You are cool with it.

I brought up the pastor being jailed, and rather than condemn that, you wrote, "USA TERRIBLE."

That’s a lie. I said I wasn’t aware what you were talking about. I can’t condemn something out of ignorance.

EDIT: Are you talking about this?

https://www.christianlegalfellowship.org/blog/2020/5/25/criminal-charges-dropped-against-toronto-street-preacher

If so, I’m happy the charges were dropped and he probably shouldn’t have been arrested in the first place.
You essentially wrote, "USA TERRIBLE," and are now trying to back out of it.

As usual.
Quote
Millions of people want to come to our terrible shithole, whereas no one wants to get close to yours.

300,000/year is no one? I’m starting to understand how much you struggle day to day.

EDIT: The US let’s in about 850,000/year so hardly millions
Quote
300,000 no ones going to your country is correct.

Millions want to come to our country and your hero Joe will just let them in. Even people like you.
If you think unnecessarily green screening something is simpler than not green screening at all, then you obviously don’t. Even if they were staging a fake presser, it would be simpler to just have them together. I’m sorry that’s difficult for you to grasp.
Introducing the word "unnecessarily," when it was obviously necessary to do so doesn't help your argument.
Quote
You can stop referring to yourself as "us," unless of course you have numerous alts, which wouldn't be surprising.

I suppose I can’t expect you to realize that several people in this thread disagree with you. Shame on me for that.
I just figured you were either having those recurring delusions of being royalty, took up having a mouse in your pocket, or referring to your alts. I went with the latter.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 23, 2021, 04:03:43 PM
You essentially wrote, "USA TERRIBLE," and are now trying to back out of it.

As usual.

I did criticize the USA and haven’t backed down from it once. I also criticized the arrest of that pastor. Amazingly the world is complicated and both those criticisms can coexist. Sorry if that scares you.
300,000 no ones going to your country is correct.

Just taking a random shit on strangers. Weird flex, but ok.

Millions want to come to our country and your hero Joe will just let them in. Even people like you.

No people like me would want to stay in Canada with our higher standard of living, good education and overall happier people, thanks.
Introducing the word "unnecessarily," when it was obviously necessary to do so doesn't help your argument.

It wasn’t obviously necessary to green screen at all. You have a bunch of reporters in on The ConspiracyTM, and a president who is in on it. It would be easier in every way to just put them together, on the Whitehouse lawn and do an interview. Cheaper, faster, requiring less people involved and doing it for real takes away the pesky problem of having to dupe anyone. Unless there is some circumstance that you are privy to? Like did Q tell you he is under house arrest and this is the only way to keep it quiet?

I just figured you were either having those recurring delusions of being royalty, took up having a mouse in your pocket, or referring to your alts. I went with the latter.

Ah so you needlessly complicate everything in your life, not just politics. Makes sense. Well I’m happy I could clear one part up for you.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on March 23, 2021, 04:17:52 PM
So it's easier to hire reporters to give a Biden stand in, then film Biden responding to that interview, then compositing it, then releasing it and having the fake reporter say it all happened?  That is simpler than actually doing the interview? Perhaps the word "simpler" means something different to you than the rest of us.
Yes.

I have a firm grasp on its meaning, whereas you do not.

You can stop referring to yourself as "us," unless of course you have numerous alts, which wouldn't be surprising.

He is likely referring to "us" as the group of people here who think that it's not simple to film and photograph an interview from multiple angles and green-screen it all together with a separate group of fake reporters, and it is simple to just stand in front of real reporters and answer questions.

You may think involving dozens of people in a conspiracy to fake an interview for no good reason is simple, many of us do not.
The reporters were standing in front of him and their mics were in front of him also.

If the mics were real, and Biden was real, how did a mic clip through his hand?  Just curious: can you explain how a green screen works?  Like in detail?  No copy/paste.  In your own words, please.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 24, 2021, 10:30:45 AM
So it's easier to hire reporters to give a Biden stand in, then film Biden responding to that interview, then compositing it, then releasing it and having the fake reporter say it all happened?  That is simpler than actually doing the interview? Perhaps the word "simpler" means something different to you than the rest of us.
Yes.

I have a firm grasp on its meaning, whereas you do not.

You can stop referring to yourself as "us," unless of course you have numerous alts, which wouldn't be surprising.

He is likely referring to "us" as the group of people here who think that it's not simple to film and photograph an interview from multiple angles and green-screen it all together with a separate group of fake reporters, and it is simple to just stand in front of real reporters and answer questions.

You may think involving dozens of people in a conspiracy to fake an interview for no good reason is simple, many of us do not.
The reporters were standing in front of him and their mics were in front of him also.

If the mics were real, and Biden was real, how did a mic clip through his hand?  Just curious: can you explain how a green screen works?  Like in detail?  No copy/paste.  In your own words, please.
In detail? What kind of detail?

The kind you are going to copy/paste to "fact check," my reply?

Look it up yourself.

The entire episode was a green screen production.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 24, 2021, 10:37:40 AM
No people like me would want to stay in Canada with our higher standard of living, good education and overall happier people, thanks.
Introducing the word "unnecessarily," when it was obviously necessary to do so doesn't help your argument.

It wasn’t obviously necessary to green screen at all. You have a bunch of reporters in on The ConspiracyTM, and a president who is in on it. It would be easier in every way to just put them together, on the Whitehouse lawn and do an interview. Cheaper, faster, requiring less people involved and doing it for real takes away the pesky problem of having to dupe anyone. Unless there is some circumstance that you are privy to? Like did Q tell you he is under house arrest and this is the only way to keep it quiet?

I just figured you were either having those recurring delusions of being royalty, took up having a mouse in your pocket, or referring to your alts. I went with the latter.

Ah so you needlessly complicate everything in your life, not just politics. Makes sense. Well I’m happy I could clear one part up for you.
Yeah, keep preaching your BS.
Quality of life in the US - 15
Quality of life in Canada - 21

It was necessary to green screen the presser. If it wasn't then the people putting on the show would not have done it.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 24, 2021, 10:51:28 AM
No people like me would want to stay in Canada with our higher standard of living, good education and overall happier people, thanks.
Introducing the word "unnecessarily," when it was obviously necessary to do so doesn't help your argument.

It wasn’t obviously necessary to green screen at all. You have a bunch of reporters in on The ConspiracyTM, and a president who is in on it. It would be easier in every way to just put them together, on the Whitehouse lawn and do an interview. Cheaper, faster, requiring less people involved and doing it for real takes away the pesky problem of having to dupe anyone. Unless there is some circumstance that you are privy to? Like did Q tell you he is under house arrest and this is the only way to keep it quiet?

I just figured you were either having those recurring delusions of being royalty, took up having a mouse in your pocket, or referring to your alts. I went with the latter.

Ah so you needlessly complicate everything in your life, not just politics. Makes sense. Well I’m happy I could clear one part up for you.
Yeah, keep preaching your BS.
Quality of life in the US - 15
Quality of life in Canada - 21

Numbers!

Quote
It was necessary to green screen the presser. If it wasn't then the people putting on the show would not have done it.

So to sum up, it was necessary because it supports the conspiracy you believe in.  Well, not everyone needs critical thinking skills.  I am sure you are good at something else.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 24, 2021, 10:55:23 AM
So to sum up, it was necessary because it supports the conspiracy you believe in.  Well, not everyone needs critical thinking skills.  I am sure you are good at something else.
No, it was necessary because that was the only way it could be aired.

No conspiracy.

Just the MSM continuing the lie.

Amazing, the MSM lies all the time and "us," support it.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 24, 2021, 10:58:02 AM
So to sum up, it was necessary because it supports the conspiracy you believe in.  Well, not everyone needs critical thinking skills.  I am sure you are good at something else.
No, it was necessary because that was the only way it could be aired.

The ONLY way.  That's right.  ONLY.

Quote
No conspiracy.

Definition of conspiracy.

Quote
Just the MSM continuing the lie.

Which lie?  Is Biden not real? 

Quote
Amazing, the MSM lies all the time and "us," support it.

Obviously it's just you and a select few others that "have your eyes open".  It has nothing to do with delusion.  Nothin at all.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 24, 2021, 12:28:28 PM
So to sum up, it was necessary because it supports the conspiracy you believe in.  Well, not everyone needs critical thinking skills.  I am sure you are good at something else.
No, it was necessary because that was the only way it could be aired.

The ONLY way.  That's right.  ONLY.

Quote
No conspiracy.

Definition of conspiracy.

Quote
Just the MSM continuing the lie.

Which lie?  Is Biden not real? 

Quote
Amazing, the MSM lies all the time and "us," support it.

Obviously it's just you and a select few others that "have your eyes open".  It has nothing to do with delusion.  Nothin at all.
Like I wrote.

A proven liar supporting other proven liars.

"Tell a lie often enough and they will eventually believe it."
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 24, 2021, 12:29:47 PM
You lied about what I have said, so then you are a proven liar supporting a proven liar!  Take that... BARRY GOLDWATER!

*Tears off his mask*
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on March 24, 2021, 01:14:50 PM
So it's easier to hire reporters to give a Biden stand in, then film Biden responding to that interview, then compositing it, then releasing it and having the fake reporter say it all happened?  That is simpler than actually doing the interview? Perhaps the word "simpler" means something different to you than the rest of us.
Yes.

I have a firm grasp on its meaning, whereas you do not.

You can stop referring to yourself as "us," unless of course you have numerous alts, which wouldn't be surprising.

He is likely referring to "us" as the group of people here who think that it's not simple to film and photograph an interview from multiple angles and green-screen it all together with a separate group of fake reporters, and it is simple to just stand in front of real reporters and answer questions.

You may think involving dozens of people in a conspiracy to fake an interview for no good reason is simple, many of us do not.
The reporters were standing in front of him and their mics were in front of him also.

If the mics were real, and Biden was real, how did a mic clip through his hand?  Just curious: can you explain how a green screen works?  Like in detail?  No copy/paste.  In your own words, please.
In detail? What kind of detail?

The kind you are going to copy/paste to "fact check," my reply?

Look it up yourself.

The entire episode was a green screen production.

Considering I've done both student and professional green screen setups for several years... I'm not the one who needs to know.  But good to know that you don't know.  Its very lol knowing you think the fuzzy mic, which you claim was really in front of biden, got green screened out by biden's hand and not the background being inserted. XD

You're so dumb.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on March 24, 2021, 02:04:40 PM
So to sum up, it was necessary because it supports the conspiracy you believe in.  Well, not everyone needs critical thinking skills.  I am sure you are good at something else.
No, it was necessary because that was the only way it could be aired.

Yep, absolutely the only way...

(https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2021/03/captain-disiluusion.jpg)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: JSS on March 24, 2021, 03:11:07 PM
Like I wrote.

A proven liar supporting other proven liars.

"Tell a lie often enough and they will eventually believe it."

What lie is this? You still haven't given a reason why anyone would go to the trouble of faking a simple talk with reporters on a lawn.

Please fill us all in, what lie is that covering up?  So far your only reasoning is that it must be a lie because they are all liars, which is circular reasoning at best.

Why would they spend all the time and money and involve dozens of people in a conspiracy, instead of just having Biden talk to some reporters?  What is the point in your conspiracy here?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 24, 2021, 03:32:02 PM
Seeing kids detained and huddled sleeping on the floor is a travesty. Full stop. Who is to blame?
Yes, of course. The kids should be kicked outside to find food and shelter on their own.

Never mind the fact they were unaccompanied and being sexually assaulted on the trip here and never mind the medical treatment and meals they are receiving.
Still waiting for the "us" liberals to reply to this.

I realize that wait will be rather long.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: juner on March 24, 2021, 04:04:26 PM
You're so dumb.

Don't do this.

Reminder to everyone participating in the thread to keep it civil. Also, feel free to actually discuss the Biden administration and its policies, aka things that matter a bit more than falling down or green screen conspiracies...
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on March 30, 2021, 09:47:14 PM
Damnit, Joe - it's supposed to be America's gameTM and you can't even go out and throw the first pitch?*

https://www.thescore.com/mlb/news/2143999

*Inb4 the claims of poor health and puppet president
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on March 31, 2021, 04:37:57 AM
Damnit, Joe - it's supposed to be America's gameTM and you can't even go out and throw the first pitch?*

https://www.thescore.com/mlb/news/2143999

*Inb4 the claims of poor health and puppet president

I'm 37 and wouldn't do it.  Would be an embarassment.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on April 01, 2021, 02:06:36 PM
From NPR News
Biden Unveils What He Calls A 'Once-In-A-Generation' Infrastructure Proposal https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31/982666869/watch-live-president-biden-unveils-2-trillion-infrastructure-plan?sc=18&f=1001


So while I'm all for alot of it, I think the bit about electric cars can be taken out.  That should be a separate bill.  You can't promite e-cars until you fix your power grid. 
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on April 01, 2021, 03:46:35 PM
From NPR News
Biden Unveils What He Calls A 'Once-In-A-Generation' Infrastructure Proposal https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31/982666869/watch-live-president-biden-unveils-2-trillion-infrastructure-plan?sc=18&f=1001


So while I'm all for alot of it, I think the bit about electric cars can be taken out.  That should be a separate bill.  You can't promite e-cars until you fix your power grid.

I recall reading that upgrading the grid is part of it.  Maybe I misread that though.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 01, 2021, 04:38:37 PM
President Joe Biden thinks it is appropriate to make some migrants sleep on a dirt floor under a bridge. Terrible. - https://mobile.twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1377624299427729409
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on April 01, 2021, 05:04:03 PM
Holy shit, are we going to have 4 years of this BDS?

inb4 someone says "no, Kamala will take over in 6 months"
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: garygreen on April 01, 2021, 05:05:17 PM
no, kamala will take over in 6 months
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 01, 2021, 05:15:46 PM
Holy shit, are we going to have 4 years of this BDS?

Nope.  Trump's back in in August.  Mike Lindell says so.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on April 01, 2021, 05:31:14 PM
President Joe Biden thinks it is appropriate to make some migrants sleep on a dirt floor under a bridge. Terrible. - https://mobile.twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1377624299427729409

There's nothing there that tweet that says Biden "thinks it is appropriate" ...
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 01, 2021, 05:39:26 PM
President Joe Biden thinks it is appropriate to make some migrants sleep on a dirt floor under a bridge. Terrible. - https://mobile.twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1377624299427729409

There's nothing there that tweet that says Biden "thinks it is appropriate" ...

So Biden is doing what is not appropriate? That is much worse.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on April 01, 2021, 06:14:58 PM
From NPR News
Biden Unveils What He Calls A 'Once-In-A-Generation' Infrastructure Proposal https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31/982666869/watch-live-president-biden-unveils-2-trillion-infrastructure-plan?sc=18&f=1001


So while I'm all for alot of it, I think the bit about electric cars can be taken out.  That should be a separate bill.  You can't promite e-cars until you fix your power grid.

Isn’t it just Texas’ power grid that’s screwed?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on April 01, 2021, 07:29:29 PM
From NPR News
Biden Unveils What He Calls A 'Once-In-A-Generation' Infrastructure Proposal https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31/982666869/watch-live-president-biden-unveils-2-trillion-infrastructure-plan?sc=18&f=1001


So while I'm all for alot of it, I think the bit about electric cars can be taken out.  That should be a separate bill.  You can't promite e-cars until you fix your power grid.

Isn’t it just Texas’ power grid that’s screwed?

Sadly, no.
Texas's power grid is just not able to handle the cold.  But like it, most of the US power grid is 70-90 years old.  Its expensive to upgrade and frankly, no one wants to pay for it if it works.  Its a mess and a half of grids, patches, random routing, etc...

ex: Your street could lose power from a tree branch busting up a line but the corner house has power.  Why?  Because there is no method for routing power in a different pattern. 
Ex 2: Solar panels on homes can put power back into the power grid.  The power grid is not designed for this and it causes some problems when too many people do this.

The grid needs a major update.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on April 01, 2021, 08:42:03 PM
So Biden is doing what is not appropriate? That is much worse.

Is there any evidence of any affirmative action by Biden which has specifically caused these events? What do you reckon Biden is "doing" here?

Would it do any good to suggest that, with the best will in the world, undoing what The Former Guy did in his four years might, just might, take a bit longer than the 60 or so days Biden has had in office thus far....?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on April 01, 2021, 09:19:23 PM
Ooh look, progress!

I'm definitely generally pro-resource development, but this is an important step.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/epa-trump-experts-removed-b1825226.html

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on April 01, 2021, 10:35:32 PM
So Biden is doing what is not appropriate? That is much worse.

Is there any evidence of any affirmative action by Biden which has specifically caused these events? What do you reckon Biden is "doing" here?

Would it do any good to suggest that, with the best will in the world, undoing what The Former Guy did in his four years might, just might, take a bit longer than the 60 or so days Biden has had in office thus far....?

Better question: why is Tom against it?  If it was good for Trump and Biden is doing it, Tom should be praising Biden.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Snupes on April 02, 2021, 02:26:02 AM
I assume he's trying to say "y'all are hypocrites, Biden does same as Trump", which is ironic since he failed so hard to understand that when we were saying the same to him. Also, I think most of us are actually willing to criticize Biden. If he has any part of that, that's shitty af.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on April 02, 2021, 07:00:47 AM
I assume he's trying to say "y'all are hypocrites, Biden does same as Trump", which is ironic since he failed so hard to understand that when we were saying the same to him. Also, I think most of us are actually willing to criticize Biden. If he has any part of that, that's shitty af.

Agreed. 
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on April 02, 2021, 07:39:51 AM
Unfortunately politics is so divisive these days. Too many people see things in complete black and white. Trump is GOOD, Biden is BAD (or the other way around, depending on how you vote).
So EVERYTHING Trump does is good and to be defended no matter how crass, embarrassing or demonstrably false. And EVERYTHING Biden does is bad.

It’s a pretty pathetic and simplistic way of looking at the world but it’s worryingly prevalent.

It’s no better over here. The quality of debate over Brexit was lamentably poor.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 04, 2021, 04:48:47 AM
It’s a pretty pathetic and simplistic way of looking at the world

Sounds more like the self realization and admission of wrongness from someone who has spent years here ranting and repeating the leftist tripe against Trump.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on April 04, 2021, 12:27:59 PM
Sounds more like the self realization and admission of wrongness from someone who has spent years here ranting and repeating the leftist tripe against Trump.

Sounds like the misplaced defiance of someone who has been led astray by the right-ist tripe that surrounded The Former Guy ...



Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on April 04, 2021, 05:56:53 PM
Tom needn't worry. Mike Lindell says Trump will be president again in August and if anyone seems to know what he's talking about it's that guy.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: garygreen on April 04, 2021, 09:54:34 PM
nb4 kamala vetoes https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/03/schumer-senate-marijuana-legalization-478963
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on April 04, 2021, 10:42:24 PM
nb4 kamala vetoes https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/03/schumer-senate-marijuana-legalization-478963


Good.
While I personally hate the drug, I for one can't say "Marijuana is bad but drink as much alcohol as you want.".
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on April 04, 2021, 10:55:50 PM
The arguments against legalization are getting less and less significant all the time.

Especially now as governments are going to be trying to work themselves out of the red after spending like crazy to provide covid relief. A fre hundred million dollars in new tax revenue for every ~15-20M people is an easy way to ease some of the upcoming fiscal stress.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Snupes on April 05, 2021, 08:56:57 PM
nb4 kamala vetoes

Didn't she sponsor a bill supporting legalization not that long ago?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: garygreen on April 05, 2021, 09:11:54 PM
nb4 kamala vetoes

Didn't she sponsor a bill supporting legalization not that long ago?

she used to be on the legalization train, but now she's (possibly, according to an unnamed aide) falling in step with joe "needs more research" biden.

https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/big-pot-tries-to-stop-patrick-kennedy-from-becoming-drug-czar

mostly i just assume that the dnc will figure out some way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on May 04, 2021, 11:48:54 PM
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/05/04/echoing-trump-biden-sends-letter-stimulus-check-recipients/4929873001/

  ::)

Just as lame and self-serving as when Trump did it. I fucking cringed when I saw this letter in the mail.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on May 05, 2021, 12:07:19 AM
Politicians and narcissism is pretty iconic.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on May 05, 2021, 12:43:05 AM
Politicians and narcissism is pretty iconic.

And after all the backlash against Trump by the media for (essentially) the same thing; I got the letter days ago and this is the first story I've seen about it. But there's no media bias oh no.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on May 05, 2021, 01:08:28 AM
Yeah, sitting politicians should notttt be able to use their office and public funds to essentially advertise their own platforms.

Just do things that people will talk about. That's your job. The advertising and promotional side should take care of itself. Biden bucks and trump cheques is all some next level bullshit. Give the people their money and then get back to work.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on May 05, 2021, 04:34:07 AM
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/05/04/echoing-trump-biden-sends-letter-stimulus-check-recipients/4929873001/

  ::)

Just as lame and self-serving as when Trump did it. I fucking cringed when I saw this letter in the mail.

I mean, I agree you need a letter to say "yes, we sent you a check.  You got it, right?  If not call this number."

But the IRS should send it.  Biden should have stayed far away.  If he wanted to speak optimistically, he can hold a press conference.  Ugh....
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on May 05, 2021, 08:22:59 PM
I think there's an appreciable difference between the president including a self-congratulatory letter with the check and insisting that his own signature be on the check itself. The letter is ethically dubious, but putting Trump's signature directly onto the checks as if he was personally paying for the bailouts was fundamentally dishonest.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 05, 2021, 08:26:55 PM
I think there's an appreciable difference between the president including a self-congratulatory letter with the check and insisting that his own signature be on the check itself. The letter is ethically dubious, but putting Trump's signature directly onto the checks as if he was personally paying for the bailouts was fundamentally dishonest.
Could you elaborate on that? I fail to see the difference - both carry the exact same implication, and were done with the same intention. The main difference, it seems, is that orange man bad. Other than that, we only have the small difference of Trump trying to get his name on the cheques, and Biden trying to publicly announce how much he doesn't want his name on the cheques because he's so much better and purer than Trump.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on May 06, 2021, 01:33:55 AM
I think there's an appreciable difference between the president including a self-congratulatory letter with the check and insisting that his own signature be on the check itself.

I don't.  It's a negligible margin at best. It might expose Trump as more of a narcissist, but there's nothing inherently "wronger" about it.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on May 06, 2021, 01:40:27 AM
Yep, Trump's signature put the cherry on top, but both moves are shite sammiches still.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on May 06, 2021, 04:42:23 AM
Could you elaborate on that? I fail to see the difference - both carry the exact same implication, and were done with the same intention. The main difference, it seems, is that orange man bad. Other than that, we only have the small difference of Trump trying to get his name on the cheques, and Biden trying to publicly announce how much he doesn't want his name on the cheques because he's so much better and purer than Trump.

Biden's letter contains information that is clear, correct, and relevant, but inappropriate to include in that context. Trump's signature, however, doesn't communicate any information, and so feels manipulative, like a psychological trick to try and make people associate their check with Trump without actually making a logical case for why Trump deserves credit for the check. To put it another way, both presidents took advantage of sending out these checks for their own political gain, but Biden was upfront about it while Trump did it in an underhanded way.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on May 06, 2021, 09:30:22 AM
A signature is very upfront I’m not sure how you could think otherwise. If anything, hiding your self-congratulations in a message relating to other matters is more under-handed. I don’t think either is particularly under-handed. The signature was always just funny because I can imagine Trump literally taking credit as of those were cheques from his personal account rather than a redistribution of public wealth.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on May 06, 2021, 12:37:54 PM
Could you elaborate on that? I fail to see the difference - both carry the exact same implication, and were done with the same intention. The main difference, it seems, is that orange man bad. Other than that, we only have the small difference of Trump trying to get his name on the cheques, and Biden trying to publicly announce how much he doesn't want his name on the cheques because he's so much better and purer than Trump.

Biden's letter contains information that is clear, correct, and relevant, but inappropriate to include in that context. Trump's signature, however, doesn't communicate any information, and so feels manipulative, like a psychological trick to try and make people associate their check with Trump without actually making a logical case for why Trump deserves credit for the check. To put it another way, both presidents took advantage of sending out these checks for their own political gain, but Biden was upfront about it while Trump did it in an underhanded way.

In both cases the President is saying, "Hey, look what I did for you!" This is precisely what the media excoriated Trump for, and it's also precisely what Biden's letter is meant to accomplish. I feel like you are performing some Tom Bishop level feats of mental gymnastics to justify it (or even say "It's not that bad, guys") in Biden's case.

In fact, is it the case that Trump didn't send self-congratulatory letters as well? I didn't remember that, but if so what Biden did may actually be objectively worse! I, like most people, never received a paper stimulus check. I got that letter though!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: juner on May 06, 2021, 02:43:26 PM
I liked Trump's better because I actually got one from Trump. No Biden bux for me.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 06, 2021, 04:38:31 PM
Biden's letter contains information that is clear, correct, and relevant, but inappropriate to include in that context.
Whether you consider "wow look at how cool I am!" to be clear, correct, or relevant is very subjective.

Trump's signature, however, doesn't communicate any information, and so feels manipulative, like a psychological trick to try and make people associate their check with Trump without actually making a logical case for why Trump deserves credit for the check.
Right, so we're discussing your feelings. Fair enough. Can you explain why it "feels" that way?

To put it another way, both presidents took advantage of sending out these checks for their own political gain, but Biden was upfront about it while Trump did it in an underhanded way.
Really? What's more "upfront" about writing a letter and grandstanding about how it's totally cool that you didn't try to put your signature on the cheques for political gain, versus trying to put your signature on the cheques for political gain? If anything, the former adds a step to the process, making it less straight-forward.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on May 08, 2021, 12:51:29 AM
If the letter shown in this article (https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/verify/national-verify/biden-mailed-letter-stimulus-payment-recipients-real/536-ae1833cb-2d8e-463c-82ad-446655051f52) is accurate, then describing it as "wow look at how cool I am!" or "a message relating to other matters" simply isn't a fair description. It's a direct, straightforward attempt at taking credit for the money being sent to Americans as part of the American Rescue Plan, which Biden did sign into law. It's inappropriate for inclusion in government relief, but is otherwise entirely typical politicking.

Regarding Trump, his name being directly on the checks was essentially designed to cut out the middleman of the government in people's minds. The message is less "the government is sending me money, thanks to Trump," and more "Trump is sending me money." When we receive a check, we generally expect to see the name of the person who's paying us money on it. By putting his name on the checks, Trump was trying to imply - not state outright, because that would be a ridiculous lie he'd quickly be called out on, but imply - that the money was coming from him personally. Even though virtually nobody would actually think to themselves, "Yes, Trump himself is sending me money from his personal bank account," people would still automatically associate Trump's signature with him being very generous with his own money, without explicitly spelling it out to themselves.

I definitely agree that Biden's letter is especially pathetic in light of his administration having made a point of stressing that he wouldn't be doing anything as egotistical as putting his signature on the checks, which I hadn't known about before this discussion. Bragging about their humility could only have been appropriately followed up with the most humble government bailout in history, which this certainly was not. Really, the Biden Administration should just stop comparing itself to its predecessor altogether. It's such a low bar.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on May 10, 2021, 01:48:35 AM
As the audit continues in AZ, we now know Biden stole all the battle ground states and in fact lost the election to Trump. Regardless, sleepy Joe won't make it to the end of term and probably end of year as his dementia is really kicking in. Joe ain't my President, Obama in the basement is...LMAO  What a train wreak !!!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on May 10, 2021, 03:02:23 AM
That post wrecked havoc on my eyes and brain.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on May 10, 2021, 06:38:15 AM
As the audit continues in AZ, we now know Biden stole all the battle ground states and in fact lost the election to Trump. Regardless, sleepy Joe won't make it to the end of term and probably end of year as his dementia is really kicking in. Joe ain't my President, Obama in the basement is...LMAO  What a train wreak !!!

Why should we trust the audit?

The main auditor appears to be someone who has never audited an election before now, and whose CEO is a rabid conspiracy theorist.

https://slate.com/technology/2021/05/arizona-recount-cyber-ninjas-doug-logan-explained.html

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on May 10, 2021, 12:08:54 PM
As the audit continues in AZ, we now know Biden stole all the battle ground states and in fact lost the election to Trump. Regardless, sleepy Joe won't make it to the end of term and probably end of year as his dementia is really kicking in. Joe ain't my President, Obama in the basement is...LMAO  What a train wreak !!!

Why should we trust the audit?

The main auditor appears to be someone who has never audited an election before now, and whose CEO is a rabid conspiracy theorist.

https://slate.com/technology/2021/05/arizona-recount-cyber-ninjas-doug-logan-explained.html

Put it back in your pants. The audit is moving at a snail’s pace and hasn’t reported anything.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on May 10, 2021, 08:31:42 PM
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/10/995518597/americans-will-lose-unemployment-benefits-if-they-turn-down-jobs-biden-says

So let this sink in:
The jobs report was lower than expected.  The reason being that employers are finding it hard to find workers. (So labor shortage)
The republicans are arguing that the stimulus bills are the cause of this; That people make more on unemployment than they do working.  Which is probably true for alot of jobs like waite staff and baristas.

So republicans are saying "These jobs suck and it's Biden's fault for giving you a better option!"
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on May 10, 2021, 09:40:43 PM
The free market is great for CEO's until they're forced to compete for labor. Seeing the product of ridiculous lack of wage growth compared to productivity and it's a little bit hilarious.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on May 11, 2021, 12:04:34 AM
RI gHt tO wORk!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on May 11, 2021, 10:24:55 AM
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/10/995518597/americans-will-lose-unemployment-benefits-if-they-turn-down-jobs-biden-says

So let this sink in:
The jobs report was lower than expected.  The reason being that employers are finding it hard to find workers. (So labor shortage)
The republicans are arguing that the stimulus bills are the cause of this; That people make more on unemployment than they do working.  Which is probably true for alot of jobs like waite staff and baristas.

So republicans are saying "These jobs suck and it's Biden's fault for giving you a better option!"
When a couple can make twice the median income by not working, why work?

Labor shortage is not an accurate descriptor.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on May 11, 2021, 10:34:10 AM
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/10/995518597/americans-will-lose-unemployment-benefits-if-they-turn-down-jobs-biden-says

So let this sink in:
The jobs report was lower than expected.  The reason being that employers are finding it hard to find workers. (So labor shortage)
The republicans are arguing that the stimulus bills are the cause of this; That people make more on unemployment than they do working.  Which is probably true for alot of jobs like waite staff and baristas.

So republicans are saying "These jobs suck and it's Biden's fault for giving you a better option!"
When a couple can make twice the median income by not working, why work?

Labor shortage is not an accurate descriptor.

How about :Shit pay keeps all but illegals from wanting to work?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on May 11, 2021, 11:55:19 AM
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/10/995518597/americans-will-lose-unemployment-benefits-if-they-turn-down-jobs-biden-says

So let this sink in:
The jobs report was lower than expected.  The reason being that employers are finding it hard to find workers. (So labor shortage)
The republicans are arguing that the stimulus bills are the cause of this; That people make more on unemployment than they do working.  Which is probably true for alot of jobs like waite staff and baristas.

So republicans are saying "These jobs suck and it's Biden's fault for giving you a better option!"
When a couple can make twice the median income by not working, why work?

Labor shortage is not an accurate descriptor.

How about :Shit pay keeps all but illegals from wanting to work?
Everyone wants to be pampered is more accurate.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on May 11, 2021, 12:20:10 PM
Everyone wants to be pampered thinks they deserve a living wage is more accurate.
FTFY

Why would anyone with a kid go back to work to make a couple hundred bucks more a month, but then have to pay hundreds more for childcare, when they could stay at home, make more net income and spend time with their family? The fact that people are spinning this as 'lazy workers' instead of 'corporate greed and an unlivable minimum wage' is kind of amazing to watch
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on May 11, 2021, 12:44:38 PM
Everyone wants to be pampered thinks they deserve a living wage is more accurate.
FTFY

Why would anyone with a kid go back to work to make a couple hundred bucks more a month, but then have to pay hundreds more for childcare, when they could stay at home, make more net income and spend time with their family? The fact that people are spinning this as 'lazy workers' instead of 'corporate greed and an unlivable minimum wage' is kind of amazing to watch

It’s the classic Conservative trope and the sad part is that the biggest supporters of that narrative are some of the people who would benefit most from a living wage. It would also reduce dependence on government assistance, improve the economy and help balance government budgets.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on May 11, 2021, 12:50:14 PM
Everyone wants to be pampered thinks they deserve a living wage is more accurate.
FTFY

Why would anyone with a kid go back to work to make a couple hundred bucks more a month, but then have to pay hundreds more for childcare, when they could stay at home, make more net income and spend time with their family? The fact that people are spinning this as 'lazy workers' instead of 'corporate greed and an unlivable minimum wage' is kind of amazing to watch
They wouldn't.

They would rather be pampered and taken care of by somebody else.

As long as I have enough to live, I am generally satisfied, as would 80 percent of all people.

If the government is paying me enough to live, then work be damned.

People are fucking lazy whether you like the fact or not.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: garygreen on May 11, 2021, 01:08:27 PM
>capitalism works because everyone is greedy
>also social welfare is bad because everyone is lazy

i fucking hate this country
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on May 11, 2021, 01:16:59 PM
>capitalism works because everyone is greedy
>also social welfare is bad because everyone is lazy

i fucking hate this country
It is possible to be extremely greedy and extremely lazy all that same time.

Why would that shock you to the point of hate?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on May 11, 2021, 02:14:39 PM
Everyone wants to be pampered thinks they deserve a living wage is more accurate.
FTFY

Why would anyone with a kid go back to work to make a couple hundred bucks more a month, but then have to pay hundreds more for childcare, when they could stay at home, make more net income and spend time with their family? The fact that people are spinning this as 'lazy workers' instead of 'corporate greed and an unlivable minimum wage' is kind of amazing to watch
They wouldn't.

They would rather be pampered and taken care of by somebody else.
False.  Most people want to work.  Why do you think most retired people find hobbies or community service?  Boredom is a thing.

Quote
As long as I have enough to live, I am generally satisfied, as would 80 percent of all people.
Yep.  Tho 'living' is a relative term.  Like if you had enough to live in a 1 bedroom apartment in the middle of a gang infested part of the city and eat nothing but junk food... Is that enough?  Would you want more to save?  Maybe buy a house?  Start a family?  Go to school?

Tell me: what is 'enough to live' for you?

Quote
If the government is paying me enough to live, then work be damned.

People are fucking lazy whether you like the fact or not.
Don't project your own desires on humanity, dude. 
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on May 11, 2021, 02:47:54 PM
Everyone wants to be pampered thinks they deserve a living wage is more accurate.
FTFY

Why would anyone with a kid go back to work to make a couple hundred bucks more a month, but then have to pay hundreds more for childcare, when they could stay at home, make more net income and spend time with their family? The fact that people are spinning this as 'lazy workers' instead of 'corporate greed and an unlivable minimum wage' is kind of amazing to watch
They wouldn't.

They would rather be pampered and taken care of by somebody else.
False.  Most people want to work.  Why do you think most retired people find hobbies or community service?  Boredom is a thing.
It is true that boredom is a thing. I never claimed it was not a thing.

Most people do not want to work.

Hobbies and community service is not viewed as work by people who perform such things.

Playing the guitar =/= work for me.

I am not good enough to get paid doing it though.

For most people work = slavery.
Quote
As long as I have enough to live, I am generally satisfied, as would 80 percent of all people.
Yep.  Tho 'living' is a relative term.  Like if you had enough to live in a 1 bedroom apartment in the middle of a gang infested part of the city and eat nothing but junk food... Is that enough?  Would you want more to save?  Maybe buy a house?  Start a family?  Go to school?

Tell me: what is 'enough to live' for you?
If you want those things, you should put in the work required to get those things.

You cannot blame some other entity for not doing the work required to get those things.

Although that is your favorite pastime.
Quote
If the government is paying me enough to live, then work be damned.

People are fucking lazy whether you like the fact or not.
Don't project your own desires on humanity, dude.
Not my desires at all.

I know damn well the government is not inclined to take care of me.

People like you they will take care of.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on May 11, 2021, 03:03:37 PM
If the government is paying me enough to live, then work be damned.

Yep, there's the problem.

I believe you that you're lazy, lackey. It doesn't surprise me really. But most people have aspirations for more than the bare minimum to survive. Indeed, that's why capitalism is supposed to work in the first place.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on May 11, 2021, 03:15:00 PM
Exactly. A government should pay people enough to live. A company should pay employees enough to have a life.

Minimum wage should reflect the ability for someone to have a life, just as it did back when America was 'great'. Currently theres little motivation for someone to go get a minimum wage job, and very little capacity for people to 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps' to reuse the old trope.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on May 11, 2021, 03:17:51 PM
If the government is paying me enough to live, then work be damned.

Yep, there's the problem.

I believe you that you're lazy. It doesn't surprise me really. But most people have aspirations for more than the bare minimum to survive. Indeed, that's why capitalism is supposed to work in the first place.
I think you are totally missing the point.

I am not most people.

I work every day.

Nobody is paying me to stay home and not work.

But most people are not, because as I pointed out earlier, a couple making twice the median income in the US by not working will not work for less.

I get paid about the median income in the US.

I have a house, two cars, a few Thork-like sport bikes, a couple of guitars, and riding mower to take care of the grounds.

But I work for it because I want those things.

When I don't want them anymore, I will work enough to get what I want.

I don't believe anyone owes me a goddamn thing, unlike you.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on May 11, 2021, 03:21:50 PM
Exactly. A government should pay people enough to live. A company should pay employees enough to have a life.

Minimum wage should reflect the ability for someone to have a life, just as it did back when America was 'great'. Currently theres little motivation for someone to go get a minimum wage job, and very little capacity for people to 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps' to reuse the old trope.
Who wants a minimum wage job?

Minimum wage jobs are for children who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

So you're an advocate for no work.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on May 11, 2021, 03:25:30 PM
If the government is paying me enough to live, then work be damned.

Yep, there's the problem.

I believe you that you're lazy. It doesn't surprise me really. But most people have aspirations for more than the bare minimum to survive. Indeed, that's why capitalism is supposed to work in the first place.
I think you are totally missing the point.

I am not most people.

I work every day.

Nobody is paying me to stay home and not work.

But most people are not, because as I pointed out earlier, a couple making twice the median income in the US by not working will not work for less.

I get paid about the median income in the US.

I have a house, two cars, a few Thork-like sport bikes, a couple of guitars, and riding mower to take care of the grounds.

But I work for it because I want those things.

When I don't want them anymore, I will work enough to get what I want.

I don't believe anyone owes me a goddamn thing, unlike you.

Hmm. I'm trying to square this away with your claim that you wouldn't work if the government paid you to do nothing. I assume you recognize that you wouldn't be able to afford all those things on the government till.

So you felt it important to work hard to get those things, but if the government was paying you the bare minimum to survive you wouldn't have and would have just been content sitting home, doing nothing and owning nothing of value?  ???

That's just weird, lackey. Again I don't think most people feel the same way.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on May 11, 2021, 03:59:31 PM
Most people do not want to work.
This is you projecting.  It is not reality.  Unemployed people want to work.  But if unemployment is higher than the the shitty job you had, why would you want to go back to it?
Tell me, would you go pick strawberries in the Texas summer for $3/hour or get $100/week from unemployment? 
Would you want to work at a cash register for 9 hours day with no benefits, getting yourself barely enough money to keep your stomach from growling if there was an alternative?

Quote
Hobbies and community service is not viewed as work by people who perform such things.

Playing the guitar =/= work for me.

I am not good enough to get paid doing it though.
My hobbies include computer stuff.
My job: computer stuff.
My hobbies are also my job.  Aka: work.

But its still work.  Whether you view it that way or not.

Quote
For most people work = slavery.
So what you're saying is that its only "real work" if you are over worked and paid so badly that you can barely survive, let alone live.  Good to know.  Guess you don't "work", do you?

Quote
Quote
As long as I have enough to live, I am generally satisfied, as would 80 percent of all people.
Yep.  Tho 'living' is a relative term.  Like if you had enough to live in a 1 bedroom apartment in the middle of a gang infested part of the city and eat nothing but junk food... Is that enough?  Would you want more to save?  Maybe buy a house?  Start a family?  Go to school?

Tell me: what is 'enough to live' for you?
If you want those things, you should put in the work required to get those things.

You cannot blame some other entity for not doing the work required to get those things.
Great in theory but ya gotta spend money to make money.  School costs money.  Food costs money.  And if you want either, you need a job.  But only an unskilled job since you have no education or experience.  Which pays too low to really go to school.  Not without outside support.  And thats the issue at heart: if your life sucks before your an adult, its very hard to get it not to suck as an adult.

Answer me this: did you pay for school and rent of your own apartment all on your own?  No support from anyone?  Did you even go to school?  Did your parents help you in any way?  Friends or other family?  Or are you a self made man who got great success without any help? 


Oh and my favorite past time is playing video games and roleplaying.  I just don't have the time for it as much as I would want.

Quote
Quote
If the government is paying me enough to live, then work be damned.

People are fucking lazy whether you like the fact or not.
Don't project your own desires on humanity, dude.
Not my desires at all.

I know damn well the government is not inclined to take care of me.

People like you they will take care of.
Nope.  The government isn't taking care of me.  I make too much money.  Nor do I want them to care for me, I don't need it. (Tho the national health care is nice, even if I haven't used it yet)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on May 11, 2021, 04:02:38 PM
Also, the government redistributing your tax dollars is not “being supported”.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on May 11, 2021, 05:05:29 PM
If the government is paying me enough to live, then work be damned.

Yep, there's the problem.

I believe you that you're lazy. It doesn't surprise me really. But most people have aspirations for more than the bare minimum to survive. Indeed, that's why capitalism is supposed to work in the first place.
I think you are totally missing the point.

I am not most people.

I work every day.

Nobody is paying me to stay home and not work.

But most people are not, because as I pointed out earlier, a couple making twice the median income in the US by not working will not work for less.

I get paid about the median income in the US.

I have a house, two cars, a few Thork-like sport bikes, a couple of guitars, and riding mower to take care of the grounds.

But I work for it because I want those things.

When I don't want them anymore, I will work enough to get what I want.

I don't believe anyone owes me a goddamn thing, unlike you.

Hmm. I'm trying to square this away with your claim that you wouldn't work if the government paid you to do nothing. I assume you recognize that you wouldn't be able to afford all those things on the government till.
Actually, in the past year and one-half, I would be able to afford to live much the same as I do now, due to Covid. The reason I did not is due to the fact that type of government support would be all dried up now.

But for many in the country, it hasn't.

And if they are capable of living as I am currently (even better, in most instances), then yeah, they are not going to work.
So you felt it important to work hard to get those things, but if the government was paying you the bare minimum to survive you wouldn't have and would have just been content sitting home, doing nothing and owning nothing of value?  ???

That's just weird. Again I don't think most people feel the same way.
See, I don't view the things I have as important and that is the difference.

I do what I want to do and get what I want to get.

Just living and breathing and if it all ended tomorrow, then so be it.

Value is in the eye of the beholder, as is all things.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on May 11, 2021, 05:08:42 PM
Most people do not want to work.
This is you projecting.  It is not reality.  Unemployed people want to work.  But if unemployment is higher than the the shitty job you had, why would you want to go back to it?
Because "Unemployed people want to work" remember what you just wrote?

Jesus H. Christ...

See, most people also view their jobs as "shit jobs," as you put it, because most people are fucked in the head and cannot put together two thoughts in a row that make sense, much like your example here.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on May 13, 2021, 09:28:32 AM
Most people do not want to work.
This is you projecting.  It is not reality.  Unemployed people want to work.  But if unemployment is higher than the the shitty job you had, why would you want to go back to it?
Because "Unemployed people want to work" remember what you just wrote?

Jesus H. Christ...

See, most people also view their jobs as "shit jobs," as you put it, because most people are fucked in the head and cannot put together two thoughts in a row that make sense, much like your example here.

Yes, because "want to work" means they'll take anything. /Sarcasm/... I want to eat pie.  Doesn't mean I'm going to eat any pie offered to me.  Like if someone bakes me a shit pie, or a Pumpkin Pie, I'm not eating it.

And if most people (in america) think their job is shitty, maybe the problem is the job culture, and not that people are lazy.

And note: your entire argument is based on the people who make more on unemployment than their barista or customer service jobs.  And again: that speaks volumes of the problem. 
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on May 13, 2021, 05:39:05 PM
And if they are capable of living as I am currently (even better, in most instances), then yeah, they are not going to work.

I think I have the numbers right:

The max amount you can get is $450 per week of unemployment for usually 26 weeks (Some states are lower, like Missouri is 13 weeks). And that’s the max amount based upon your previous years income. And the max amount varies by State. For instance, California max is $450, Arizona’s is $240, Kentucky’s is $552. So I’m using the rough average max for this, $450.

That’s a total of $11,700.00 ($450 X 26 weeks, 1/2 a year)

Covid has extended the 26 weeks to 39 weeks and added a $300 additional benefit for up to 11 weeks.

So the max would be $450 + 300 for 11 weeks + $450 for 28 weeks for a total of: $8250 + $12600 = $20,850.00

Are you saying you make less than $20k for 3/4 of a year and the unemployed with these benefits are making more than you?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: existoid on May 13, 2021, 05:53:29 PM
And if they are capable of living as I am currently (even better, in most instances), then yeah, they are not going to work.

I think I have the numbers right:

The max amount you can get is $450 per week of unemployment for usually 26 weeks (Some states are lower, like Missouri is 13 weeks). And that’s the max amount based upon your previous years income. And the max amount varies by State. For instance, California max is $450, Arizona’s is $240, Kentucky’s is $552. So I’m using the rough average max for this, $450.

That’s a total of $11,700.00 ($450 X 26 weeks, 1/2 a year)

Covid has extended the 26 weeks to 39 weeks and added a $300 additional benefit for up to 11 weeks.

So the max would be $450 + 300 for 11 weeks + $450 for 28 weeks for a total of: $8250 + $12600 = $20,850.00

Are you saying you make less than $20k for 3/4 of a year and the unemployed with these benefits are making more than you?

Source on those numbers?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: existoid on May 19, 2021, 02:27:19 AM
Despite my pedantry in the "Trump" thread regarding voter fraud stuff, I really am not a fan of Biden in the least.

I disliked Trump, and I dislike Biden (for mostly different reasons, but some similar ones).

It's really lame, however, how fawningly gross the media is to him. Had the below interaction been uttered by Trump, it would have created a 48 hour period in which virtually every mainstream news outlet would vociferously condemn him:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1394734707645063171

Is it really that funny for Biden to pretend he'll run over a female reporter because she asks a question about a major geopolitical event in a historically important region of the world (to the US) ?





Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on May 19, 2021, 04:47:46 AM
If you need a real reason to dislike Joe Biden then look no further at his fecklessness regarding the current situation in Israel.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on May 19, 2021, 10:37:00 AM
If you need a real reason to dislike Joe Biden then look no further at his fecklessness regarding the current situation in Israel.

Yeah, just another American president propping up shitty foreign governments for geo-political gain. Most of his policy has been pandering to the left, but I don’t really care if they are good policies.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on May 19, 2021, 01:33:17 PM
The US attitude towards Israel has always been ridiculous. We prop ourselves up as champions of human rights and supposedly condemn any nation that doesn't respect human rights, at the same time that we support a country capable of and responsible for atrocities as reprehensible as any other terrorist organizations in the region. A country that imposed its will on hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, telling them they no longer had a home, had to find a new place to live, sorry, and refuses to offer a reasonable compromise even decades later.

It's been a general principle on both sides for a long time that criticizing Israel for any reason was to be decried as antisemitic, the better to avoid having to justify supporting a country whose entire existence revolves around violating the human rights of others. Thank God that seems to be changing to some degree on the Left.

And I thought the same thing when I saw Biden make that comment about running over the reporter. Trump would have been roasted if he had said something like that. This is what I was saying all along during Trump's presidency. You make the bias so obvious, so all-encompassing, that it opens the door to claims that Republicans are treated unfairly in the media, which is only amplified by the Right and allows millions of Americans to fall behind chants of "FAKE NEWS"! Who the fuck can you trust anymore?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Me Banned=Earth Round on May 19, 2021, 01:59:52 PM
People who aren't friends with Israel have a pretty bad track record so I'm glad we are allied with them.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on May 19, 2021, 02:25:17 PM
(on the notion of the joke)

Trump wouldn't have made a joke in that exact way, though. He'd most likely phrase it as a general comment about how great it would be if he could kill journalists. And he wouldn't say it to the journalists directly, but to his fans at a rally. The cheering crowd would scream their enthusiastic approval, at least one crazy person present would begin making their own plans to murder journalists, and Trump onstage would bask in their admiration. Afterwards, he would deny ever making the controversial comment to begin with, and after a few days, either he or his staff would dismissively say it had been a joke.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on May 19, 2021, 02:31:25 PM
(on the notion of the joke)

Trump wouldn't have made a joke in that exact way, though. He'd most likely phrase it as a general comment about how great it would be if he could kill journalists. And he wouldn't say it to the journalists directly, but to his fans at a rally. The cheering crowd would scream their enthusiastic approval, at least one crazy person present would begin making their own plans to murder journalists, and Trump onstage would bask in their admiration. Afterwards, he would deny ever making the controversial comment to begin with, and after a few days, either he or his staff would dismissively say it had been a joke.

This.
It was in bad taste, no doubt.  But also context.
The man was literally about to drive away at an event specifically setup for him to drive.  And someone wants to ask him about Israel.

But I maintain he shouldn't have said it and I also maintain that half of Trump's comments wouldn't have gotten nothing if he didn't double down everytime someone called him out on shit.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on May 19, 2021, 03:02:51 PM
It was in bad taste, no doubt.  But also context.
The man was literally about to drive away at an event specifically setup for him to drive.  And someone wants to ask him about Israel.

But I maintain he shouldn't have said it and I also maintain that half of Trump's comments wouldn't have gotten nothing if he didn't double down everytime someone called him out on shit.

I agree with Honk, and you, to a degree. But just because Biden was at an event set up for him to test drive an American-made EV doesnt give him a free pass to just dodge questions on the (arguably?) most pressing current geopolitical issue.

Biden is absolutely getting an easier ride by the MSM. Part of that was handed to him, but part of it has been earned, by not being an unpleasant, egotistical jackass who refused to take responsibility for anything. I still dont like him, but his track record is much better than Donnie's. His feet should still be held to the flames though -accountability goes both ways.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on May 19, 2021, 08:21:04 PM
People who aren't friends with Israel have a pretty bad track record so I'm glad we are allied with them.

So we should look the other way at their regular violations of human rights because we don't like the people who don't like them? Wow, compelling argument dude.  ::)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: existoid on May 20, 2021, 05:08:24 PM
As a geopolitical and international security junky there's just too much to say about the Israel/Palestine situation and the conversation would be even more intractable than an FET vs RET one  :P  ;D

But I will chime in to say that the key problem facing the Gazans (and to an extent those in the West Bank as well, but more so in Gaza) is Hamas and Islamic Jihad. That is to say, Israel is not the source of the key problems facing Gaza and the average Gaza citizen. 15 years ago Hamas was elected in Gaza, and since then zero elections have been held, and Hamas has spent those 15 years making life worse and worse and worse for the average Gazan with intensely evil human rights violations against their own people.

Israel has had no ongoing military or administrative presence in Gaza for decades now, and yet the huge amount of money that has poured in to Gaza from private donors and other states (Iran, but also lots of Arab states) has not gone to making the lives of Palestinians better, because Hamas clearly doesn't care about their own people.

Of course, Hamas, being authoritarian thugs and an actual terrorist organization in control of a polity cannot be voted out with no elections (and if there were any, the idea that Gazans would have a fair election without Hamas personnel overseeing their non-secret ballot votes is laughable, meaning Hamas would retain power anyway).

In case my ultimate point isn't clear: the plight of Palestine and Palestinians right now in 2021 can only fairly be laid at the feet of Hamas, and not Israel.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on May 20, 2021, 08:30:33 PM
I don't think Gazans are living high on the hog.  In fact it's my understanding that they live in poverty.  It's been described as the world's biggest open air concentration camp.  Israel seems to fit the definition of an apartheid state.  There seems to be a massive power imbalance.  It would be inaccurate to call the situation between Israel and Palestine a conflict, massacre would be a better word.

I don't deny that Hamas seems to be a terrorist organization.  But from what I see here it seems that the Israeli government is doing some terrorizing of their own.

What really stings about all of this is that my country has a lot of power to broker a peace between them.  But what we're really doing is just providing cover for the Israeli government because it makes the Christians here happy.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on June 15, 2021, 01:23:14 AM
Biden seems brain dead. Is he really going to play hard ball with Putin?

Tammy Bruce
@HeyTammyBruce
·
Jun 13
This is horrible. At some point his cognitive disfunction has to be considered a natl security threat if only because of the confidence it must give our enemies “President confuses Syria with Libya three times”
1.8M views
1:13 / 1:24
From
RNC Research

https://twitter.com/HeyTammyBruce/status/1404169515638870017?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1404410620036980739%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fahead-putin-meeting-biden-confuses-syria-libya-3-times-less-90-seconds
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on June 15, 2021, 02:33:27 AM
Seems to be a common theme among American Presidents to confuse Syria with other nations - Trump remembers details of cake he was eating while launching missiles, but not which country he was attacking:

Trump recalls moment he launched missiles, confuses Iraq for Syria
Trump says he informed the leader of China of the missile strike “over dessert”.

“Let me explain something to you, this is during dessert,” he said of his meal with Jinping.

"We’ve just fired 59 missiles, all of which hit by the way, unbelievable, from hundreds of miles away, it’s brilliant it’s genius, what we have in terms of technology no-one can come close to competing.

So I said, we’ve just launched 59 missiles, heading to Iraq."

“Heading to Syria?” the host interjects.


https://www.thejournal.ie/trump-syria-dessert-3337600-Apr2017/
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Shifter on June 15, 2021, 03:34:21 PM
People who aren't friends with Israel have a pretty bad track record so I'm glad we are allied with them.

America doesn't exactly have a great track record either. I shudder that my country is allied with yours
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on June 15, 2021, 04:54:34 PM
Seems to be a common theme among American Presidents to confuse Syria with other nations - Trump remembers details of cake he was eating while launching missiles, but not which country he was attacking:

Trump recalls moment he launched missiles, confuses Iraq for Syria
Trump says he informed the leader of China of the missile strike “over dessert”.

“Let me explain something to you, this is during dessert,” he said of his meal with Jinping.

"We’ve just fired 59 missiles, all of which hit by the way, unbelievable, from hundreds of miles away, it’s brilliant it’s genius, what we have in terms of technology no-one can come close to competing.

So I said, we’ve just launched 59 missiles, heading to Iraq."

“Heading to Syria?” the host interjects.


https://www.thejournal.ie/trump-syria-dessert-3337600-Apr2017/

This ain't a President...this is a senile old man who should go put his feet up and never appear in public as any kind of official.

NOT MY PRES..his party cheated..LOSERS

https://twitter.com/HouseGOP/status/1404778472015286286?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1404810367721787394%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2021%2F06%2Fjoe-biden-totally-lost-shares-gibberish-world-stage-embarrassing-received-81-million-votes%2F
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Shifter on June 15, 2021, 05:00:52 PM
NOT MY PRES..his party cheated..LOSERS
hahahaha sucked in!  8)

What are you going to do about it? Nothing. Hopefully Biden (but likely Harris) can cheat their way through 2024 and keep the repugnicans out. Some Gerrymandering and moving a stack of liberals to deep red states should ensure a democrat victory every single time.  ;D
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on June 15, 2021, 05:23:20 PM
Seems to be a common theme among American Presidents to confuse Syria with other nations - Trump remembers details of cake he was eating while launching missiles, but not which country he was attacking:

Trump recalls moment he launched missiles, confuses Iraq for Syria
Trump says he informed the leader of China of the missile strike “over dessert”.

“Let me explain something to you, this is during dessert,” he said of his meal with Jinping.

"We’ve just fired 59 missiles, all of which hit by the way, unbelievable, from hundreds of miles away, it’s brilliant it’s genius, what we have in terms of technology no-one can come close to competing.

So I said, we’ve just launched 59 missiles, heading to Iraq."

“Heading to Syria?” the host interjects.


https://www.thejournal.ie/trump-syria-dessert-3337600-Apr2017/

This ain't a President...this is a senile old man who should go put his feet up and never appear in public as any kind of official.

NOT MY PRES..his party cheated..LOSERS

Funny. WHo is in the white house and currently the leader of the free world

https://twitter.com/HouseGOP/status/1404778472015286286?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1404810367721787394%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2021%2F06%2Fjoe-biden-totally-lost-shares-gibberish-world-stage-embarrassing-received-81-million-votes%2F

Though I was not a Trump supporter, I was never in the "Not my president" camp because that is just stupid and delusional and counterproductive and un-American. He was our President whether I was thrilled about it or not. That's how this all works - Every 4 years we'll have an incumbent or someone brand spanking new in that office. If you don't like it, then you must be anti-democratic. Which is certainly you're right, but perhaps you should find another nation to call your home - This one is obviously not working for you. Look to 2022 & 2024 to make some changes, just as we've been doing for 200 years.

If your thing is to point out gaffes and missteps and such, we can do that all day. We have 4 years of DJT's inappropriate insults of war veterans/heroes, two-handed water sipping, shuffling on ramps, slurring and, as pointed out, forgetting that he ordered 59 cruise missiles to strike Syria and saying he hit Iraq. At least Biden hasn't forgotten where he ordered missiles to go and blow up things and people...yet.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on June 15, 2021, 06:25:23 PM
Biden seems brain dead. Is he really going to play hard ball with Putin?

Tammy Bruce
@HeyTammyBruce
·
Jun 13
This is horrible. At some point his cognitive disfunction has to be considered a natl security threat if only because of the confidence it must give our enemies “President confuses Syria with Libya three times”
1.8M views
1:13 / 1:24
From
RNC Research

https://twitter.com/HeyTammyBruce/status/1404169515638870017?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1404410620036980739%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fahead-putin-meeting-biden-confuses-syria-libya-3-times-less-90-seconds

One word from the Trump administration:

COVFEFE!


Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Shifter on June 15, 2021, 06:39:03 PM
Biden seems brain dead. Is he really going to play hard ball with Putin?

One of our PMs threated to 'shirtfront' Putin

Informal meaning (in Australian Rules) an act of charging into an opponent's chest, typically so as to knock them to the ground.)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/13/tony-abbott-says-he-will-shirtfront-vladimir-putin-over-downing-of-mh17

I dont think it happened though. A pity. I would have liked to see Putin knock our PM on his arse for trying
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on June 18, 2021, 10:09:35 PM
Im sure all Joe needs to do is start sniffing little boys' hair and he'll be back in good graces. https://youtu.be/4nivssROh3s
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Dr David Thork on June 19, 2021, 07:29:44 PM
I thought I'd calculate the odds of Joe Biden dying in office. Below are the actuarial tables so you can see my sources.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

Joe is 78 years old. He has a 4.78% chance of dying this year.

Out of 100,000, people only 56,065 would be left to make the ripe old age of 78.
4 years later 44,553 will be left to celebrate their 82nd birthday.

56,056 - 44,553 = 11503
100 / (56056 / 11503) = 20.5% chance of death in those 4 years. Joe didn't have his birthday on the day he was inaugurated so his chances are a fraction more.

I honestly thought his odds of dying would be a lot higher.  :-\


Edit: Joe has dementia.
Quote from: https://www.liftedcare.com/what-is-the-life-expectancy-for-someone-with-dementia/
General life expectancy for someone with Alzheimer’s is around 8-12 years.
After diagnosis, the average lifespan of someone with dementia with Lewy bodies was found in one study to be around 5-7 years after onset.
The average life span for someone with frontotemporal dementia (sometimes called Pick’s disease) is around eight years.

So its about 50-50. Ok, I feel better about this now.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on June 19, 2021, 09:26:35 PM
I thought I'd calculate the odds of Joe Biden dying in office. Below are the actuarial tables so you can see my sources.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

Joe is 78 years old. He has a 4.78% chance of dying this year.

Out of 100,000, people only 56,065 would be left to make the ripe old age of 78.
4 years later 44,553 will be left to celebrate their 82nd birthday.

56,056 - 44,553 = 11503
100 / (56056 / 11503) = 20.5% chance of death in those 4 years. Joe didn't have his birthday on the day he was inaugurated so his chances are a fraction more.

I honestly thought his odds of dying would be a lot higher.  :-\


Edit: Joe has dementia.
Quote from: https://www.liftedcare.com/what-is-the-life-expectancy-for-someone-with-dementia/
General life expectancy for someone with Alzheimer’s is around 8-12 years.
After diagnosis, the average lifespan of someone with dementia with Lewy bodies was found in one study to be around 5-7 years after onset.
The average life span for someone with frontotemporal dementia (sometimes called Pick’s disease) is around eight years.

So its about 50-50. Ok, I feel better about this now.

What's the dementia expiration date as applied to DJT? Considering he was slurring, shuffling, two-handing glasses of water, and more recently putting his pants on backwards, 2024 doesn't seem like it's attainable according to the above.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on June 19, 2021, 11:09:37 PM
I thought I'd calculate the odds of Joe Biden dying in office. Below are the actuarial tables so you can see my sources.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

Joe is 78 years old. He has a 4.78% chance of dying this year.

Out of 100,000, people only 56,065 would be left to make the ripe old age of 78.
4 years later 44,553 will be left to celebrate their 82nd birthday.

56,056 - 44,553 = 11503
100 / (56056 / 11503) = 20.5% chance of death in those 4 years. Joe didn't have his birthday on the day he was inaugurated so his chances are a fraction more.

I honestly thought his odds of dying would be a lot higher.  :-\


Edit: Joe has dementia.
Quote from: https://www.liftedcare.com/what-is-the-life-expectancy-for-someone-with-dementia/
General life expectancy for someone with Alzheimer’s is around 8-12 years.
After diagnosis, the average lifespan of someone with dementia with Lewy bodies was found in one study to be around 5-7 years after onset.
The average life span for someone with frontotemporal dementia (sometimes called Pick’s disease) is around eight years.

So its about 50-50. Ok, I feel better about this now.

Not to worry.  Kamala Harris will become president.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on June 20, 2021, 10:49:51 AM
I thought I'd calculate the odds of Joe Biden dying in office. Below are the actuarial tables so you can see my sources.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

Joe is 78 years old. He has a 4.78% chance of dying this year.

Out of 100,000, people only 56,065 would be left to make the ripe old age of 78.
4 years later 44,553 will be left to celebrate their 82nd birthday.

56,056 - 44,553 = 11503
100 / (56056 / 11503) = 20.5% chance of death in those 4 years. Joe didn't have his birthday on the day he was inaugurated so his chances are a fraction more.

I honestly thought his odds of dying would be a lot higher.  :-\


Edit: Joe has dementia.
Quote from: https://www.liftedcare.com/what-is-the-life-expectancy-for-someone-with-dementia/
General life expectancy for someone with Alzheimer’s is around 8-12 years.
After diagnosis, the average lifespan of someone with dementia with Lewy bodies was found in one study to be around 5-7 years after onset.
The average life span for someone with frontotemporal dementia (sometimes called Pick’s disease) is around eight years.

So its about 50-50. Ok, I feel better about this now.

Does your numbers take into account that, as president, he has the best healthcare money can buy?
Or is this based on the average American, who (just fyi) does not have the best medical care or even very good medical care.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Dr David Thork on June 20, 2021, 10:26:07 PM
Does your numbers take into account that, as president, he has the best healthcare money can buy?
Or is this based on the average American, who (just fyi) does not have the best medical care or even very good medical care.
Between you and me Dave, I think Biden died sometime last year on the campaign trail and what you are seeing on TV, is his reanimated corpse. I don't want to start a conspiracy theory, but I'm sure I read something about 'Project Weekend at Bernie's".
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on June 21, 2021, 04:01:34 AM
Does your numbers take into account that, as president, he has the best healthcare money can buy?
Or is this based on the average American, who (just fyi) does not have the best medical care or even very good medical care.
Between you and me Dave, I think Biden died sometime last year on the campaign trail and what you are seeing on TV, is his reanimated corpse. I don't want to start a conspiracy theory, but I'm sure I read something about 'Project Weekend at Bernie's".
So a reanimated corpse was better than Donald Trump?
Yeah... Yeah that makes sense.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on June 21, 2021, 11:37:06 AM
Hey America, would it be possible to start speaking out against the drive for extreme domestic counter-terrorism powers now instead of waiting until it’s too late?

Sincerely,

Your concerned neighbor. (Canada)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Dr David Thork on June 21, 2021, 11:47:34 AM
Hey America, would it be possible to start speaking out against the drive for extreme domestic counter-terrorism powers now instead of waiting until it’s too late?

Sincerely,

Your concerned neighbor. (Canada)

OMG, if there was ever anyone who needed to get their political house in order before worrying about others, its Canada.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on June 21, 2021, 11:50:50 AM
Hey America, would it be possible to start speaking out against the drive for extreme domestic counter-terrorism powers now instead of waiting until it’s too late?

Sincerely,

Your concerned neighbor. (Canada)
Hey Canada, would it be possible to start speaking out against acts of terrorism committed by government officials against your citizenry now instead of waiting until it's too late?

Sincerely,

Your unconcerned neighbor (The US)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on June 21, 2021, 12:20:55 PM
Hey America, would it be possible to start speaking out against the drive for extreme domestic counter-terrorism powers now instead of waiting until it’s too late?

Sincerely,

Your concerned neighbor. (Canada)

OMG, if there was ever anyone who needed to get their political house in order before worrying about others, its Canada.

Everyone needs work. This is a Biden thread though. If you want to start a Trudeau bad thread, go ahead.

Hey America, would it be possible to start speaking out against the drive for extreme domestic counter-terrorism powers now instead of waiting until it’s too late?

Sincerely,

Your concerned neighbor. (Canada)
Hey Canada, would it be possible to start speaking out against acts of terrorism committed by government officials against your citizenry now instead of waiting until it's too late?

Sincerely,

Your unconcerned neighbor (The US)

You obviously are concerned, hence the effort of replying while trying to be a cool kid. You and Thork can go get your rage-boners about Trudeau in another thread.

Interesting that you don’t want to speak out against the Biden administration’s rhetoric about Domestic Terrorism being a bigger threat than Islamic terrorism and calls for increased domestic powers.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on June 21, 2021, 12:35:48 PM
Hey America, would it be possible to start speaking out against the drive for extreme domestic counter-terrorism powers now instead of waiting until it’s too late?

Sincerely,

Your concerned neighbor. (Canada)

OMG, if there was ever anyone who needed to get their political house in order before worrying about others, its Canada.

Everyone needs work. This is a Biden thread though. If you want to start a Trudeau bad thread, go ahead.

Hey America, would it be possible to start speaking out against the drive for extreme domestic counter-terrorism powers now instead of waiting until it’s too late?

Sincerely,

Your concerned neighbor. (Canada)
Hey Canada, would it be possible to start speaking out against acts of terrorism committed by government officials against your citizenry now instead of waiting until it's too late?

Sincerely,

Your unconcerned neighbor (The US)

You obviously are concerned, hence the effort of replying while trying to be a cool kid. You and Thork can go get your rage-boners about Trudeau in another thread.

Interesting that you don’t want to speak out against the Biden administration’s rhetoric about Domestic Terrorism being a bigger threat than Islamic terrorism and calls for increased domestic powers.
I understand anyone shouting out "terrorism," is most likely a terrorist.

All started many moons ago.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on June 21, 2021, 12:49:20 PM
No need to quote my post to talk about how smart you are.

Anyway, to people interested in discussing, it seems like Biden and the establishment Dems are interested in ratcheting up funding and legislation to increase already disastrous power wielded by the FBI and CIA, using Jan 6th as the political smokescreen.

Unfortunately MSNBC and CNN won’t cover it and Fox News will cover it badly and no one will realize that their government is amping up the surveillance state.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Dr David Thork on June 21, 2021, 12:51:56 PM
No need to quote my post to talk about how smart you are.

Anyway, to people interested in discussing, it seems like Biden and the establishment Dems are interested in ratcheting up funding and legislation to increase already disastrous power wielded by the FBI and CIA, using Jan 6th as the political smokescreen.

Unfortunately MSNBC and CNN won’t cover it and Fox News will cover it badly and no one will realize that their government is amping up the surveillance state.
Forget China and Russia. The US government sees its own citizens as the real enemy. It watches them far more closely than any would be geopolitical rival.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on June 21, 2021, 12:58:13 PM
No need to quote my post to talk about how smart you are.

Anyway, to people interested in discussing, it seems like Biden and the establishment Dems are interested in ratcheting up funding and legislation to increase already disastrous power wielded by the FBI and CIA, using Jan 6th as the political smokescreen.

Unfortunately MSNBC and CNN won’t cover it and Fox News will cover it badly and no one will realize that their government is amping up the surveillance state.
Forget China and Russia. The US government sees its own citizens as the real enemy. It watches them far more closely than any would be geopolitical rival.

Not so much the enemy and more of a pawn in my estimation. The government, billionaires and media are just putting the public against one another.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on June 21, 2021, 01:11:27 PM
No need to quote my post to talk about how smart you are.

Anyway, to people interested in discussing, it seems like Biden and the establishment Dems are interested in ratcheting up funding and legislation to increase already disastrous power wielded by the FBI and CIA, using Jan 6th as the political smokescreen.

Unfortunately MSNBC and CNN won’t cover it and Fox News will cover it badly and no one will realize that their government is amping up the surveillance state.
Forget China and Russia. The US government sees its own citizens as the real enemy. It watches them far more closely than any would be geopolitical rival.

Not so much the enemy and more of a pawn in my estimation. The government, billionaires and media are just putting the public against one another.
With you acting as a willing agent those same people you supposedly decry?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on June 21, 2021, 02:31:28 PM
With you acting as a willing agent those same people you supposedly decry?

*for those

I am not sure why you think I am an agent for them.  You sound a little paranoid.  Anyway, we aren't talking about me, we are talking about the Biden administration.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on June 21, 2021, 03:01:34 PM
No need to quote my post to talk about how smart you are.

Anyway, to people interested in discussing, it seems like Biden and the establishment Dems are interested in ratcheting up funding and legislation to increase already disastrous power wielded by the FBI and CIA, using Jan 6th as the political smokescreen.

Unfortunately MSNBC and CNN won’t cover it and Fox News will cover it badly and no one will realize that their government is amping up the surveillance state.
Forget China and Russia. The US government sees its own citizens as the real enemy. It watches them far more closely than any would be geopolitical rival.

How many weapons and soliders does China and Russia have in the US?
Alot less than the number who stormed the capital on January 6.

So yeah, it is a bigger threat.  "A gun in every bush" applies to domestic terrorists as well as peaceful citizens.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Dr David Thork on June 21, 2021, 03:40:29 PM
How many weapons and soliders does China and Russia have in the US?
Alot less than the number who stormed the capital on January 6.
Stormed the capital?[sic] These extremely dangerous looking people who have calmly stopped to have their photos taken by the assembled press who a) knew they would be there and b) felt in absolutely no mortal danger whatsoever? You think is gaggle have more weapons and soldiers than China?

(https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/newscms/2021_02/3440538/200107-capitol-invasion-jacob-chansley-mn-1624-3440538.jpg)

I think you've been watching too much CNN again.

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on June 21, 2021, 04:32:42 PM
Yes Thork, because that's all they did, was casually stroll in, take a few pictures and calmly voice their displeasure.

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: WTF_Seriously on June 21, 2021, 05:45:36 PM
assembled press who a) knew they would be there and b) felt in absolutely no mortal danger whatsoever?

You do realize there was this extremely minor, unimportant to American democracy, detail of certifying the votes of the electoral college happening in congress at that time that may have warranted media attendance at the capitol even though it's such a trivial thing.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on June 22, 2021, 07:46:04 PM
How many weapons and soliders does China and Russia have in the US?
Alot less than the number who stormed the capital on January 6.
Stormed the capital?[sic] These extremely dangerous looking people who have calmly stopped to have their photos taken by the assembled press who a) knew they would be there and b) felt in absolutely no mortal danger whatsoever? You think is gaggle have more weapons and soldiers than China?

(https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/newscms/2021_02/3440538/200107-capitol-invasion-jacob-chansley-mn-1624-3440538.jpg)

I think you've been watching too much CNN again.

a) This was taken before the riot occurred.
b) There was an armed officer there.
(https://www.wivb.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/97/2021/03/ffc9e1cda314444ab0d195e467041201.jpg)


But I was thinking more this:
(https://static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/cache/file/0CA197DB-612A-4129-81F9720EBA3ED02B_source.jpg)
or this
(http://media.heartlandtv.com/images/AP21006717947235+(1).jpg)
You know, that time people tried to break into a blockaided door and someone got shot by Secret Service?


I mean...
(https://wpcdn.us-east-1.vip.tn-cloud.net/www.channel3000.com/content/uploads/2021/01/5ff62dac2a072.image_-e1609974592622-1024x576.jpg)
That's alot of trump supporters right there.  All wanting THEIR president to be in power, not the one person who actually won.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on June 23, 2021, 08:05:59 AM
The thing that gets me is that most of the Jan 6th rioters seem to be regular folks. Regular folks with a lot of disposable income, since a lot of them seem to have travelled from far and wide to get there.... but;

I don't get the impression that they thought they would storm the building, stop the process, then actually DO something. I get the impression they thought they would stop the process, then go back home, go back to work, and it would then be someone else's problem.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on June 23, 2021, 09:30:59 AM
The thing that gets me is that most of the Jan 6th rioters seem to be regular folks. Regular folks with a lot of disposable income, since a lot of them seem to have travelled from far and wide to get there.... but;

I don't get the impression that they thought they would storm the building, stop the process, then actually DO something. I get the impression they thought they would stop the process, then go back home, go back to work, and it would then be someone else's problem.

And steal Pelosi's mail.
And maybe kill someone.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on June 23, 2021, 05:12:35 PM
There was a non-zero chance that when faced with Trump's supporters at their angriest, Pence and the Republicans in Congress might have done what they could to avoid certifying Biden's win. They didn't have a valid case for doing so, but they still could have done it, and who would have stopped them, or made them follow the law? That's probably what the rioters were counting on.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on June 23, 2021, 08:06:32 PM
There's a disturbing tendency to downplay January 6.  There's no reason to think they wouldn't have murdered any Democratic member of congress or even some of the Republicans if they got their hands on them.  They were quite willing to kill anyone who got in their way, including law enforcement.

It's not an exaggeration to say that if it weren't for a small handful of police officers who didn't have their thumbs in their asses then we would probably be in a civil war by now.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on June 23, 2021, 08:39:06 PM
It's such a weird but sobering example of crowd mentality going horribly wrong.

The vast majority of those meatheads went there without any malicious intent. The few bad eggs who had legitimate plans and were armed+over-prepared for violence paved a way for the masses to follow and devolve into what we saw on TV.

Thankfully there werent nearly enough people with/privy to a plan so the masses mainly just stumbled around smashing stuff. I'm still baffled at how repercussions there have been for how woefully understaffed and equipped  the capitol police were. Clearly intentional by those in charge and it cost lives on both sides.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on July 11, 2021, 01:35:46 PM
Did "The Big Guy" get his 10% again ?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on July 11, 2021, 06:28:23 PM
Did "The Big Guy" get his 10% again ?

Very concerning if true. Fortunately the big guy actually provides his tax returns.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on July 21, 2021, 06:29:50 AM
I don’t know who Tom Brady is because, let’s face it, American Football is rubbish which is why pretty much no one outside the US watches it. But this is a pretty good joke. Well done him

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-57910869
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on July 31, 2021, 09:48:02 PM
So brain dead he ate a booger on live tv. 

He's the best you got?.

Not my Pres., my clown.....
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on July 31, 2021, 10:08:05 PM
So brain dead he ate a booger on live tv. 

He's the best you got?.

Not my Pres., my clown.....

So did a quick search:
All I can find is a crappy video with no info showing an orange, sharp edged thing on his chin.  Not even sure its there or added in post production.  Also only mention of it seems to be far right groups who hate Biden.  So.... Not really gonna trust that its an accurate video.  They'd post a video of him summoning satan and turning the oceans into blood and call it fact.


Also:
He IS your president.  Just as Trump was our president.
Unless you're not American. 
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on July 31, 2021, 11:08:49 PM
You'all raw raw picked a clown that couldn't even lead 6 months. Now we get a female attorney with little experience running the USA USA USA

Shows how dumb the libs truly are.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on August 01, 2021, 04:32:10 AM
You'all raw raw picked a clown that couldn't even lead 6 months. Now we get a female attorney with little experience running the USA USA USA

Shows how dumb the libs truly are.

1. Joe hasn't resigned.  Dunno what you're on about.
2. You do remember how Trump has 0 experience in anything related to law or politics, right?

Its so weird to watch conservatives jump and attack liberals with arguments that fit Trump.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on August 01, 2021, 05:03:47 AM
So brain dead he ate a booger on live tv. 

He's the best you got?.

Not my Pres., my clown.....

Seems like the GOP started the trend...

https://youtu.be/SFr3DSpgmx4
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on August 01, 2021, 08:39:34 AM
Its so weird to watch conservatives jump and attack liberals with arguments that fit Trump.

"Biden hid in his basement"

Trump spent one-quarter of his term hiding at his golf clubs. He was invisible in the lame-duck period.

"Biden is cognitively challenged"

Trump simply makes up stories about his life. "Someone came up to me and said; "Sir ...". Hogwash. He was the POTUS, living in the Whitehouse. Nobody casually "Comes up to him" apart from his own staff and those with clearance.

... and so it goes on.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on August 02, 2021, 03:37:58 PM
Not even sure its there or added in post production. 
The note that was handed to him, informing of the booger on his chin, was also edited in post-production.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Fbr7voADKo
Jesus, a truly crappy video, hardly clear at all.
Here's another showing all the clarity of thought and intelligence he's able to muster:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7WwDLzG--Y
If you can even make it through the first answers.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on August 18, 2021, 02:23:44 AM
Benghazi on steroids coming. Lotsa dead Americans. Thanks Joe you retard, couldn't run a lemonade stand with free lemons.

Resign NOW !!!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on August 18, 2021, 05:49:40 AM
Benghazi on steroids coming. Lotsa dead Americans. Thanks Joe you retard, couldn't run a lemonade stand with free lemons.

Resign NOW !!!

Dead from what?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on August 18, 2021, 07:11:12 AM
Some of our allies are dead.  I've haven't heard of any american citizen dying during all of this.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on August 18, 2021, 05:20:06 PM
Opinion by Michael Gerson

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/16/trump-afghanistan-withdrawal-biden-catastrophe/

There's just no way to sugarcoat it. Biden fucked up. This is a disaster. And pointing out that Trump wanted to pull out of Afghanistan too means nothing; his advisors advised him not to, and he didn't. This was Biden's decision.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on August 18, 2021, 05:42:53 PM
Agreed. He inherited a mess, then shit the bed with the execution of this. Worth noting that even though something like (but not as bad as) this outcome was completely foreseeable, most other countries made a mess of this situation as well, leaving embassy guards, support staff, interpreters etc. to fend for themselves.

Ol' Sleepy Joe is in good (or bad) company with a lot of other world leaders currently wiping mud from their faces.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on August 18, 2021, 06:19:09 PM
Isn’t the argument that whenever they did this the end result would have been the same? They appear to have picked pretty much the worst time to do it which made the Taliban’s takeover alarmingly swift.
The timing seems to have been so they could say it was done by the 20th anniversary of 9/11 which is an objectively stupid way of planning something like this - to time with an arbitrary anniversary.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on August 18, 2021, 06:50:24 PM
Isn’t the argument that whenever they did this the end result would have been the same? They appear to have picked pretty much the worst time to do it which made the Taliban’s takeover alarmingly swift.
The timing seems to have been so they could say it was done by the 20th anniversary of 9/11 which is an objectively stupid way of planning something like this - to time with an arbitrary anniversary.

Apparently Biden was following through on Trump’s plan, which had initially been set for early May.

I’m not exactly sure how bad a fuck up this was because I don’t know how much of the situation they controlled. In sure there was an assumption that the Afghanistan army would put up at least a token defense.

It seems wise to hold Biden accountable though since much of this situation was caused by the US.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on August 18, 2021, 06:57:03 PM
There's two aspects to this that should not be conflated but probably will be.

1.  A failure to get our people out of there.  Clearly Biden's fault.

2.  The country falling to the Taliban.  Really this has more to do with the past 3 presidents.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on August 18, 2021, 08:25:12 PM
There's two aspects to this that should not be conflated but probably will be.

1.  A failure to get our people out of there.  Clearly Biden's fault.

2.  The country falling to the Taliban.  Really this has more to do with the past 3 presidents.

To the second point: it happened on Biden's watch. And that's as much thought as a lot of people will put into it. And really, in the final analysis the decision to move out was his. I can't imagine they didn't have intel suggesting how strong the Taliban was in the area. He could have stayed put, but he made a political calculation that I think was dead wrong and will cost him.

Fox News is eating this up and for once it's justifiable.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 19, 2021, 01:21:23 AM
To the second point: it happened on Biden's watch.

That was days ago. Quit living in the past. C'mon man!


(https://i.imgur.com/pzpt4wR.jpg)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on August 19, 2021, 12:48:23 PM
There's two aspects to this that should not be conflated but probably will be.

1.  A failure to get our people out of there.  Clearly Biden's fault.

2.  The country falling to the Taliban.  Really this has more to do with the past 3 presidents.

To the second point: it happened on Biden's watch. And that's as much thought as a lot of people will put into it. And really, in the final analysis the decision to move out was his. I can't imagine they didn't have intel suggesting how strong the Taliban was in the area. He could have stayed put, but he made a political calculation that I think was dead wrong and will cost him.

Fox News is eating this up and for once it's justifiable.

What exactly should have happened?  Under what circumstances could they end this unjust occupation and contain the Taliban.  The timeline to withdraw was rushed because the Taliban were becoming increasingly aggressive so the option to stay could quite easily have made the situation worse.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: existoid on August 25, 2021, 08:38:59 PM
There's two aspects to this that should not be conflated but probably will be.

1.  A failure to get our people out of there.  Clearly Biden's fault.

2.  The country falling to the Taliban.  Really this has more to do with the past 3 presidents.

To the second point: it happened on Biden's watch. And that's as much thought as a lot of people will put into it. And really, in the final analysis the decision to move out was his. I can't imagine they didn't have intel suggesting how strong the Taliban was in the area. He could have stayed put, but he made a political calculation that I think was dead wrong and will cost him.

Fox News is eating this up and for once it's justifiable.

What exactly should have happened?  Under what circumstances could they end this unjust occupation and contain the Taliban.  The timeline to withdraw was rushed because the Taliban were becoming increasingly aggressive so the option to stay could quite easily have made the situation worse.

The Taliban were increasingly aggressive in the past few months because the US foolishly told them loud and clear we were leaving.  We could have done lots of things differently (and still pulled out), and one easy way to do so is to leave without telling the Taliban when the effective date was going to be...

Also, I think it's quite a misnomer to label it an "unjust occupation" given that the internationally accepted government (up until last week) hosted US and NATO forces, and wanted us to stay at least until November this year.  That's not what an "occupation" is.  It may have been an unjust occupation in 2001, but that's a far cry to 2021.




Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on August 25, 2021, 09:44:58 PM
There's two aspects to this that should not be conflated but probably will be.

1.  A failure to get our people out of there.  Clearly Biden's fault.

2.  The country falling to the Taliban.  Really this has more to do with the past 3 presidents.

To the second point: it happened on Biden's watch. And that's as much thought as a lot of people will put into it. And really, in the final analysis the decision to move out was his. I can't imagine they didn't have intel suggesting how strong the Taliban was in the area. He could have stayed put, but he made a political calculation that I think was dead wrong and will cost him.

Fox News is eating this up and for once it's justifiable.

What exactly should have happened?  Under what circumstances could they end this unjust occupation and contain the Taliban.  The timeline to withdraw was rushed because the Taliban were becoming increasingly aggressive so the option to stay could quite easily have made the situation worse.

The Taliban were increasingly aggressive in the past few months because the US foolishly told them loud and clear we were leaving.  We could have done lots of things differently (and still pulled out), and one easy way to do so is to leave without telling the Taliban when the effective date was going to be...

Fair enough, although the Taliban also had a written agreement and they would have figured out the US wasn’t keeping those terms so I’m not sure it made a huge difference, especially when the US started removing much of their hardware from the country, but I can see how there might have been a more optimal solution.

Quote
Also, I think it's quite a misnomer to label it an "unjust occupation" given that the internationally accepted government (up until last week) hosted US and NATO forces, and wanted us to stay at least until November this year.  That's not what an "occupation" is.  It may have been an unjust occupation in 2001, but that's a far cry to 2021.

An occupation that starts as unjust doesn’t become just when your puppet government gives their totally free and uninfluenced approval. Especially when the US is killing lots of civilians and pulling out lots of the countries natural resources.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: existoid on August 25, 2021, 10:04:18 PM
Quote
Also, I think it's quite a misnomer to label it an "unjust occupation" given that the internationally accepted government (up until last week) hosted US and NATO forces, and wanted us to stay at least until November this year.  That's not what an "occupation" is.  It may have been an unjust occupation in 2001, but that's a far cry to 2021.

Quote
An occupation that starts as unjust doesn’t become just when your puppet government gives their totally free and uninfluenced approval. Especially when the US is killing lots of civilians and pulling out lots of the countries natural resources.

Got it, so in other words, the war was unjust and the US and NATO should never have invaded?  Is that the argument?

Tracking the killing of civilians is really messy. A source would be nice. I know that the best final assessment of civilians killed by US forces in Iraq can be summed up as "Americans are literally taking casualties to prevent casualties on the part of Iraqi civilians."  At the height of the Iraqi insurgency (2006 through 2008) only about 1 out of every 100 civilian deaths involved US troops in any way. You read that right - 1%. An example year is 2006, when 16,791 civilians were killed by terrorists and insurgents, and only 225 by US troops for that whole year.

I have read a lot less about these numbers in Afghanistan, but given that it was a much more low intensity war overall, I would be surprised if the numbers were dramatically different.

And finally, given that the US has poured billions of USD into Afghanistan to build infrastructure, schools, hospitals, and other things - and has poured in FAR more money than any it could have gotten out by "pulling out natural resources" that's an odd statement.  I'm not going to defend any stealing the US may have done in Afghanistan, but the net is a flow of money and resources INTO, not out of, that country.  And this doesn't include the dramatic increase in civil rights - particularly women's rights - that were fostered under our "puppet" regime. 

Edit: One of the easiest criticisms that domestic (US) opponents of the ongoing war make is that it is so stunningly costly to keep it up (not just to pay for the military stuff, but all the so-called "nation building" stuff too). We've been pumping billions into Afghanistan via the USAID org and other means, and it's expensive. That's going to go away with the Taliban.   

Here's right from the horse's mouth all the pillaging the US government has done since 2002 in Afghanistan:
https://www.usaid.gov/afghanistan
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on August 25, 2021, 10:21:07 PM
Quote
Also, I think it's quite a misnomer to label it an "unjust occupation" given that the internationally accepted government (up until last week) hosted US and NATO forces, and wanted us to stay at least until November this year.  That's not what an "occupation" is.  It may have been an unjust occupation in 2001, but that's a far cry to 2021.

Quote
An occupation that starts as unjust doesn’t become just when your puppet government gives their totally free and uninfluenced approval. Especially when the US is killing lots of civilians and pulling out lots of the countries natural resources.

Got it, so in other words, the war was unjust and the US and NATO should never have invaded?  Is that the argument?

Tough to say definitively, but I would prefer they didn’t.

Quote
Quote
Tracking the killing of civilians is really messy. A source would be nice.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/afghan

71,000 total, although no breakdown as to which actions were responsible for what. Drone strikes were notorious for “collateral damage” under Obama, and regulation on those missions were relaxed by Trump.

Quote
I know that the best final assessment of civilians killed by US forces in Iraq can be summed up as "Americans are literally taking casualties to prevent casualties on the part of Iraqi civilians."  At the height of the Iraqi insurgency (2006 through 2008) only about 1 out of every 100 civilian deaths involved US troops in any way. You read that right - 1%. An example year is 2006, when 16,791 civilians were killed by terrorists and insurgents, and only 225 by US troops for that whole year.

Where are these numbers from?

Quote
I have read a lot less about these numbers in Afghanistan, but given that it was a much more low intensity war overall, I would be surprised if the numbers were dramatically different.

They still dropped 7,000 bombs in Afghanistan in 2019. I know it’s a pebble compared to Shock and Awe but that’s a lot of fucking bombs.

Quote
And finally, given that the US has poured billions of USD into Afghanistan to build infrastructure, schools, hospitals, and other things - and has poured in FAR more money than any it could have gotten out by "pulling out natural resources" that's an odd statement.  I'm not going to defend any stealing the US may have done in Afghanistan, but the net is a flow of money and resources INTO, not out of, that country.  And this doesn't include the dramatic increase in civil rights - particularly women's rights - that were fostered under our "puppet" regime. 

Edit: One of the easiest criticisms that domestic (US) opponents of the ongoing war make is that it is so stunningly costly to keep it up (not just to pay for the military stuff, but all the so-called "nation building" stuff too). We've been pumping billions into Afghanistan via the USAID org and other means, and it's expensive. That's going to go away with the Taliban.   

Here's right from the horse's mouth all the pillaging the US government has done since 2002 in Afghanistan:
https://www.usaid.gov/afghanistan

The government doesn’t get rich from the war directly, it’s a wealth shift from taxpayers to government contractors.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on August 26, 2021, 12:17:24 AM
Quote
Also, I think it's quite a misnomer to label it an "unjust occupation" given that the internationally accepted government (up until last week) hosted US and NATO forces, and wanted us to stay at least until November this year.  That's not what an "occupation" is.  It may have been an unjust occupation in 2001, but that's a far cry to 2021.

Quote
An occupation that starts as unjust doesn’t become just when your puppet government gives their totally free and uninfluenced approval. Especially when the US is killing lots of civilians and pulling out lots of the countries natural resources.

Got it, so in other words, the war was unjust and the US and NATO should never have invaded?  Is that the argument?

Tracking the killing of civilians is really messy. A source would be nice. I know that the best final assessment of civilians killed by US forces in Iraq can be summed up as "Americans are literally taking casualties to prevent casualties on the part of Iraqi civilians."  At the height of the Iraqi insurgency (2006 through 2008) only about 1 out of every 100 civilian deaths involved US troops in any way. You read that right - 1%. An example year is 2006, when 16,791 civilians were killed by terrorists and insurgents, and only 225 by US troops for that whole year.

I have read a lot less about these numbers in Afghanistan, but given that it was a much more low intensity war overall, I would be surprised if the numbers were dramatically different.

And finally, given that the US has poured billions of USD into Afghanistan to build infrastructure, schools, hospitals, and other things - and has poured in FAR more money than any it could have gotten out by "pulling out natural resources" that's an odd statement.  I'm not going to defend any stealing the US may have done in Afghanistan, but the net is a flow of money and resources INTO, not out of, that country.  And this doesn't include the dramatic increase in civil rights - particularly women's rights - that were fostered under our "puppet" regime. 

Edit: One of the easiest criticisms that domestic (US) opponents of the ongoing war make is that it is so stunningly costly to keep it up (not just to pay for the military stuff, but all the so-called "nation building" stuff too). We've been pumping billions into Afghanistan via the USAID org and other means, and it's expensive. That's going to go away with the Taliban.   

Here's right from the horse's mouth all the pillaging the US government has done since 2002 in Afghanistan:
https://www.usaid.gov/afghanistan

This is pretty much my opinion. I get that we should have never been there in the first place. But we were there, and our presence was making things better. Now after giving them twenty years of hope for a better life we're pulling the rug right out from under them. Girls who grew up thinking they could be doctors are now going to have to live with the reality that their oppressive leaders aren't even going to allow them to learn.

That, to me, is unjust.

It's a fact that was recognized by both Obama and Trump (notice how convenient the latter's timetable to withdraw was; I don't believe for a minute that if he had won the election he would have actually followed through); they both knew that withdrawal would be messy (as did Biden, don't think he wasn't advised as much) and that's why they both essentially ignored it. Biden could have done the same thing. Instead he let himself fall into a political trap set by Trump. Yeah, my opinion on the matter is largely motivated by politics. Biden is a fucking idiot for going along with Trump's plans for withdrawal. In these charged times with so much at stake things like this are going to sink the Democrats.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on August 26, 2021, 04:59:32 AM
https://www.foxnews.com/media/jesse-watters-trump-killed-terrorists-joe-biden-takes-orders-from-them

Faux News doesn't disappoint when it comes to gaslighting propaganda, lol. Remember that time Trump negotiated with the Taliban and released all those prisoners? Does this guy forget that the withdrawal from Afghanistan started with Trump? I don't agree with how Biden has handled this either but Jesus Christ.

Not to belabor the point but this was the guy who totally got played by North Korea because he was charmed by Kim Jong Un's sweet talking flattery, lol. He is literally putty in the hands of anyone willing to effusively praise him.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on August 26, 2021, 06:16:13 PM
I take it back. Joe’s fucked this up bad.

https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/large-explosion-at-abbey-gate-at-the-kabul-airport-report-677790
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on August 26, 2021, 06:19:48 PM
I take it back. Joe’s fucked this up bad.

https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/large-explosion-at-abbey-gate-at-the-kabul-airport-report-677790

Wow, what a shock. Nobody ever saw something like this coming.  ::)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on August 27, 2021, 11:49:47 PM
Joe's my hero, I love ice cream.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on August 28, 2021, 09:32:18 AM
I take it back. Joe’s fucked this up bad.

https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/large-explosion-at-abbey-gate-at-the-kabul-airport-report-677790

Ya know what?
I don't agree.  For one, he's not micromanaging security.
For another...

Quote
The White House said about 12,500 people were evacuated from Kabul in the 24 hours ending at 3 a.m. ET Friday, bringing the total number evacuated from Afghanistan to 111,000, including 5,100 US. citizens.

https://www.npr.org/2021/08/27/1031649747/kabul-airport-explosions-afghanistan-dead-evacuations?sc=18&f=1001

I had no idea it was that many.  I assumed maybe a thousand.  Not 111,000!
And 12,500 in a 24 hour period is god damn impressive.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on August 28, 2021, 11:10:59 AM
Yeah, but...

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/taliban-afghanistan-biometric-databases-us-b1908312.html

This has the potential to go sideways quickly if they are able/willing to use it the wrong way
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 30, 2021, 03:49:18 AM
I see that Joe Biden has survived the Taliban insurgency to become the leader America needs.

https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1431754382383763456
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on August 30, 2021, 05:14:19 AM
I see that Joe Biden has survived the Taliban insurgency to become the leader America needs.

https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1431754382383763456

It’s hilarious how easily you fall in lockstep with the false meme nonsense that fits your narrative. And we’re the sheeple…
Did it ever strike you to wonder why your Twitter video ends where it did? Maybe curious to hopefully see sleepy joe snap out of his nap? Wouldn’t that have been even juicier for your narrative?

Here’s the full clip. Skip to about 3:16, where your Twitter video abruptly, curiously ends:

https://youtu.be/9HxnvQLdkvg

Obvi, not asleep. So silly how so easily you fall for this stuff.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on August 30, 2021, 05:18:59 AM
I see that Joe Biden has survived the Taliban insurgency to become the leader America needs.

https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1431754382383763456

It’s hilarious how easily you fall in lockstep with the false meme nonsense that fits your narrative. And we’re the sheeple…
Did it ever strike you to wonder why your Twitter video ends where it did? Maybe curious to hopefully see sleepy joe snap out of his nap? Wouldn’t that have been even juicier for your narrative?

Here’s the full clip. Skip to about 3:16, where your Twitter video abruptly, curiously ends:

https://youtu.be/9HxnvQLdkvg

Obvi, not asleep. So silly how so easily you fall for this stuff.

Yeah.  Low quality video plus sqinting eyes and intentional edit is all they need.  Doesn't even matter that full length, high quality videos exist on the same platform. 
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 30, 2021, 09:22:32 AM
It’s hilarious how easily you fall in lockstep with the false meme nonsense that fits your narrative. And we’re the sheeple…
Did it ever strike you to wonder why your Twitter video ends where it did? Maybe curious to hopefully see sleepy joe snap out of his nap? Wouldn’t that have been even juicier for your narrative?

Here’s the full clip. Skip to about 3:16, where your Twitter video abruptly, curiously ends:

https://youtu.be/9HxnvQLdkvg

Obvi, not asleep. So silly how so easily you fall for this stuff.

Fall for what? That looks exactly like narcolepsy where people micro-sleep and zone out during meetings.

God awful embarrassing, whatever the diagnosis. When people are talking to you you look at them, not zone out at the floor. He's supposed to be the president speaking to a world leader at the white house.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on August 30, 2021, 09:52:39 AM
It’s hilarious how easily you fall in lockstep with the false meme nonsense that fits your narrative. And we’re the sheeple…
Did it ever strike you to wonder why your Twitter video ends where it did? Maybe curious to hopefully see sleepy joe snap out of his nap? Wouldn’t that have been even juicier for your narrative?

Here’s the full clip. Skip to about 3:16, where your Twitter video abruptly, curiously ends:

https://youtu.be/9HxnvQLdkvg

Obvi, not asleep. So silly how so easily you fall for this stuff.

Fall for what? That looks exactly like narcolepsy where people micro-sleep and zone out during meetings.

God awful embarrassing, whatever the diagnosis. When people are talking to you you look at them, not zone out at the floor. He's supposed to be the president speaking to a world leader at the white house.

I'm curious, on what grounds do you make that determination?  Is it because his eyes are not as wide open as you would expect?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 30, 2021, 10:25:58 AM
Your argument that he is purposely zoning out and staring at the floor is even worse than a medical condition. When people are talking to you you look at them, not zone out at the floor. Rather insulting. I feel embarrassed to have a president like that. Prime minister Naftali looks directly at the president as in disbelief.

I don't find it likely that he's purposely zoning out while on camera while talking to a world leader like you are arguing is the case, and is probably an age related thing rather than a deliberate action. There are old people who will fall asleep in a semi-conscious state, snore, and pop up to answer your question.

Whether he is doing it purposely or not, either way it's bad. It is pretty ridiculous to have to argue that the president is purposely zoning out while a world leader is speaking to him.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on August 30, 2021, 10:32:13 AM
Who argued he is zoning out?

I asked you simply: why do you think he's sleeping?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Shane on August 30, 2021, 11:06:43 AM
It is common for one to look away,  look down,  while listening to another person.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on August 30, 2021, 11:24:08 AM
It is common for one to look away,  look down,  while listening to another person.

Especially if you are hard of hearing.  I'll sometimes tilt my ear towards the person to hear them.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on August 30, 2021, 11:25:40 AM
It is common for one to look away,  look down,  while listening to another person.

Exactly. It’s actually really creepy to just look at someone without break.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on August 30, 2021, 12:59:09 PM
It is common for one to look away,  look down,  while listening to another person.
It’s also common for people with certain agendas to find every possible excuse to criticise Biden, having spent 4 years bending over backwards to be an apologist for everything Trump did no matter how crass or embarrassing.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Dr David Thork on August 30, 2021, 02:25:17 PM
an apologist for everything Trump did.

What exactly did Trump do? I'd be interested to know the terrible things he did. Based on his actions and policies, I'd say he was a reasonably good president. I mean, he didn't surrender to the Taliban and leave £billions of military hardware in Afghanistan. He didn't read everything from a teleprompter and only take questions from pre-selected journalists. He knew what day of the week it was.

Tell me ... what was the terrible thing Trump did?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on August 30, 2021, 03:18:47 PM
an apologist for everything Trump did.

What exactly did Trump do? I'd be interested to know the terrible things he did. Based on his actions and policies, I'd say he was a reasonably good president. I mean, he didn't surrender to the Taliban and leave £billions of military hardware in Afghanistan.
He freed 5000 Taliban, including their leader. He then upheld the deal he struck with them, even after multie breaches of the terms of said deal, allowing more and more Taliban to be released despite non compliance.

Quote
He didn't read everything from a teleprompter and only take questions from pre-selected journalists. He knew what day of the week it was.
He didnt do a lot of reading, no... that's why his addresses were incoherent, rambling, improvised messes that left him slinging insults and mocking disabled people, or holding bibles upside down, or getting the names of countries wrong, or calling countries shitholes, or suggesting consumption of bleach, or using nuclear weapons to stop a hurricane, or calling racists 'very nice people's etc etc etc

Quote
Tell me ... what was the terrible thing Trump did?

You mean aside from all the sexual assault allegations? Or was that just a rhetorical question?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on August 30, 2021, 03:37:33 PM
an apologist for everything Trump did.

What exactly did Trump do? I'd be interested to know the terrible things he did. Based on his actions and policies, I'd say he was a reasonably good president. I mean, he didn't surrender to the Taliban and leave £billions of military hardware in Afghanistan. He didn't read everything from a teleprompter and only take questions from pre-selected journalists. He knew what day of the week it was.

Tell me ... what was the terrible thing Trump did?

Well, there was that time we had a terrible pandemic and Trump spent several months insisting that there was no problem, it wasn't a big deal, and it would go away by itself very quickly, and also indirectly encouraged his followers to refuse to wear a mask in public. We'll never know what would have happened if there had been a competent president in the Oval Office rather than someone asleep at the wheel, but hundreds of thousands of Americans are dead, and Trump must bear some responsibility for that.

Also, the discussion was about Biden's behavior and mannerisms being "embarrassing" to a certain type of conservative who supported Trump. I'm in full agreement with AATW that that is the height of hypocrisy after four years of Trump's bullying, insults, and general boorish behavior.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on August 30, 2021, 03:40:02 PM
Has anyone considered the possibility that the new PM of Israel is just really really boring?

Maybe he was telling the Biden about how he couldn't buy a hammer at 2am in the West Bank.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on August 30, 2021, 03:41:40 PM
Remember when he let the Kurds in Siria get slaughtered?

Or when he took Putin's word over his own intelligence agencies?

Or when he promoted his own son's book while president, which is illegal?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on August 30, 2021, 04:52:49 PM
an apologist for everything Trump did.

What exactly did Trump do? I'd be interested to know the terrible things he did. Based on his actions and policies, I'd say he was a reasonably good president. I mean, he didn't surrender to the Taliban and leave £billions of military hardware in Afghanistan. He didn't read everything from a teleprompter and only take questions from pre-selected journalists. He knew what day of the week it was.

Tell me ... what was the terrible thing Trump did?

Spent almost one-quarter of his presidency away from the office, on his golf courses, charging the American taxpayer for his own secret service detail to be accommodated there. Was nowhere to be seen during lame duck period. There was, and still is, a pandemic raging, and he wasn't going to accomplish anything by schmoozing with his buddies on the course, or at the nineteenth hole.

Do we need to point out how he favoured Fox and OANN in the briefing room? "Didn't favour certain journalists", my a*se...

How many times did he do phone-ins with Fox and OANN, compared with MSNBC, CNN etc. ? 

He wanted to leave a ship of COVID patients moored offshore to keep the numbers of onshore cases down.

He mismanaged the pandemic. He shredded a bucketload of worthwhile environmental legislation, for no good reason than Obama had legislated it. The prime driver behind his presidency seemed to be revenge on Obama for embarassing him at the correspondents' dinner.

"He knew what day it was" - especially at the weekend. See above

etc

etc
 

 

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on August 30, 2021, 05:12:53 PM
an apologist for everything Trump did.

What exactly did Trump do? I'd be interested to know the terrible things he did. Based on his actions and policies, I'd say he was a reasonably good president. I mean, he didn't surrender to the Taliban and leave £billions of military hardware in Afghanistan. He didn't read everything from a teleprompter and only take questions from pre-selected journalists. He knew what day of the week it was.

Tell me ... what was the terrible thing Trump did?

lol... I'd start a list but I have to work today, I don't have several hours to recount every awful thing Trump did while in office but I invite you to read over the Trump thread if you've really forgotten, most of it is in there.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on August 30, 2021, 06:45:18 PM
Real easy to start another Trump thread for most of you.

But I think this thread should be about children who love to rub hairy legs, Corn Pop, and ice cream trucks.

C'mon man!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on August 30, 2021, 06:49:28 PM
Should it be about children who love to rub hairy legs, Corn Pop, and ice cream trucks or children who love to rub hairy legs, Corn Pop, and ice cream trucks though? You should clarify before we get too far into things.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on August 30, 2021, 08:50:25 PM
Others have listed some of the things Trump did.

Can we add that he spent months lying about election fraud because his narcissistic personality disorder couldn’t allow him to countenance that he lost an election. Those lies resulted directly to the events on January 6th in which several people died and have done possibly irreparable damage to US democracy.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on August 30, 2021, 09:52:25 PM
Here's something Biden did: End the war in Afghanistan.
Its over.  We're out.  Last plane left today.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on August 31, 2021, 12:34:16 AM
Speaking of Corn Pop, it's really interesting how that story is largely assumed to be an absurd lie and/or a sign of Biden going senile, largely based on the intuitive response people have that a gangster would never call themselves something silly like "Corn Pop," when the facts are actually on his side. Well, I wouldn't necessarily say that there's ironclad proof of the whole account being true, but at least one witness has corroborated Biden's story, and there's ample evidence that Corn Pop was a real person:

https://www.mediaite.com/news/watch-joe-biden-tells-story-of-facing-down-razor-wielding-gang-leader-named-corn-pop/

(Scroll down to the end for the update. It's ridiculous that this article is framed as "lol this guy totally roasted Biden for his bullshit story lol" and buries the lede of "oh btw the story is actually true" so far down, but it is a good summary of the evidence supporting Biden's account.)

It's a bit like how so many people believed that Trump's unguarded, impulsive manner of speech was indicative of his general honesty, and refused to seriously consider the overwhelming factual evidence of his frequent and outrageous lies. Intuition is useful, but people need to learn that it isn't always right, and shouldn't be stubbornly clung to when it's contradicted by clear facts.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Dr David Thork on August 31, 2021, 11:34:45 AM
Tell me ... what was the terrible thing Trump did?

You mean aside from all the sexual assault allegations?

Are people guilty until proven innocent in the USA? So your big hatred comes down to allegations by those looking for money, fame or political gain? But no hard evidence or conviction. In other words ... Trump was great but you can't admit you voted for a deranged old fool instead by mistake because you are too proud. Got it.


Well, there was that time we had a terrible pandemic
What terrible pandemic? How many billions died? Where are all the dead otherwise healthy people?

and Trump spent several months insisting that there was no problem,
It wasn't.

it wasn't a big deal,
It was made into a big deal, but the virus itself wasn't a big deal, no.

and it would go away by itself very quickly,
Pretty much what has happened. Vaccines are getting the credit for the work done by natural immunity at this point.

and also indirectly encouraged his followers to refuse to wear a mask in public.
On the advice of Dr Fauchy. Is Trump supposed to contradict the chief medical officer? You'd have screamed bloody murder if he had.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRa6t_e7dgI

We'll never know what would have happened if there had been a competent president in the Oval Office rather than someone asleep at the wheel, but hundreds of thousands of Americans are dead, and Trump must bear some responsibility for that.
Hundreds and thousands of Americans die every year. They die prematurely because they are as fat as fuck and never exercise.

Also, the discussion was about Biden's behavior and mannerisms being "embarrassing" to a certain type of conservative who supported Trump. I'm in full agreement with AATW that that is the height of hypocrisy after four years of Trump's bullying, insults, and general boorish behavior.
Trump spoke his mind. Biden reads other people's minds off of a teleprompter as he no longer has one of his own. You picked a rotten President this time around and he as already made more terrible mistakes than Trump made in 4 years.

lol... I'd start a list but I have to work today, I don't have several hours to recount every awful thing Trump did while in office but I invite you to read over the Trump thread if you've really forgotten, most of it is in there.
I don't care about CNN knicker wetting over minutia. Did he start any wars? No. Did he try to reign in China? Yes. Did he try to enforce law and order? Yes. Then he did a pretty good job. I don't care if he said he wanted to grab a woman by the pussy once upon a time.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on August 31, 2021, 12:33:31 PM
Are people guilty until proven innocent in the USA? So your big hatred comes down to allegations by those looking for money, fame or political gain? But no hard evidence or conviction. In other words ... Trump was great but you can't admit you voted for a deranged old fool instead by mistake because you are too proud. Got it.

Let's just say he is as guilty as Prince Andrew, perhaps more so when you recall that he bragged about going in to the Miss Teen USA dressing room when the contestants were in there and grabbing women by the pussy.


Quote
What terrible pandemic? How many billions died?

Only billions are terrible?  You whinge about people in the UK losing their jobs to other EU citizens, but it takes billions of deaths to be a tragedy?  That's pretty sick.

Quote
Where are all the dead otherwise healthy people?

They are in graveyards now.

Quote
It wasn't.

Trump insisted it was not a problem in public, while acknowledging it was a serious problem in private.  You should try and keep up.

Quote
It was made into a big deal, but the virus itself wasn't a big deal, no.

The millions who died from it would disagree.

Quote
Pretty much what has happened. Vaccines are getting the credit for the work done by natural immunity at this point.

It hasn't gone away at all.  Please at least have your silly trolls informed by real life facts.  Many red states in the US are hitting new highs in deaths and hospitalizations this week.

Quote
On the advice of Dr Fauchy. Is Trump supposed to contradict the chief medical officer? You'd have screamed bloody murder if he had.

True, but the point is that he contradicted the scientific consensus at almost every turn.  It's only a matter of time before he talks about how great ivermectin is.

Quote
Hundreds and thousands of Americans die every year. They die prematurely because they are as fat as fuck and never exercise.

Yet the US has hundreds of thousands of excess deaths that correlate quite strongly with increases in COVID cases.  But you don't care because it's not you.

Quote
Trump spoke his mind. Biden reads other people's minds off of a teleprompter as he no longer has one of his own. You picked a rotten President this time around and he as already made more terrible mistakes than Trump made in 4 years.

You are really criticising a public official for using prepared remarks?  That's the best you can do?

Quote
I don't care about CNN knicker wetting over minutia. Did he start any wars? No.

I eagerly await your applause for Biden not only avoiding conflict but actively ending one then.

Quote
Did he try to reign in China? Yes.

He did so in a way that actively hurt the American economy by demonstrably not understanding how tariffs work. 

Quote
Did he try to enforce law and order? Yes.

Except when he encouraged his followers to violence.  Then he encouraged that.

Quote
Then he did a pretty good job.

Ehhh... That's a pretty low bar.  You seem to have a lot of those.

Quote
I don't care if he said he wanted to grab a woman by the pussy once upon a time.

Of course you don't.  You have often underplayed how serious a crime rape is.  I sincerely hope you aren't projecting.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Dr David Thork on August 31, 2021, 01:14:28 PM
Let's just say he is as guilty as Prince Andrew, perhaps more so when you recall that he bragged about going in to the Miss Teen USA dressing room when the contestants were in there and grabbing women by the pussy.
Again, allegations aren't convictions. We don't live in the era of witch trials. Please get some better standards.

Only billions are terrible?  You whinge about people in the UK losing their jobs to other EU citizens, but it takes billions of deaths to be a tragedy?  That's pretty sick.
Pandemic ... not epidemic. Come back to me when billions.

Trump insisted it was not a problem in public, while acknowledging it was a serious problem in private.  You should try and keep up.
That's a way to stop panic. Panic causes problems.

The millions who died from it would disagree.
How? Being dead is somewhat of a disability when it comes to expressing one's own opinion.

It hasn't gone away at all.  Please at least have your silly trolls informed by real life facts.  Many red states in the US are hitting new highs in deaths and hospitalizations this week.
Fudged numbers from the corporate drug pushers. Look around you. What do YOU see?

Yet the US has hundreds of thousands of excess deaths that correlate quite strongly with increases in COVID cases.  But you don't care because it's not you.
Why would you bother looking after people who can't be bothered to look after themselves? - hold that thought, its going to come up again in a second.

I eagerly await your applause for Biden not only avoiding conflict but actively ending one then.
Credit where credit is due. Ending the war in Afghanistan was a good policy. Its actually a Trump policy that Biden inherited, but the execution of the withdrawal on Biden's watch has been a shit show.

He did so in a way that actively hurt the American economy by demonstrably not understanding how tariffs work. 
No, he successfully started bringing jobs back to the USA.

Quote
Did he try to enforce law and order? Yes.
Except when he encouraged his followers to violence.  Then he encouraged that.
The never-ending CNN lie about insurrection. Give it up. It's a non-story. ::)

Quote
I don't care if he said he wanted to grab a woman by the pussy once upon a time.

Of course you don't.  You have often underplayed how serious a crime rape is.  I sincerely hope you aren't projecting.
That would be sexual assault. Not rape. Why do you always exaggerate?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on August 31, 2021, 01:54:44 PM
Let's just say he is as guilty as Prince Andrew, perhaps more so when you recall that he bragged about going in to the Miss Teen USA dressing room when the contestants were in there and grabbing women by the pussy.
Again, allegations aren't convictions. We don't live in the era of witch trials. Please get some better standards.

No one used the word conviction except you.

Quote
Only billions are terrible?  You whinge about people in the UK losing their jobs to other EU citizens, but it takes billions of deaths to be a tragedy?  That's pretty sick.
Pandemic ... not epidemic. Come back to me when billions.

??? Why in the world are you waiting for billions of dead before you deem this to be serious? Imagine everyone in your country died tonight except you. Now imagine thinking this wasn’t horrible. You have now actualized your own sociopathy.

Quote
Trump insisted it was not a problem in public, while acknowledging it was a serious problem in private.  You should try and keep up.
That's a way to stop panic. Panic causes problems.

Ignoring the virus also causes problems. This is why one of the most wealthy and developed nations in the world was one of the worst hit by the virus.

Quote
The millions who died from it would disagree.
How? Being dead is somewhat of a disability when it comes to expressing one's own opinion.

You may want to pay attention to the words I used. They “would” disagree, if they could. But they died.

Quote
It hasn't gone away at all.  Please at least have your silly trolls informed by real life facts.  Many red states in the US are hitting new highs in deaths and hospitalizations this week.
Fudged numbers from the corporate drug pushers. Look around you. What do YOU see?

I see doctors, nurses and public health officials all telling the same story. Why should I trust your unsubstantiated conspiracy and not the testimony of the people engaged and dealing with the public health crisis?  Seems you have a bit of a cognitive dissonance happening. Let’s talk about it.

Quote
Yet the US has hundreds of thousands of excess deaths that correlate quite strongly with increases in COVID cases.  But you don't care because it's not you.
Why would you bother looking after people who can't be bothered to look after themselves? - hold that thought, its going to come up again in a second.

Regardless of their personal choices, I don’t think they deserve death. That’s again, a fairly sociopathic comment from you.

Quote
I eagerly await your applause for Biden not only avoiding conflict but actively ending one then.
Credit where credit is due. Ending the war in Afghanistan was a good policy. Its actually a Trump policy that Biden inherited, but the execution of the withdrawal on Biden's watch has been a shit show.

Biden is the only president who actually followed through despite multiple presidents claiming they would do what he did. I imagine it’s largely because they didn’t want to own the inevitable messiness. That being said, Biden oversaw the transport of over 110,000 people in a little over a week, leaving only 250 Americans in Afghanistan. Only one attack was successful which seemed quite difficult to prevent. It wasn’t perfect, but it also wasn’t a shit show. He did this in the face of many critics, including Trump, who were advocating to again delay withdrawal for obviously disingenuous reasons. Biden, again was the one who was willing to deal with the inevitable chaos that was going to ensue. I applaud him for taking anti-imperialist action.

Quote
He did so in a way that actively hurt the American economy by demonstrably not understanding how tariffs work. 
No, he successfully started bringing jobs back to the USA.
Job growth went down 90% from 2016 to 2019 while over 1,800 factories closed. What in the actual fuck are you on?

Quote
Quote
Did he try to enforce law and order? Yes.
Except when he encouraged his followers to violence.  Then he encouraged that.
The never-ending CNN lie about insurrection. Give it up. It's a non-story. ::)

No it’s a story. See, even some of Trump’s followers at the Capitol that day are saying they acted that way because of Trump’s words. Obviously Trump didn’t give specific instruction about storming the Capitol, but he whipped up a fervour in his base over claims of the democracy crumbling. He made them believe that there was a crisis, when in reality the only crisis was that the president was wantonly and maliciously lying about the election and insinuating that a totalitarian usurpation of the electoral process was a reasonable response.

Quote
Quote
I don't care if he said he wanted to grab a woman by the pussy once upon a time.

Of course you don't.  You have often underplayed how serious a crime rape is.  I sincerely hope you aren't projecting.
That would be sexual assault. Not rape. Why do you always exaggerate?

You minimize rape, you probably think sexual assault is deserved. You do it using the most pathetic rationalizations too. No wonder you approve of the Taliban.

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 31, 2021, 04:47:12 PM
President Joe Biden called a black man "boy".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rchgYSS2OjU&ab_channel=BidenGaffes
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on August 31, 2021, 04:51:13 PM
President Joe Biden called a black man "boy".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rchgYSS2OjU&ab_channel=BidenGaffes

Tom “I hate race-baiting” Bishop, thanks so much for this.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on August 31, 2021, 06:46:19 PM
boy oh boy, Biden has hit dementia overload. Where's my mommy? My diaper is dirty....

Give it to the tards that voted for this clown and stole the election for him.

Not my Pres....
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: WTF_Seriously on August 31, 2021, 07:00:53 PM
Not my Pres....

Here are the ways Joe B. is not your Pres:
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on August 31, 2021, 07:03:11 PM
Not my Pres....

Here are the ways Joe B. is not your Pres:
1. You are not American.
[End of list]
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 31, 2021, 07:08:20 PM
What an absolute disgrace.

(https://i.imgur.com/Dk3RqqX.jpg)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on August 31, 2021, 07:23:00 PM
What an absolute disgrace.

You will be ok.  You tolerated Trump doing similar things.  We all know it doesn't actually bother you.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on August 31, 2021, 07:46:39 PM
boy oh boy, Biden has hit dementia overload. Where's my mommy? My diaper is dirty....

Give it to the tards that voted for this clown and stole the election for him.

Not my Pres....

Ahhh.  Its nice to see you taking a page from liberals.
Remember when libs said trump was "not my president"?
Good times.



What an absolute disgrace.

Out of context caption:

"Man looks at watch.  Is considered a discrace by half the country "
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on August 31, 2021, 10:06:46 PM
Biden was not checking his watch during the ceremony, and the video proves it:

https://twitter.com/BadFoxGraphics/status/1432739674179657743

Another lie from right-wing media.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 31, 2021, 11:12:18 PM
Do you have video of the entire event? It is claimed by multiple people that he checked his watch multiple times.

https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1432528786973732868

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2021/08/31/father-of-killed-marine-says-biden-checked-his-watch-as-each-body-came-out-n2595040

Speaking to Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Darin Hoover, father of slain Marine Staff Sgt. Taylor Hoover, claimed the commander in chief looked at his watch 13 times.

“That didn’t happen just once,” he alleged. “That happened on every single one that came out of that airplane. It happened on every single one of them. They would release the salute and he’d look down at his watch. On every last one. All 13—he looked down at his watch.”

Gold star father Mark Schmitz also noticed the frequency with which Biden checked the time.

"I actually leaned into my son's mother's ear and said 'I swear to God, if he checks his watch one more time...' I found it to be the most disrespectful thing I've ever seen,” said the father of slain Marine Lance Corporal Jared Schmitz.

Shana Chappell, mother of slain Marine Lance Cpl. Kareem Mae'Lee Grant Nikoui, also noted in a Facebook post that she witnessed the president check his watch five times. Her Facebook and Instagram accounts have since been suspended.


Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on August 31, 2021, 11:23:20 PM
DISHONOR!

GOLD STAR FATHER EYE FUCKS PRESIDENT INSTEAD OF HONORING THE FALLEN!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on August 31, 2021, 11:38:35 PM
https://www.tiktok.com/@mrcoolpops/video/7001527216425241861?is_copy_url=0&is_from_webapp=v1&sender_device=pc&sender_web_id=7002742046610146822

Hilarious ...and true...sloppy Joe
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on September 01, 2021, 12:08:09 AM
That this is what Joe's being criticized for right now is just embarrassing for you guys.  ::)

Did he cough too? I don't think it truly reaches the level of scandal unless there's also footage of him coughing.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2021, 12:24:58 AM
Jen Psaki was asked about Biden checking his watch multiple times and she didn't even deny it.

https://redstate.com/sister-toldjah/2021/08/31/its-what-jen-psaki-didnt-say-when-asked-about-biden-looking-at-his-watch-that-people-should-notice-2-n436179

Quote
It’s What Jen Psaki *Didn’t* Say When Asked About Biden Looking at His Watch That People Should Notice

...

White House press secretary Jen Psaki was asked about the issue during today’s press briefing by Fox News reporter Jacqui Heinrich. Here’s how the exchange went down:

Heinrich: “Some of the Gold Star families have criticized the president’s conduct at the dignified transfer. There was a father of one Marine who said the president shouldn’t be checking his watch every time a flag-draped transport case came out of the plane. And a sister of another Marine said that it felt like a fake and scripted apology. Was the President looking at his watch and does he have a message to those people who felt that they were offended?”

Psaki: “Well, I would say his message to all of the family members who were there, those who were not even in attendance, is that he is grateful to their sons and daughters, the sacrifice they made to the country. That he knows firsthand what it’s like to lose a child and the fact no one can tell you anything or say anything, or there’s no words that are going to fill that hole that is left by that.

He’s not going to speak to and I’m not going to speak to the private conversations. Of course, they have the right to convey whatever they would like. But I will tell you, from spending a lot of time with him over the past couple of days, that he was deeply impacted by these family members who he met just two days ago. That he talks about them frequently in meetings and the incredible service and sacrifice of their sons and daughters. That is not going to change their suffering, but I wanted to convey that still.”

Watch:

https://twitter.com/NickFondacaro/status/1432805965955534850?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1432805965955534850%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fsister-toldjah%2F2021%2F08%2F31%2Fits-what-jen-psaki-didnt-say-when-asked-about-biden-looking-at-his-watch-that-people-should-notice-2-n436179

What wasn’t said in the clip? Firstly, there was no denial, no attempt at spinning it into him looking at something else or doing something else rather than checking his watch.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, there was no apology, no expression of regret, nothing.

If you’re not going to deny it, you should at the very least apologize for it. That didn’t happen today, as an apology did not come from Biden nor did it come from Psaki.

As I’ve often said, sometimes it’s what they *don’t* tell you that speaks volumes.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on September 01, 2021, 02:03:49 AM
So now that a Democrat is in the oval office, Republicans are back to caring about how we/the president treat(s) the families of fallen soldiers?

I'm just trying to get a sense of where the goal posts sit before I decide if this is worth jumping into or not
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Clyde Frog on September 01, 2021, 03:20:03 AM
So now that a Democrat is in the oval office, Republicans are back to caring about how we/the president treat(s) the families of fallen soldiers?

I'm just trying to get a sense of where the goal posts sit before I decide if this is worth jumping into or not
There's a yet-to-be-defined differential equation and then an if(biden && trump){thenThing1} elseif(biden && !trump){thenThisOtherThing} elseif(trump && !biden){doThisThingInsteadOfTheOtherThings} else{print("Biden BAD OK?")} waterfall of outcomes to determine the level of disgust and why it should be directed at Biden. The differential equation is an absolute value, so it's always positive.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on September 01, 2021, 04:11:10 AM
It is claimed by multiple people that he checked his watch multiple times.

By grief-stricken parents whom by their own admission were already angry at Biden, and I suspect were also "primed" by the right-wing ghouls eager to turn this into a scandal:

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/570128-father-of-marine-killed-in-kabul-blast-says-meeting-with-biden

I'm sorry for their losses, but I don't find their accounts particularly credible. They came to the event ready to lash out at Biden, and that's what was bound to happen no matter what he did or didn't do. It's far more likely that Biden looked at his watch once or twice during the ceremony, and then Darin Hoover unconsciously embellished that into a hyperbolic story of Biden looking at his watch all the time, like with every single casket.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki was asked about the issue during today’s press briefing by Fox News reporter Jacqui Heinrich. Here’s how the exchange went down:

Heinrich: “Some of the Gold Star families have criticized the president’s conduct at the dignified transfer. There was a father of one Marine who said the president shouldn’t be checking his watch every time a flag-draped transport case came out of the plane. And a sister of another Marine said that it felt like a fake and scripted apology. Was the President looking at his watch and does he have a message to those people who felt that they were offended?”

Psaki: “Well, I would say his message to all of the family members who were there, those who were not even in attendance, is that he is grateful to their sons and daughters, the sacrifice they made to the country. That he knows firsthand what it’s like to lose a child and the fact no one can tell you anything or say anything, or there’s no words that are going to fill that hole that is left by that.

He’s not going to speak to and I’m not going to speak to the private conversations. Of course, they have the right to convey whatever they would like. But I will tell you, from spending a lot of time with him over the past couple of days, that he was deeply impacted by these family members who he met just two days ago. That he talks about them frequently in meetings and the incredible service and sacrifice of their sons and daughters. That is not going to change their suffering, but I wanted to convey that still.”

What wasn’t said in the clip? Firstly, there was no denial, no attempt at spinning it into him looking at something else or doing something else rather than checking his watch.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, there was no apology, no expression of regret, nothing.

If you’re not going to deny it, you should at the very least apologize for it. That didn’t happen today, as an apology did not come from Biden nor did it come from Psaki.

As I’ve often said, sometimes it’s what they *don’t* tell you that speaks volumes.

If Heinrich really wanted a firm yes/no answer about the watch, then she should asked that and just that. The second half of her question renders the first part of it essentially moot, because there's no way to address the watch without sounding like you're downplaying the feelings of the surviving family members. Just imagine Psaki trying to say, "First of all, the President was not looking at his watch. Second of all, his message to all of the family members who were there..." She'd be lambasted for that, and rightfully so. Heinrich's question forced Psaki to choose between talking about the watch or talking about the families, and I think it was intended to do so.

And of course Psaki wasn't going to legitimize a manufactroversy by apologizing for it, thereby essentially admitting that the criticism being aimed at Biden was totally valid and legitimate. It would be like Obama apologizing for the time he hurt Repubicans' feelings by wearing a tan suit. An apology isn't simply an act of courtesy in politics, it's an admission of guilt, and that's why you see them so rarely. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but it is, and until such time as that changes, it's disingenuous to attack a politician for doing what virtually any politician in the world would have done in that scenario - thread the needle of offering sympathy and comfort to the families without agreeing with their complaints about Biden.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on September 01, 2021, 05:26:57 AM
If he did it every time, did anyone think he was just bowing his head in respect and his arm was just angled the way it was/the view of family?  Even a bored person wouldn't check after every casket.  That seems too... Ritualistic.  Like he was doing something because of the casket(ie. Bowing his head), not as a result of boredom.

I mean, we have no photos of all 13 times. (Tom?)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2021, 02:52:23 AM
So now that a Democrat is in the oval office, Republicans are back to caring about how we/the president treat(s) the families of fallen soldiers?

Are you certain that's it's all the Republicans' fault in this and that Biden isn't a disrespectful buffoon?

From a 2016 incident - https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/good-thing-that-he-was-surrounded-by-secret-service-joe-biden-angered-gold-star-parents-days-after-son-died

(https://i.imgur.com/nSVPzun.jpg)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on September 02, 2021, 03:37:58 AM
So now that a Democrat is in the oval office, Republicans are back to caring about how we/the president treat(s) the families of fallen soldiers?

Are you certain that's it's all the Republicans' fault in this and that Biden isn't a disrespectful buffoon?

Nope, not what was asked. Let's try that again:

So now that a Democrat is in the oval office, Republicans are back to caring about how we/the president treat(s) the families of fallen soldiers?

Do you have a response to what Iceman actually asked? Not to the strawman in your head, but to the actual quote, right there in front of you. If it helps, I'll rephrase - why is it, after four years of turning a blind eye to the apathy and contempt regularly showed by the president towards veterans, fallen soldiers, and the families of fallen soldiers, that Republicans (and by extension, you) are now suddenly sticklers for showing the proper respect towards these people?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2021, 06:10:53 AM
Wow. It appears that you are saying "so what," admitting that Joe Biden is disrespectful, and deflecting that the problem is actually with other people. Can't you liberals ever own up to your faults?

I don't see how any past bad action which any person of any particular group may or may not have done has any bearing on Biden disrespecting the families of dead soldiers. Two wrongs don't make a right. Why should Joe Biden be compared to any other person for his actions? Just because Adolf Hitler did some despicable things doesn't give Biden a pass on any despicable thing he does.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on September 02, 2021, 09:22:02 AM
Wow. It appears that you are saying "so what," admitting that Joe Biden is disrespectful, and deflecting that the problem is actually with other people. Can't you liberals ever own up to your faults?

I don't see how any past bad action which any person of any particular group may or may not have done has any bearing on Biden disrespecting the families of dead soldiers. Two wrongs don't make a right. Why should Joe Biden be compared to any other person for his actions? Just because Adolf Hitler did some despicable things doesn't give Biden a pass on any despicable thing he does.

See how he dances around the question, refusing to actually answer it? I read recently that it's often what they won't say that's more important than what they will say. If you're not going to deny it you should at least apologize for it, this person said.

Tom, just admit that you're being a hypocrite. It's okay, take a look at my sig, you should be used to it by now.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: garygreen on September 02, 2021, 02:28:21 PM
the gop: putting a piece of cloth in front of my face is an unconstitutional violation of my inalienable human right to FREEDOM!!! how DARE you!!!

also the gop: you are required to allow another human being to live inside you no matter what.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2021, 02:40:33 PM
Also the gop: Off topic to this thread

I understand why you guys want to talk about someone else's possible bad actions when confronted with Joe Biden's abhorent behavior, but Joe Biden's actions remain bad independent of any bad thing anyone else may or may not have done at any time in the past. If you want to talk about the gop and abortion I would suggest making a thread about it.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on September 02, 2021, 04:18:49 PM
I'm still waiting to hear why Republicans are hypocrits and how you justify it.  Should I make a thread about that too?  Or are you gonna dance around that one too?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on September 02, 2021, 04:55:45 PM
Also the gop: Off topic to this thread

I understand why you guys want to talk about someone else's possible bad actions when confronted with Joe Biden's abhorent behavior, but Joe Biden's actions remain bad independently of any bad thing anyone else may or may not have done at any time in the past. If you want to talk about the gop and abortion I would suggest making a thread about it.

There isn’t much to say. Maybe it happened, maybe not. What we know for sure is that you don’t actually care, otherwise you would have called out Trump’s abhorrent behaviour. Troll harder, son.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on September 02, 2021, 05:27:47 PM
I understand why you guys want to talk about someone else's possible bad actions when confronted with Joe Biden's abhorent behavior
People are actually talking about your hypocrisy. Keep up.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2021, 06:33:37 PM
I'm still waiting to hear why Republicans are hypocrits and how you justify it.  Should I make a thread about that too?  Or are you gonna dance around that one too?

Well yes, if you want to start talking about bad things Republicans may or may not have done in the past I would suggest taking it to another thread on that topic. Why start ranting about bad things someone other than the subject of this thread may have done in here? This isn't the Republicans thread. We don't need rants about "Abortion!" and "Muh Trump!" in here, or to be educated on the bad things you think Republicans may have done in the past.
 
This thread is about Joe Biden.

Joe Biden bad.

I understand why you guys want to talk about someone else's possible bad actions when confronted with Joe Biden's abhorent behavior
People are actually talking about your hypocrisy. Keep up.

Also defined as someone else. And also, not on the topic of Joe Biden.

It is pretty weird that you guys can't simply accept the fault and need to try to talk about the possible bad things other people may have done. Other people are not Joe Biden.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on September 02, 2021, 07:12:55 PM
See, he knows he's being a hypocrite, that's why he refuses to address it. Thanks for the entertainment, Tom.  :D
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: garygreen on September 02, 2021, 08:01:13 PM
i didn't realize that this thread was reserved exclusively for saying that biden is bad, but okay.

biden is a do-nothing, waste-of-time president for a do-nothing, waste-of-time party that has nothing but rhetoric to offer anyone. who cares many times he checks his watch.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on September 02, 2021, 08:46:12 PM
It's not off-topic at all to call attention to the fact that the people complaining about Biden's behavior are the exact same ones who ignored, shrugged off, or even supported similar antics from Trump. Standards for what is or isn't acceptable behavior are set by people, not ordained from on high, and so it's perfectly valid to question who it is that's setting the standards and what their criteria are.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on October 02, 2021, 11:36:59 PM
Mr. Popular!
https://youtu.be/XAR8vv6YXI4
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on October 03, 2021, 04:53:26 PM
No. They're saying booiden!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on October 08, 2021, 05:04:47 AM
Remember the green screen presser outside? They are now just building sets. Joe Biden is not running the country.
https://youtu.be/vPMwlAafca4
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on October 08, 2021, 06:23:49 AM
Remember the green screen presser outside? They are now just building sets. Joe Biden is not running the country.

Yeah, I remember...

(https://i.imgur.com/hkUy04t.png)

(https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2021/03/captain-disiluusion.jpg)

And comedians making cracks about the Biden booster shot theatrics, definitely funny. Kind of a leap to say he's not running the country based upon comedy. Basically an odd illogical non sequitur on your part.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on October 08, 2021, 07:16:06 AM
Remember the green screen presser outside? They are now just building sets. Joe Biden is not running the country.

Yeah, I remember...

(https://i.imgur.com/hkUy04t.png)

(https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2021/03/captain-disiluusion.jpg)

And comedians making cracks about the Biden booster shot theatrics, definitely funny. Kind of a leap to say he's not running the country based upon comedy. Basically an odd illogical non sequitur on your part.
So, according to you, Joe demanded the set to be built for the photo op.

LMMFAO!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Shifter on October 08, 2021, 07:34:16 AM
Those 2 pictures are clearly at different timestamps

Dumb
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on October 08, 2021, 09:58:55 AM
Remember the green screen presser outside? They are now just building sets.
Literally no idea what point you think you're making here.
Are you claiming they were trying to be deceptive? Pretty dumb to invite the press if so.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on October 08, 2021, 10:18:32 AM
Remember the green screen presser outside? They are now just building sets.
Literally no idea what point you think you're making here.
Are you claiming they were trying to be deceptive? Pretty dumb to invite the press if so.
Did they show the area to be a set on TV when broadcasting the "booster shot?"

What do you think staged sets are for?

I am sure you have no idea as usual, but I think you would have been catching up somewhat in the past few years.

There is still hope.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on October 08, 2021, 10:20:55 AM
You seriously think that the fact he's not actually having the booster in the White House (if that's what that is supposed to be) is a real zinger?

OK, dude...
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on October 08, 2021, 10:26:19 AM
You seriously think that the fact he's not actually having the booster in the White House (if that's what that is supposed to be) is a real zinger?

OK, dude...
The question is simple.

Why the set?

How on earth would you possibly know that isn't the White House?

Why wouldn't he get the booster in the White House?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on October 08, 2021, 10:44:13 AM
Why wouldn't he get the booster in the White House?
You think the people who do boosters go door to door?
I guess the set is for show, but I don't think the point of this was that he was doing it at the White House or wherever that's meant to be, but that he was having it at all - the point being to encourage others to.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on October 08, 2021, 11:17:25 AM
Why wouldn't he get the booster in the White House?
You think the people who do boosters go door to door?
I guess the set is for show, but I don't think the point of this was that he was doing it at the White House or wherever that's meant to be, but that he was having it at all - the point being to encourage others to.
Holy shit.

I think the White House has its very own team of doctors at the freaking residence (WHMU), no need for door to door.

Like you wrote.

YOU HAVE NO IDEA.

Jesus, the fact you think setting up fake scenery is somehow encouraging people to get this shot would be downright hilarious if it wasn't such a pitiable, overall commentary of the type mental framework you must have in seeking to justify what took place here.

Joe's "the man!," right? "NO NONSENSE!," right?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on October 08, 2021, 12:32:00 PM
Jesus, the fact you think setting up fake scenery is somehow encouraging people to get this shot

I don't think that. I think the fact of him having the shot could encourage people to.
The set was just window dressing, it's completely irrelevant. And it's not the first time it's been used

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/10/05/fact-check-white-house-didnt-fake-bidens-covid-19-booster-shot/5951822001/

What's your actual point here?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on October 08, 2021, 12:41:22 PM
Sets are used when you want better control over lighting and sound, or perhaps if some other important task was closer to the set location. But yeah, who knows what his point is. He won’t clearly state it, but instead use it as a dog whistle for those who share his views.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on October 08, 2021, 12:47:23 PM
Let's remember he's just a puppet. He's only repeating what others tell him to. You can't always (or usually) expect him to present a coherent argument; it's likely he doesn't understand the point his puppetmasters are trying to make any more than we do.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on October 08, 2021, 01:41:48 PM
Transparency is a good thing, right?

What happened to that point?

You three obviously give less than two combined shits about "truth in advertising" when it comes to the messaging about your beloved vaccine.

Pathetic stance by all of you, and par for the course.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on October 08, 2021, 01:53:13 PM
Transparency is a good thing, right?

What happened to that point?

You three obviously give less than two combined shits about "truth in advertising" when it comes to the messaging about your beloved vaccine.

Pathetic stance by all of you, and par for the course.

An advertisement about vaccine boosters would need to make a misleading claim about vaccine boosters for it to concern me.  Being filmed on a set is not being misleading about vaccine boosters.  This is so silly.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on October 08, 2021, 05:54:18 PM
Transparency is a good thing, right?

What happened to that point?

You three obviously give less than two combined shits about "truth in advertising" when it comes to the messaging about your beloved vaccine.

Pathetic stance by all of you, and par for the course.

An advertisement about vaccine boosters would need to make a misleading claim about vaccine boosters for it to concern me.  Being filmed on a set is not being misleading about vaccine boosters.  This is so silly.

Its ironic, given how much makup and set dressing Trump does.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on October 08, 2021, 06:31:40 PM
Transparency is a good thing, right?

What happened to that point?

You three obviously give less than two combined shits about "truth in advertising" when it comes to the messaging about your beloved vaccine.

Pathetic stance by all of you, and par for the course.

An advertisement about vaccine boosters would need to make a misleading claim about vaccine boosters for it to concern me.  Being filmed on a set is not being misleading about vaccine boosters.  This is so silly.

Its ironic, given how much makup and set dressing Trump does.
Jesus, this thread is about Joe Biden.

Wtf are you bringing up another lifelong democrat?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on October 08, 2021, 06:37:25 PM
Transparency is a good thing, right?

What happened to that point?

You three obviously give less than two combined shits about "truth in advertising" when it comes to the messaging about your beloved vaccine.

Pathetic stance by all of you, and par for the course.

An advertisement about vaccine boosters would need to make a misleading claim about vaccine boosters for it to concern me.  Being filmed on a set is not being misleading about vaccine boosters.  This is so silly.
Oh, so the stated purpose of "LET US PITCH THE EFFICACY AND NECESSITY of getting these shots (that is all they are, after all. Note, they do not even market the flu vaccine as a vaccine anymore, it is marketed as a shot) by doing it in front of a camera!" isn't misleading if it isn't done where they claim it is being done.

That all explains why you are such a fervent believer in the science fiction of space flight.

If you are so gullible as to believe you live on some blue marble floating around space, you'll believe any fucking lie told by the proven liars.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on October 08, 2021, 06:41:27 PM
Transparency is a good thing, right?

What happened to that point?

You three obviously give less than two combined shits about "truth in advertising" when it comes to the messaging about your beloved vaccine.

Pathetic stance by all of you, and par for the course.

An advertisement about vaccine boosters would need to make a misleading claim about vaccine boosters for it to concern me.  Being filmed on a set is not being misleading about vaccine boosters.  This is so silly.
Oh, so the stated purpose of "LET US PITCH THE EFFICACY AND NECESSITY of getting these shots (that is all they are, after all. Note, they do not even market the flu vaccine as a vaccine anymore, it is marketed as a shot) by doing it in front of a camera!" isn't misleading if it isn't done where they claim it is being done.

Of course it isn’t. Why would it be?

Note, they probably started marketing it as “a shot” because a percentage of smooth brained anti-vaxxers might be fooled in to getting the jab.

Quote
That all explains why you are such a fervent believer in the science fiction of space flight.

If you are so gullible as to believe you live on some blue marble floating around space, you'll believe any fucking lie told by the proven liars.

K. Bet you can’t demonstrate a necessary causal link between filming on a set and “they are lying about the vaccine”. 
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on October 08, 2021, 07:20:56 PM
Note, they do not even market the flu vaccine as a vaccine anymore, it is marketed as a shot)

I wonder why Sildenafil Citrate is marketed under the name Viagra?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on October 08, 2021, 08:08:55 PM
Transparency is a good thing, right?

What happened to that point?

You three obviously give less than two combined shits about "truth in advertising" when it comes to the messaging about your beloved vaccine.

Pathetic stance by all of you, and par for the course.

An advertisement about vaccine boosters would need to make a misleading claim about vaccine boosters for it to concern me.  Being filmed on a set is not being misleading about vaccine boosters.  This is so silly.
Oh, so the stated purpose of "LET US PITCH THE EFFICACY AND NECESSITY of getting these shots (that is all they are, after all. Note, they do not even market the flu vaccine as a vaccine anymore, it is marketed as a shot) by doing it in front of a camera!" isn't misleading if it isn't done where they claim it is being done.

Of course it isn’t. Why would it be?

Note, they probably started marketing it as “a shot” because a percentage of smooth brained anti-vaxxers might be fooled in to getting the jab.

Quote
That all explains why you are such a fervent believer in the science fiction of space flight.

If you are so gullible as to believe you live on some blue marble floating around space, you'll believe any fucking lie told by the proven liars.

K. Bet you can’t demonstrate a necessary causal link between filming on a set and “they are lying about the vaccine”.
What part of honest messaging escapes you?

Keep up your dishonest strawman.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on October 08, 2021, 08:49:29 PM
In your world, Geico is lying about insurance because Gecko’s can’t really talk. Lol
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on October 08, 2021, 11:26:33 PM
In your world, Geico is lying about insurance because Gecko’s can’t really talk. Lol

Seriously, lackey has said some out there things but this...
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 16, 2021, 11:22:07 PM
How is Joe Biden's presidency going so far?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otOlZgzPVLQ&ab_channel=AwakenWithJP
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Shifter on October 17, 2021, 01:28:50 AM
Nice. A satire channel. You seen his videos about Trump?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 24, 2021, 11:59:57 AM
https://twitter.com/wretchardthecat/status/1451990457605443584

Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20211023040201/https://www.thedailybeast.com/joe-biden-smells-like-more-of-a-loser-every-day
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on October 24, 2021, 12:40:37 PM
I like how all Tom can do is post the same thing we've been saying about Trump for 4 years.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on November 19, 2021, 05:28:28 PM
President Harris!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59352170
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on November 19, 2021, 06:14:30 PM
President Harris!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59352170

I'm guessing during those 85 minutes, American plunged into a dark choas from which not even satan himself would dare set foot in.

I mean, if all those republicans are to be believed.  Right?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on November 19, 2021, 08:07:20 PM
All hail our socialist antifa overlord, Comrade Harris
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: WTF_Seriously on November 19, 2021, 08:20:47 PM
Unless the 2024 democratic ticket is devoid of both Biden and Harris it's likely we're in for another 4 years of the Donald.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on November 19, 2021, 08:50:01 PM
Unless the 2024 democratic ticket is devoid of both Biden and Harris it's likely we're in for another 4 years of the Donald.

There is a virtually 0% chance that Trump wins ever again.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on November 19, 2021, 09:12:20 PM
Unless the 2024 democratic ticket is devoid of both Biden and Harris it's likely we're in for another 4 years of the Donald.

Kamala Harris has a lower approval rating than Biden.

Unless the 2024 democratic ticket is devoid of both Biden and Harris it's likely we're in for another 4 years of the Donald.

There is a virtually 0% chance that Trump wins ever again.

Ron De Santis will make sure, one way or another.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on November 19, 2021, 09:58:32 PM
Unless the 2024 democratic ticket is devoid of both Biden and Harris it's likely we're in for another 4 years of the Donald.

There is a virtually 0% chance that Trump wins ever again.

What makes you think that? The Republican nomination for 2024 is his if he wants it, and if he runs again, I'd say he has a very good chance of winning.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on November 19, 2021, 10:36:59 PM
I’m not convinced the GOP establishment wants him but I am also not convinced they are willing to do what the Dems did to Bernie.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: WTF_Seriously on November 19, 2021, 11:09:28 PM
I’m not convinced the GOP establishment wants him but I am also not convinced they are willing to do what the Dems did to Bernie.

Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney are two of the few in the GOP with any balls left.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on November 19, 2021, 11:51:48 PM
What makes you think that? The Republican nomination for 2024 is his if he wants it, and if he runs again, I'd say he has a very good chance of winning.

If Joe Biden can defeat you in an election and turn Georgia blue, you have lost now and forever again.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on November 19, 2021, 11:55:38 PM
I’m not convinced the GOP establishment wants him but I am also not convinced they are willing to do what the Dems did to Bernie.

Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney are two of the few in the GOP with any balls left.

Mitch McConnell has balls. He just doesn’t believe in anything other than screwing over the Dems.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on November 20, 2021, 05:57:55 AM
Trump will run again if he thinks it'll be more profitable.
There is a VERY good reason he hasn't made himself a candidate yet.
(In 2016 he did it the day of his inauration)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Shifter on November 20, 2021, 06:02:59 AM
Trump will run again if he thinks it'll be more profitable.
There is a VERY good reason he hasn't made himself a candidate yet.
(In 2016 he did it the day of his inauration)

He will run again because he can make money from all the suckers he spams emails for donations with. He's otherwise broke and I imagine in the business and banking world, his name is pariah. So if he's not stirring outrage, he has no money coming in.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on November 20, 2021, 06:07:59 AM
Trump will run again if he thinks it'll be more profitable.
There is a VERY good reason he hasn't made himself a candidate yet.
(In 2016 he did it the day of his inauration)

He will run again because he can make money from all the suckers he spams emails for donations with. He's otherwise broke and I imagine in the business and banking world, his name is pariah. So if he's not stirring outrage, he has no money coming in.

He's getting in tons of donations that are not part of a reelection campaign.  Which has rules on how it can be spent.  Private donations from suckers for random email spam reasons... Less so.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on November 20, 2021, 09:27:57 AM
Unless the 2024 democratic ticket is devoid of both Biden and Harris it's likely we're in for another 4 years of the Donald.

There is a virtually 0% chance that Trump wins ever again.

This sounds reassuring but I must disagree.  I can easily see a lot of scenarios where Trump would win again.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Kangaroony on December 10, 2021, 05:17:01 PM
There is a virtually 0% chance that Trump wins ever again.

Maybe not.  In the US it's possible to run as a POTUS candidate from within jail.

(https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/trump-jail.jpg)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Dr David Thork on December 10, 2021, 10:37:11 PM
Unless the 2024 democratic ticket is devoid of both Biden and Harris it's likely we're in for another 4 years of the Donald.

There is a virtually 0% chance that Trump wins ever again.

What makes you think that? The Republican nomination for 2024 is his if he wants it, and if he runs again, I'd say he has a very good chance of winning.
I think people will be utterly sick of Sleepy Joe by then. If its vs Biden, I think Trump will win. If its against Harris, you know that black people will block vote and she'll win it. All 3 are a shitty choice. I think Ted Cruz would be a better choice for Republicans. I don't give a fuck about the dems. They are all wankers.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on December 10, 2021, 10:46:34 PM
Ted Cruz is vapid at best and an authoritarian at worst. He also has only been a sycophant to leadership, never a leader himself.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on December 11, 2021, 08:17:28 AM
I miss Paul Ryan.
At least he had integrity.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on December 11, 2021, 07:44:13 PM
I miss Paul Ryan.
At least he had integrity.
LOL! Define integrity please, as I don't think you actually know what the word means.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on December 11, 2021, 07:54:46 PM
I miss Paul Ryan.
At least he had integrity.
LOL! Define integrity please, as I don't think you actually know what the word means.
You hold principals that are for the betterment of your society and do not change your views based on personal hardship or reward but rather new evidence or understanding.

An example of a lack of integrity: Thinking North Korea's ruler is evil until they send you a big card with nice words on it, then saying they are such a great leader.

An example of great integrity: Stepping down as house speaker when your party has decided to use fear mongering, which you are against.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on December 11, 2021, 11:44:03 PM
Oh, please. Ryan retired from politics because he didn't want to risk tarnishing his career by either associating too closely with Trump or making an enemy of him. Like any good Objectivist, Ryan's first priority was his own bottom line, and that's why he figured he'd be better off avoiding controversy altogether and enriching himself in the private sector instead.

And if I sound too scornful, I should stress that that's fine. If private companies think it's a good use of their money to offer Ryan a huge salary in exchange for the honor of officially listing him as a member of their board of directors, more power to him for the easy gig. But it wasn't an act of courage or integrity to retire from politics and quietly farm out his name to the highest bidder. It was an act of pure self-interest.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: juner on December 12, 2021, 05:46:03 AM
I think Ted Cruz would be a better choice for Republicans.

but ted cruz is fat and has a beard
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on December 12, 2021, 07:36:22 AM
I miss Paul Ryan.
At least he had integrity.
LOL! Define integrity please, as I don't think you actually know what the word means.
You hold principals that are for the betterment of your society and do not change your views based on personal hardship or reward but rather new evidence or understanding.

An example of a lack of integrity: Thinking North Korea's ruler is evil until they send you a big card with nice words on it, then saying they are such a great leader.

An example of great integrity: Stepping down as house speaker when your party has decided to use fear mongering, which you are against.
Oh yes, Paul Ryan, the anti-fear mongering guy who pushed for our continued war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sorry, I must've overlooked his decided push to bring our troops home.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on December 12, 2021, 09:11:17 AM
Oh, please. Ryan retired from politics because he didn't want to risk tarnishing his career by either associating too closely with Trump or making an enemy of him. Like any good Objectivist, Ryan's first priority was his own bottom line, and that's why he figured he'd be better off avoiding controversy altogether and enriching himself in the private sector instead.

And if I sound too scornful, I should stress that that's fine. If private companies think it's a good use of their money to offer Ryan a huge salary in exchange for the honor of officially listing him as a member of their board of directors, more power to him for the easy gig. But it wasn't an act of courage or integrity to retire from politics and quietly farm out his name to the highest bidder. It was an act of pure self-interest.

Huh.  Didn't know he went with some easy board gig.  Didn't know what he did.
All I remember is that he didn't sling mud.  He fought and argued, but was never one for petty insults or fear mongering.

Maybe I just have rose tinted glasses.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Kangaroony on December 13, 2021, 05:48:32 AM

Former President Donald Trump ended his presidency more unpopular than any of the last 12 presidents at
the end of their first terms and he is still unpopular post-presidency according to FiveThirtyEight’s new average
of Trump’s favourability numbers. Currently, 41.4% of Americans have a favourable opinion of Trump, while
53% have an unfavourable opinion of him.

A November poll from Suffolk University reports that 11% say they would vote for a third-party candidate, which
is a worry for both the Republicans and the Democrats, as swinging voters often confound the pre-election polls.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on December 13, 2021, 06:09:05 PM

Former President Donald Trump ended his presidency more unpopular than any of the last 12 presidents at
the end of their first terms and he is still unpopular post-presidency according to FiveThirtyEight’s new average
of Trump’s favourability numbers. Currently, 41.4% of Americans have a favourable opinion of Trump, while
53% have an unfavourable opinion of him.

A November poll from Suffolk University reports that 11% say they would vote for a third-party candidate, which
is a worry for both the Republicans and the Democrats, as swinging voters often confound the pre-election polls.

Wouldn't this post be more at home in the Donald Trump thread? Or were you hoping for someone to point out to you how sharply Biden's own popularity has slid since he became president?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/

Numbers don't look too different tbh
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on December 13, 2021, 06:32:55 PM
And that's why Trump has an excellent chance of winning in 2024. Too many voters will just focus on how bad things are now and forget how much worse they were under Trump. Biden's only real hope of winning is if he actually manages to more or less wrap up the whole covid situation - something that seems astonishingly unlikely at this stage.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: juner on December 13, 2021, 06:34:06 PM
Too many voters will just focus on how bad things are now and forget how much worse they were under Trump.

Were things worse under Trump?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on December 13, 2021, 07:25:32 PM
Too many voters will just focus on how bad things are now and forget how much worse they were under Trump.

Were things worse under Trump?

Depends upon who you ask.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on December 13, 2021, 07:29:05 PM
Too many voters will just focus on how bad things are now and forget how much worse they were under Trump.

Were things worse under Trump?

Depends upon who you ask.

We also had staff members using distractions, outright lies, or just waiting til he forgot to ensure America didn't implode.
I suspect Trump was running less of the country than Regan did in his last year.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2021, 01:22:06 AM
https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1471635387550519298?s=20

Good question.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on December 17, 2021, 04:50:48 AM
https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1471635387550519298?s=20

Good question.

It is! Because obviously the only people these people ever come into contact with are other players, duh!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on December 17, 2021, 04:54:22 AM
Perhaps waning vaccine efficacy, waning prior infection antibody efficacy, Delta/Omnicron, loosened protocols, a less than optimal vax rate among the general population, Thanksgiving.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on December 17, 2021, 06:15:20 AM
That's not the question to ask.
As we all know, the vaccine doesn't prevent you from catching covid, it just makes it quicker to end and much milder symptoms. 

The question is... Of these players, how many had to be hospitalized?  How many died?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on December 18, 2021, 02:37:09 PM
That's not the question to ask.
As we all know, the vaccine doesn't prevent you from catching covid, it just makes it quicker to end and much milder symptoms. 

The question is... Of these players, how many had to be hospitalized?  How many died?
Right.
I don’t understand the obsession with “cases”. The relevant metric is surely how many people are ending up in hospital or dying. Cases are through the roof in the UK but so far that hasn’t translated in to hospitalisations or deaths. There is a lag though do that may follow. Hopefully with the vaccines and boosters it won’t.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on December 18, 2021, 05:35:38 PM
That's not the question to ask.
As we all know, the vaccine doesn't prevent you from catching covid, it just makes it quicker to end and much milder symptoms. 

The question is... Of these players, how many had to be hospitalized?  How many died?
Right.
I don’t understand the obsession with “cases”. The relevant metric is surely how many people are ending up in hospital or dying. Cases are through the roof in the UK but so far that hasn’t translated in to hospitalisations or deaths. There is a lag though do that may follow. Hopefully with the vaccines and boosters it won’t.

Both metrics are relevant. If you have 1,000 cases with a 5% hospitalization rate it’s the same as 5,000 cases with a 1% hospitalization rate.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: garygreen on December 18, 2021, 06:20:22 PM
silly tweet

if you have to lie to make your point, maybe it isn't a very good one.

https://www.si.com/nfl/packers/news/packers-are-healthy-while-covid-rate-soars-across-nfl

Quote
After relatively smooth sailing through training camps in August and the first three months of the season, 106 players have tested positive the past three days. That’s more than over the previous four weeks combined (87) and not far off the six-week total (121).

there are 53 players on each nfl roster, and there are 32 teams. that's 1696 players total. 106/1696 ≈ 0.06 = 6%.

wow, 6%. so overwhelming. the nfl will probably have to close up shop now. it's such a shame that those players haven't taken some kind of miracle drug that will virtually eliminate their chances of being hospitalized. too bad.

Quote
While COVID vaccines have proven durable in terms of preventing serious illness and death, they have not fared as well in preventing infections. The vast majority of players, coaches and staff members are vaccinated. Many of this wave of infections are breakthrough cases in which the players are asymptomatic.

“Just out of breath going up the stairs but that’s every week. I had nothing, really, which was nice,” Packers tight ends coach Justin Outten, who is back after missing Sunday night’s win vs. Chicago, said on Thursday.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2021, 07:03:01 PM
Actually Biden has repeatedly said that the masses getting vaccinated will end covid.

Your suggestion that the vaccines don't work to provide immunity but may provide a decrease in hospitalizations is irrelevant to Biden being continuously incorrect.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on December 18, 2021, 07:47:43 PM
Actually Biden has repeatedly said that the masses getting vaccinated will end covid.

Your suggestion that the vaccines don't work to provide immunity but may provide a decrease in hospitalizations is irrelevant to Biden being continuously incorrect.

Knowing your track record of cherry picking quotes Id like to see a source. I’d imagine he would have said it was a part of the strategy, not the only element.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on December 18, 2021, 07:50:58 PM
Actually Biden has repeatedly said that the masses getting vaccinated will end covid.

Your point that the vaccines don't work to provide immunity but may provide a decrease in hospitalizations is irrelevant to Biden being continuously incorrect.

US fully vaxxed as of today is 61%. So-called "herd immunity" is somewhere well north of 75% vaxxed. In other words, the "masses" haven't been vaxxed yet. So yeah, the message is get vaxxed. Where's the mystery?

Transmissibility:
Vaccinated people with breakthrough COVID infections had lower viral loads
(https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/vaccinated-workers-shed-less-covid-virus)
UCLA study of 12,000 health workers found infected individuals who were unvaccinated shed more viral particles

Vaccinated health care workers who experienced breakthrough COVID-19 infections during the winter of 2020–21 had lower viral loads than their similarly infected but unvaccinated co-workers, according to a new UCLA study.
“These findings should be reassuring for the general public because lower amounts of virus might translate to decreased transmissibility,” Adamson said. “This is another benefit of the vaccines and yet another reason to get vaccinated against COVID-19.”


Cases/Deaths:

Recent data from Minnesota:

(https://i.imgur.com/gVInCNx.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/juCQz06.png)

Obviously fully vaxxed is preferable.,
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2021, 10:18:17 PM
Actually Biden has repeatedly said that the masses getting vaccinated will end covid.

Your suggestion that the vaccines don't work to provide immunity but may provide a decrease in hospitalizations is irrelevant to Biden being continuously incorrect.

Knowing your track record of cherry picking quotes Id like to see a source. I’d imagine he would have said it was a part of the strategy, not the only element.

He repeatedly says that getting the masses vaccinated will end Covid.

Here is a statement from Dec 3 - https://hannity.com/media-room/going-global-biden-says-america-must-vaccinate-the-world-to-end-covid-in-the-usa/


Here he is claiming that the vaccine provides immunity:

https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1463196939382575118
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2021, 10:33:04 PM
Obviously fully vaxxed is preferable.,

It is possible that your source is massaging the data on vaccinated vs unvaccinated deaths. Other reports indicate that the vaccinated are at greater risk of death.

See this article from New York Times reporter Alex Berenson:

https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/vaccinated-english-adults-under-60

Quote
The brown line represents weekly deaths from all causes of vaccinated people aged 10-59, per 100,000 people.

The blue line represents weekly deaths from all causes of unvaccinated people per 100,000 in the same age range.

(https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1100,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fbdca5329-b20b-4518-a733-fff84cc22124_1098x681.png)

I have checked the underlying dataset myself and this graph is correct. Vaccinated people under 60 are twice as likely to die as unvaccinated people. And overall deaths in Britain are running well above normal.

I don’t know how to explain this other than vaccine-caused mortality.

The basic data is available here, download the Excel file and see table 4:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland

Medicaltrend.org claims that deaths in Taiwan exceed deaths from Covid-19:

https://medicaltrend.org/2021/10/10/taiwan-death-from-covid-19-vaccination-exceeds-death-from-covid-19/

(https://i.imgur.com/nPi0RXG.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: garygreen on December 18, 2021, 11:24:35 PM
you present a plot of all-cause mortality over a 50-year age difference over some time period. the young end of that group is least likely to be vaccinated, and least likely to die of any cause. the old end of the group is most likely to be vaccinated, and most likely to die of any cause.

see if you can connect the rest of the dots on your own. (hint: population-level statistics do not track individual outcomes)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on December 19, 2021, 12:50:39 AM
Actually Biden has repeatedly said that the masses getting vaccinated will end covid.

Your suggestion that the vaccines don't work to provide immunity but may provide a decrease in hospitalizations is irrelevant to Biden being continuously incorrect.

Knowing your track record of cherry picking quotes Id like to see a source. I’d imagine he would have said it was a part of the strategy, not the only element.

He repeatedly says that getting the masses vaccinated will end Covid.

Here is a statement from Dec 3 - https://hannity.com/media-room/going-global-biden-says-america-must-vaccinate-the-world-to-end-covid-in-the-usa/

    President Biden addressed the nation Thursday on new threats posed by COVID’s Omicron-Variant; saying the US must vaccinate the world to ultimately end the Coronavirus pandemic.

    “As we’ve seen with COVID-19 and the delta variant, and now with omicron variant, all that emerged elsewhere. It all came from somewhere else. In order to beat this pandemic, we need to go to where it came from in the rest of the world. We also need to vaccinate the rest of the world.”

Here he is claiming that the vaccine provides immunity:

https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1463196939382575118

So he didn’t say vaccination alone will end the pandemic. That’s what I thought.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 19, 2021, 01:25:04 AM
you present a plot of all-cause mortality over a 50-year age difference over some time period. the young end of that group is least likely to be vaccinated, and least likely to die of any cause. the old end of the group is most likely to be vaccinated, and most likely to die of any cause.

see if you can connect the rest of the dots on your own. (hint: population-level statistics do not track individual outcomes)

Yes, there are flaws in the data related to age, but that is likely done on purpose by the organization to obscure data.

British mathematician Norman Fenton analyzed the ONS data and came to the conclusion that the data being released is inconclusive on whether the vaccine is beneficial or not, suggests manipulation, and has segments in his analysis showing that if the data on the older age groups are corrected it can suggest that the vaccine is harmful.

https://youtu.be/6umArFc-fdc?t=895


The Office for National Statistics originally did not provide age categorized data at all to the public. The age data they did end up releasing, as result of a freedom of information request and prodding, shows a wide age group of 10-59, followed by 60-69, 70-79, and 80 plus. This is the available data. The inaccuracy of the first group is the purposely released data by the government.

When the data from the later age groups are similarly plotted it does suggest that the vaccine is beneficial and results in fewer deaths. However, Dr. Fenton ends up concluding at the end that when the data is corrected it shows that the vaccine is deadly and harmful shortly after taking it and after that there is no significant benefit:

(https://i.imgur.com/xhP2m9s.png)


He concludes:

(https://i.imgur.com/rJjWaEQ.png)

Other topics in the video:

(https://i.imgur.com/4z3Uwn4.png)


Discussing a Pfizer study:

(https://i.imgur.com/wrAFeXI.png)

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on December 19, 2021, 04:53:59 PM


Obviously fully vaxxed is preferable.,
Since you cannot provide a firm definition,  all of your post is irrelevant.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on December 19, 2021, 05:15:13 PM


Obviously fully vaxxed is preferable.,
Since you cannot provide a firm definition,  all of your post is irrelevant.

Firm definition(s) are in the article. Read before posting.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on December 19, 2021, 05:30:38 PM


Obviously fully vaxxed is preferable.,
Since you cannot provide a firm definition,  all of your post is irrelevant.

Firm definition(s) are in the article. Read before posting.
I have been reading.  You have not.

Fully vaccinated definition is as changeable as your diaper you wear.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on December 19, 2021, 05:34:34 PM
The bottom line:

Everyone will catch this "virus."

The people needing hospital treatment and/or dying from this "virus" are due to die in a short time anyway, due to the actual cause of their death, either just being old or the comorbidity causing their death.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on December 19, 2021, 05:51:29 PM
The bottom line:

Everyone will catch this "virus."

The people needing hospital treatment and/or dying from this "virus" are due to die in a short time anyway, due to the actual cause of their death, either just being old or the comorbidity causing their death.

Even if all of that were true, so what?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on December 19, 2021, 06:34:47 PM
The bottom line:

Everyone will catch this "virus."

The people needing hospital treatment and/or dying from this "virus" are due to die in a short time anyway, due to the actual cause of their death, either just being old or the comorbidity causing their death.

Specifically define a "short time".

Causes of death and comorbidities in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82862-5)

"We found that septic shock and multi organ failure was the most common immediate cause of death, often due to suppurative pulmonary infection....Several comorbidities, such as hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and obesity were present in the vast majority of patients. Our findings reveal that causes of death were directly related to COVID-19 in the majority of decedents, while they appear not to be an immediate result of preexisting health conditions and comorbidities."

So people without Covid yet with some comorbidities would die of Septic shock and multi organ failure in a "short time anyway"? I'm surprised people en masse aren't falling over dead left, right, and center even in non-pandemic times.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Shifter on December 19, 2021, 07:45:18 PM
Does Action80 ever get tired of being wrong? I've yet to see him be correct on anything. I get he's a troll but even still, c'mon.....
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on December 19, 2021, 08:38:05 PM
The bottom line:

Everyone will catch this "virus."

The people needing hospital treatment and/or dying from this "virus" are due to die in a short time anyway, due to the actual cause of their death, either just being old or the comorbidity causing their death.

Even if all of that were true, so what? I have no dispute with what was written, so I'll write , "so what," in a fashion evading forum rules.
FTFY
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on December 19, 2021, 08:42:15 PM
The bottom line:

Everyone will catch this "virus."

The people needing hospital treatment and/or dying from this "virus" are due to die in a short time anyway, due to the actual cause of their death, either just being old or the comorbidity causing their death.

Specifically define a "short time".

Causes of death and comorbidities in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82862-5)

"We found that septic shock and multi organ failure was the most common immediate cause of death, often due to suppurative pulmonary infection....Several comorbidities, such as hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and obesity were present in the vast majority of patients. Our findings reveal that causes of death were directly related to COVID-19 in the majority of decedents, while they appear not to be an immediate result of preexisting health conditions and comorbidities."

So people without Covid yet with some comorbidities would die of Septic shock and multi organ failure in a "short time anyway"? I'm surprised people en masse aren't falling over dead left, right, and center even in non-pandemic times.
Wait, aren't you one of the voices crying out:

EXPLAIN THE EXCESS DEATHS!?!? (i.e., people dying en masse)

Seems you're trying to have it both ways.

You're trolling is once exposed as weak and ineffective.

Go lay down in the corner somewhere.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on December 19, 2021, 09:09:04 PM
The bottom line:

Everyone will catch this "virus."

The people needing hospital treatment and/or dying from this "virus" are due to die in a short time anyway, due to the actual cause of their death, either just being old or the comorbidity causing their death.

Specifically define a "short time".

Causes of death and comorbidities in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82862-5)

"We found that septic shock and multi organ failure was the most common immediate cause of death, often due to suppurative pulmonary infection....Several comorbidities, such as hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and obesity were present in the vast majority of patients. Our findings reveal that causes of death were directly related to COVID-19 in the majority of decedents, while they appear not to be an immediate result of preexisting health conditions and comorbidities."

So people without Covid yet with some comorbidities would die of Septic shock and multi organ failure in a "short time anyway"? I'm surprised people en masse aren't falling over dead left, right, and center even in non-pandemic times.
Wait, aren't you one of the voices crying out:

EXPLAIN THE EXCESS DEATHS!?!? (i.e., people dying en masse)

Seems you're trying to have it both ways.

You're trolling is once exposed as weak and ineffective.

Go lay down in the corner somewhere.

I don't even know what you're going on about or what connection you're trying to make. In any case, you're not making any sense.

You can't seem to define what a "short time" is whilst claiming anyone with a comorbidity is going to die soon anyways. A truly bizarre argument. Additionally, it appears people with covid and comorbidities (or not) seem to succumb to septic shock and multiple organ failure. I guess, according to you, since these folks are going to die soon anyway, what's all the bother about. Pretty heartless, even for you.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on December 19, 2021, 09:20:28 PM
This is what confuses me. He seems to arguing that medicine is a waste of time, which seems particularly stupid.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on December 19, 2021, 10:37:32 PM
This is what confuses me. He seems to arguing that medicine is a waste of time, which seems particularly stupid.

Yeah, it's been his go-to argument against COVID regulations for a while now, people die anyway so why try to save them. Maybe being terminally ill has skewed his perspective or something.  :(
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on December 19, 2021, 10:45:11 PM
The bottom line:

Everyone will catch this "virus."

The people needing hospital treatment and/or dying from this "virus" are due to die in a short time anyway, due to the actual cause of their death, either just being old or the comorbidity causing their death.

Specifically define a "short time".

Causes of death and comorbidities in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82862-5)

"We found that septic shock and multi organ failure was the most common immediate cause of death, often due to suppurative pulmonary infection....Several comorbidities, such as hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and obesity were present in the vast majority of patients. Our findings reveal that causes of death were directly related to COVID-19 in the majority of decedents, while they appear not to be an immediate result of preexisting health conditions and comorbidities."

So people without Covid yet with some comorbidities would die of Septic shock and multi organ failure in a "short time anyway"? I'm surprised people en masse aren't falling over dead left, right, and center even in non-pandemic times.
Wait, aren't you one of the voices crying out:

EXPLAIN THE EXCESS DEATHS!?!? (i.e., people dying en masse)

Seems you're trying to have it both ways.

You're trolling is once exposed as weak and ineffective.

Go lay down in the corner somewhere.

I don't even know what you're going on about or what connection you're trying to make. In any case, you're not making any sense.

You can't seem to define what a "short time" is whilst claiming anyone with a comorbidity is going to die soon anyways. A truly bizarre argument. Additionally, it appears people with covid and comorbidities (or not) seem to succumb to septic shock and multiple organ failure. I guess, according to you, since these folks are going to die soon anyway, what's all the bother about. Pretty heartless, even for you.
I see no reason at this particular point to expect anything more than total senseless rhetoric or just plain feigned ignorance from you.

The entire "virus scare," was introduced, its timing coinciding with the exact time that more people are reaching the end of natural life expectancy. And when they die, they can be labeled as a COVID death, just because they have the virus.

The hospital gets the free bonus money, the pharmaceutical companies get free bonus money, and the crooks writing the legislation to set it all up, while playing the stock market to get even richer after lining their pockets with the initial kickbacks and stock options that were payed to write the legislation,  laugh heartily.

Again, your posts are as useful to others as a fart.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Shifter on December 19, 2021, 10:52:25 PM
This is what confuses me. He seems to arguing that medicine is a waste of time, which seems particularly stupid.

Yeah, it's been his go-to argument against COVID regulations for a while now, people die anyway so why try to save them. Maybe being terminally ill has skewed his perspective or something.  :(

He's only trolling about being terminally ill. Unless of course like all the victims of Covid who were apparantly going to die soon enough anyway and thus have no value that he has no value either

Which, looking at the nonsense he posts is objectively true anyway.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 20, 2021, 06:47:09 AM
So he didn’t say vaccination alone will end the pandemic. That’s what I thought.

Biden has repeatedly claimed that vaccination will end the pandemic and that vaccination would provide immunity.

This reporter remarks the same:

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/12/19/the-white-house-prepares-to-surrender-on-covid-n494113

(https://i.imgur.com/A4LwNvK.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on December 20, 2021, 07:45:49 AM
So he didn’t say vaccination alone will end the pandemic. That’s what I thought.

Biden has repeatedly claimed that vaccination will end the pandemic and that vaccination would provide immunity.

This reporter remarks the same:

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/12/19/the-white-house-prepares-to-surrender-on-covid-n494113

Sure, as Rama mentioned, part of the plan, not the only element. He’s promoting all of these levers we currently have: Vax, masks, social distancing, etc. Problem is you and your Redstate.com folks (I wonder which way that “news” site leans…) refuse all three+ levers. In other words, you’re the problem, not Joe Biden.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 20, 2021, 08:05:37 AM
So he didn’t say vaccination alone will end the pandemic. That’s what I thought.

Biden has repeatedly claimed that vaccination will end the pandemic and that vaccination would provide immunity.

This reporter remarks the same:

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/12/19/the-white-house-prepares-to-surrender-on-covid-n494113

Sure, as Rama mentioned, part of the plan, not the only element. He’s promoting all of these levers we currently have: Vax, masks, social distancing, etc. Problem is you and your Redstate.com folks (I wonder which way that “news” site leans…) refuse all three+ levers. In other words, you’re the problem, not Joe Biden.

Actually Biden explicitly said that if you were vaccinated you wouldn't get Covid.

https://twitter.com/qtrresearch/status/1461534110699171842
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on December 20, 2021, 09:25:47 AM
So he didn’t say vaccination alone will end the pandemic. That’s what I thought.

Biden has repeatedly claimed that vaccination will end the pandemic and that vaccination would provide immunity.

This reporter remarks the same:

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/12/19/the-white-house-prepares-to-surrender-on-covid-n494113

Sure, as Rama mentioned, part of the plan, not the only element. He’s promoting all of these levers we currently have: Vax, masks, social distancing, etc. Problem is you and your Redstate.com folks (I wonder which way that “news” site leans…) refuse all three+ levers. In other words, you’re the problem, not Joe Biden.

Actually Biden explicitly said that if you were vaccinated you wouldn't get Covid.

Yeah, he did, back in July during a town hall appearance. And he was obviously wrong. I remember in early June when I was beyond two weeks second jab, I thought I was fully immune, like 95% immune…Then came delta. And a couple of weeks later we had the P-town Delta breakthrough explosion, that doubled down on the fact that he was wrong. (Me too)
 No vax is 100% so he was wrong out of the gate. But, the vaxs provide some immunity and can greatly reduce the severity if you do get it. I’ll take some level of protection more than I have already. Better something rather than nothing. And if I don’t get, I can’t spread it someone else, that’s the point.
So what’s the issue here, the president said something that was incorrect? Grossly exaggerated?  I guess that’s never happened before.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on December 20, 2021, 09:46:50 AM
Actually Biden has repeatedly said that the masses getting vaccinated will end covid.

Imagine being wrong about Covid...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNpr7_iRHa8
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on December 20, 2021, 01:23:59 PM
Biden saying that pre-delta and before we knew about waning efficacy was very slight hyperbole. He shouldn’t have said it, but saying it then is actually pretty factual.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on December 20, 2021, 06:31:46 PM
I guess the former is on board...

Trump met with boos after revealing he received Covid-19 booster (https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/20/politics/donald-trump-booster-shot-boos/index.html)

According to video tweeted by O'Reilly's "No Spin News," the former Fox News host says, "Both the President and I are vaxxed" and then asks Trump, "Did you get the booster?"

"Yes," Trump says to a smattering of boos in the audience. "Don't, don't, don't, don't, don't," Trump says in the video, seemingly trying to quiet the boos. "That's all right, it's a very tiny group over there."
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on December 20, 2021, 07:45:20 PM
I guess the former is on board...

Trump met with boos after revealing he received Covid-19 booster (https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/20/politics/donald-trump-booster-shot-boos/index.html)

According to video tweeted by O'Reilly's "No Spin News," the former Fox News host says, "Both the President and I are vaxxed" and then asks Trump, "Did you get the booster?"

"Yes," Trump says to a smattering of boos in the audience. "Don't, don't, don't, don't, don't," Trump says in the video, seemingly trying to quiet the boos. "That's all right, it's a very tiny group over there."


And why not?  He warp speeded the vaccine.
Its ironic as hell that these people would attack the senate on his implied words but hate the idea of a vaccine so much that they'd boo him for supporting it.

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 20, 2021, 09:53:18 PM
40% of Joe Biden's own party thinks that he should be impeached.

https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1433092182622314506?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1433092182622314506%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.westernjournal.com%2Fbiden-gets-devastating-impeachment-news-democrats-poll%2F
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on December 20, 2021, 10:23:00 PM
40% of Joe Biden's own party thinks that he should be impeached.

You're just getting to this now? It's from 9/1 and predominantly in response to the Afghanistan withdrawal. Also Rasmussen is a conservative commentary and polling site. And has been criticized in the past for being biased. The original article is behind a paywall so I can't see how the poll was conducted and the nature of the respondents.

Regarding that specific poll you cite, from WaPo:

95 percent of those who view this article are brilliant and/or can read English (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/09/95-percent-those-who-view-this-article-are-brilliant-andor-can-read-english/)
Or: How to whitewash subjective rhetoric with polling

Well, it comes from a laughably slanted poll conducted by the organization Rasmussen Reports. Rasmussen, which has become increasingly strident in its politics, asked 1,000 likely voters (a group that in its polling skews Republican) not whether Biden should be impeached but if they agreed with this statement:

“I think Joe Biden deserves to be impeached because he’s abandoned thousands of Afghans who fought with us and he’s going to abandon some American citizens because he capitulated to the Taliban to a 31 August deadline.”

This isn’t really a push poll, as such, since push polls are generally meant to use polling as a veneer for introducing an idea to a large number of voters. A push poll is calling 20,000 people in a state and asking if they’d still vote for a candidate if they learned that he’d committed murder. This is what might be called a lure poll, seeking to generate a particular response so that people like Greene can claim that even Biden’s base has turned against him.

The Rasmussen example is an extreme example of how the objective analysis conferred by polling can be used to launder or rationalize a particular position. Thursday morning brought a more subtle one.


That's a very specific question that isn't representative of your blanket and outdated, 40% Dems thinks that he should be impeached rhetoric.

Try and be more timely, relevant, and accurate with your critiques and less knee-jerk partisan and glom onto to anything that pops up in your Twitter feed that fits your narrative.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 20, 2021, 10:55:53 PM
I don't see that Biden's disapproval has changed significantly since September.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/prez_track_dec20

(https://i.imgur.com/yRKkRlf.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on December 20, 2021, 11:04:08 PM
I don't see that Biden's disapproval has changed significantly since September.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/prez_track_dec20


Nice attempt at a bait and switch. You were talking about impeachment, not approval rating. You don’t even have enough substance to address anything Stack posted. Perhaps you should concede and move on.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 21, 2021, 08:04:26 AM
Incorrect. Biden's unpopularity and wanting Biden impeached does have something to do with each other.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Shifter on December 21, 2021, 08:11:21 AM
Incorrect. Biden's unpopularity and wanting Biden impeached does have something to do with each other.

Yeah. The repugs are like immature children. Impeach because you don't like a guy. Reason enough for them

Trumps impeachment trials were because he is a legit traitor to America. Only cronyism saved Trump from actually getting indicted.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on December 21, 2021, 11:22:58 AM
Incorrect. Biden's unpopularity and wanting Biden impeached does have something to do with each other.

You are incapable of showing that the desire to impeach remains so you tried to substitute another metric that does not show that people continue to want to impeach Biden. You have nothing.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on December 21, 2021, 10:55:48 PM
Don't worry. When the GOP takes the house next year and appoints mtg as the speaker then there'll be wall to wall impeachments for the next 2 years.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: WTF_Seriously on December 21, 2021, 11:18:19 PM
When the GOP takes the house next year and appoints mtg as the speaker

The fact that this is actually a plausible scenario shows just how big a disaster America has become.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 22, 2021, 08:39:09 AM
Incorrect. Biden's unpopularity and wanting Biden impeached does have something to do with each other.

You are incapable of showing that the desire to impeach remains so you tried to substitute another metric that does not show that people continue to want to impeach Biden. You have nothing.

Actually Biden continues to be a deeply unpopular president. Your claim that people have changed their opinion on him since September is what needs evidence, rather than assumed.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on December 22, 2021, 10:23:50 AM
Incorrect. Biden's unpopularity and wanting Biden impeached does have something to do with each other.

You are incapable of showing that the desire to impeach remains so you tried to substitute another metric that does not show that people continue to want to impeach Biden. You have nothing.

Actually Biden continues to be a deeply unpopular president.

Irrelevant.

Quote
Your claim that people have changed their opinion on him since September is what needs evidence, rather than assumed.

I haven’t said they have. I’m saying you don’t have evidence that people currently wish to impeach Biden. Please keep up.

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on December 22, 2021, 10:01:21 PM
Incorrect. Biden's unpopularity and wanting Biden impeached does have something to do with each other.

You are incapable of showing that the desire to impeach remains so you tried to substitute another metric that does not show that people continue to want to impeach Biden. You have nothing.

Actually Biden continues to be a deeply unpopular president.

Irrelevant.

Quote
Your claim that people have changed their opinion on him since September is what needs evidence, rather than assumed.

I haven’t said they have. I’m saying you don’t have evidence that people currently wish to impeach Biden. Please keep up.
So, it appears you're stating no people in the US support impeachment of Biden.

Shirley, you can't be serious.  - Striker

I live in the US and I currently want Joe Biden impeached.

There is your evidence.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on December 22, 2021, 10:18:00 PM
Incorrect. Biden's unpopularity and wanting Biden impeached does have something to do with each other.

You are incapable of showing that the desire to impeach remains so you tried to substitute another metric that does not show that people continue to want to impeach Biden. You have nothing.

Actually Biden continues to be a deeply unpopular president.

Irrelevant.

Quote
Your claim that people have changed their opinion on him since September is what needs evidence, rather than assumed.

I haven’t said they have. I’m saying you don’t have evidence that people currently wish to impeach Biden. Please keep up.
So, it appears you're stating no people in the US support impeachment of Biden.

Shirley, you can't be serious.  - Striker

I live in the US and I currently want Joe Biden impeached.

There is your evidence.

I’m not saying that, and don’t call me Shirley.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on December 22, 2021, 10:31:48 PM
HOW DOES THIS:
I’m saying you don’t have evidence that people currently wish to impeach Biden.
EQUAL THIS:

I’m not saying that...
Sorry, unless you're hinging the idea on the act of typing and not speaking, it appears your hypocrisy is rather evident.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on December 22, 2021, 10:54:06 PM
Does he not understand that "People" is a general term used to represent a large, often times the majority, of humans in a stated area and that "people" does not mean "Any single human in any location" ?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on December 22, 2021, 11:27:20 PM
HOW DOES THIS:
I’m saying you don’t have evidence that people currently wish to impeach Biden.
EQUAL THIS:

I’m not saying that...

Those are two responses to two different posts. Why should they be equal?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on December 22, 2021, 11:34:04 PM
Incorrect. Biden's unpopularity and wanting Biden impeached does have something to do with each other.

You are incapable of showing that the desire to impeach remains so you tried to substitute another metric that does not show that people continue to want to impeach Biden. You have nothing.

Actually Biden continues to be a deeply unpopular president.

Irrelevant.

Quote
Your claim that people have changed their opinion on him since September is what needs evidence, rather than assumed.

I haven’t said they have. I’m saying you don’t have evidence that people currently wish to impeach Biden. Please keep up.
So, it appears you're stating no people in the US support impeachment of Biden.

Shirley, you can't be serious.  - Striker

I live in the US and I currently want Joe Biden impeached.

There is your evidence.

Lackey Straw Poll: Should Biden be impeached?

Polled: 1
Respondents: 1 - YES

Results: 100% of Americans polled say that President Biden should be impeached.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on December 22, 2021, 11:41:53 PM
HOW DOES THIS:
I’m saying you don’t have evidence that people currently wish to impeach Biden.
EQUAL THIS:

I’m not saying that...

Those are two responses to two different posts. Why should they be equal?
The idea you could ever simply type what you mean to type is obviously in the dumpster.

Here is the bottom line. The fact there are people who want Biden impeached is akin to the fact the sky is blue.

Stop demanding evidence for patently true statements and stop trolling.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on December 23, 2021, 12:19:29 AM
HOW DOES THIS:
I’m saying you don’t have evidence that people currently wish to impeach Biden.
EQUAL THIS:

I’m not saying that...

Those are two responses to two different posts. Why should they be equal?
The idea you could ever simply type what you mean to type is obviously in the dumpster.

Here is the bottom line. The fact there are people who want Biden impeached is akin to the fact the sky is blue.

Stop demanding evidence for patently true statements and stop trolling.

I was wasn’t asking for evidence that people anecdotally want Biden impeached. I was asking for evidence that there is a significant political will to impeach Biden. If you thought about the context of the entire conversation, specifically when Tom pointed out that a significant number of democrats wanted this, you would understand. You are too concerned with trying to catch me out, and it shows.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on December 23, 2021, 04:15:53 AM
HOW DOES THIS:
I’m saying you don’t have evidence that people currently wish to impeach Biden.
EQUAL THIS:

I’m not saying that...

Those are two responses to two different posts. Why should they be equal?
The idea you could ever simply type what you mean to type is obviously in the dumpster.

Here is the bottom line. The fact there are people who want Biden impeached is akin to the fact the sky is blue.

Stop demanding evidence for patently true statements and stop trolling.

I was wasn’t asking for evidence that people anecdotally want Biden impeached. I was asking for evidence that there is a significant political will to impeach Biden. If you thought about the context of the entire conversation, specifically when Tom pointed out that a significant number of democrats wanted this, you would understand. You are too concerned with trying to catch me out, and it shows.
Not until this very post did you actually state what you were asking for.

You were being very general and imprecise in your communication.

There was nothing in your prior posts indicating anything near what you have written here.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on December 23, 2021, 04:50:51 AM
I think Rama was crystal clear right here:

Incorrect. Biden's unpopularity and wanting Biden impeached does have something to do with each other.

You are incapable of showing that the desire to impeach remains so you tried to substitute another metric that does not show that people continue to want to impeach Biden. You have nothing.

Not to mention the fact that Tom’s assertion that 40% of Dems want Biden impeached was based upon shaky ground, bordering on disingenuous:

A) The “poll” was  from early September, days after the Afghan debacle, not late December, i.e., now
B) The poll source is dubious at best from a site that has been cited before for being biased
C) The actual poll question wasn’t simply, “Should Biden be impeached?” as Tom intimated. The poll question was:  “I think Joe Biden deserves to be impeached because he’s abandoned thousands of Afghans who fought with us and he’s going to abandon some American citizens because he capitulated to the Taliban to a 31 August deadline.”

Pay attention to the entirety and context of an exchange.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Shifter on December 23, 2021, 09:13:59 AM
Why would Joe, leaving Afghanistan be an 'impeachable' offence? What would he be indicted on? It was never going to be clean. And it was Trumps plan too lol. Joe was just in the hot seat when the timetable called for it

The war has been deeply unpopular for over a decade. It's been ridiculously costly too. Funny how repugs hated the war but when a dem got them out they want to 'impeach' them lol

If Trump was still on power, he'd have left and it would have been just as messy (if not worse) given his adoration of the Taliban. Before he left office he emboldened them. He even allowed them time to prep and plan giving them the timetable of Americas departure. Great going

And you can bet, the repugs would be very forgiving of Trump no matter how messy the withdrawal.

The thing is, you can't 'destroy' the Taliban any more than you can destroy the repugnican party. It's an idea. Not a thing or specific people. America could be in Afghanistan another 20 years. Nothing would change and the Taliban would still take over

America was right to leave. Should not have even bothered with that hellscape in the first place. But guess which party thought it was a great idea to begin with.....
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on December 24, 2021, 09:05:03 PM
Honestly can you imagine the level of chaos if it had been Trump instead? Scary thought.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 24, 2021, 09:20:58 PM
How does it feel to have voted for an utter imbecile?

https://nypost.com/2021/12/24/biden-says-i-agree-when-dad-drops-lets-go-brandon-on-call/

(https://i.imgur.com/yERnHRg.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on December 24, 2021, 10:25:26 PM
How does it feel to have voted for an utter imbecile?

https://nypost.com/2021/12/24/biden-says-i-agree-when-dad-drops-lets-go-brandon-on-call/

(https://i.imgur.com/yERnHRg.png)

Oh no, Biden isnt up on le epic meme. Worst. President. Evah.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on December 24, 2021, 10:26:56 PM
A president who's not obsessed with every little thing people are saying about him on social media? It's like a breath of fresh air tbh
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on December 24, 2021, 10:47:43 PM
How does it feel to have voted for an utter imbecile?
Ha.

Imagine voting for Trump. Twice.
And then saying this.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on December 25, 2021, 03:15:08 AM
How does it feel to have voted for an utter imbecile?

???

What do you think he should have done? Gotten mad? Started an argument with that guy? Ranted at the camera for a few minutes? Biden almost certainly knows exactly what that phrase means, and he handled this situation perfectly with a calm, unfazed response. Incidentally, "Let's go Brandon" is pure cringe. Conservatives aren't upsetting or triggering liberals when they say that; they're only embarrassing themselves. If "orange man bad" was a real thing that Trump critics really said and not an invention of Trump supporters trying to strawman them, then "Let's go Brandon" would be its conservative equivalent. You're an adult. You can swear if you like, and you can insult the president if you like. Using a weird code phrase or whatever to express the sentiment of "Fuck Joe Biden" doesn't make you look smart or subversive; it makes you look like a edgy kid trying to avoid getting in trouble with his parents.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on December 25, 2021, 09:23:40 AM
How does it feel to have voted for an utter imbecile?
Ha.

Imagine voting for Trump. Twice.
And then saying this.

Imagine voting twice and attacking the vaccine he helped push through at 'warp speed' and then saying this.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on December 25, 2021, 02:46:59 PM
Here is the actual video.

https://youtu.be/8dOEpFlhecY

I admit Joe is suffering from Alzheimers and has no clue.

You guys got Trumpitis and it is the only thing you got. No salient or worthwhile ideas. Just the inability to PMS effectively. Getting old.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on December 25, 2021, 03:22:15 PM
Merry Christmas!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on December 25, 2021, 07:55:35 PM
I admit Joe is suffering from Alzheimers and has no clue.

Why, because he casually shrugged off a silly insult instead of getting mad about it? Again, what should he have done instead? If he had started arguing with the guy, conservatives would be saying that he was ruining an event for children with inappropriate partisan bickering. If he had outright ignored the comment, conservatives would be saying the same thing they are now - that he was too addled to realize he was being insulted. I don't believe there's anything he could have said or done that you'd be willing to concede was a decent response.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on December 25, 2021, 08:57:33 PM
I admit Joe is suffering from Alzheimers and has no clue.

Why, because he casually shrugged off a silly insult instead of getting mad about it? Again, what should he have done instead? If he had started arguing with the guy, conservatives would be saying that he was ruining an event for children with inappropriate partisan bickering. If he had outright ignored the comment, conservatives would be saying the same thing they are now - that he was too addled to realize he was being insulted. I don't believe there's anything he could have said or done that you'd be willing to concede was a decent response.
It would have been decent to say, "Yeah. Whatever." Or, his good old, "C'mon man!?!?" That would have indicated a functioning brain.

But he doesn't have one.

His own wife, at this very moment, getting triple teamed by SS agents, hung her head, not in shame, not in pity, but in embarrassment, wondering how long she has to hang out with this sniffer of children.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on December 25, 2021, 09:55:45 PM
I admit Joe is suffering from Alzheimers and has no clue.

Why, because he casually shrugged off a silly insult instead of getting mad about it? Again, what should he have done instead? If he had started arguing with the guy, conservatives would be saying that he was ruining an event for children with inappropriate partisan bickering. If he had outright ignored the comment, conservatives would be saying the same thing they are now - that he was too addled to realize he was being insulted. I don't believe there's anything he could have said or done that you'd be willing to concede was a decent response.
It would have been decent to say, "Yeah. Whatever." Or, his good old, "C'mon man!?!?" That would have indicated a functioning brain.

But he doesn't have one.

His own wife, at this very moment, getting triple teamed by SS agents, hung her head, not in shame, not in pity, but in embarrassment, wondering how long she has to hang out with this sniffer of children.
Yeah.  Whatever.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Shifter on December 26, 2021, 03:37:14 AM
Joe Biden inflicted the greatest insult to the pathetic meme possible. He ignored it

Now look at the repugnicans lose their minds. Hahaha
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on December 26, 2021, 11:11:54 PM
He ignored it
Imagine thinking that:

Repeating the line: "Let’s go Brandon!"

AND

Subsequently stating: "I agree!"

= Ignoring it.

LMMFAO!!!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on December 26, 2021, 11:29:40 PM
He ignored it
Imagine thinking that:

Repeating the line: "Let’s go Brandon!"

AND

Subsequently stating: "I agree!"

= Ignoring it.

LMMFAO!!!

I agree. Let's Go Brandon! As in 'Let's Go Brandon Brown, NASCAR driver. Congrats on your Talladega victory, I hope you win again.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on December 27, 2021, 12:22:06 AM
Conservatives are unusually triggered over this. Even the guy who made this dumb remark to Biden is trying to pull it back. I think Biden made the best possible response to make them look like asses.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on December 27, 2021, 01:37:18 AM
He ignored it
Imagine thinking that:

Repeating the line: "Let’s go Brandon!"

AND

Subsequently stating: "I agree!"

= Ignoring it.

LMMFAO!!!

I agree. Let's Go Brandon! As in 'Let's Go Brandon Brown, NASCAR driver. Congrats on your Talladega victory, I hope you win again.
So you were one of the thousands that day in attendance joining in with the crowd who were obviously shouting out, as the reporter pointed out, Let's Go Brandon?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on December 27, 2021, 01:43:36 AM
Conservatives are unusually triggered over this. Even the guy who made this dumb remark to Biden is trying to pull it back. I think Biden made the best possible response to make them look like asses.
Maybe you should call Joe, tell him to divorce his embarassed and ashamed wife, marry him, and when he pulls another response like this from his ass (you know, perhaps when he is participating in another press conference he isn't supposed to be having), you will be sitting right beside him, smiling gleefully at his impromptu response, instead of hanging your head in shame and embarrassment like that Jill.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on December 27, 2021, 02:16:07 AM
Conservatives are unusually triggered over this. Even the guy who made this dumb remark to Biden is trying to pull it back. I think Biden made the best possible response to make them look like asses.
Maybe you should call Joe, tell him to divorce his dumb ass wife, marry him, and when he pulls another response like this from his ass (you know, perhaps when he is participating in another press conference he isn't supposed to be having), you will be sitting right beside him, smiling gleefully at his impromptu response, instead of hanging your head in shame and embarrassment like that idiot Jill.

It's just that there seems to be a lot of people who are reacting very emotionally that Biden just sort of brushed this off.

I'm not invested in any sort of goal of "owning" a particular group.  There's a lot of legitimate criticism that can be leveled at Biden but instead of doing any of that he just repeated some juvenile chant that imbeciles like to chant at NASCAR. 

I think this Jared Schmeck was expecting Biden to have a strong reaction over it and when he more or less ignored it then it just made Jared embarrassed.  And I think a lot of conservatives are feeling that embarrassment too.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on December 27, 2021, 02:26:28 AM
Conservatives are unusually triggered over this. Even the guy who made this dumb remark to Biden is trying to pull it back. I think Biden made the best possible response to make them look like asses.
Maybe you should call Joe, tell him to divorce his dumb ass wife, marry him, and when he pulls another response like this from his ass (you know, perhaps when he is participating in another press conference he isn't supposed to be having), you will be sitting right beside him, smiling gleefully at his impromptu response, instead of hanging your head in shame and embarrassment like that idiot Jill.

It's just that there seems to be a lot of people who are reacting very emotionally that Biden just sort of brushed this off.
Your assertion that Biden brushed it off is betrayed by the blonde sitting to the right of Biden in the video. She knows him better than you, I would wager (although I cannot be sure, as you might be intimate in some form or fashion with the sick bastard) and she hangs her head in shame and embarrassment at his response.
I'm not invested in any sort of goal of "owning" a particular group.  There's a lot of legitimate criticism that can be leveled at Biden but instead of doing any of that he just repeated some juvenile chant that imbeciles like to chant at NASCAR. 

I think this Jared Schmeck was expecting Biden to have a strong reaction over it and when he more or less ignored it then it just made Jared embarrassed.  And I think a lot of conservatives are feeling that embarrassment too.
The phrase, "Ignoring it," must mean something totally different in Utah than the rest of civilized society. Perhaps it is all that funky diaper wearing going on well after being potty trained, giving rise to such a unique defining of the term.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on December 27, 2021, 04:19:36 AM
You sound triggered. Why are you so invested in twisting this into a huge embarrassment for Biden? Why can't you just accept that the only people who think that "Let's go Brandon" is a sick burn are the conservatives who say it? Nobody else takes it seriously. Not leftists, not liberals, and not Biden.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on December 27, 2021, 10:08:15 AM
You sound triggered. Why are you so invested in twisting this into a huge embarrassment for Biden? Why can't you just accept that the only people who think that "Let's go Brandon" is a sick burn are the conservatives who say it? Nobody else takes it seriously. Not leftists, not liberals, and not Biden.
Starting with the reporter who claimed the crowd was shouting, "Let’s Go Brandon!" rather than "Fuck Joe Biden!", the ones who take it seriously are indeed leftists and liberals.

Biden is incapable of taking anything seriously. He is demented and doesn't even know the time of day.

Jill, in between her daily dp sessions with SS agents, takes it seriously. That's why she hung her head in shame and utter embarrassment after his response. She finds the addled fuck repulsive and disgusting.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on December 27, 2021, 10:48:25 AM
You sound triggered. Why are you so invested in twisting this into a huge embarrassment for Biden? Why can't you just accept that the only people who think that "Let's go Brandon" is a sick burn are the conservatives who say it? Nobody else takes it seriously. Not leftists, not liberals, and not Biden.
Starting with the reporter who claimed the crowd was shouting, "Let’s Go Brandon!" rather than "Fuck Joe Biden!", the ones who take it seriously are indeed leftists and liberals.

Biden is incapable of taking anything seriously. He is demented and doesn't even know the time of day.

Jill, in between her daily dp sessions with SS agents, takes it seriously. That's why she hung her head in shame and utter embarrassment after his response. She finds the addled fuck repulsive and disgusting.

You and Tom have a very strange fixation on Jill Biden.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on December 27, 2021, 10:53:31 AM
You sound triggered. Why are you so invested in twisting this into a huge embarrassment for Biden? Why can't you just accept that the only people who think that "Let's go Brandon" is a sick burn are the conservatives who say it? Nobody else takes it seriously. Not leftists, not liberals, and not Biden.
Starting with the reporter who claimed the crowd was shouting, "Let’s Go Brandon!" rather than "Fuck Joe Biden!", the ones who take it seriously are indeed leftists and liberals.

Biden is incapable of taking anything seriously. He is demented and doesn't even know the time of day.

Jill, in between her daily dp sessions with SS agents, takes it seriously. That's why she hung her head in shame and utter embarrassment after his response. She finds the addled fuck repulsive and disgusting.

You and Tom have a very strange fixation on Jill Biden.
Especially considering he seems to have intimate knowledge of her sex life. 
You think he saw some photoshopped porn and thinks its real?  That maybe his browser history is filled with democrat wives having sex because thats what gets him off?


Also, considering Jill Biden has a doctorate and neither Tom nor Action do... The 'dumb' comments really seem misplaced.  Almost like they're projecting their own inadequicies onto other people....
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on December 27, 2021, 11:09:51 AM
You sound triggered. Why are you so invested in twisting this into a huge embarrassment for Biden? Why can't you just accept that the only people who think that "Let's go Brandon" is a sick burn are the conservatives who say it? Nobody else takes it seriously. Not leftists, not liberals, and not Biden.
Starting with the reporter who claimed the crowd was shouting, "Let’s Go Brandon!" rather than "Fuck Joe Biden!", the ones who take it seriously are indeed leftists and liberals.

Biden is incapable of taking anything seriously. He is demented and doesn't even know the time of day.

Jill, in between her daily dp sessions with SS agents, takes it seriously. That's why she hung her head in shame and utter embarrassment after his response. She finds the addled fuck repulsive and disgusting.

You and Tom have a very strange fixation on Jill Biden.
Pointing out her shame and embarrassment exhibited for all to see does not constitute strange fixation.

But nice try.

LET'S GO BRANDON!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on December 27, 2021, 11:14:43 AM
You sound triggered. Why are you so invested in twisting this into a huge embarrassment for Biden? Why can't you just accept that the only people who think that "Let's go Brandon" is a sick burn are the conservatives who say it? Nobody else takes it seriously. Not leftists, not liberals, and not Biden.
Starting with the reporter who claimed the crowd was shouting, "Let’s Go Brandon!" rather than "Fuck Joe Biden!", the ones who take it seriously are indeed leftists and liberals.

Biden is incapable of taking anything seriously. He is demented and doesn't even know the time of day.

Jill, in between her daily dp sessions with SS agents, takes it seriously. That's why she hung her head in shame and utter embarrassment after his response. She finds the addled fuck repulsive and disgusting.

You and Tom have a very strange fixation on Jill Biden.
Especially considering he seems to have intimate knowledge of her sex life. 
You think he saw some photoshopped porn and thinks its real?  That maybe his browser history is filled with democrat wives having sex because thats what gets him off?


Also, considering Jill Biden has a doctorate and neither Tom nor Action do... The 'dumb' comments really seem misplaced.  Almost like they're projecting their own inadequicies onto other people....
Sorry, I didn't catch that photoshopped porn flick. If you know where I can get a copy, fill me in, okay?

I just figured you and Rama might be keeping Joe's legs comfortable with the daily rub downs, so she could turn to the SS agents for necessary physical comfort, kinda like Jackie did.

I never called Jill dumb. In fact, she is the only one in that family smart enough to know when the fuck face shows his senility.

Well, perhaps that isn't correct. The kids clearly know the old fuck is senile and try to take advantage of it. Just not smart enough to do it.

Jill probably has an high EQ and isn't afraid to show public shame and embarrassment in front of the whole world.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: beardo on December 27, 2021, 05:04:01 PM
LET'S GO BRANDON!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on December 27, 2021, 07:33:33 PM
I doubt that Jill was embarrassed by Joe's response so much as she was by the guy saying the dumb phrase to begin with, but there's really no way to say for sure. In related news, Jared Schmeck is now making his tentative first steps towards a right-wing media/MAGA career:

https://www.rawstory.com/jared-schmeck-stolen-election/

Depending on how he plays this, we may see him at CPAC in the coming months and years, or maybe even in Congress. Because these are the kind of people that the GOP promotes nowadays.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: juner on December 27, 2021, 07:37:17 PM
Quote from: Jared Schmeck
And now I am being attacked for utilizing my freedom of speech

Poor guy, I can't believe this is happening. Just a joke, bro. Stop being so triggered.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on December 27, 2021, 07:57:47 PM
Quote from: Jared Schmeck
And now I am being attacked for utilizing my freedom of speech

Poor guy, I can't believe this is happening. Just a joke, bro. Stop being so triggered.

Maybe he doesn't understand that attacking someone verbally over utilizing freedom of speech is itself utilizing freedom of speech. But given what he's famous for the intricacies of democracy are probably a bit murky for him.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on December 27, 2021, 08:55:08 PM
I doubt that Jill was embarrassed by Joe's response so much as she was by the guy saying the dumb phrase to begin with, but there's really no way to say for sure. In related news, Jared Schmeck is now making his tentative first steps towards a right-wing media/MAGA career:

https://www.rawstory.com/jared-schmeck-stolen-election/

Depending on how he plays this, we may see him at CPAC in the coming months and years, or maybe even in Congress. Because these are the kind of people that the GOP promotes nowadays.

Yep.  If Trump isn't running then I think we're looking at a Rittenhouse/Schmeck 2024 ticket.

They'll be running on very important policies.  Like... umm... I don't know.  Crank calls and defending dumpsters.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on December 27, 2021, 10:04:51 PM
I doubt that Jill was embarrassed by Joe's response so much as she was by the guy saying the dumb phrase to begin with, but there's really no way to say for sure. In related news, Jared Schmeck is now making his tentative first steps towards a right-wing media/MAGA career:

https://www.rawstory.com/jared-schmeck-stolen-election/

Depending on how he plays this, we may see him at CPAC in the coming months and years, or maybe even in Congress. Because these are the kind of people that the GOP promotes nowadays.

Yep.  If Trump isn't running then I think we're looking at a Rittenhouse/Schmeck 2024 ticket.

They'll be running on very important policies.  Like... umm... I don't know.  Crank calls and defending dumpsters.

They will probably also get that MAGA hat kid with the face most likely to be punched to be secretary of state.

(https://i.imgur.com/OiR6s6W.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on December 27, 2021, 10:15:42 PM
Actually Biden continues to be a deeply unpopular president. Your claim that people have changed their opinion on him since September is what needs evidence, rather than assumed.

What do you actually WANT your President to do?

Can you name, say, half a dozen bullet points?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: juner on December 28, 2021, 02:23:59 AM
They will probably also get that MAGA hat kid with the face most likely to be punched to be secretary of state.
(https://i.imgur.com/OiR6s6W.png)

That kid is already a millionaire from all of the defamation settlements, probably the same thing Rittenhouse will get. Poor Jared is going to be relegated to a gofundme if he is lucky and won't get a spot on the team.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on December 28, 2021, 03:52:10 AM
They will probably also get that MAGA hat kid with the face most likely to be punched to be secretary of state.
(https://i.imgur.com/OiR6s6W.png)

That kid is already a millionaire from all of the defamation settlements, probably the same thing Rittenhouse will get. Poor Jared is going to be relegated to a gofundme if he is lucky and won't get a spot on the team.

So true.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on December 28, 2021, 07:23:32 AM
That kid is already a millionaire from all of the defamation settlements

Some lawyers have convincingly argued that his lawsuit was almost certainly settled for a relatively tiny sum:

https://lawandcrime.com/media/some-lawyers-think-covington-catholics-nick-sandmann-walked-away-from-media-lawsuits-with-peanuts/
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: juner on December 28, 2021, 03:33:35 PM
That kid is already a millionaire from all of the defamation settlements

Some lawyers have convincingly argued that his lawsuit was almost certainly settled for a relatively tiny sum:

https://lawandcrime.com/media/some-lawyers-think-covington-catholics-nick-sandmann-walked-away-from-media-lawsuits-with-peanuts/

Well he settled another one like a week ago, so those nuisance fees are adding up.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2021, 04:57:16 PM
Looks like Biden surrendered to the Coronavirus.

(https://i.imgur.com/vus7j9I.jpg)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on December 28, 2021, 06:34:39 PM
Looks like Biden surrendered to the Coronavirus.

(https://i.imgur.com/vus7j9I.jpg)

When you have a bunch of dumbfucks like DeSantis in charge there is nothing Biden could do. It’s also hard to anticipate how radically illogical and anti-science the GOP has is.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on December 28, 2021, 06:36:49 PM
That’s pretty shite leadership if he’s saying that, even if efforts at the federal level have been hampered by state politicians.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on December 28, 2021, 06:40:40 PM
That’s pretty shite leadership if he’s saying that, even if efforts at the federal level have been hampered by state politicians.

True enough. It would have been better if he called the GOP on their BS and said that his efforts are being impeded by them.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on December 28, 2021, 06:56:31 PM
Know what Biden should try to push through? 
A law allowing insurance companies to not cover any covid care for unvaccinated people (who could be vaccinated).

Not require them to not cover it but allowing them the option and watch the free market bankrupt any conservatives who survive.
Hospital visits would be a death sentence one way or another.

Mwahabhahahahaha! 
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on December 28, 2021, 07:03:29 PM
I think it's complicated. We didn't really have a "Federal" solution under Trump. Then Biden runs on a campaign to provide a "Federal" solution. As Rama pointed out, it's hard to have a Federal solution when the States are all over the place. So Biden, on a call to the "States" says, You guys need to fix this, we can't because of you guys...

A change in course, for sure. But every course has changed. Delta smacked us silly and Omicron will be a transmissibility war. The States, take DeSantis as an example, have been defying Feds, clamoring for decision making in their own fiefdoms. One would think the GOP Govs would reward this notion. It's what a lot have been begging for all along. States rights, baby! That's a GOP mantra.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on December 28, 2021, 07:04:13 PM
The quote is being presented somewhat out of context:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/12/27/remarks-by-president-biden-at-covid-19-response-teams-regular-call-with-the-national-governors-association/

It wasn't great phrasing on his part, not least because of the right-wing media gleefully seizing upon it for use as a sound bite, but he's not literally just saying that he has nothing and it's the states' problem now. He was encouraging governors to do everything they could to control the pandemic in their respective states and promised to back them up with the resources of the federal government. This was far from a message of surrender or apathy.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on December 28, 2021, 07:22:03 PM
Honk, you're spot on. As always, whether right or left, the media teases out a political figure's quote and runs with it. And then someone turns it into a meme, smears it all over social media so that it tantalizes people like Tom.

Here's a portion of the transcript. Biden is responding to the Gov of Arkansas who specifically mentions the Federal efforts being employed as well as what his State is doing and what his State would want to do:

Arkansas Governor: ...but we also as governors are getting pressure to do more and the need is great to do more in terms of the rapid test and the availability of it and so one word of concern or encouragement for your team is that as the as you look towards federal solutions that will help alleviate the challenge make sure that we do not let federal solutions stand in the way of state solutions and the the production of 500 million rapid tests that will be distributed by the federal government is great but obviously that drives up the supply chain for the solutions that we might offer as governor and so just that a brief comment before i turn it over to you mr president but i want to say personally i've enjoyed working with you when i was in congress as head of the dea and i appreciate your leadership and thank you so much for giving us the time today to hear from us but also so that we can hear from you personally about the challenge that we face so uh mr president the microphone is here thank you president biden they said thank you very much."

Biden: Look there is no federal solution, this gets solved at a state level I'm looking at governor Sununu on the board. Here he talks about that a lot and it ultimately gets down to where the rubber meets the road and that's where the patient is in need of help or preventing the need for help.

Here's the full video of the Gov's call. The aforementioned part of the transcript starts at around 20:00.

https://youtu.be/rQRMtChgoA8
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on December 28, 2021, 08:54:19 PM
One big factor that I don't think we know yet is exactly how Lethal Omicron is. If it's substantially less deadly then it could almost be a good thing. Like cowpox running rampant through a smallpox outbreak.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on December 28, 2021, 09:35:21 PM
I think Honk is mostly right as well. It’s bad phrasing making it seem worse than it is and giving the entire right a free pass at crucifying him.

But it’s also his own doing, and not just a poor choice of once in one isolated instance. Yes it’s difficult to implement federal policies in the US when each state has so much independence to just railroad anything that comes along they don’t like. But Biden is supposed to be a leader - regardless of what he’s up against, he should be actively charting a path forward and championing that path. This reeks of a cop-out where he’s going to try to pin the blame on the red states when things spiral out of control next. As much blame as individual governors may have in this, it’s still not an excuse for Joe ‘the buck stops here’ Biden to just hedge his bets instead of taking action.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 28, 2021, 09:44:04 PM
The real poor choice of wording was the Democrats saying "vote for us and we'll get COVID under control". The fact that this was always impossible is not an excuse for them. On the contrary, it's something that should have informed voters' decisions in advance.

Alas, stupid voters are why America is in decline.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on December 28, 2021, 09:51:32 PM
I think Honk is mostly right as well. It’s bad phrasing making it seem worse than it is and giving the entire right a free pass at crucifying him.

But it’s also his own doing, and not just a poor choice of once in one isolated instance. Yes it’s difficult to implement federal policies in the US when each state has so much independence to just railroad anything that comes along they don’t like. But Biden is supposed to be a leader - regardless of what he’s up against, he should be actively charting a path forward and championing that path. This reeks of a cop-out where he’s going to try to pin the blame on the red states when things spiral out of control next. As much blame as individual governors may have in this, it’s still not an excuse for Joe ‘the buck stops here’ Biden to just hedge his bets instead of taking action.

Agreed.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on December 28, 2021, 10:13:03 PM

Alas, stupid voters are why [insert name of any democratic nation] is in decline.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 29, 2021, 03:35:36 AM
CNN correctly interprets Biden's remarks to admit that there is no federal solution to Covid.

(https://i.ibb.co/WVqhGwn/q5-Gg2gw1-VDHx.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on December 29, 2021, 04:39:42 AM
Yes, it's a shame when mainstream outlets allow misleading right-wing narratives and talking points to be taken for granted. The media are so obsessed with the ideal of centrism that they simply can't bring themselves to accept that one side of the political aisle is operating entirely in bad faith and that their lies should not be seen as valid alternatives to the truth.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 29, 2021, 05:45:07 AM
Or, possibly,  Biden simply said what he meant and it wasn't some kind of thing he said one thing and meant the opposite.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on December 29, 2021, 06:08:46 AM
Nobody is saying that he meant the opposite of what he said, just that what he said was taken out of context to seem more defeatist than it was. Which is true.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 29, 2021, 05:36:12 PM

Alas, stupid voters are why [insert name of any democratic nation] is in decline.
To very differing extents. Surely you're not going to act as if the US was your average democracy?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on December 29, 2021, 06:19:34 PM

Alas, stupid voters are why [insert name of any democratic nation] is in decline.
To very differing extents. Surely you're not going to act as if the US was your average democracy?
Absolutely not. It’s probably more true in other countries, for very different reasons. Countries with more than two parties and a first past the post system will have larger majorities of the population who didn’t vote for those in power.

Just pointing out that most people who voted for the non-ruling party think that ‘stupid’ voters are the reason the right person isn’t in charge
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 30, 2021, 09:04:34 PM
Even Hillary Clinton thinks Biden is running a poor White House:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/12/must-hillary-slams-biden-dont-white-house-can-count-sane-sober-stable-productive/

(https://i.imgur.com/I9WloRn.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on December 30, 2021, 09:15:18 PM
This is relevant, why? How much stock did you put in Bush condemning Trump?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on December 30, 2021, 10:07:11 PM
Even Hillary Clinton thinks Biden is running a poor White House:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/12/must-hillary-slams-biden-dont-white-house-can-count-sane-sober-stable-productive/

(https://i.imgur.com/I9WloRn.png)

Good job cherry-picking a quote completely out of context. You realize that she is talking about winning the midterms and winning the 2024 presidential election. And in particular, how the "progressive" democrats (The Squad) are screwing up the potential to retain congress & the 2024 presidency for Dems by being too progressive for the American people - Encouraging debate, but also saying in the same breath that they need to dial it back.

So no, it wasn't a "slam" against Biden, it was a slam against the probability that the Dems will lose Congress and the 2024 presidency and we'll end up with a nothing done congress and a not sane and sober White House.

26:46

To hold the house and the senate in 2022 and to win the electoral college because also republicans are doing everything they can to create an environment in which winning the electoral college even narrowly the way joe biden did will be out of reach for a democrat so I understand why people want to argue for their priorities that's what they believe they were elected to do but at the end of the day nothing is going to get done if you don't have a democratic majority in the house in the senate and our majority comes from .people who win.

So look I'm all about um having vigorous debate i think it's it's good and it gives people a chance to be part of the process but at the end of the day it means nothing if we don't have a congress that will get things done and we don't have a white house that we can count on to be sane and sober and stable and productive so this is going to be a very intense period not just for the democratic party but for the country.


https://youtu.be/Sr727qYXMaw
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 30, 2021, 10:21:54 PM
Quote from: Hillary
"To hold the house and the senate in 2022 and to win the electoral college because also republicans are doing everything they can to create an environment in which winning the electoral college even narrowly the way joe biden did will be out of reach for a democrat so I understand why people want to argue for their priorities that's what they believe they were elected to do but at the end of the day nothing is going to get done if you don't have a democratic majority in the house in the senate and our majority comes from .people who win.

So look I'm all about um having vigorous debate i think it's it's good and it gives people a chance to be part of the process but at the end of the day it means nothing if we don't have a congress that will get things done and we don't have a white house that we can count on to be sane and sober and stable and productive so this is going to be a very intense period not just for the democratic party but for the country."

Where do you see the Whitehouse after losing 2024 mentioned in that quote? You are clearly wrong.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on December 30, 2021, 10:40:51 PM
Quote from: Hillary
"To hold the house and the senate in 2022 and to win the electoral college because also republicans are doing everything they can to create an environment in which winning the electoral college even narrowly the way joe biden did will be out of reach for a democrat so I understand why people want to argue for their priorities that's what they believe they were elected to do but at the end of the day nothing is going to get done if you don't have a democratic majority in the house in the senate and our majority comes from .people who win.

So look I'm all about um having vigorous debate i think it's it's good and it gives people a chance to be part of the process but at the end of the day it means nothing if we don't have a congress that will get things done and we don't have a white house that we can count on to be sane and sober and stable and productive so this is going to be a very intense period not just for the democratic party but for the country."

Where do you see the Whitehouse after losing 2024 mentioned in that quote? You are clearly wrong.

"To hold the house and the senate in 2022 and to win the electoral college..." Call me crazy, but a mention of the electoral college is usually in some reference to presidential elections.

You should actually watch the interview or read the transcript. All over the place she is lauding Biden and his efforts. You are clearly wrong because you're hanging on a sentence out of context and out of an hour long interview. Literally a 3 second sentence, not in context, out of 60 minutes. Incredibly disingenuous.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on December 31, 2021, 12:39:12 AM
Yep, she's clearly talking about losing the White House in 2024. Actually reading through the quote makes that startlingly clear.

Tom is just being a dishonest, disingenuous troll here and I for one am shocked; it's so out of character!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Shifter on December 31, 2021, 01:15:12 AM
Lol Tom giving an own goal

She talked about drunk, insane and unstable White House in reference to a repug occupation of it lol

Also when Bush slammed Trump it actually was an attack on Trump. The man and the president style. How much stock did Tom take on those criticisms?

Tom embarrasses himself with every post
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Clyde Frog on December 31, 2021, 01:39:53 AM
I'm confused why anyone is still listening to Hillary in end stage 2021, frankly. Especially Tom, but I'm not limiting this to any single person. Can we just move on from listening to the things she says as if her opinion matters?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on January 14, 2022, 11:09:45 PM
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/01/14/politics/biden-approval-rating-polling-memo/index.html

Putting out a statement to make sure it's understood that a poll showing deep unpopularity for the president is not accurate seems so... Trumpy. She seems to have come just short of referring to the poll as fake news.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on January 14, 2022, 11:48:46 PM
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/01/14/politics/biden-approval-rating-polling-memo/index.html

Putting out a statement to make sure it's understood that a poll showing deep unpopularity for the president is not accurate seems so... Trumpy. She seems to have come just short of referring to the poll as fake news.

Ugh...
Why Biden why?
Is it because they put you lower than Trump at the same time?

Look, about 50% is gonna hate Biden.  Nothing he does is going to change that.  And honestly, he hasn'f done much.  He's a very low key president.  At least from what I've seen. 
Honestly, republicans seem to paint him as more active than he is.  So to me its hard to know if he's doing a good job or not. 
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on January 14, 2022, 11:53:16 PM
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/01/14/politics/biden-approval-rating-polling-memo/index.html

Putting out a statement to make sure it's understood that a poll showing deep unpopularity for the president is not accurate seems so... Trumpy. She seems to have come just short of referring to the poll as fake news.

Ugh...
Why Biden why?
Is it because they put you lower than Trump at the same time?

Look, about 50% is gonna hate Biden.  Nothing he does is going to change that.  And honestly, he hasn'f done much.  He's a very low key president.  At least from what I've seen. 
Honestly, republicans seem to paint him as more active than he is.  So to me its hard to know if he's doing a good job or not.

He is averaging more EOs/year than Trump. Don’t let the quagmire of the Senate fool you.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Kangaroony on January 15, 2022, 03:56:25 PM
Even Hillary Clinton thinks Biden is running a poor White House:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/12/must-hillary-slams-biden-dont-white-house-can-count-sane-sober-stable-productive/


LOL... no, Clinton never mentioned Biden specifically.  The "Slams Biden" part of The Gateway Pundit's
headline was never in the original FOX news report;  it was added maliciously by the ultra-right wing
Trump-supporting TGP.

Clinton said "Look, I’m all about having vigorous debate. I think it’s good, and it gives people a chance to
be part of the process,” she added. “But, at the end of the day it means nothing IF we don’t have
a Congress that will get things done, and we don’t have a White House that we can count on to be sane
and sober and stable and productive".

And TGP is most definitely not a reliable source.  You've been fooled Tom.    Sorry.

The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right fake news website. The website is known for publishing
falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories.   Twitter permanently suspended its account on 6 February 2021,
for repeatedly publishing misinformation about the 2020 US presidential election. In September 2021, Google
demonetised the site for publishing misinformation.

It's been described by the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology as one of the websites that "primarily propagate
fake news", by Newsweek as a fake news website, and by CNN as a website "prone to peddling conspiracy theories"

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 25, 2022, 12:16:00 AM
The idiot Joe Biden thinks that bridges shouldn't have weight restrictions. His idea to solve supply chain issues is to bypass the bridge weight restrictions put in place by the engineers who designed the bridge.

https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1485612824583888898
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on January 25, 2022, 12:55:45 AM
Yikes
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on January 25, 2022, 02:35:32 AM
The idiot Joe Biden thinks that bridges shouldn't have weight restrictions. His idea to solve supply chain issues is to bypass the bridge weight restrictions put in place by the engineers who designed the bridge.

https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1485612824583888898

Cherry-picked and out of context, per usual. He’s referring to this:

Across our country right now, there are 45,000 bridges — 45,000 — that are in poor condition.  We’re seeing photos of some of them behind me in all 50 states.

And I’ve had a chance to see some of them myself as I’ve traveled the country.

I was up in New Hampshire. I visited a bridge where, if it’s not upgraded, weight restrictions could mean that school buses and fire trucks would have to travel an additional 10 miles out of their way to get to the other side of the river to deal with getting to school and/or putting out a fire.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/01/14/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-law-4/
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 25, 2022, 04:04:57 AM
So he thinks that a bridge can be upgraded to have no weight restrictions in the tweet I posted? Sounds pretty idiotic to me.

This what happens when you elect a senile old president who plagiarized coursework in law school, managing to graduate at the bottom of his class.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Shifter on January 25, 2022, 04:52:48 AM
So he thinks that a bridge can be upgraded to have no weight restrictions in the tweet I posted? Sounds pretty idiotic to me.

This what happens when you elect a senile old president who plagiarized coursework in law school, managing to graduate at the bottom of his class.

You think you can do better big mouth?

Also your repugnican party appears to be on board with it too

If you actually read things in context you would understand that thd bridges are in a state of severe disrepair and that trucks may be unable to safely use it. So fixing that removes the weight restriction on

FFS he's not claiming the weight holding capacity will be infinite and nobodies trucking across them with a load of neutronium.

It's so that you, an individual driver of your vehicle have no issue driving across the bridge

Who is the senile old man here? Seriously stop embarrassing yourself with own goals

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on January 25, 2022, 05:03:03 AM
So he thinks that a bridge can be upgraded to have no weight restrictions in the tweet I posted? Sounds pretty idiotic to me.

This what happens when you elect a senile old president who plagiarized coursework in law school, managing to graduate at the bottom of his class.

Apparently, idiocy is reserved for your tweet. Removing/having no weight restrictions for bridges is actually a legitimate thing. From Oregon:

B Street Bridge weight limit removed (https://www.co.washington.or.us/LUT/News/bstbridgeweightremoved2021.cfm)

B Street Bridge over Gales Creek is no longer weight limited. The Washington County Board of Commissioners approved removing the limit during its regular meeting today (June 1).

In late 2020, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) recommended the weight limit restricting some commercial vehicles from using the bridge. ODOT recently completed a refined load rating analysis which indicated the weight limit is not needed.


WEIGHT LIMIT POSTING REMOVED FROM ROUTE 17 BRIDGE OVER CSX RAILROAD IN SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY (https://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/fredericksburg/2021/weight-limit-posting-removed-from-route-17-bridge-over-csx-railroad-in-spotsylvania-county9-23-2021.asp)

Structure repaired to carry all vehicle traffic, including heavier emergency response vehicles

FREDERICKSBURG, Va. – The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has removed the weight limit posting on the Route 17 (Mills Drive) bridge over the CSX railroad tracks in Spotsylvania County after repairs.


Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 25, 2022, 05:06:37 AM
lol @ actually arguing that a bridge can have no weight restrictions. Incorrect.

Yeah, poor communication from Joe there, telling us that we just need to remove weight restriction on bridges to solve our supply chain woes.

I would say that it's also pretty funny that the leader of the nation thinks we need to fix bridge capacity when reading reports of empty store shelves and food shortages, but really it's pretty horrific.

I find that it's more likely that Biden is fulfilling his promise he made here of "I've done dumb things and I'll do dumb things again"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCJMF7mflGE
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Shifter on January 25, 2022, 05:12:41 AM
No. He's not saying 'just remove weight restrictions'. He's backing it up spending billions of dollars in an infrastructure program to repair and upgrade the bridges so if you're a b-double truck hauling goods, you don't need to take a long detour on account of a shitty bridge in disrepair. It apparantly has bipartisan support so maybe there are some repugs worthy of your ire too? Or do you have no objectivity and just bash 'whatever a democrat says because democrat'.

Kinda hilarious for Trump to talk about anyone else lying. That guy was the biggest bullshit artist of them all
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on January 25, 2022, 05:27:02 AM
lol @ actually arguing that a bridge can have no weight restrictions. Incorrect.

Is this incorrect:
B Street Bridge weight limit removed (https://www.co.washington.or.us/LUT/News/bstbridgeweightremoved2021.cfm)

Yeah, poor communication from Joe there, telling us that we just need to remove weight restriction on bridges to solve our supply chain woes.

Is that the only thing he has said in regard to solving supply chain issues? He mentioned other stuff in your tweet alone and overarchingly, mentioned the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill which has a lot more in it about supply chain relief than just bridge weight limits.

I would say that it's also pretty funny that the leader of the nation thinks we need to fix bridge capacity when reading reports of empty store shelves and food shortages, but really it's pretty horrific.

I find that it's more likely that Biden is fulfilling his promise he made here of "I've done dumb things and I'll do dumb things again"

Nice pivot.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on January 25, 2022, 05:32:12 AM
Its funny how Tom thinks any vehicle can have infinite weight.  As though a semi trailer doesn't have its own weight restriction, which major bridges in excellent condition can accomodate with ease.

Its also telling how Tom doesn't want the Free Market to function but instead wants Joe Biden to force stores and producers to meed demand.... Sounds.... Communist...
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on January 25, 2022, 03:09:35 PM
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/24/biden-calls-fox-news-reporter-peter-doocy-a-stupid-son-of-a-bitch.html

Lmao what a guy. My opinion of Joe Biden has raised 10 points.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on January 25, 2022, 03:37:03 PM
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/24/biden-calls-fox-news-reporter-peter-doocy-a-stupid-son-of-a-bitch.html

Lmao what a guy. My opinion of Joe Biden has raised 10 points.

I'd be impressed if I thought he knew the mic was on.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Shifter on January 25, 2022, 04:50:20 PM
Legend
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on January 25, 2022, 04:55:22 PM
He's just saying what we're all thinking.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on January 27, 2022, 05:07:48 PM
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/591590-biden-leading-trump-desantis-by-similar-margins-in-new-poll?amp

It's comforting to see that even with the economy falling apart and Biden's popularity tanking people would still choose him over Tweedledum or Tweedledee in a hypothetical election right now.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 03, 2022, 02:09:14 AM
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/591590-biden-leading-trump-desantis-by-similar-margins-in-new-poll?amp

It's comforting to see that even with the economy falling apart and Biden's popularity tanking people would still choose him over Tweedledum or Tweedledee in a hypothetical election right now.

https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1488866798581817357
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on February 03, 2022, 02:16:27 AM
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/591590-biden-leading-trump-desantis-by-similar-margins-in-new-poll?amp

It's comforting to see that even with the economy falling apart and Biden's popularity tanking people would still choose him over Tweedledum or Tweedledee in a hypothetical election right now.

https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1488866798581817357

Yeah. It's crazy how that works, how Biden can be so unpopular yet poised to pounce on his two most likely opponents if put up against either one of them in an election. Politics can be crazy sometimes. It appears that too many people have picked up on Trump being a grifter and DeSantis being a crazy moron for either one of them to win a general election.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on February 03, 2022, 02:48:05 AM
Yes, I'm sure that the openly conservative Rasmussen Reports conducted a perfectly fair and unbiased survey in a very professional manner and aren't simply telling their conservative audience what they want to hear, especially during a time when conservative audiences have been angrily lashing out at conservative sources that aren't telling them what they want to hear. Remember that time (https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1343193422996393987) they quoted Stalin and claimed Pence could (and totally should, they heavily implied) overturn the election?

Biden probably is very unpopular in reality, and the way things are going, I don't see him or any other Democrat winning in 2024. But I wouldn't take Rasmussen's word for it.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 03, 2022, 03:04:22 AM
Yes, I'm sure that the openly conservative Rasmussen Reports conducted a perfectly fair and unbiased

So Rasmussen is out, but you raise no complaint about the liberal media outlet The Hill giving out opposite polling results in the post immediately prior to mine. How blatantly hypocritical and partisan of you.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on February 03, 2022, 03:42:32 AM
Yes, I'm sure that the openly conservative Rasmussen Reports conducted a perfectly fair and unbiased

So Rasmussen is out, but you raise no complaint about the liberal media outlet The Hill giving out opposite polling results in the post immediately prior to mine. How blatantly hypocritical and partisan of you.

You larping as a righteous advocate for intellectual honesty and non-partisan takes is so cute. Instead of complaining why don’t you present evidence that the Hill is inaccurate?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 03, 2022, 04:00:11 AM
Yes, I'm sure that the openly conservative Rasmussen Reports conducted a perfectly fair and unbiased

So Rasmussen is out, but you raise no complaint about the liberal media outlet The Hill giving out opposite polling results in the post immediately prior to mine. How blatantly hypocritical and partisan of you.

You larping as a righteous advocate for intellectual honesty and non-partisan takes is so cute. Instead of complaining why don’t you present evidence that the Hill is inaccurate?

So one of the die hard liberals on this site thinks it's the liberal outlet who needs to be proven wrong. Who saw that coming.  ::)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on February 03, 2022, 04:16:52 AM
Yes, I'm sure that the openly conservative Rasmussen Reports conducted a perfectly fair and unbiased

So Rasmussen is out, but you raise no complaint about the liberal media outlet The Hill giving out opposite polling results in the post immediately prior to mine. How blatantly hypocritical and partisan of you.

You larping as a righteous advocate for intellectual honesty and non-partisan takes is so cute. Instead of complaining why don’t you present evidence that the Hill is inaccurate?

So one of the die hard liberals on this site thinks it's the liberal outlet who needs to be proven wrong. Who saw that coming.  ::)

Both sources would need to. I know it’s strange to you but I know Rasmussen tends to be pretty reliable and I also am not surprised Biden would poll low. I also wouldn’t be surprised if Trump and DeSantis are worse.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on February 03, 2022, 05:22:31 AM
Yes, I'm sure that the openly conservative Rasmussen Reports conducted a perfectly fair and unbiased

So Rasmussen is out, but you raise no complaint about the liberal media outlet The Hill giving out opposite polling results in the post immediately prior to mine. How blatantly hypocritical and partisan of you.

The Hill is widely regarded as generally centrist, and its association with pro-Trump grifter John Solomon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Solomon_(political_commentator)) alone should cast major doubt on any accusation of liberal bias. A media outlet not praising Trump and Republicans at all times is not indicative of a liberal bias. And it wasn't even The Hill that did the survey in the first place, they just wrote a story on it. Marquette Law School did the survey, like the article says. In any case, while I'm sure their methodology was far more honest than Rasmussen's, I'm not taking their results much more seriously. Neither Trump nor DeSantis have truly started campaigning yet, Bernie is probably going to run and split the Democratic vote yet again, and the media will be quick to soften the Republicans' anti-democratic positions with frantic both-sides equivocation.

I know Rasmussen tends to be pretty reliable

In previous elections, yes. But years have passed since then, and I would argue that them advocating that the vice-president should overturn the results of the election and keep Trump in power is very strong evidence that they are no longer reliable.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 03, 2022, 05:55:39 AM
The Hill is widely regarded as generally centrist

Sure they are.  ::)

https://www.conservapedia.com/The_Hill

(https://i.imgur.com/HkBOFvX.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on February 03, 2022, 06:08:07 AM
Conservapedia? Is this a joke?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on February 03, 2022, 06:09:42 AM
Never heard of ‘conservapedia’ before. Looks like their aim is to fight liberal bias with conservative bias. In essence canceling themselves out.

Conservapedia is a clean and concise resource for those seeking the truth. We do not allow liberal bias to deceive and distort here. Founded initially in November 2006 as a way to educate advanced, college-bound homeschoolers, this resource has grown into a marvelous source of information for students, adults and teachers alike
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 03, 2022, 06:27:07 AM
Actually, you need to learn more about public Wikis. It's not an outlet with specific editors who are specifically dishonest. It's a publicly editable Wiki, and its statements are validated with linked references like Wikipedia.

Since you don't actually have a rebuttal to the content we can see that your argument is a failure. "They are conservative" isn't analogous to "lying". Sites like Rasmussen or  Conservapedia are not discredited by merely being conservative. This is a terrible argument. You are discrediting yourself by claiming such nonsense in your failure to produce a legitimate argument.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Shifter on February 03, 2022, 06:34:12 AM
Actually, you need to learn more about public Wikis. It's not an outlet with specific editors who are specifically dishonest. It's a publicly editable Wiki, and its statements are validated with linked references like Wikipedia.

Since you don't actually have a rebuttal to the content we can see that your argument is a failure. "They are conservative" isn't analogous to "lying". Sites like Rasmussen or  Conservapedia are not discredited by merely being conservative. This is a terrible argument. You are discrediting yourself by claiming such nonsense in your failure to produce a legitimate argument.

It's just that so many conservitard sites are dishonest. Breitbart, info wars, Fox etc. Lying and disinformation is at the core of how they operate.

What's a website or news organisation that is unapologetically far left of politics? I'm pretty sure it's just as much full of shit as the far right gtoups

Take politics and bias out and you are left with neutrality and maybe a hint of truth.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 03, 2022, 07:23:03 AM
Priests are often conservative. Are all priests liars?

Plumbers and construction workers are often conservatives. Are all plumbers and construction workers liars?

This conservative=liar argument is a bad one.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on February 03, 2022, 07:40:33 AM
"Sites like Rasmussen or  Conservapedia are not discredited by merely being conservative."

But liberal sites like CNN, snopes, TheHill, and wikipedia are discredited, yeah?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 03, 2022, 07:48:26 AM
"Sites like Rasmussen or  Conservapedia are not discredited by merely being conservative."

But liberal sites like CNN, snopes, TheHill, and wikipedia are discredited, yeah?

No, they have their honest moments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sst_ry8gqE&ab_channel=Dr.SteveTurley
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on February 03, 2022, 07:56:53 AM
"Sites like Rasmussen or  Conservapedia are not discredited by merely being conservative."

But liberal sites like CNN, snopes, TheHill, and wikipedia are discredited, yeah?
It doesn’t matter what the source is.
To Tom the only thing that matters is that they say what he wants so he can cherry pick from it. Although obviously the sources which lean the way he does more often provide him with the trolling material he posts on here
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on February 03, 2022, 09:12:27 AM
Actually, you need to learn more about public Wikis. It's not an outlet with specific editors who are specifically dishonest. It's a publicly editable Wiki, and its statements are validated with linked references like Wikipedia.

Not all wikis are created equally. Like I said, I’d never heard of this one until today. But it is rich with bias. A little background:

Conservapedia (/kənˌsɜːrvəˈpiːdiə/) is an English-language wiki-based online encyclopedia project written from a self-described American conservative[2] and fundamentalist Christian[3] point of view. The website was established in 2006 by American homeschool teacher and attorney Andrew Schlafly, son of the conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly,[4][5] to counter what he perceived as a liberal bias in Wikipedia.[6][7] It uses editorials and a wiki-based system for content generation.

Had I known it is the spawn of phyllis schlafly I would have just killed my browser in hopes that would somehow de-slime my soul.

It only gets better:

Examples of Conservapedia's ideology include its accusations against and strong criticism of former US President Barack Obama—including belief in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories[8]—along with open criticisms of atheism, homosexuality, the Democratic Party, and evolution. Furthermore, it views the theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism,[9] claims that abortion increases risk of breast cancer, praises a number of Republican politicians, supports celebrities and artistic works that it believes represent moral standards in line with Christian family values, and accepts fundamentalist Christian doctrines such as Young Earth creationism.[10][11]

Yep, no bias there.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on February 03, 2022, 12:35:42 PM
Actually, you need to learn more about public Wikis. It's not an outlet with specific editors who are specifically dishonest. It's a publicly editable Wiki, and its statements are validated with linked references like Wikipedia.

You and Thork cite things incorrectly all the time. Just citing sources doesn’t make you reliable or correct.

 
In previous elections, yes. But years have passed since then, and I would argue that them advocating that the vice-president should overturn the results of the election and keep Trump in power is very strong evidence that they are no longer reliable.

I didn’t know this. Thanks.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 03, 2022, 03:44:34 PM
Not all wikis are created equally. Like I said, I’d never heard of this one until today. But it is rich with bias.

Bias does not equal incorrect. Astronomers are biased against astrology. Does that make astronomers incorrect?

And the innaccuracy of one article by one person on a public wiki doesn't mean that another article by a different person is inaccurate, just as one Wikipedia article or even article section does not affect another.

You are posting gibberish arguments for why you shouldnt argue to avoid actually addressing the content presented to you.

Actually, you need to learn more about public Wikis. It's not an outlet with specific editors who are specifically dishonest. It's a publicly editable Wiki, and its statements are validated with linked references like Wikipedia.

You and Thork cite things incorrectly all the time. Just citing sources doesn’t make you reliable or correct.

Actually it usually means that I presented an argument to you and you ran away from it. Claiming that an argument and sources presented to you "could" be incorrect is really one of the worst ways to argue.

You need to turn that "could" to "is", and you lot usually choose to just make some excuse to avoid addressing the arguments directly.

Arguing about what you don't need to argue against is also off topic to Joe Biden. I posted a Joe Biden video in my last post and you chose to argue about something else. Maybe the answer to that one is that the author is a conservative so everything he says is inherently a lie? ::)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on February 03, 2022, 04:17:25 PM
I admitted your poll could be accurate. What else is there to argue? You asserting that conservapedia is a wiki therefore reliable? That’s a silly non sequitur, besides Stack already did a fine job pointing out the inherent bias present in the wiki. The Hill also frequently criticizes Biden in its opinion section, go look for yourself. Basically you just seem upset because I’m not shitting on Biden in your preferred way. You seem kind of fragile.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 03, 2022, 04:22:34 PM
Stack already did a fine job pointing out the inherent bias present in the wiki.

Being biased has nothing to do with being incorrect.

Astronomers are biased against astrologers and the practice of astrology. This does not make Astronomers incorrect about astrology.

Mothers are often biased against teen drinking. This does not make mothers incorrect.

Every person or group has its own biases and that alone does not mean that they are incorrect. "They're biased!" is mostly a liberal excuse to avoid having to address the arguments given.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on February 03, 2022, 05:38:18 PM
Stack already did a fine job pointing out the inherent bias present in the wiki.

Being biased has nothing to do with being incorrect. Astronomers are biased against astrologers and the practice of astrology. This does not make Astronomers incorrect about astrology.

Astronomers are biased against the practice of astrology?  Like all of them?  Sounds like you are making shit up.  They know its bull shit pseudoscience, but that doesn't mean they are all against it being practiced.

Quote
Every person or group has its own biases and that alone does not mean that they are incorrect. "They're biased!" is mostly a liberal excuse to avoid having to address the arguments given.

Who have I said is incorrect?  You are doing that Thork thing where you are inventing  position for me and arguing against that instead of what I have actually said.  It's pretty incredible when you go look at that shitty article about the Hill on conservapedia though.  The stretches they have to make to try and put across a point would make even the laziest university essay writer blush.  For example they assert "The site has continuously labeled anti-establishment Republican candidates for Congress as "far-right" (including Laura Loomer and Bob Good) while giving far-left Democrats (such as the Squad) a free pass.[6] " but when you read their source for this, you see that there is bipartisan consensus on the shittiness of these candidates and you also see there is no substantiation that they give the Squad, a free pass. 

In the next sentence they assert "They also disparage QAnon while ignoring the violence of BLM thugs and Antifa terrorists." without citation.  In fact The Hill published an opinion piece that urged BLM to change (https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/539903-putting-antifa-and-black-lives-matter-on-notice) their ways or risk damaging their reputation as justice activists.  So it seems The Hill has been critical of BLM and Antifa but this doesn't even address the false equivalency being made between Qanon and BLM.  Qanon supports any number of deranged and fanciful ideas including Majorie Taylor Green, a member of congress, whispering about the dreaded "Jewish Space Laser".  Comparing the concern of Jewish Space Lasers to the continuing plight of Black Americans is absolutely reprehensible.

So what other charges does your super reliable wiki lay against The Hill?  That the Hill labelled some dems centrist because they voted in favour of impeachment and didn't vote against a climate change bill or a gender and sexual orientation bill.  This obviously ignores that impeachment popularity sat just below 50% (areound 47%), a majority support improving gender and sexual orientation based rights and are concerned about climate change.  Impeachment was obviously heavily partisan, but the other two issues are about as centrist as it gets.  It is worth pointing out that conservapedia labels the bill about climate change a "climate alarmist" bill and calls equal rights bills "liberal fascism" simply because they don't like it.

The "reliable wiki" claims that The Hill does not call out "the far left" despite The Hill acknowledging that the Squad and Sanders are the far-left of the democratic party.  They call the Seatlle autonomous zone a debacle and declare that liberal policies being pursued are irrational and damaging.  Conservapedia also took umbrage with the Hill calling enclosures in a texas facility "cages" (which was a quote from a source) but not declaring the entire facility, which Biden was promising to close, the same.  They again are trying to make a false equivalency.  Finally, the wiki attempts to pin the behaviour of their commenters on the website itself.  This is obviously moronic; everyone and their dog knows comment sections are toxic cesspools no matter which site you go to.

So what does all this add up to?  A pretty clear picture that conservapedia employs the same cherry picking tactics that you do as they dishonestly try to paint a picture of The Hill as a liberal boogeyman simply because the site doesn't agree with the editors of it's article.  It's sad that you try and pass this off as reliable.

Notice to readers:  Sorry I didn't annotate this better.  I am at work and didn't really have time to do it.  Suffice it to say that simple keyword searches on thehill.com will provide ample evidence.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 03, 2022, 05:44:08 PM
I admitted your poll could be accurate. What else is there to argue? You asserting that conservapedia is a wiki therefore reliable?
I would argue that the question shouldn't be whether Conservapedia is reliable in general (it isn't), but rather whether the specific claim they've made about The Hill is true. In some cases, this might be difficult or time-consuming to verify, so falling back on general reliability may be a good option.

However, in this case verification is trivial. Both articles are linked within the Conservapedia page. You can just, like, go to them and find out whether they did or didn't use the specific wording alleged.

I've done just that, and so now I know that the claim was true. Saddam's response of "Conservapedia? Is this a joke?" is dumb, because it fails to address the claim, and merely dismisses it based on who the claimant is. Tom could have just as well re-typed the same argument by hand, and then it would suddenly not be a Conservapedia link. The source doesn't automatically discredit a position.

But hey, since we're all on watchlists for accessing that cursed website anyway, let's all enjoy the Biden junta (https://www.conservapedia.com/Biden_junta) article.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on February 03, 2022, 05:58:51 PM
Stack already did a fine job pointing out the inherent bias present in the wiki.

Being biased has nothing to do with being incorrect.

Astronomers are biased against astrologers and the practice of astrology.
I’ll add “bias” to the ever increasing list of things you don’t understand. Scientists aren’t “biased” against astrology any more than they’re biased against there being fairies at the bottom of the garden. There’s simply no empirical evidence for fairies, or for astrology being a good way of predicting the future.
So they form conclusions based on that empirical evidence, or lack thereof. That isn’t bias, it’s how everyone should be coming to conclusions.

You have in the past derided sources which you feel are biased against your position. You’re fine with sources which say what you want. Cherry picking, as usual.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 03, 2022, 06:19:09 PM
I’ll add “bias” to the ever increasing list of things you don’t understand. Scientists aren’t “biased” against astrology any more than they’re biased against there being fairies at the bottom of the garden. There’s simply no empirical evidence for fairies, or for astrology being a good way of predicting the future.
So they form conclusions based on that empirical evidence, or lack thereof. That isn’t bias, it’s how everyone should be coming to conclusions.

You have in the past derided sources which you feel are biased against your position. You’re fine with sources which say what you want. Cherry picking, as usual.

Which part of your argument is actually rebutting the point that having a bias is not equivalent to being incorrect?

Astronomers have a bias against astrology. Mothers have a bias against drunk teenagers. Senior citizens have a bias against kids trespassing on their front lawn. Many people have a bias against criminality. Arguing that someone is biased against something is not a valid excuse to avoid having to rebut the argument. Bias does not mean incorrect or wrong.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on February 03, 2022, 06:45:41 PM
Astronomers have a bias against astrology.
No, they don’t.
They (and a lot of other people) have looked at the empirical evidence and concluded that it does not support astrology. That isn’t bias.

Quote
Bias does not mean incorrect or wrong.
It does make it more likely that someone is wrong because their bias makes them more likely to accept evidence which backs up their bias and reject evidence which does not, rather than assessing things objectively.
As you demonstrate on here daily.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on February 03, 2022, 06:49:17 PM
I admitted your poll could be accurate. What else is there to argue? You asserting that conservapedia is a wiki therefore reliable?
I would argue that the question shouldn't be whether Conservapedia is reliable in general (it isn't), but rather whether the specific claim they've made about The Hill is true. In some cases, this might be difficult or time-consuming to verify, so falling back on general reliability may be a good option.

However, in this case verification is trivial. Both articles are linked within the Conservapedia page. You can just, like, go to them and find out whether they did or didn't use the specific wording alleged.

Tom disputed that the Hill is widely regarded as centrist and attempted to use conservapedia’s article as a contrafactual to that. Not only is that site unreliable because of their cherry-picking and falsely framed comparisons, but Conservapedia even admit in their article on the Hill that it has “a reputation of being more balanced compared to other lamestream [sic] media sources”. It doesn’t even really say what Tom wants it to say.

Quote
I've done just that, and so now I know that the claim was true.

Which claim? That the Hill has a liberal bias?

Quote
Saddam's response of "Conservapedia? Is this a joke?" is dumb, because it fails to address the claim, and merely dismisses it based on who the claimant is.

Sadam obviously made a poor refutation of that, but Tom made a bad point to begin with. It’s bias all the way down.

Quote
Tom could have just as well re-typed the same argument by hand, and then it would suddenly not be a Conservapedia link. The source doesn't automatically discredit a position.

If you are referring to Tom’s sarcastic eye roll, then I don’t agree, but I think you are talking about a different post. Can you please clarify which point of Tom’s you are referring to?

Quote
But hey, since we're all on watchlist for accessing that cursed website anyway, let's all enjoy the Biden junta (https://www.conservapedia.com/Biden_junta) article.

🍆
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 03, 2022, 07:18:32 PM
Astronomers have a bias against astrology.
No, they don’t.
They (and a lot of other people) have looked at the empirical evidence and concluded that it does not support astrology. That isn’t bias.

Actually, it is.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/biased

adjective - "favoring one person or side over another"

Psychology Today says:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/bias

"A bias is a tendency, inclination, or prejudice toward or against something or someone. Some biases are positive and helpful—like choosing to only eat foods that are considered healthy or staying away from someone who has knowingly caused harm. But biases are often based on stereotypes, rather than actual knowledge of an individual or circumstance. Whether positive or negative, such cognitive shortcuts can result in prejudgments that lead to rash decisions or discriminatory practices."

A bias can be positive or negative. It merely means that you favor something. Having a bias is not equivalent to being right or wrong.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Quote
Bias does not mean incorrect or wrong.
It does make it more likely that someone is wrong because their bias makes them more likely to accept evidence which backs up their bias and reject evidence which does not, rather than assessing things objectively.
As you demonstrate on here daily.

So the people who have a bias against crimes like murder are likely to be wrong? How laughable. You really appear to have no idea what you are talking about.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 03, 2022, 07:42:31 PM
Tom disputed that the Hill is widely regarded as centrist and attempted to use conservapedia’s article as a contrafactual to that.
He provided a very specific quote that he considers to be the counterpoint. Focus on that.

Not only is that site unreliable because of their cherry-picking and falsely framed comparisons
Do you believe the specific example Tom presented to be falsely framed? If so, you've just found an excellent point for yourself to argue.

but Conservapedia even admit in their article on the Hill that it has “a reputation of being more balanced compared to other lamestream [sic] media sources”. It doesn’t even really say what Tom wants it to say.
Not part of what's been quoted. Again, focus on the specific claim.

Which claim? That the Hill has a liberal bias?
No. Here, let me quote it again for clarity:

Quote from: https://www.conservapedia.com/The_Hill#Liberal_bias
Despite having referred to migrant detention centers under the Trump presidency as "cages",[15 (https://thehill.com/latino/527569-texas-warehouse-where-migrants-housed-in-cages-closed-for-humane-renovation)] The Hill refers to such under the tenure of the Biden junta merely as "shelter for young migrants".[16 (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/540817-biden-vows-texas-shelter-for-young-migrants-wont-stay-open-very-long)]

There are plenty of good ways to address this position. You could argue that a single incident does not prove a broader trend. You could argue that that there was some good reason for them to use charged language when referring to Trump's cages, but to stop referring to them as such when Trump stopped being responsible for them. You could make a nuanced point about the differences between opinion writing and statistical data. Christ, there are so many angles here that don't boil down to "b-but this sentence came from a bad website!"

Sadam obviously made a poor refutation of that, but Tom made a bad point to begin with. It’s bias all the way down.
Until this moment, it really looked like you're defending Saddam's position. I now understand that you aren't, so this is either a presentation issue on your part, or a reading comprehension issue on mine.

Can you please clarify which point of Tom’s you are referring to?
Hopefully done above, but just in case: "Conservapedia bad" is not, by itself, a refutation of the claim of "The choice of words in these articles is evidence of The Hill's liberal bias".
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on February 03, 2022, 08:01:51 PM
Actually, it is.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/biased

adjective - "favoring one person or side over another"
Oh whoopsie doodle! You accidently didn't quote this part:

Quote
While biased can just mean having a preference for one thing over another, it also is synonymous with "prejudiced,"

In common usage bias has a clear connotation.

And weirdly you did quote this which pretty much backs up what I said:

Quote
"A bias is a tendency, inclination, or prejudice toward or against something or someone. Some biases are positive and helpful—like choosing to only eat foods that are considered healthy or staying away from someone who has knowingly caused harm. But biases are often based on stereotypes, rather than actual knowledge of an individual or circumstance. Whether positive or negative, such cognitive shortcuts can result in prejudgments that lead to rash decisions or discriminatory practices."

So being biased doesn't automatically mean you're wrong about something, but it does make it more likely.
If I support a certain team in a sport then I am biased towards them and against other teams.
So when I'm watching and the referee gives a decision against my team I am more likely to think the decision wrong.
Bias robs one of objectivity.

For example, you have previously derided sources you don't agree with as biased. You are now - because this biased source agrees with you - claiming that bias is irrelevant. Which, ironically, shows your bias. See?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 03, 2022, 08:27:21 PM
Actually, it is.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/biased

adjective - "favoring one person or side over another"
Oh whoopsie doodle! You accidently didn't quote this part:

Quote
While biased can just mean having a preference for one thing over another, it also is synonymous with "prejudiced,"

In common usage bias has a clear connotation.

Wow, you bolded something. Here is something you didn't bold from that source:

"While biased can just mean having a preference for one thing over another, it also is synonymous with 'prejudiced,' and that prejudice can be taken to the extreme."

Biased can just mean having a preference for one thing than another. Blatantly ignoring the definitions and meanings of words in favor of your preferred meaning is a terrible way to argue, and is very visibly a display of cherry picking and intellectual dishonesty.

Also, prejudiced doesn't equal wrong either. Many people are prejudiced against allowing convicted child molesters around their children.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on February 03, 2022, 08:43:09 PM
Tom disputed that the Hill is widely regarded as centrist and attempted to use conservapedia’s article as a contrafactual to that.
He provided a very specific quote that he considers to be the counterpoint. Focus on that.

Gotcha.

Do you believe the specific example Tom presented to be falsely framed? If so, you've just found an excellent point for yourself to argue.

I already did above.  I'll recap so you don't have to root around for it: The reference to "cages" was not the Hill editorializing, but quoting a source; it was also in reference to individual enclosures and not the entire facility.  Conservaderp then proceeded to compare that to an article talking about Biden wanting to close the entire facility.  It's not a fair comparison.

Quote from: Pete Svarrior
Not part of what's been quoted. Again, focus on the specific claim.

Which claim? That the Hill has a liberal bias?
No. Here, let me quote it again for clarity:

I'm with you now.  I clipped the rest because I think between your clarification and my comment earlier in this post it's mostly been answered.  To answer your last question about my viewpoint, I am not defending Sadam's post, although I sympathize with it.  I wanted to push back against Tom's terrible habit of letting his sources speal for themself simply because he cited them and agrees with them.  Not only was the part he quoted a bad piece of thinking, the entire wiki article is a gong show.

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 03, 2022, 09:15:59 PM
I already did above.  I'll recap so you don't have to root around for it: The reference to "cages" was not the Hill editorializing, but quoting a source; it was also in reference to individual enclosures and not the entire facility.  Conservaderp then proceeded to compare that to an article talking about Biden wanting to close the entire facility.  It's not a fair comparison.
Sounds sensible to me! No further questions, your honour
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on February 03, 2022, 09:30:12 PM
Saddam's response of "Conservapedia? Is this a joke?" is dumb, because it fails to address the claim, and merely dismisses it based on who the claimant is.

When the claimant is Conservapedia, then yes, the claim can be safely dismissed based on who the claimant is. That doesn't necessarily mean that the opposite of the claim is automatically true, but an article from Conservapedia is never any good evidence of anything, ever.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on February 03, 2022, 09:34:14 PM
Biased can just mean having a preference for one thing than another.
Literally no-one understands it that way.
I prefer burgers to salad, no-one would describe that as being biased. Biased has a clear connotation which your own source mentions.
Obviously you know this and are just digging your heels in because you want to be right on the internet, but you're wrong and trolling as usual.

Quote
Also, prejudiced doesn't equal wrong either.

It doesn't equal wrong, but it makes being wrong more likely.
Which you know, because you have derided sources in the past because you've said they're biased.
But with biased sources which confirm your own biases you're now saying that bias isn't an issue.
Which is pretty hypocritical. And you're doing this in part because of your own bias, which is ironic.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 03, 2022, 09:35:10 PM
When the claimant is Conservapedia, then yes, the claim can be safely dismissed based on who the claimant is.
If you have any response at all to why that's dumb, please go ahead. If all you have to say is "YUH-UH I AM RIGHT", then perhaps we could respect the value of each other's time and not go there?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on February 03, 2022, 10:18:28 PM
Conservapedia is notorious for being a ridiculous meme of right-wing nonsense almost indistinguishable from parody. Nothing they have to say is reliable or sensible. I don't have to read a specific article from them to know that the article is almost certainly going to be crap. Is it theoretically possible, is it within the laws of physics that such an article might actually make logical sense and be full of good points? Sure. It's also technically possible that if I go outside and call a cab, there might be a chimpanzee behind the wheel instead of a person. But just like it's a very safe assumption that my cab driver will be a human being and not a chimpanzee, it's also a very safe assumption that any given Conservapedia article will be full of horseshit. It's simply disingenuous to act like that website's well-earned reputation counts for nothing and that an article from them really deserves to be taken seriously.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 03, 2022, 10:39:08 PM
Biased can just mean having a preference for one thing than another.
Literally no-one understands it that way.

Incorrect. Psychology Today and the dictionary source from vocabulary.com which was quoted and bolded to you were "literally" written by people who understand it that way.  ::)

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Quote
Also, prejudiced doesn't equal wrong either.

It doesn't equal wrong, but it makes being wrong more likely.

So parents who are prejudiced to not want their children to be around convicted child molesters are more likely to be wrong? How does that work?

Conservapedia is notorious for being a ridiculous meme of right-wing nonsense almost indistinguishable from parody. Nothing they have to say is reliable or sensible. I don't have to read a specific article from them to know that the article is almost certainly going to be crap

Actually, you do. How is it possible to know that this Conservapedia article about the game of chess (https://www.conservapedia.com/Chess) is going to be full of falsities without reading and assessing it?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on February 04, 2022, 12:22:06 AM
Actually, you do. How is it possible to know that this Conservapedia article about the game of chess (https://www.conservapedia.com/Chess) is going to be full of falsities without reading and assessing it?

On a whim I decided to take a look and make an assessment. Opening paragraphs from Conservapedia's 'Chess' entry:

Chess is an intellectually challenging game of chivalry between two players. Based purely on skill and merit without any element of chance, chess has long been one of the most popular games in the world, and today chess is played by upwards of 800 million people worldwide. Chess sharpens the mind, improves decision-making skills, helps overcome addiction and procrastination, drives out anxiety, and builds character. Promoters of chess include Benjamin Franklin,[1] Thomas Jefferson, actor Humphrey Bogart and movie producer Stanley Kubrick.[2]

Chess can be helpful in overcoming addictions exploiting images or patterns, including pornography, gambling, video games, and televised football. Chess fills the mind with a healthy activity while reinforcing the devastating consequences ("checkmate") of bad decisions.[3] Temerity is punished in chess, as is timorousness. Chess seems to fend off obesity, unlike unhealthy hobbies.


First off, a "challenging game of chivalry"? Huh? 'Chivalry'?

The bolded bit (mine) is pretty interesting. The [3] source referenced is to some guy's blog post about how chess helped him with his drug addiction. Literally 1 guy, a blog post. He referenced drugs. No mention of "pornography, gambling, video games, and televised football". Televised football? No mention of "reinforcing the devastating consequences ("checkmate") of bad decisions." No mention of "...fend off obesity"? Completely made up, manufactured.

Assessment: Even an entry about 'Chess' is very weirdly, for lack of a better term, biased. Maybe not even biased, just really weird, leaning into some kind of conservatism I can't even label. Televised football?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 04, 2022, 01:09:02 AM
Really, and how did you perform your assessment of this article without reading it, as honk has claimed was his superior go-to method of rebutting articles? Are you going to even answer the question posed, or admit that you did have to read the article, showing honk wrong?

Also, how exactly did you determine that Chess has never helped anyone with addictions such as pornography, gambling, video games, or televised football? You are questioning something, but this is is not a determination that these statements are falsities. Your assessment is more akin to thinking that there needs to be a [citation needed] there, and has nothing to do with the matter of whether the statements are true or false.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on February 04, 2022, 02:05:22 AM
Really, and how did you perform your assessment of this article without reading it, as honk has claimed was his superior go-to method of rebutting articles? Are you going to even answer the question posed, or admit that you did have to read the article, showing honk wrong?

Also, how exactly did you determine that Chess has never helped anyone with addictions such as pornography, gambling, video games, or televised football? You are questioning something, but this is is not a determination that these statements are falsities. Your assessment is more akin to thinking that there needs to be a [citation needed] there, and has nothing to do with the matter of whether the statements are true or false.

Well let’s just say that Honk’s assumption has proved to be correct one more time. What a fucking shit show that site is.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 04, 2022, 02:11:22 AM
Well let’s just say that Honk’s assumption has proved to be correct one more time.

How was it shown that the article was allegedly inaccurate without reading the article, exactly? You are referring to a method of reading the article for assessment when honk claimed that it was not necessary.

In fact, he knew that the article would be wholey inaccurate and that "nothing they say is reliable" and that "any given Conservapedia article will be full of horseshit". We only heard about a minor claim of Chess helping people with addictions, which stack thinks, but completely fails to provide evidence for, is wrong. There is a lot more content there. Can you show us how this article is totally unreliable, how nothing in the article is correct, including the described rules of Chess, etc., possibly through use of honk's preferred method of not reading the article?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on February 04, 2022, 02:56:46 AM
Actually, you do. How is it possible to know that this Conservapedia article about the game of chess (https://www.conservapedia.com/Chess) is going to be full of falsities without reading and assessing it?

Because Conservapedia is notorious for both its factual inaccuracies and its ludicrous, comical attempts to put a stereotypical right-wing spin on literally everything. It is technically possible, like I said, for there to be to be a sensible Conservapedia article with plenty of reasonable and logical points, but I know it's not going to happen, just like I know that I'm not going to go into work tomorrow and see my co-workers wearing powdered wigs and performing one of Shakespeare's plays, despite that also being technically possible. I would be astonished if you or anyone else here could show me many Conservapedia articles of reasonable length that don't have the wild exaggerations, absurd right-wing spin, and willful misinformation that are the hallmarks of the website.

That's why a rebuttal to the well-accepted claim that The Hill isn't liberal can be safely dismissed when it solely consists of a link to Conservapedia. Again, I'm not saying that a position being argued on Conservapedia automatically means that the opposite is true, only that Conservapedia's arguments can safely be ignored as meritless.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on February 04, 2022, 02:57:40 AM

We only heard about a minor claim of Chess helping people with addictions, which stack thinks, but completely fails to provide evidence for, is wrong. There is a lot more content there. Can you show us how this article is totally unreliable, how nothing in the article is correct, including the described rules of Chess, etc., possibly through use of honk's preferred method of not reading the article?

I didn’t say nothing in the article was correct. It was just highly amusing that the random example you gave, ‘chess’, opens up with those two paragraphs. Clearly showing quite a strange bend in reality. I mean it closes with, “Chess seems to fend off obesity, unlike unhealthy hobbies.”

And you’re expecting me to show that chess doesn’t fend off obesity? Is that how claims work theses days? Aside from that being the dumbest sentence ever, don’t you think a claim like that should have some sort of back up? Or have the rules changed?

Compare the first paragraph for ‘chess’ from conservapedia to Wikipedia’s:

“ Chess is a board game played between two players. It is sometimes called Western chess, or International chess to distinguish it from related games such as xiangqi and shogi. The current form of the game emerged in Southern Europe during the second half of the 15th century after evolving from a similar, much older game[a] of Indian origin. Today, chess is one of the world's most popular games, played by millions of people worldwide.”

No mention of addiction relief from porn and televised football, nor ‘chivalry’, nor anything about the games miraculous ability to fend off obesity unlike some other hobbies.

You’ve really got to be joking.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 04, 2022, 03:07:04 AM
Quote from: stack
I didn’t say nothing in the article was correct.

You posted 53 words from an article with over 4,000 words. You only found fault with those ones, which you suspect, but don't bother at all to provide evidence for, is incorrect. I don't see how this goes very far to prove honk's claim that "nothing they say is reliable" and that "any given Conservapedia article will be full of horseshit". In fact, since that's all you had an issue with, it does the opposite.

Quote from: honk
I'm not saying that a position being argued on Conservapedia automatically means that the opposite is true

So you admit that a Conservapedia article can have truth on it. Since you admit that an article can have truth on it there is a fundamental flaw with dismissing all content on this public platform of communication without bothering to assess the specific claims as they come in. How ridiculous of you.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on February 04, 2022, 03:46:12 AM
You’ve really got to be joking.

No, he's completely serious. For sure.  ::)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on February 04, 2022, 04:03:47 AM
Quote from: stack
I didn’t say nothing in the article was correct.

You posted 53 words from an article with over 4,000 words. You only found fault with those ones, which you suspect, but don't bother at all to provide evidence for, is incorrect.

I’ll let the first two paragraphs about chess speak for itself. Funny how that was your example.

But ok, if we’re now playing by your rules, it seems that voting for Joe Biden fends off obesity, unlike voting for other candidates. It also rids one of the unhealthy addiction to porn and televised football games.

Now provide some evidence that this is incorrect.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on February 04, 2022, 08:45:23 AM
Quote from: stack
I didn’t say nothing in the article was correct.

You posted 53 words from an article with over 4,000 words. You only found fault with those ones, which you suspect, but don't bother at all to provide evidence for, is incorrect.

I’ll let the first two paragraphs about chess speak for itself. Funny how that was your example.

But ok, if we’re now playing by your rules, it seems that voting for Joe Biden fends off obesity, unlike voting for other candidates. It also rids one of the unhealthy addiction to porn and televised football games.

Now provide some evidence that this is incorrect.

I'd like to submit that supporting Trump leads to obesity.
Evidence:
Trump eats unhealthy food.
Trump is visibly obese.
Trump's supporters admire his decisions, which must therefore include his diet and exercise decisions.
Therefore they like being unhealthy and obese.

In 2016 obesity was 39.8% in adults.
In 2018 obesity was 42.4% in adults.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db288.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db360.htm

So while Trump was in office, obesity increased. 
Its clear: Trump makes his supporters fat.  Vote Biden to avoid obesity
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on February 04, 2022, 08:51:55 AM
Quote from: stack
I didn’t say nothing in the article was correct.

You posted 53 words from an article with over 4,000 words. You only found fault with those ones, which you suspect, but don't bother at all to provide evidence for, is incorrect.

I’ll let the first two paragraphs about chess speak for itself. Funny how that was your example.

But ok, if we’re now playing by your rules, it seems that voting for Joe Biden fends off obesity, unlike voting for other candidates. It also rids one of the unhealthy addiction to porn and televised football games.

Now provide some evidence that this is incorrect.

I'd like to submit that supporting Trump leads to obesity.
Evidence:
Trump eats unhealthy food.
Trump is visibly obese.
Trump's supporters admire his decisions, which must therefore include his diet and exercise decisions.
Therefore they like being unhealthy and obese.

In 2016 obesity was 39.8% in adults.
In 2018 obesity was 42.4% in adults.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db288.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db360.htm

So while Trump was in office, obesity increased. 
Its clear: Trump makes his supporters fat.  Vote Biden to avoid obesity

No, Dave. The game is to boldly present something as fact with no evidence whatsoever, then demand proof that it's not the case. You put thought into it so you failed.  :(
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on February 04, 2022, 09:32:49 AM
Quote from: stack
I didn’t say nothing in the article was correct.

You posted 53 words from an article with over 4,000 words. You only found fault with those ones, which you suspect, but don't bother at all to provide evidence for, is incorrect.

I’ll let the first two paragraphs about chess speak for itself. Funny how that was your example.

But ok, if we’re now playing by your rules, it seems that voting for Joe Biden fends off obesity, unlike voting for other candidates. It also rids one of the unhealthy addiction to porn and televised football games.

Now provide some evidence that this is incorrect.

I'd like to submit that supporting Trump leads to obesity.
Evidence:
Trump eats unhealthy food.
Trump is visibly obese.
Trump's supporters admire his decisions, which must therefore include his diet and exercise decisions.
Therefore they like being unhealthy and obese.

In 2016 obesity was 39.8% in adults.
In 2018 obesity was 42.4% in adults.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db288.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db360.htm

So while Trump was in office, obesity increased. 
Its clear: Trump makes his supporters fat.  Vote Biden to avoid obesity

No, Dave. The game is to boldly present something as fact with no evidence whatsoever, then demand proof that it's not the case. You put thought into it so you failed.  :(

Damnit!   >o<
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on February 04, 2022, 10:02:37 AM
So parents who are prejudiced to not want their children to be around convicted child molesters are more likely to be wrong? How does that work?
That isn't prejudice. If they've been convicted then they've already been judged and found to be guilty.
So not wanting your children to be around them is eminently sensible :)
I'll add "prejudice" to the list of things you don't understand - if it helps there's a clue in the word itself, it's "pre-judging" someone.
And that makes you more likely to be wrong :). As your own source says, prejudice and bias are synonymous in common usage.

And I note you are continuing to ignore the point here which is your hypocricy.
You have previously dismissed sources on the basis that you claim they are biased.
Yet here you are posting a biased source but because the bias confirms your own you are now claiming that the bias doesn't matter.
Silly you.
:)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 13, 2022, 11:29:24 AM
I don't have to read a specific article from them to know that the article is almost certainly going to be crap.
OK. Well, two of us have read it and we agree that this specific claim was factually correct, if possibly misused. If you're gonna take the "well I don't HAVE TO read it" route, then I'll just assume you have no meaningful response and move on.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 01:30:36 PM
So parents who are prejudiced to not want their children to be around convicted child molesters are more likely to be wrong? How does that work?
That isn't prejudice. If they've been convicted then they've already been judged and found to be guilty.

No. You are proposing that people should be judged for life. Assuming that someone who stole something once will steal again is a form of prejudice.

Many people who have completed their sentence don't think that they are guilty anymore. For most things the state doesn't even think that people remain guilty after completing their time and rehabilitation. Many people argue that when you are convicted and have been sentenced you have theoretically "done your time" and have served your punishment, have passed any rehabilitation from the state, and should be given a second chance in getting jobs, etc.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: JSS on February 13, 2022, 02:10:30 PM
For most things the state doesn't even think that people remain guilty after completing their time and rehabilitation.

You are misunderstanding how the justice system works.  Serving your sentence does not wipe away a guilty plea or conviction.  You do not suddenly become innocent of your past crimes after your sentence is up.  It would take a pardon or a higher court invalidating your conviction can do that.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 02:29:30 PM
For most things the state doesn't even think that people remain guilty after completing their time and rehabilitation.

You are misunderstanding how the justice system works.  Serving your sentence does not wipe away a guilty plea or conviction.  You do not suddenly become innocent of your past crimes after your sentence is up.  It would take a pardon or a higher court invalidating your conviction can do that.

No, you don't become innocent of the crime committed, but many people believe that if you go through your punishment and go through counseling, etc. as required by the state, you are considered to be rehabilitated and that it shouldn't follow you for the rest of your life in getting second chances for jobs, etc.

Judging someone who stole something once and preventing them from getting a job because you assume that they will steal again is clearly a form of prejudice.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: JSS on February 13, 2022, 02:39:05 PM
For most things the state doesn't even think that people remain guilty after completing their time and rehabilitation.

You are misunderstanding how the justice system works.  Serving your sentence does not wipe away a guilty plea or conviction.  You do not suddenly become innocent of your past crimes after your sentence is up.  It would take a pardon or a higher court invalidating your conviction can do that.

No, you don't become innocent of the crime committed

That's all I was trying to point out. 
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on February 13, 2022, 03:36:49 PM
Republicans would probably never have a president again if they didn’t prejudice against convicted felons. FL, for example, disenfranchised 10% of their voting population in 2016; a group that is overwhelmingly black and democrat.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on February 13, 2022, 03:44:32 PM
Judging someone who stole something once and preventing them from getting a job because you assume that they will steal again is clearly a form of prejudice.

... a form of prejudice which was (and maybe still is) practiced in a number of states.

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on February 13, 2022, 04:29:29 PM
I don't have to read a specific article from them to know that the article is almost certainly going to be crap.
OK. Well, two of us have read it and we agree that this specific claim was factually correct, if possibly misused. If you're gonna take the "well I don't HAVE TO read it" route, then I'll just assume you have no meaningful response and move on.

If there's a good argument to be made that The Hill is in fact politically liberal, then you and/or Tom would have been better off posting that argument rather than just a link to Conservapedia. Like I said, it's simply disingenuous to pretend that website's reputation means nothing and shouldn't be taken into account. I can't stop you from pompously declaring victory and "moving on," but you're the one who's arguing that a link to Conservapedia should apparently be taken seriously, and no pithy remarks from you are going to change how silly that is.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 15, 2022, 12:09:22 PM
If there's a good argument to be made that The Hill is in fact politically liberal, then you and/or Tom would have been better off posting that argument rather than just a link to Conservapedia.
I agree, and the adults in the room already went over that.

Like I said, it's simply disingenuous to pretend that website's reputation means nothing and shouldn't be taken into account.
Serendipitously, that's exactly the argument Tom was making. You just forgot to read it.

I can't stop you from pompously declaring victory and "moving on,"
Of course you can - you can simply address the argument, which has now been made several times without referring to Conservapedia. You screaming about how much you hate some website is irrelevant.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on February 16, 2022, 05:06:45 AM
At this point, I'm less interested in the argument itself and more in responding to the circlejerk from you and Rama about how obviously I was dumb and off-base to simply mock a Conservapedia article being linked to in an Internet discussion, and that even if one were to dispute Tom's point, that of course shouldn't be interpreted as support for the stupid thing I said! I'm not going to let the notion that mockingly expressing disbelief that someone is linking a Conservapedia article in an Internet discussion is a dumb thing to say stand unchallenged, because I know that it's not. You could say that it's an incomplete response, or one that isn't particularly productive, because it doesn't explain why each of the article's specific arguments fail to hold up. But that doesn't mean that it's dumb or wrong. Conservapedia is a bullshit website, and so I called bullshit when it was cited. No logical fallacy, no breakdown in reasoning, just an entirely justified ad hominem attack.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on February 16, 2022, 05:38:24 AM
At this point, I'm less interested in the argument itself and more in responding to the circlejerk from you and Rama about how obviously I was dumb and off-base to simply mock a Conservapedia article being linked to in an Internet discussion, and that even if one were to dispute Tom's point, that of course shouldn't be interpreted as support for the stupid thing I said! I'm not going to let the notion that mockingly expressing disbelief that someone is linking a Conservapedia article in an Internet discussion is a dumb thing to say stand unchallenged, because I know that it's not. You could say that it's an incomplete response, or one that isn't particularly productive, because it doesn't explain why each of the article's specific arguments fail to hold up. But that doesn't mean that it's dumb or wrong. Conservapedia is a bullshit website, and so I called bullshit when it was cited. No logical fallacy, no breakdown in reasoning, just an entirely justified ad hominem attack.

I understand you feel victimized but don’t drag me in to this.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 16, 2022, 09:56:14 AM
At this point, I'm less interested in the argument itself
Well, of course you are. After all, if you had a meaningful response, you'd have already provided it. Instead, you're going to bawl about how righteous and just you are, because that's how you handle difficult situations.

even if one were to dispute Tom's point, that of course shouldn't be interpreted as support for the stupid thing I said!
Literally everyone is disputing Tom's point. Read the thread my dude, it'll help you form relevant responses.

I'm not going to let the notion that mockingly expressing disbelief that someone is linking a Conservapedia article in an Internet discussion is a dumb thing to say stand unchallenged, because I know that it's not.
Okay - how are you going to challenge it? Will you just repeatedly say "I WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS!!!1!!!", or are you going to, like, actually present a position?

You could say that it's an incomplete response, or one that isn't particularly productive
Ding ding ding!

But that doesn't mean that it's dumb or wrong.
Indeed - it just happens to also be dumb and wrong in this specific case, for reasons we went over in great detail. You're welcome to address those, by the way, though you'll have to read them first.

No logical fallacy, no breakdown in reasoning, just an entirely justified ad hominem attack.
lol

Though you're right on one point - since you presented no reasoning, it's unlikely that there was any breakdown in it.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on February 17, 2022, 04:14:40 AM
You're right, Pete, I should have read your most recent posts, and then I would have understood what you were getting at earlier. I didn't interpret Tom's initial post the same way you did. Rather than see it as something along the lines of "Hey, here's an excellent argument indicating that The Hill has a liberal bias. I found it on Conservapedia, so here's the link," I saw it as "Check out this article making a comprehensive case for The Hill having a liberal bias. Here's just one example of what they have to say!" I can't prove that was what he meant, but it does seem like that was the case from how he responded to us - not by directing our attention towards the specific argument, but by defending Conservapedia and arguing that its conservative stance doesn't make it wrong or unreliable. Rama seemed to also have interpreted the post this way, which would explain why he chose to debunk every argument the article provided, not just the one Tom screenshotted, as well as why your back-and-forth with him went on as long as it did - he was talking about the article as a whole, while you were talking about one specific claim.

I fully agree with you that criticizing the original source of an argument when the merits of the argument are what's being discussed isn't very productive. But if the source itself essentially is the argument, and is just linked in its entirety to argue a certain position, then I think it's entirely fair to point and laugh when the source is a meme on the level of Conservapedia. Not the most productive thing to say, but still something that's entirely relevant. If you don't agree with me on that, then I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I can't see myself changing my opinion.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 18, 2022, 12:14:00 PM
You have a funny way of defining "debunked". From the version of the quote with links posted earlier:

Quote from: https://www.conservapedia.com/The_Hill#Liberal_bias
Despite having referred to migrant detention centers under the Trump presidency as "cages",[15 (https://thehill.com/latino/527569-texas-warehouse-where-migrants-housed-in-cages-closed-for-humane-renovation)] The Hill refers to such under the tenure of the Biden junta merely as "shelter for young migrants".[16 (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/540817-biden-vows-texas-shelter-for-young-migrants-wont-stay-open-very-long)]

One article refers to it as "cages" and another article for Biden refers to it as "shelter for young migrants".

Rama Set's argument is that The Hill is quoting someone who calls it cages in the headline of their article, so it absolves them of bias, as if they did not choose to put that in the headline of their article, did not choose which sources to cite, and did not choose to publish it in that way.

Since all articles are composed of sources, which they are supposed to vet and selectively use to convey an intended story, arguing that they used a source is ludicrous, to say the least.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on February 18, 2022, 12:36:38 PM
You have a funny way of defining "debunked". From the version of the quote with links posted earlier:

Quote from: https://www.conservapedia.com/The_Hill#Liberal_bias
Despite having referred to migrant detention centers under the Trump presidency as "cages",[15 (https://thehill.com/latino/527569-texas-warehouse-where-migrants-housed-in-cages-closed-for-humane-renovation)] The Hill refers to such under the tenure of the Biden junta merely as "shelter for young migrants".[16 (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/540817-biden-vows-texas-shelter-for-young-migrants-wont-stay-open-very-long)]

One article refers to it as "cages" and another article for Biden refers to it as "shelter for young migrants".

Rama Set's argument is that The Hill is quoting someone who calls it cages in the headline of their article, so it absolves them of bias, as if they did not choose to put that in the headline of their article, did not choose which sources to cite, and did not choose to publish it in that way.

Since all articles are composed of sources, which they are supposed to vet and selectively use to convey an intended story, arguing that they used a source is ludicrous, to say the least.

That’s not all I said though, so you are doing a shitty job of rebutting what I said. Even more importantly, the second story is referring to the facility in its entirety and not just the enclosures. Conservapedia is not comparing apples to apples, so the comparison is not apt.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 18, 2022, 12:42:01 PM
The second article could have referred to the cages or focused more on the inhumane conditions, but it didn't.

The cages article leads with:


The second article leads with:


It could have referred to the facility as being criticized for placing migrants in cages.

It could have been an article about inhumane conditions.

It could have expended more on the "bipartisan criticism" mentioned.

But no, the article intently cites a quote downplaying the use of the facility, that it "won't be open for very long" (like Fauci's two weeks to flatten the curve program no doubt). The article about the facility under Trump was clearly more focused on the inhumane conditions.

Alternatively, the first cages article could have been primarily focused on downplaying the situation like it did so for Biden in the second article. But no again. The cages article could have been primarily focused on the Republican response to that like the second article is primarily about the Democrat response. They did not choose to do that. They painted one article negatively and the other article in a more positive light. These are clearly biased articles.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on February 18, 2022, 01:52:50 PM
You assuming the intent of an action that was not taken is not sufficient to prove bias. You have already lost part of this battle because the article has a critical viewpoint of Biden for reopening the facility to children, but you feel like it had to go further. You need to show that only unbiased journalism would have referred to the facility as having had cages.  You need to show that quoting someone referring to cages is worse than reporting that Biden is going to reopen the practice of detaining minors and that Biden’s actions are objectively as worthy of criticism. This would be actually controlling for different variables, something you hold in high esteem.

As it stands, not choosing to use the exact same language as they used years before, seems extremely reasonable and not necessarily indicative of bias. Once you’ve handled this we can move on to the other problems with your shitty source that I previously outlined.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 04, 2022, 03:48:09 PM
So, we are going to trust the idiot who hands out these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnZzyzjoxro
to the citizenry of his own country as to what constitutes mistreatment of citizens in an entirely separate country.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 04, 2022, 04:02:36 PM
So, we are going to trust the idiot who hands out these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnZzyzjoxro
to the citizenry of his own country as to what constitutes mistreatment of citizens in an entirely separate country.

Handing out clean and safe drug paraphernalia is a net positive public health initiative. It’s part of a productive switch to treating drug abuse as health and social issues rather than a moral failing that should be criminally punished.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 04, 2022, 05:14:46 PM
So, we are going to trust the idiot who hands out these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnZzyzjoxro
to the citizenry of his own country as to what constitutes mistreatment of citizens in an entirely separate country.

Handing out clean and safe drug paraphernalia is a net positive public health initiative. It’s part of a productive switch to treating drug abuse as health and social issues rather than a moral failing that should be criminally punished.
While agreeing that drugs should be legalized, it is a strange mind that conceives smoking or injecting methamphetamine or crack cocaine is a net positive for anyone's health, let alone the overall health of the general populace. I am sure you do not consider drug-induced psychosis or any of the other aspects of mental health impacted by the use of drugs as a "health problem."

I have read and seen a lot of funny shit in my life and your statement it is net health positive to continue use of methamphetamine and crack cocaine is right up there with them all. Family members suffer absolutely no psychological issues watching their loved ones go from this:
(https://wjla.com/resources/media2/original/full/479/center/80/b24062b6-c06e-461c-9803-88010a4af3d5-PhototakenbeforemethamphetaminerelateduseCourtesyoftheMultnomahCountySheriffsOffice..PNG)
to this:
(https://wjla.com/resources/media2/original/full/472/center/80/688056c8-2371-42a8-9142-844f285b7ede-Phototaken2.5yearsaftermethamphetaminerelateduseCourtesyMultnomahCountySheriffsOffice.PNG)

Handing out free paraphernalia so people do not need to worry about "getting sick," from their "crack pipe," is some real laughable shit.

I'm not at all surprised you support this kind of NAZI crap, being from the country that loves its AVRO Brigade memes.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 04, 2022, 06:51:50 PM
The net benefit is that you reduce hygiene associated risks with drug use; you also destigmatize drug use to a limited degree. Unless addiction is treated medically and the root causes of drug abuse are addressed in a meaningful way, then there is little to be done to reduce the amount of people abusing drugs.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 04, 2022, 06:54:22 PM
Handing out free paraphernalia so people do not need to worry about "getting sick," from their "crack pipe," is some real laughable shit.
Before I say anything, please excuse me if some of my depictions of drug use are inaccurate. I'm a boring guy, I smoked weed a few times in my life, and that's about as wild as it gets. But:

Imagine a drug addict. He's addicted, he won't just abandon his habit without a huge amount of hard work and support from his surroundings. So, at least for now, he's gonna keep doing drugs. This is a bad thing, but it's a thing that's happening.

But, within this scenario, there are two sub-scenarios:

The second option is not good, it's just less bad.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 04, 2022, 06:59:49 PM
The net benefit is that you reduce hygiene associated risks with drug use; you also destigmatize drug use to a limited degree. Unless addiction is treated medically and the root causes of drug abuse are addressed in a meaningful way, then there is little to be done to reduce the amount of people abusing drugs.
Oh yes, I am absolutely sure the persons walking the streets, avoiding the used drug needles and other discarded paraphernalia, swell with confidence, knowing since the pipe or needle was authorized as "CLEAN," by Uncle Hairy Legs, there is nothing to fear.

Jesus Christ.

Again, let's not bullshit anyone.

Using drugs such as methamphetamine and crack cocaine is not healthy.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 04, 2022, 07:08:34 PM
Handing out free paraphernalia so people do not need to worry about "getting sick," from their "crack pipe," is some real laughable shit.
Before I say anything, please excuse me if some of my depictions of drug use are inaccurate. I'm a boring guy, I smoked weed a few times in my life, and that's about as wild as it gets. But:

Imagine a drug addict. He's addicted, he won't just abandon his habit without a huge amount of hard work and support from his surroundings. So, at least for now, he's gonna keep doing drugs. This is a bad thing, but it's a thing that's happening.

But, within this scenario, there are two sub-scenarios:
  • He injects himself with a re-used and unsanitary syringe, exposing himself to additional risk.
  • At least he gets a clean syringe. Still bad, but less deadly.

The second option is not good, it's just less bad.
When you use drugs like methamphetamine or crack cocaine, the last thing to be concerned about is hygiene.

Ask any addict.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 04, 2022, 08:23:36 PM
When you use drugs like methamphetamine or crack cocaine, the last thing to be concerned about is hygiene.
Well, that's kinda the point. It's not on the top of their priority list, so if it's in any way difficult, it gets abandoned. By making it easy, we make their lives slightly less miserable.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2022, 09:55:07 PM
No comment on the fact that the Biden Administration lied about it and that it is illegal to distribute drug paraphernalia?

https://katv.com/news/nation-world/fact-check-team-is-the-federal-government-really-handing-out-drug-paraphernalia-glass-meth-crack-pipes-drugs

Quote
WASHINGTON (TND) — Are your tax dollars going to be spent on government-provided drug paraphernalia?

It’s a headline that has been dominating social media all week. The White House says the reports are false yet now elected leaders are taking action to stop federal funding of pipes made for drug use.

The Fact Check Team has been looking into the issue to see what is actually behind this government-funded program and how it could impact communities across the U.S.

The first notable mention of this program came on Monday when the Washington Free Beacon put out a story titled, “Biden Admin To Fund Crack Pipe Distribution To Advance ‘Racial Equity.’”

The story claims that a $30 million grant program funded by the Department of Health and Human Services will provide money to help make drug use safer for addicts, including smoking kits.

It says an HHS spokesperson “told the Washington Free Beacon that these kits will provide pipes for users to smoke crack cocaine, crystal methamphetamine,” and “any illicit substance.”

The White House also denied the claims on Wednesday saying, “They were never a part of the kit; it was inaccurate reporting.”

~

On Friday, the Washington Free Beacon doubled down on their claims publishing a story headlined, “The Biden Administration Thinks You’re Stupid,” alleging that the White House only backed down on their plan to distribute the durg paraphernalia after their initial reporting.

When asked about this, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said glass pipes were “never a part of the kit; it was inaccurate reporting. And we wanted to put out information to make that clear.”

So what is actually in these safe smoke kits?

Pskai said the kits may contain alcohol swabs, lip balm and other materials meant to promote hygiene and reduce the transmission of diseases.

When it comes to these kits, there isn’t a standard. Different organizations have different lists of things that they offer as part of safe smoking kits but under Title 21 of federal law, drug paraphernalia is illegal.

So the HHS response about their grant funds that “Harm reduction programs that use federal funding must adhere to federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and other requirements related to such programs or services” means no pipes or drug paraphernalia because they are illegal to include.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on March 04, 2022, 10:38:41 PM
No comment on the fact that the Biden Administration lied about it and that it is illegal to distribute?

https://katv.com/news/nation-world/fact-check-team-is-the-federal-government-really-handing-out-drug-paraphernalia-glass-meth-crack-pipes-drugs

Quote
WASHINGTON (TND) — Are your tax dollars going to be spent on government-provided drug paraphernalia?

It’s a headline that has been dominating social media all week. The White House says the reports are false yet now elected leaders are taking action to stop federal funding of pipes made for drug use.

The Fact Check Team has been looking into the issue to see what is actually behind this government-funded program and how it could impact communities across the U.S.

The first notable mention of this program came on Monday when the Washington Free Beacon put out a story titled, “Biden Admin To Fund Crack Pipe Distribution To Advance ‘Racial Equity.’”

The story claims that a $30 million grant program funded by the Department of Health and Human Services will provide money to help make drug use safer for addicts, including smoking kits.

It says an HHS spokesperson “told the Washington Free Beacon that these kits will provide pipes for users to smoke crack cocaine, crystal methamphetamine,” and “any illicit substance.”

The White House also denied the claims on Wednesday saying, “They were never a part of the kit; it was inaccurate reporting.”

~

On Friday, the Washington Free Beacon doubled down on their claims publishing a story headlined, “The Biden Administration Thinks You’re Stupid,” alleging that the White House only backed down on their plan to distribute the durg paraphernalia after their initial reporting.

When asked about this, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said glass pipes were “never a part of the kit; it was inaccurate reporting. And we wanted to put out information to make that clear.”

So what is actually in these safe smoke kits?

Pskai said the kits may contain alcohol swabs, lip balm and other materials meant to promote hygiene and reduce the transmission of diseases.

When it comes to these kits, there isn’t a standard. Different organizations have different lists of things that they offer as part of safe smoking kits but under Title 21 of federal law, drug paraphernalia is illegal.

So the HHS response about their grant funds that “Harm reduction programs that use federal funding must adhere to federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and other requirements related to such programs or services” means no pipes or drug paraphernalia because they are illegal to include.

LOL, you fucking hypocrite. Keep trolling. A president lying never mattered to you when his name was Trump.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 04, 2022, 10:42:05 PM
When you use drugs like methamphetamine or crack cocaine, the last thing to be concerned about is hygiene.
Well, that's kinda the point. It's not on the top of their priority list, so if it's in any way difficult, it gets abandoned. By making it easy, we make their lives slightly less miserable.
What type of plan do you think Uncle Hairy Legs should introduce to keep the addicts from shitting and urinating on the streets, in order to preserve and perhaps increase public health?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 04, 2022, 10:44:36 PM
LOL, you fucking hypocrite. Keep trolling. A president lying never mattered to you when his name was Trump.
The Trump thread is further down the board.

Do you think a child was rubbing his leg when Biden approved this approach?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 05, 2022, 11:20:17 AM
When you use drugs like methamphetamine or crack cocaine, the last thing to be concerned about is hygiene.
Well, that's kinda the point. It's not on the top of their priority list, so if it's in any way difficult, it gets abandoned. By making it easy, we make their lives slightly less miserable.
What type of plan do you think Uncle Hairy Legs should introduce to keep the addicts from shitting and urinating on the streets, in order to preserve and perhaps increase public health?

Help create affordable housing and try to break the cycle of poverty by decoupling education from property taxes.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 05, 2022, 05:45:17 PM
LOL, you fucking hypocrite. Keep trolling. A president lying never mattered to you when his name was Trump.

You have a problem if you think that it's okay for someone to lie and do wrong things because you think that someone else did a wrong thing.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 05, 2022, 06:14:00 PM
LOL, you fucking hypocrite. Keep trolling. A president lying never mattered to you when his name was Trump.

You have a problem if you think that it's okay for someone to lie and do wrong things because you think that someone else did a wrong thing.

Very important note: Roundy never said it was ok.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 05, 2022, 08:46:02 PM
LOL, you fucking hypocrite. Keep trolling. A president lying never mattered to you when his name was Trump.

You have a problem if you think that it's okay for someone to lie and do wrong things because you think that someone else did a wrong thing.

Very important note: Roundy never said it was ok.

He implied that it was okay, by trying to justify it with a ludicrous two wrongs make a right fallacy. Another "But Trump!!!" excuse. Can't you liberals ever own up to your own faults?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on March 05, 2022, 08:48:48 PM
No comment on the fact that the Biden Administration lied about it and that it is illegal to distribute drug paraphernalia?

Who is lying? Who said there were glass pipes in the "kits"?

Here’s the actual program document in question (PDF):

Department of Health and Human Services
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
FY 2022 Harm Reduction Program Grant
(https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/grants/pdf/fy22-harm-reduction-nofo.pdf)

Searching on ‘pipe’, 'crack’, ‘glass’, ‘paraphernalia’, I found nothing. No mention of any of that. Searching on ‘kit’ I found, "Safe smoking kits/supplies” as a part of:

Purchase equipment and supplies to enhance harm reduction efforts, such as: o Harm reduction vending machine(s), including stock for machines;
o Infectious diseases testing kits (HIV, HBV, HCV, etc.);
o Medication lock boxes;
o FDA-approved overdose reversal medication (as well as higher dosages now approved by FDA);
o Safe sex kits, including PrEP resources and condoms;
o Safe smoking kits/supplies;
o Screening for infectious diseases (HIV, sexually transmitted infections, viral hepatitis);
o Sharps disposal and medication disposal kits;
o Substance test kits, including test strips for fentanyl and other synthetic drugs;
o Syringes to prevent and control the spread of infectious diseases;
o Vaccination services (hepatitis A, hepatitis B vaccination); and
o Wound care management supplies.

In a joint statement issued Feb. 9, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and Office of National Drug Control Policy Director Dr. Rahul Gupta said the harm-reduction grants won't be used to purchase pipes.
"No federal funding will be used directly or through subsequent reimbursement of grantees to put pipes in safe smoking kits," the statement reads.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/02/11/fact-check-crack-pipes-arent-included-30-million-grant-program/6736281001/
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 05, 2022, 08:57:17 PM
The Whitehouse denied all crack pipes, not only "glass" crack pipes.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2022/02/09/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-february-9-2022/

(https://i.imgur.com/F4cSyQp.png)

And you searched for the words drug paraphernalia in a document and couldn't find it so crackpipes are therefore not drug paraphernalia? Can you please reveal your age to us so that people here can decide if we want to continue bothering to reply to you?

https://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs6/6445/6445p.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/Ucpx2HJ.png)

I can't wait for you to continue to argue that crack pipes are not drug paraphernalia. ::)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on March 05, 2022, 09:03:44 PM
The Whitehouse denied all crack pipes, not only "glass crack pipes"

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2022/02/09/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-february-9-2022/

(https://i.imgur.com/F4cSyQp.png)

I can't wait for you to continue to argue that crack piper are not drug paraphernalia.  ::)

Who is arguing whether crack pipes are illegal drug paraphernalia or not?

Isn't the clammer all about whether there actually are pipes in the "safe smoking kits" or not? And, apparently, pipes are not in the kits. Seems like a made up issue.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 05, 2022, 09:09:19 PM
Who is arguing whether crack pipes are illegal drug paraphernalia or not?

Isn't the clammer all about whether there actually are pipes in the "safe smoking kits" or not? And, apparently, pipes are not in the kits. Seems like a made up issue.

It is almost common knowledge that crack pipes are illegal to possess in the US. It doesn't matter how safe they are.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Possession-Drug-Paraphernalia.htm

(https://i.imgur.com/io6ZK9B.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/8kwgUBN.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on March 05, 2022, 09:20:57 PM
Who is arguing whether crack pipes are illegal drug paraphernalia or not?

Isn't the clammer all about whether there actually are pipes in the "safe smoking kits" or not? And, apparently, pipes are not in the kits. Seems like a made up issue.

It is almost common knowledge that crack pipes are illegal to possess in the US. It doesn't matter how safe they are.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Possession-Drug-Paraphernalia.htm

(https://i.imgur.com/io6ZK9B.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/8kwgUBN.png)

Who is arguing whether crack pipes are illegal drug paraphernalia or not? Why do you keep bringing this up?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 05, 2022, 09:30:30 PM
apparently, pipes are not in the kits. Seems like a made up issue.

There are clearly pipes in the kit. Maybe you should watch the video again.

https://youtu.be/DnZzyzjoxro

It clearly shows the pipes at 0:32.

At 2:28 a news investigation team concludes that it's true that the kits contain the pipes.

Quote from: stack
Who is arguing whether crack pipes are illegal drug paraphernalia or not? Why do you keep bringing this up?

You are, based on your lack of finding a term in a document:

Quote from: stack
Searching on ‘pipe’, 'crack’, ‘glass’, ‘paraphernalia’, I found nothing. No mention of any of that. Searching on ‘kit’ I found, "Safe smoking kits/supplies”

Apparently the document needs to specify that it's illegal drug paraphernalia to be so.  ::)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on March 05, 2022, 10:26:51 PM
apparently, pipes are not in the kits. Seems like a made up issue.

There are clearly pipes in the kit. Maybe you should watch the video again.

https://youtu.be/DnZzyzjoxro

It clearly shows the pipes at 0:32.

At 2:28 a news investigation team concludes that it's true that the kits contain the pipes.

In your video the rasta dude is showing a safe smoking kit he got from a Catholic church in LA. The kit is from "'Being Alive' Los Angeles". From the "Being Alive" Facebook page, here's what their "safe smoking kit" includes:

(https://i.imgur.com/ZmZDrq5.png)

Notice the date, 11/30/2021. Per the "FY 2022 Harm Reduction Program Grant", applications started being accepted on February 7th, 2022. I don't know when your Rasta guy got his kit, but I'd be shocked if the church's program was funded by the Feds in 3 weeks.

Quote from: stack
Who is arguing whether crack pipes are illegal drug paraphernalia or not? Why do you keep bringing this up?

You are, based on your lack of finding a term in a document:

Quote from: stack
Searching on ‘pipe’, 'crack’, ‘glass’, ‘paraphernalia’, I found nothing. No mention of any of that. Searching on ‘kit’ I found, "Safe smoking kits/supplies”

Apparently the document needs to specify that it's illegal drug paraphernalia to be so.  ::)

How does this work? Who said the document needs to specify the legality of something? How is not finding a reference to pipes in the document amount to the illegality/legality of pipes? You're making no sense at all. All I'm pointing out is that no where in the document does it mention the handing out of pipes.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 05, 2022, 10:53:50 PM
LOL, you fucking hypocrite. Keep trolling. A president lying never mattered to you when his name was Trump.

You have a problem if you think that it's okay for someone to lie and do wrong things because you think that someone else did a wrong thing.

Very important note: Roundy never said it was ok.

He implied that it was okay, by trying to justify it with a ludicrous two wrongs make a right fallacy. Another "But Trump!!!" excuse. Can't you liberals ever own up to your own faults?

Incorrect. He called you out for never batting an eyelash at Trump’s ludicrous lies. Left leaning people have been critical of Biden in this very thread, you should take note and perhaps attempt to live up to our example.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 06, 2022, 03:56:59 PM
Quote
Notice the date, 11/30/2021. Per the "FY 2022 Harm Reduction Program Grant", applications started being accepted on February 7th, 2022. I don't know when your Rasta guy got his kit, but I'd be shocked if the church's program was funded by the Feds in 3 weeks.

That just means it was funded from a 2021 budget and not a FY 2022 budget. The Drug Policy Alliance admits that there were crack pipes in these kits:

https://twitter.com/DrugPolicyOrg/status/1491561495418781696

There were crack pipes, but there was no funding earmarked for "just" crack pipes. The funding comes from communities who apply for grants, not directly from the federal government.

https://twitter.com/DrugPolicyOrg/status/1491561497608208388

Decision to "remove" crack pipes after being criticized for it.

Incorrect. He called you out for never batting an eyelash at Trump’s ludicrous lies. Left leaning people have been critical of Biden in this very thread, you should take note and perhaps attempt to live up to our example.

What he did was try to justify Biden's bad behavior by trying to point the finger elsewhere. This is a form of asserting that two wrongs make a right, or attempting to make Biden's actions more acceptable by pointing out badness elsewhere.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 06, 2022, 06:00:39 PM
No Tom, people just tired of your hypocrisy is all. You’re making a mountain out of a mole hill in your tired campaign to own the libs. All of your indignation vanishes when it’s someone you prefer because you have no values. I certainly don’t think it’s good for Biden to lie about something so trivial. It’s also trivial and surely there are better things to worry about? Like how this program is helping people with dangerous drug habits?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 06, 2022, 06:10:52 PM
And, apparently, pipes are not in the kits. Seems like a made up issue.
You're making no sense at all. All I'm pointing out is that no where in the document does it mention the handing out of pipes.
Well, the glass pipes are in the kits. From the very first line of your source, "Why we offer Safer Smoking Kits: Providing non-injector supplies, like pipes..." Item list, "What's inside a Safer Smoking Kit: bullet point one: 1 glass straight shooter"

And, I guess you're okay with it, simply because it is old news (2021 funding).

You just directly informed everyone here that something is not listed as present in the kit when it is clearly listed in the kit.

This practice is called gaslighting.

Have you been picked to sift through the kits currently awaiting public distribution to remove the pipes? Is your messaging here a smokescreen designed to assist you in not having to follow through with your assigned responsibilities in this area?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 06, 2022, 06:22:29 PM
No Tom, people just tired of your hypocrisy is all. You’re making a mountain out of a mole hill in your tired campaign to own the libs. All of your indignation vanishes when it’s someone you prefer because you have no values. I certainly don’t think it’s good for Biden to lie about something so trivial. It’s also trivial and surely there are better things to worry about? Like how this program is helping people with dangerous drug habits?
Helping them how?

Providing people with the tools and the means to aid them in killing themselves is not helping them in any way.

The person in the video states it is not the intent of the government to curb drug use, illicit or otherwise.

Your reasoning = "One more hit off the pipe may be their last, but at least it will prevent them possibly contracting a disease that could kill them."

Never mind 30 mill USD could fund a lot of actual shelters/current addiction recovery centers.

Public health initiative, my ass.

Tom is not the hypocrite here.

You are.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on March 06, 2022, 07:45:02 PM
And, apparently, pipes are not in the kits. Seems like a made up issue.
You're making no sense at all. All I'm pointing out is that no where in the document does it mention the handing out of pipes.
Well, the glass pipes are in the kits. From the very first line of your source, "Why we offer Safer Smoking Kits: Providing non-injector supplies, like pipes..." Item list, "What's inside a Safer Smoking Kit: bullet point one: 1 glass straight shooter"

And, I guess you're okay with it, simply because it is old news (2021 funding).

You just directly informed everyone here that something is not listed as present in the kit when it is clearly listed in the kit.

This practice is called gaslighting.

Have you been picked to sift through the kits currently awaiting public distribution to remove the pipes? Is your messaging here a smokescreen designed to assist you in not having to follow through with your assigned responsibilities in this area?

Now you're not making any sense either. And yeah, I don't have a problem with it. Just like I don't have a problem with needle exchanges and doling out Narcan.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 06, 2022, 10:30:10 PM
And, apparently, pipes are not in the kits. Seems like a made up issue.
You're making no sense at all. All I'm pointing out is that no where in the document does it mention the handing out of pipes.
Well, the glass pipes are in the kits. From the very first line of your source, "Why we offer Safer Smoking Kits: Providing non-injector supplies, like pipes..." Item list, "What's inside a Safer Smoking Kit: bullet point one: 1 glass straight shooter"

And, I guess you're okay with it, simply because it is old news (2021 funding).

You just directly informed everyone here that something is not listed as present in the kit when it is clearly listed in the kit.

This practice is called gaslighting.

Have you been picked to sift through the kits currently awaiting public distribution to remove the pipes? Is your messaging here a smokescreen designed to assist you in not having to follow through with your assigned responsibilities in this area?

Now you're not making any sense either.
Sense has been demonstrably eluding you for many years.

Gets that way when you post remarks not supported by your own source.

And I'm not surprised you are all for nonsense.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 07, 2022, 12:00:49 AM
No Tom, people just tired of your hypocrisy is all. You’re making a mountain out of a mole hill in your tired campaign to own the libs. All of your indignation vanishes when it’s someone you prefer because you have no values. I certainly don’t think it’s good for Biden to lie about something so trivial. It’s also trivial and surely there are better things to worry about? Like how this program is helping people with dangerous drug habits?
Helping them how?

Providing people with the tools and the means to aid them in killing themselves is not helping them in any way.

The person in the video states it is not the intent of the government to curb drug use, illicit or otherwise.

Your reasoning = "One more hit off the pipe may be their last, but at least it will prevent them possibly contracting a disease that could kill them."

Never mind 30 mill USD could fund a lot of actual shelters/current addiction recovery centers.

Public health initiative, my ass.

Tom is not the hypocrite here.

You are.

You have already had the benefits and limitations of such a program explained to you. If you choose to ignore that, that is your problem, not mine.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on March 07, 2022, 12:10:42 AM
And, apparently, pipes are not in the kits. Seems like a made up issue.
You're making no sense at all. All I'm pointing out is that no where in the document does it mention the handing out of pipes.
Well, the glass pipes are in the kits. From the very first line of your source, "Why we offer Safer Smoking Kits: Providing non-injector supplies, like pipes..." Item list, "What's inside a Safer Smoking Kit: bullet point one: 1 glass straight shooter"

And, I guess you're okay with it, simply because it is old news (2021 funding).

You just directly informed everyone here that something is not listed as present in the kit when it is clearly listed in the kit.

This practice is called gaslighting.

Have you been picked to sift through the kits currently awaiting public distribution to remove the pipes? Is your messaging here a smokescreen designed to assist you in not having to follow through with your assigned responsibilities in this area?

Now you're not making any sense either.
Sense has been demonstrably eluding you for many years.

Gets that way when you post remarks not supported by your own source.

And I'm not surprised you are all for nonsense.

How am I posting remarks not supported by my own source? The point is:

- The video shows a guy with a safe smoking kit from some org called "Being Alive LA"
- We don't know when the footage was gathered
- Being Alive LA has been supplying safe smoking kits that include a pipe since at least November of last year
- The program everyone is bitching about didn't start taking applications for funding until 3 or so weeks ago
- I'd be surprised if Being Alive LA got funding from the Feds in 3 weeks considering, well, it's the Feds - Not really known for expediency
- There's no where in the actual program specs that says anything about providing pipes
- And lastly, does every safe smoking kit from every org in America that dispenses them have a pipe in it?

The only question is will the 2022 program in question tell funding recipient orgs, "Oh, by the way, you can't use the funds to include pipes in your safe smoking kits. Needles, fine, pipes, no."? And then, how is that policed at the individual org level?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 07, 2022, 03:52:31 AM

- Being Alive LA has been supplying safe smoking kits that include a pipe since at least November of last year

Yes, because budgets are set in stone and it's impossible to reappropriate money during a year or reimburse for prior year activities, or that this was a planned item for last year.  ::)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on March 07, 2022, 06:17:17 AM

- Being Alive LA has been supplying safe smoking kits that include a pipe since at least November of last year

Yes, because budgets are set in stone and it's impossible to reappropriate money during a year or reimburse for prior year activities, or that this was a planned item for last year.  ::)

Do you have knowledge of Being Alive's budgeting plans? If you do, please share them. I'm pretty sure you don't, but actually, I do:

Video misrepresents funding of drug smoking kits in LA (https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-151820802446)

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. No federal funding was used to provide the safer smoking kits that are being distributed by Being Alive, an HIV and AIDS-focused nonprofit in Los Angeles. The organization’s funding comes from the state of California, according to Being Alive staff and state officials. The safer smoking kits include sterile supplies intended to decrease harm caused to drug users....

But Jamie Baker, executive director of Being Alive, told The Associated Press the claims are “absolutely not true.”
“Our funding comes from the state of California,” he said. “No federal dollars are used for this program at all.”

Baker said that for about a year, Being Alive has been distributing smoking kits. He noted that primary funding for their smoking supplies distribution comes from the California Harm Reduction Initiative.

Corey Egel, a spokesperson for the California Department of Public Health, confirmed in a statement to the AP that Being Alive was awarded a $160,000, three-year grant from the California Harm Reduction Initiative, and that the organization was also recently awarded more than $16,000 for supplies such as safer smoking materials and syringes.


So yeah, you're wrong.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 07, 2022, 07:46:11 AM

- Being Alive LA has been supplying safe smoking kits that include a pipe since at least November of last year

Yes, because budgets are set in stone and it's impossible to reappropriate money during a year or reimburse for prior year activities, or that this was a planned item for last year.  ::)

Do you have knowledge of Being Alive's budgeting plans? If you do, please share them. I'm pretty sure you don't, but actually, I do:

Video misrepresents funding of drug smoking kits in LA (https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-151820802446)

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. No federal funding was used to provide the safer smoking kits that are being distributed by Being Alive, an HIV and AIDS-focused nonprofit in Los Angeles. The organization’s funding comes from the state of California, according to Being Alive staff and state officials. The safer smoking kits include sterile supplies intended to decrease harm caused to drug users....

But Jamie Baker, executive director of Being Alive, told The Associated Press the claims are “absolutely not true.”
“Our funding comes from the state of California,” he said. “No federal dollars are used for this program at all.”

Baker said that for about a year, Being Alive has been distributing smoking kits. He noted that primary funding for their smoking supplies distribution comes from the California Harm Reduction Initiative.

Corey Egel, a spokesperson for the California Department of Public Health, confirmed in a statement to the AP that Being Alive was awarded a $160,000, three-year grant from the California Harm Reduction Initiative, and that the organization was also recently awarded more than $16,000 for supplies such as safer smoking materials and syringes.


So yeah, you're wrong.
So, no.

He is not wrong.

California gets the money they use to fund the kits from the federal government.

The money they receive from the federal government needs to be spent according to the budget point it was distributed.

ap fact check is a known disinformation site.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on March 07, 2022, 09:15:37 AM

- Being Alive LA has been supplying safe smoking kits that include a pipe since at least November of last year

Yes, because budgets are set in stone and it's impossible to reappropriate money during a year or reimburse for prior year activities, or that this was a planned item for last year.  ::)

Do you have knowledge of Being Alive's budgeting plans? If you do, please share them. I'm pretty sure you don't, but actually, I do:

Video misrepresents funding of drug smoking kits in LA (https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-151820802446)

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. No federal funding was used to provide the safer smoking kits that are being distributed by Being Alive, an HIV and AIDS-focused nonprofit in Los Angeles. The organization’s funding comes from the state of California, according to Being Alive staff and state officials. The safer smoking kits include sterile supplies intended to decrease harm caused to drug users....

But Jamie Baker, executive director of Being Alive, told The Associated Press the claims are “absolutely not true.”
“Our funding comes from the state of California,” he said. “No federal dollars are used for this program at all.”

Baker said that for about a year, Being Alive has been distributing smoking kits. He noted that primary funding for their smoking supplies distribution comes from the California Harm Reduction Initiative.

Corey Egel, a spokesperson for the California Department of Public Health, confirmed in a statement to the AP that Being Alive was awarded a $160,000, three-year grant from the California Harm Reduction Initiative, and that the organization was also recently awarded more than $16,000 for supplies such as safer smoking materials and syringes.


So yeah, you're wrong.
So, no.

He is not wrong.

California gets the money they use to fund the kits from the federal government.

Wrong again.

Corey Egel, a spokesperson for the California Department of Public Health, confirmed in a statement to the AP that Being Alive was awarded a $160,000, three-year grant from the California Harm Reduction Initiative, and that the organization was also recently awarded more than $16,000 for supplies such as safer smoking materials and syringes.

It is funded by California, not the Feds...As in California Tax Payers.

The California Harm Reduction Initiative, or CHRI, was established by the California Budget Act of 2019, which included $15.2 million to strengthen substance use disorder response by supporting syringe services programs (SSPs). This program represents the single largest government investment in harm reduction in the history of California.

Regarding California SSP's:

California Law and Safer Smoking Supplies (https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DOA/CDPH%20Document%20Library/IssueBrief_SmokingSupplies_Web_ADA.pdf)

What Non-Injection Drug Using Supplies Does CDPH Provide to SSPs?
Safer smoking materials made available through the CDPH Syringe Supplies Clearinghouse may include glass pipes, foil, copper wire filters, and other materials, subject to change based on availability and funding. For more information on supplies currently offered by the Clearinghouse, contact SSPinfo@cdph.ca.gov.


Looks like California has included pipes in the safe smoking kits since at least 2019. Not to mention, California’s GDP in 2021 was $3.35T, representing 14.6% of the total U.S. economy. If California were a country, it would be the 5th largest economy in the world. California can afford such programs.

ap fact check is a known disinformation site.

Says who? You'd have to show evidence that AP made up the quote from the California Department of Public Health and that the California Budget Act of 2019 doesn't exist. Evidence you don't have. Which means you're just sayin' stuff to say stuff.

Looks like you can't get much more Centrist and Factual Reporting than AP:

(https://i.imgur.com/ROOSdz7.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 07, 2022, 12:16:10 PM
That graphic is obviously old, it shows Dore as left wing when he has been grifting for the right for almost three years.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 07, 2022, 12:43:36 PM

- Being Alive LA has been supplying safe smoking kits that include a pipe since at least November of last year

Yes, because budgets are set in stone and it's impossible to reappropriate money during a year or reimburse for prior year activities, or that this was a planned item for last year.  ::)

Do you have knowledge of Being Alive's budgeting plans? If you do, please share them. I'm pretty sure you don't, but actually, I do:

Video misrepresents funding of drug smoking kits in LA (https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-151820802446)

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. No federal funding was used to provide the safer smoking kits that are being distributed by Being Alive, an HIV and AIDS-focused nonprofit in Los Angeles. The organization’s funding comes from the state of California, according to Being Alive staff and state officials. The safer smoking kits include sterile supplies intended to decrease harm caused to drug users....

But Jamie Baker, executive director of Being Alive, told The Associated Press the claims are “absolutely not true.”
“Our funding comes from the state of California,” he said. “No federal dollars are used for this program at all.”

Baker said that for about a year, Being Alive has been distributing smoking kits. He noted that primary funding for their smoking supplies distribution comes from the California Harm Reduction Initiative.

Corey Egel, a spokesperson for the California Department of Public Health, confirmed in a statement to the AP that Being Alive was awarded a $160,000, three-year grant from the California Harm Reduction Initiative, and that the organization was also recently awarded more than $16,000 for supplies such as safer smoking materials and syringes.


So yeah, you're wrong.
So, no.

He is not wrong.

California gets the money they use to fund the kits from the federal government.

Wrong again.

Corey Egel, a spokesperson for the California Department of Public Health, confirmed in a statement to the AP that Being Alive was awarded a $160,000, three-year grant from the California Harm Reduction Initiative, and that the organization was also recently awarded more than $16,000 for supplies such as safer smoking materials and syringes.

It is funded by California, not the Feds...As in California Tax Payers.

The California Harm Reduction Initiative, or CHRI, was established by the California Budget Act of 2019, which included $15.2 million to strengthen substance use disorder response by supporting syringe services programs (SSPs). This program represents the single largest government investment in harm reduction in the history of California.

Regarding California SSP's:

California Law and Safer Smoking Supplies (https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DOA/CDPH%20Document%20Library/IssueBrief_SmokingSupplies_Web_ADA.pdf)

What Non-Injection Drug Using Supplies Does CDPH Provide to SSPs?
Safer smoking materials made available through the CDPH Syringe Supplies Clearinghouse may include glass pipes, foil, copper wire filters, and other materials, subject to change based on availability and funding. For more information on supplies currently offered by the Clearinghouse, contact SSPinfo@cdph.ca.gov.


Looks like California has included pipes in the safe smoking kits since at least 2019. Not to mention, California’s GDP in 2021 was $3.35T, representing 14.6% of the total U.S. economy. If California were a country, it would be the 5th largest economy in the world. California can afford such programs.

ap fact check is a known disinformation site.

Says who? You'd have to show evidence that AP made up the quote from the California Department of Public Health and that the California Budget Act of 2019 doesn't exist. Evidence you don't have. Which means you're just sayin' stuff to say stuff.

Looks like you can't get much more Centrist and Factual Reporting than AP:

(https://i.imgur.com/ROOSdz7.png)
California tax payers pay federal and state taxes, including FICA.

In turn, the feds pay back the federal funds and Medicare funds back to states for programs, including California.

So, it is all thoroughly laundered, and grifted, through the circle, for the benefit of each of the Czars in order to get their own piece as it lands on the desk for approval.

No...no...it was funded by federal dollars and reported as not funded by federal by your lying fact checking site.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 07, 2022, 12:50:21 PM
You have already had the benefits and limitations of such a program explained to you. If you choose to ignore that, that is your problem, not mine.
I didn't read anything from you about "the limitations."

Come to think of it, I didn't read anything from you concerning "the benefits," either.

So, I am not ignoring anything.

It is a depraved, sick mindset that considers tackling issues with the supposed cleanliness of the exterior/interior of the drug ingestion method of choice as being a priority consideration and a supposed public health initiative.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 07, 2022, 02:28:54 PM
You have already had the benefits and limitations of such a program explained to you. If you choose to ignore that, that is your problem, not mine.
I didn't read anything from you about "the limitations."

Come to think of it, I didn't read anything from you concerning "the benefits," either.

So, I am not ignoring anything.

It is a depraved, sick mindset that considers tackling issues with the supposed cleanliness of the exterior/interior of the drug ingestion method of choice as being a priority consideration and a supposed public health initiative.

Nice try. I know you’re not this stupid, so trolling is the only option. Both Pete and I explained that clean paraphernalia, while having the limitation of not addressing issues of addiction does provide the public health benefit of reducing infection and disease from drug use.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 07, 2022, 03:37:41 PM
You have already had the benefits and limitations of such a program explained to you. If you choose to ignore that, that is your problem, not mine.
I didn't read anything from you about "the limitations."

Come to think of it, I didn't read anything from you concerning "the benefits," either.

So, I am not ignoring anything.

It is a depraved, sick mindset that considers tackling issues with the supposed cleanliness of the exterior/interior of the drug ingestion method of choice as being a priority consideration and a supposed public health initiative.

Nice try. I know you’re not this stupid, so trolling is the only option. Both Pete and I explained that clean paraphernalia, while having the limitation of not addressing issues of addiction does provide the public health benefit of reducing infection and disease from drug use.
I suppose you have some data to back that up.

I mean actual clinical trials, with valid control groups and all that sciency stuff you preach about so often.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 07, 2022, 03:51:45 PM
You have already had the benefits and limitations of such a program explained to you. If you choose to ignore that, that is your problem, not mine.
I didn't read anything from you about "the limitations."

Come to think of it, I didn't read anything from you concerning "the benefits," either.

So, I am not ignoring anything.

It is a depraved, sick mindset that considers tackling issues with the supposed cleanliness of the exterior/interior of the drug ingestion method of choice as being a priority consideration and a supposed public health initiative.

Nice try. I know you’re not this stupid, so trolling is the only option. Both Pete and I explained that clean paraphernalia, while having the limitation of not addressing issues of addiction does provide the public health benefit of reducing infection and disease from drug use.
I suppose you have some data to back that up.

I mean actual clinical trials, with valid control groups and all that sciency stuff you preach about so often.

Whoa whoa, can we slow down please?  You went from "You didn't say anything you hypocrite!!!!1111" to "can you give me evidunce!" real quick.  I'll need to stretch if I am going to be chasing goal posts all day. Let me know if you agree that I've said the things I've claimed and we can move on to providing evidence.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 07, 2022, 04:18:18 PM
You have already had the benefits and limitations of such a program explained to you. If you choose to ignore that, that is your problem, not mine.
I didn't read anything from you about "the limitations."

Come to think of it, I didn't read anything from you concerning "the benefits," either.

So, I am not ignoring anything.

It is a depraved, sick mindset that considers tackling issues with the supposed cleanliness of the exterior/interior of the drug ingestion method of choice as being a priority consideration and a supposed public health initiative.

Nice try. I know you’re not this stupid, so trolling is the only option. Both Pete and I explained that clean paraphernalia, while having the limitation of not addressing issues of addiction does provide the public health benefit of reducing infection and disease from drug use.
I suppose you have some data to back that up.

I mean actual clinical trials, with valid control groups and all that sciency stuff you preach about so often.

Whoa whoa, can we slow down please?  You went from "You didn't say anything you hypocrite!!!!1111" to "can you give me evidunce!" real quick.  I'll need to stretch if I am going to be chasing goal posts all day. Let me know if you agree that I've said the things I've claimed and we can move on to providing evidence.
A - Kindly point out where I wrote anything remotely similar or congruent to the meaning of, "You didn't say anything you hypocrite,". I did point out you were the hypocrite here and the reason was pretty specific. It was for the things you have said or written, not for the things you didn't say or write.
B- I agree you've written your misguided belief in the provision of clean needles and clean meth/crack pipes is a plus for the overall health of the populace in general.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 07, 2022, 05:25:10 PM
A - Kindly point out where I wrote anything remotely similar or congruent to the meaning of, "You didn't say anything you hypocrite,". I did point out you were the hypocrite here and the reason was pretty specific. It was for the things you have said or written, not for the things you didn't say or write.

Ok.

Public health initiative, my ass.

Tom is not the hypocrite here.

You are.

You have already had the benefits and limitations of such a program explained to you.
I didn't read anything from you about "the limitations."

Come to think of it, I didn't read anything from you concerning "the benefits," either.

So, I am not ignoring anything.

There you go.  Anything else?

B- I agree you've written your misguided belief in the provision of clean needles and clean meth/crack pipes is a plus for the overall health of the populace in general.

Awww... It's cute watching you struggle to extract a disparaging remark from my comments.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 07, 2022, 06:16:21 PM
Do you have knowledge of Being Alive's budgeting plans? If you do, please share them. I'm pretty sure you don't, but actually, I do:

Video misrepresents funding of drug smoking kits in LA (https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-151820802446)

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. No federal funding was used to provide the safer smoking kits that are being distributed by Being Alive, an HIV and AIDS-focused nonprofit in Los Angeles. The organization’s funding comes from the state of California, according to Being Alive staff and state officials. The safer smoking kits include sterile supplies intended to decrease harm caused to drug users....

It is apparent that you have not been following along on how this works. Drug Policy Alliance stated that this program is technically funded locally, who apply for grants. It's not directly federally funded.

https://twitter.com/DrugPolicyOrg/status/1491561495418781696

There were crack pipes, but there was no funding earmarked for "just" crack pipes. The funding comes from communities who apply for grants, not directly from the federal government.

https://twitter.com/DrugPolicyOrg/status/1491561497608208388

Decision to "remove" crack pipes after being criticized for it.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 07, 2022, 07:09:31 PM
Looks like Tom agrees that this isn't a federal program and so Biden wasn't lying.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 07, 2022, 07:37:08 PM
A - Kindly point out where I wrote anything remotely similar or congruent to the meaning of, "You didn't say anything you hypocrite,". I did point out you were the hypocrite here and the reason was pretty specific. It was for the things you have said or written, not for the things you didn't say or write.

Ok.

Public health initiative, my ass.

Tom is not the hypocrite here.

You are.

You have already had the benefits and limitations of such a program explained to you.
I didn't read anything from you about "the limitations."

Come to think of it, I didn't read anything from you concerning "the benefits," either.

So, I am not ignoring anything.

There you go.  Anything else?
Yes, you just pointed out I wrote exactly what I wrote and why. I called you a hypocrite for the things you wrote.

There can be absolutely no health benefit for the public in having clean needles or pipes for the purpose of injecting methamphetamine and/or crack cocaine.
Awww... It's cute watching you struggle to extract a disparaging remark from my comments.
I do not need to extract anything.

The dissonance of your messaging is right out there in the open.

I am an advocate for the legalization of all drugs.

But I am not a vocal/written proponent for their use or an advocate for the government to provide any free methods or means for the ingestion of said drugs.

If an addict, by some miracle, is so concerned about the health and welfare of him or herself in terms of not catching any disease, they should truly seek to treat the disease that is causing them the most issues regarding their health and welfare and that is the disease of addiction.

End of story.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on March 07, 2022, 07:49:37 PM
Yea, drugs should be legalized. No, generally, people shouldn’t do drugs. People especially shouldn’t do hard drugs.

But legalizing and providing clean methods for existing addicts isn’t going to increase the number of addicts. It’s going to reduce the number of adverse side effects of drug use from unsanitary paraphernalia. That’s all.

People can’t get help if they are dead. Clean needles, fentanyl testing kits, whatever else is needed. Drug addiction doesn’t need to be a death sentence.

The one actual downside of providing abundant clean needles without installing safe injection sites is that it increases the amount of discarded needles in the community, which is an actual problem.
Public health measures should go beyond helping people not kill themselves with drugs to helping people stop doing drugs.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 07, 2022, 08:00:47 PM
Yea, drugs should be legalized. No, generally, people shouldn’t do drugs. People especially shouldn’t do hard drugs.

But legalizing and providing clean methods for existing addicts isn’t going to increase the number of addicts. It’s going to reduce the number of adverse side effects of drug use from unsanitary paraphernalia. That’s all.

People can’t get help if they are dead. Clean needles, fentanyl testing kits, whatever else is needed. Drug addiction doesn’t need to be a death sentence.

The one actual downside of providing abundant clean needles without installing safe injection sites is that it increases the amount of discarded needles in the community, which is an actual problem.
Public health measures should go beyond helping people not kill themselves with drugs to helping people stop doing drugs.

Absolutely, and many cities with needle exchange programs have biohzardous waste bins to help mitigate the disposal of paraphernalia. Until addiction is treated properly, the providing of safe pipes and needles is an effective strategy to keep addicts out of hospital as much as possible allowing resources to go to others with less preventable medical emergencies.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on March 07, 2022, 09:02:50 PM
Do you have knowledge of Being Alive's budgeting plans? If you do, please share them. I'm pretty sure you don't, but actually, I do:

Video misrepresents funding of drug smoking kits in LA (https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-151820802446)

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. No federal funding was used to provide the safer smoking kits that are being distributed by Being Alive, an HIV and AIDS-focused nonprofit in Los Angeles. The organization’s funding comes from the state of California, according to Being Alive staff and state officials. The safer smoking kits include sterile supplies intended to decrease harm caused to drug users....

It is apparent that you have not been following along on how this works. Drug Policy Alliance stated that this program is technically funded locally, who apply for grants. It's not directly federally funded.

Yep, that's it! Not federally funded. I'm glad you finally figured that out.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 08, 2022, 12:14:20 PM
Do you have knowledge of Being Alive's budgeting plans? If you do, please share them. I'm pretty sure you don't, but actually, I do:

Video misrepresents funding of drug smoking kits in LA (https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-151820802446)

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. No federal funding was used to provide the safer smoking kits that are being distributed by Being Alive, an HIV and AIDS-focused nonprofit in Los Angeles. The organization’s funding comes from the state of California, according to Being Alive staff and state officials. The safer smoking kits include sterile supplies intended to decrease harm caused to drug users....

It is apparent that you have not been following along on how this works. Drug Policy Alliance stated that this program is technically funded locally, who apply for grants. It's not directly federally funded.

Yep, that's it! Not federally funded. I'm glad you finally figured that out.
When you get the money back from the feds, then funnel it back out of your state government office, then someone can write, "...the money came from this state office."

You are really disingenuous.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 08, 2022, 03:29:43 PM
Yea, drugs should be legalized. No, generally, people shouldn’t do drugs. People especially shouldn’t do hard drugs.

But legalizing and providing clean methods for existing addicts isn’t going to increase the number of addicts. It’s going to reduce the number of adverse side effects of drug use from unsanitary paraphernalia. That’s all.

People can’t get help if they are dead. Clean needles, fentanyl testing kits, whatever else is needed. Drug addiction doesn’t need to be a death sentence.

The one actual downside of providing abundant clean needles without installing safe injection sites is that it increases the amount of discarded needles in the community, which is an actual problem.
Public health measures should go beyond helping people not kill themselves with drugs to helping people stop doing drugs.
I asked for this earlier, but Rama declined, so maybe you can help paint the extremely deadly picture the numbers paint when it comes to drug addicts dying from hepatitis or some other disease passed on through the use of a "dirty" needle or pipe.

I mean, I am sure it must have a decided impact of 10 - 20 percent reduction in these numbers, right?

FFS, I cannot believe out of all the life issues that addictive use of meth/crack cocaine impacts, PT Barnum was able to come along and pitch the idea that 30 million to fund safer smoking kits would be a better idea than spending the same amount in providing actual treatment for the disease.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on March 08, 2022, 03:46:45 PM
If you read what I said, I’m not completely in favour of just handing out clean needles and pretending you’re solving things. That should be a minor part of tackling the broader issue.

A quick google shows the WHO reported 1.3M deaths annually from dirty needles, costing $535M/yr. That report is from 1999, so I would expect that both deaths and costs are actually higher today.

To me, a higher priority for today is probably fentanyl detection. Regardless, I would prefer to see a more fulsome approach - and better funding and education - to addictions, homelessness, and mental health issues.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 08, 2022, 04:19:54 PM
If you read what I said, I’m not completely in favour of just handing out clean needles and pretending you’re solving things. That should be a minor part of tackling the broader issue.

A quick google shows the WHO reported 1.3M deaths annually from dirty needles, costing $535M/yr. That report is from 1999, so I would expect that both deaths and costs are actually higher today.

To me, a higher priority for today is probably fentanyl detection. Regardless, I would prefer to see a more fulsome approach - and better funding and education - to addictions, homelessness, and mental health issues.
Actually, deaths from dirty needles have gone down for the most part.

And very few of those occur in the US.

The reason?

Deaths from overdose are on the rise.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: garygreen on March 08, 2022, 07:04:24 PM
by their very nature, drug-addicted populations are difficult to reach. one of the most significant benefits of programs like needle exchanges is that it creates a point of contact between drug addicts and social workers/rehabilitation programs/whatever.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on March 08, 2022, 07:14:00 PM
Do you have knowledge of Being Alive's budgeting plans? If you do, please share them. I'm pretty sure you don't, but actually, I do:

Video misrepresents funding of drug smoking kits in LA (https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-151820802446)

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. No federal funding was used to provide the safer smoking kits that are being distributed by Being Alive, an HIV and AIDS-focused nonprofit in Los Angeles. The organization’s funding comes from the state of California, according to Being Alive staff and state officials. The safer smoking kits include sterile supplies intended to decrease harm caused to drug users....

It is apparent that you have not been following along on how this works. Drug Policy Alliance stated that this program is technically funded locally, who apply for grants. It's not directly federally funded.

Yep, that's it! Not federally funded. I'm glad you finally figured that out.
When you get the money back from the feds, then funnel it back out of your state government office, then someone can write, "...the money came from this state office."

You are really disingenuous.

What if I don't get money back from the Feds?

You're not making any sense. Are you saying that States never fund anything, ever, without Federal dollars?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 10, 2022, 04:23:10 AM
It is unfortunate that the US liberals voted a dementia patient into office for a time like this.

(https://i.imgur.com/aMxmeBj.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 10, 2022, 04:30:15 AM
It is unfortunate that the US liberals voted a dementia patient into office for a time like this.

(https://i.imgur.com/aMxmeBj.png)

Wait. I thought you didn’t care about the war in Ukraine. Now it’s a dire time? Make up your mind, please.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 10, 2022, 05:10:02 AM
Wait. I thought you didn’t care about the war in Ukraine. Now it’s a dire time? Make up your mind, please.

Yeah, like Ukraine has been the only thing going on.  ::)

(https://i.imgur.com/wgAgUsy.jpg)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/imports-drop-at-southern-california-ports-as-ship-backup-grows-11643143742

(https://i.imgur.com/alYD7FA.png)

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/90-cargo-containers-looted-every-015800258.html

(https://i.imgur.com/BLe4NdB.png)

https://dailyinterlake.com/news/2022/mar/06/bidens-indifference-border-crisis-and-crime-hurtin/

(https://i.imgur.com/6vFVluF.png)

https://www.westernjournal.com/outrage-biden-gives-soros-nonprofit-164-million-help-criminal-migrants-escape-punishment/

(https://i.imgur.com/mv2OYKQ.png)

https://nypost.com/2022/02/15/the-border-crisis-and-its-deadly-drugs-have-reached-middle-schools-nationwide/

(https://i.imgur.com/XCV4WtC.png)

https://twitter.com/AKA_RealDirty/status/1473108104988479490
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on March 10, 2022, 06:05:39 AM
Wait. I thought you didn’t care about the war in Ukraine. Now it’s a dire time? Make up your mind, please.

Yeah, like Ukraine has been the only thing going on.  ::)

10 Year domestic gas prices:

(https://i.imgur.com/lHj3PDb.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 10, 2022, 06:17:10 AM
Wow, how naive. Who was President and Vice President in 2012 and 2013?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on March 10, 2022, 06:42:37 AM
It is unfortunate that the US liberals voted a dementia patient into office for a time like this.

(https://i.imgur.com/aMxmeBj.png)

Just in case anyone has forgotten, Ronny Jackson is the doctor who notoriously claimed that Trump was at least two inches taller than all photographic evidence showed him to be, wasn't even obese, and was actually in great physical shape despite his lack of exercise, fast food-based diet, and general resemblance to Jabba the Hutt. He has no credibility as an actual doctor, and shouldn't be taken any more seriously on this subject than any other partisan hack.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 10, 2022, 08:06:05 AM
Just in case anyone has forgotten, Ronny Jackson is [...]
Is what he said about Biden getting lost reading from a teleprompter correct?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on March 10, 2022, 10:06:33 AM
Just in case anyone has forgotten, Ronny Jackson is [...]
Is what he said about Biden getting lost reading from a teleprompter correct?
I mean...even if it is...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4AzGie3JcI
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on March 10, 2022, 12:37:53 PM
Just in case anyone has forgotten, Ronny Jackson is [...]
Is what he said about Biden getting lost reading from a teleprompter correct?
I mean...even if it is...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4AzGie3JcI

Or how about the times Trump just stops reading?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 10, 2022, 01:25:25 PM
The whataboutism here isn’t great. Having a potentially senile president is not good for anyone.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 10, 2022, 01:31:12 PM
The whataboutism here isn’t great. Having a potentially HYPOTHETICALLY senile president is ^ABSOLUTELY^ not good for anyone.
FTFY, in order to aid in your efforts to be philosophically and intellectually honest in your post submissions here on your favorite forum.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on March 10, 2022, 01:56:47 PM
The whataboutism here isn’t great. Having a potentially senile president is not good for anyone.
Obviously not.
But what is even being spoken about here? I had a quick Google and found some video of some alleged "gaff" where he read "end of quote" after quoting someone. It didn't come across as one to me. He was quoting someone, it seemed pretty reasonable to say "end of quote" as he did before moving on to the next point. Unless there's something else. I've seen a few similar claims about him but they're all from last year or before.

EDIT: I also think it's pretty reasonable to ask why people with a certain agenda are claiming that Biden has dementia because he trips over certain words in a speech, while finding no fault in, say, the utter ramble that was some of Trump's speeches - you see some of those written down and it's a complete mess. A bit of logical consistency isn't too much to ask.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 10, 2022, 02:31:23 PM
The whataboutism here isn’t great. Having a potentially senile president is not good for anyone.
Obviously not.
But what is even being spoken about here? I had a quick Google and found some video of some alleged "gaff" where he read "end of quote" after quoting someone. It didn't come across as one to me. He was quoting someone, it seemed pretty reasonable to say "end of quote" as he did before moving on to the next point. Unless there's something else. I've seen a few similar claims about him but they're all from last year or before.

EDIT: I also think it's pretty reasonable to ask why people with a certain agenda are claiming that Biden has dementia because he trips over certain words in a speech, while finding no fault in, say, the utter ramble that was some of Trump's speeches - you see some of those written down and it's a complete mess. A bit of logical consistency isn't too much to ask.

If you want challenge Tom on his obvious and frequent hypocrisy, I’m all for it, but that challenge should be overt. As for the rest of it, it’s pretty obvious Biden is old, slowing down and isn’t as mentally sharp as he was even in 2020, at least to my eyes. I sincerely hope he doesn’t run again, but I’d still prefer him to Trump.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 10, 2022, 03:43:21 PM
The whataboutism here isn’t great. Having a potentially senile president is not good for anyone.
Obviously not.
But what is even being spoken about here? I had a quick Google and found some video of some alleged "gaff" where he read "end of quote" after quoting someone. It didn't come across as one to me. He was quoting someone, it seemed pretty reasonable to say "end of quote" as he did before moving on to the next point.
OMFG!!!

You think it reasonable and lucid to be reading a script and include the words, "end of quote."?

WTF?

And to think just a short time ago, here on this very forum, you were advocating for some form of "voter eligibility," test.

Based on this self-provided example of what you consider reasonable, whatever criteria you would consider reasonable for voters to be eligible to vote would be laughable.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on March 10, 2022, 03:49:07 PM
You think it reasonable and lucid to be reading a script and include the words, "end of quote."?
Yes. Especially as he started that part by saying "quote" and finished the quote by saying "end of quote" to make it clear it was finished and he was moving on to the next point.
It didn't seem particularly jarring to me. When I watched the video in an article saying basically "lolz, what a gaff" the video finished and I honestly couldn't work out what this terrible gaff was supposed to be. It was hardly the "Go fuck yourself, San Diego" Anchorman moment that had been advertised.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 10, 2022, 03:51:06 PM
You think it reasonable and lucid to be reading a script and include the words, "end of quote."?
Yes. Especially as he started that part by saying "quote" and finished the quote by saying "end of quote" to make it clear it was finished and he was moving on to the next point.
It didn't seem particularly jarring to me. When I watched the video in an article saying basically "lolz, what a gaff" the video finished and I honestly couldn't work out what this terrible gaff was supposed to be. It was hardly the "Go fuck yourself, San Diego" Anchorman moment that had been advertised.
And in conjunction with everything else?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on March 10, 2022, 04:26:30 PM
And in conjunction with everything else?
What's the everything else?
The dude is 79. No-one is as sharp at that age as they are when they're 40. Whether he actually has dementia - I've no idea. Nor do you. But spare me the over-analysis of every verbal mis-step, especially from people who have been an apologies for other people's incoherent ramblings over the years.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 10, 2022, 04:43:41 PM
You think it reasonable and lucid to be reading a script and include the words, "end of quote."?

If I introduced it AS A QUOTATION, absolutely.

As a native English speaker, I prefer the form quote / unquote, so I would read out;

"... and here I reference the words of Neil deGrasse Tyson, who said, quote, "That stuff is FLAT", unquote."

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 10, 2022, 04:48:10 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/aMxmeBj.png)

Sure, the doctor who (QUOTE) claimed that Trump was at least two inches taller than all photographic evidence showed him to be, wasn't even obese, and was actually in great physical shape despite his lack of exercise, fast food-based diet, and general resemblance to Jabba the Hutt (UNQUOTE) and is a regular attendee at Trump's rallies, where he gets singled out for praise, is a totally neutral voice on this matter.

(SARCASM) No, he's not partisan. Not biased AT ALL. No. Never. (UNSARCASM)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 10, 2022, 04:51:29 PM
And in conjunction with everything else?

What would that be? 


Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 10, 2022, 04:58:04 PM
You think it reasonable and lucid to be reading a script and include the words, "end of quote."?

If I introduced it AS A QUOTATION, absolutely.

As a native English speaker, I prefer the form quote / unquote, so I would read out;

"... and here I reference the words of Neil deGrasse Tyson, who said, quote, "That stuff is FLAT", unquote."
Yeah, "quote/unquote" is perfectly reasonable.

Compare and contrast that wording, which is used DAILY by millions, with the process of reading from a script, and having those words written out so you DO NOT FORGET THEM!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 10, 2022, 05:02:36 PM
And in conjunction with everything else?

What would that be?
Yeah, okay...

I am going to treat this question as one of the never-ending rhetorical merry-go-rounds you engage in, knowing full well the factual record doesn't need to be repeated for anyone's benefit.

Look, having a shit-stained diaper-wearing motherfucker acting as your leader in chief may work out just fine for you; after all, I mean, it probably cannot get much for worse you anyway as it is.

But this guy is starting to hurt my fucking wallet and that of millions of more and he has got to now, not tomorrow.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 10, 2022, 05:07:24 PM
I also think it's pretty reasonable to ask why people with a certain agenda are claiming that Biden has dementia because he trips over certain words in a speech, while finding no fault in, say, the utter ramble that was some of Trump's speeches - you see some of those written down and it's a complete mess. A bit of logical consistency isn't too much to ask.

Someone else referred to "whataboutism"...

If someone here refers to the current holder of office as faltering on X, Y and Z, is it so unreasonable to point out that the previous holder of the same office faltered much more than the current one on the same X, Y and Z, and also made a festering hash-up of A, B, C, and P, Q, R, when he could actually be bothered to turn up and do the work, and wasn't watching TV or at one of his country/golf clubs ...
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 10, 2022, 05:14:13 PM
Look, having a shit-stained diaper-wearing motherfucker acting as your leader in chief may work out just fine for you; after all, I mean, it probably cannot get much worse you anyway as it is.  But this guy is starting to hurt my fucking wallet and that of millions of more and he has got to now, not tomorrow.

What do you want to change, in terms of policy from the office of the POTUS?  Do you want Trump back in office? If not, who? MTG? Boebert? McConnell?

What makes you think someone else will be able to effect changes to not "hurt (your) fecking wallet" ??? 
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 10, 2022, 05:38:49 PM
I also think it's pretty reasonable to ask why people with a certain agenda are claiming that Biden has dementia because he trips over certain words in a speech, while finding no fault in, say, the utter ramble that was some of Trump's speeches - you see some of those written down and it's a complete mess. A bit of logical consistency isn't too much to ask.

Someone else referred to "whataboutism"...

If someone here refers to the current holder of office as faltering on X, Y and Z, is it so unreasonable to point out that the previous holder of the same office faltered much more than the current one on the same X, Y and Z, and also made a festering hash-up of A, B, C, and P, Q, R, when he could actually be bothered to turn up and do the work, and wasn't watching TV or at one of his country/golf clubs ...

Yes it is, because we should judge each president’s acts on their own merits. I agree the previous president was terrible but that doesn’t make Biden good, just better than the predecessor. It’s progress of a sort but no one should be happy about a foggy president at any time.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on March 10, 2022, 06:13:54 PM
The Democratic establishment thought Biden was their only shot at beating Trump, so they engineered it so that he got the nomination, knowing full well (I believe) that he wasn't all there. It's really a shame that this is what politics is in this country, but there you go.

God forbid a fully lucid candidate like Bernie get a shot. No, they had to smear him because he was doing too well, in favor of a candidate that should never have really been seriously considered.

I'm glad Trump is out. I'd rather have someone incompetent in office than someone who's both incompetent and has no respect for decorum, democracy, or the rule of law. But my God does Biden suck.

Whether you're on the left or the right politics is just a shit show in America right now.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on March 10, 2022, 06:26:43 PM
The Quote end quote thing is dumb and not at all weird.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/7348/is-it-end-quote-or-unquote
Since this is 11 years old, I'm gonna say that Biden is not the first nor last person who used that.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on March 11, 2022, 04:32:02 AM
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-412516218791

This is even more dishonest and ridiculous than I expected. It's literally just a video of Biden saying "end of quote," which conservatives assumed was something he wasn't supposed to say. That's it. That's literally it. There is literally nothing more to this situation than an out-of-context video and a kneejerk assumption from conservatives that because they didn't know what Biden was talking about, he must have been saying something nonsensical. Even if we didn't have the full video confirming that of course Biden was simply quoting someone, the alternative narrative that conservatives dreamed up doesn't make any sense. Why would a teleprompter say something like "end of quote" if the speaker wasn't supposed to say it? Teleprompters aren't scripts or screenplays. They don't contain lots of extraneous text that the speaker isn't supposed to say. That's simply not their function. No speechwriter would be cluttering up a teleprompter's transcript by clumsily labeling what is or isn't a quote within the transcript itself.

Biden has said plenty of goofy things in the past that might lead reasonable people to question his acuity. But this isn't one of them. This is just a really stupid and lazy smear attempt.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on March 11, 2022, 05:57:11 AM
I can't believe saying "end quote" even remotely deserves any amount of journalistic ink. Now, had he done air quotes instead, I would be incensed and demand the cabinet invoke the 25th amendment post haste.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 11, 2022, 06:13:58 AM
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-412516218791

This is even more dishonest and ridiculous than I expected. It's literally just a video of Biden saying "end of quote,"

Why are you talking about something from November 24th?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on March 11, 2022, 06:23:53 AM
Wow, how naive. Who was President and Vice President in 2012 and 2013?

Who was President and Vice President in 2015?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 11, 2022, 09:14:38 AM
Wow, how naive. Who was President and Vice President in 2012 and 2013?

Who was President and Vice President in 2015?

Who indeed. They were certainly not good ones since they had just plunged the nation into years of economic hardship while they conducted military interventions abroad.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 11, 2022, 12:35:29 PM
Wow, how naive. Who was President and Vice President in 2012 and 2013?

Who was President and Vice President in 2015?

Who indeed. They were certainly not good ones since they had just plunged the nation into years of economic hardship while they conducted military interventions abroad.

Economic hardships that were created by previous administrations. Obama inherited the sub-prime crisis which was due to deregulation by Clinton and Bush and unethical business practices by financial institutions. Military interventions are obviously not an issue for you, so why disingenuously bring it up? You had nothing to say about Trump increasing drone strikes and purportedly don’t care about international wars. You should work on this troll point a little better.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 11, 2022, 02:53:08 PM
Economic hardships that were created by previous administrations.

Yes because administrations in power only have the power to make policies and not undo or counter policies.  ::)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 11, 2022, 02:56:56 PM
Economic hardships that were created by previous administrations.

Yes because administrations in power only have the power to make policies and not undo or counter policies.  ::)

Yes and you may have noticed the economy recovered quite well under Obama.

I am glad you conceded you ridiculous point about military interventions.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 11, 2022, 03:17:48 PM
Economic hardships that were created by previous administrations.

Yes because administrations in power only have the power to make policies and not undo or counter policies.  ::)

Yes and you may have noticed the economy recovered quite well under Obama.

Obama and Biden were elected in 2008. It took them that long to get the markets under control? The value of the dollar and the markets are linked closely to investor confidence and can rise or fall based on the mere result of an election without any policies put into place. Obviously that administration had a problem creating the necessary confidence.

Quote
I am glad you conceded you ridiculous point about military interventions.

Are you arguing that putting your country into wars and numerous conflicts has nothing to do with investor confidence in your country?

This must be why Russia's markets have been unaffected by recent events. ::)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 11, 2022, 04:24:41 PM
Obama and Biden were elected in 2008. It took them that long to get the markets under control? The value of the dollar and the markets are linked closely on investor confidence and can rise or fall based on the mere result of an election without any policies put into place. Obviously that administration had a problem creating the necessary confidence.

"That long"?  Like how long was that? How long should it have taken?  How much of an impact did Obama's changes have on investor confidence and how much should it have had?  I would like you to back up your assertions above with some substance because it appears you are throwing shit at the wall to see if it will stick.


Are you arguing that putting your country into wars and numerous conflicts has nothing to do with investor confidence in your country?

This must be why Russia's markets have been unaffected by recent events. ::)

What?  What in the actual fuck is this segue?  Try rereading what I have written and resubmit your homework.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on March 11, 2022, 04:58:48 PM
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-412516218791

This is even more dishonest and ridiculous than I expected. It's literally just a video of Biden saying "end of quote,"

Why are you talking about something from November 24th?

Because that was the incident being discussed in this thread. If there's a more recent case of Biden getting lost while reading a teleprompter, I haven't seen it, and if Ronny Jackson was just making a general claim about Biden's mental state backed up by his own role as a doctor, then it bears repeating that Jackson's treatment of Trump proves that he can't be trusted to give an honest medical opinion.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: WTF_Seriously on March 11, 2022, 06:48:00 PM
Not sure why I suddenly thought of this.........no, wait, I know exactly why.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JTtI3D6lqk
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on March 11, 2022, 08:54:04 PM
Economic hardships that were created by previous administrations.

Yes because administrations in power only have the power to make policies and not undo or counter policies.  ::)

Yes and you may have noticed the economy recovered quite well under Obama.

Obama and Biden were elected in 2008. It took them that long to get the markets under control? The value of the dollar and the markets are linked closely to investor confidence and can rise or fall based on the mere result of an election without any policies put into place. Obviously that administration had a problem creating the necessary confidence.

Looks like the turnaround started to happen right after the Obama administration's inauguration...

(https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2013/09/history-financialcrisis.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on March 13, 2022, 03:27:10 PM
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/597987-new-polling-confirms-democrats-left-leaning-policies-are-out-of-touch?amp=1&amp_recirculation=1

tldr: It will take a miracle for the Democrats to hold onto a majority in the midterms.

I think they seriously have to focus on the economy if they're to have a shot. Whether explicitly Biden's and the Democrats' fault or an unavoidable consequence of world affairs right now the economy is tanking harder than it has in recent memory, in a way that people are really feeling, and nobody in the party seems to be offering any solutions.

Given that economic issues are often blamed on the Democrats because of their spend-heavy policies this is a Problem with a capital P that they are not going to be able to overcome by trying to shift focus to identity politics or environmental issues or even Russia. They need to address this and they need to find some kind of a solution. It's hard to imagine anyone not seeing the economy as the number one issue heading into the midterms.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 13, 2022, 04:01:43 PM
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/597987-new-polling-confirms-democrats-left-leaning-policies-are-out-of-touch?amp=1&amp_recirculation=1

tldr:
Neither party is a real party and they all spend heavy.

They are a party of ONE and they both spend money on things resulting in little to no long-term economic benefit for the populace in general.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on March 13, 2022, 05:01:39 PM
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/597973-team-biden-is-gaslighting-on-gas-prices-with-putinpricehike?amp

Here's a case in point.

Rising gas prices? This is just proof that we need to go out and buy those electric cars like everybody can totes afford to do at the drop of a dime. That'll show Putin whose fault this totally and entirely is!

It's insulting tbh.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on March 13, 2022, 05:03:43 PM
Neither party is a real party and they all spend heavy.

They are a party of ONE and they both spend money on things resulting in little to no long-term economic benefit for the populace in general.

I hate myself for saying it but I actually mostly agree with this. Politics in this country just sucks in general.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on March 13, 2022, 06:28:28 PM
Neither party is a real party and they all spend heavy.

They are a party of ONE and they both spend money on things resulting in little to no long-term economic benefit for the populace in general.

I hate myself for saying it but I actually mostly agree with this. Politics in this country just sucks in general.

I mostly agree too, and it's only gonna get worse. Just wait till November, post mid-terms, where the common first term shift will take place and literally nothing will get done for 2 years, yet much money will be wasted.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 13, 2022, 08:40:35 PM
Whether explicitly Biden's and the Democrats' fault

Actually VP Kamala Harris says that Democrats got what they voted for.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/03/12/vp_kamala_harris_to_democrats_remind_voters_they_got_what_they_ordered_with_biden_presidency.html

(https://i.imgur.com/LmGg45h.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/e543hn8.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on March 13, 2022, 08:51:18 PM
Neither party is a real party and they all spend heavy.

They are a party of ONE and they both spend money on things resulting in little to no long-term economic benefit for the populace in general.

I hate myself for saying it but I actually mostly agree with this. Politics in this country just sucks in general.

I mostly agree too, and it's only gonna get worse. Just wait till November, post mid-terms, where the common first term shift will take place and literally nothing will get done for 2 years, yet much money will be wasted.

Well that's not true.  I'm confident we can look forward to Speaker of the House Marjorie Taylor Greene setting a record number of revenge impeachments against Biden.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on March 13, 2022, 09:39:29 PM
Good lord, don’t even put that out into the world…
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on March 14, 2022, 03:44:37 AM
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/597987-new-polling-confirms-democrats-left-leaning-policies-are-out-of-touch

tldr: It will take a miracle for the Democrats to hold onto a majority in the midterms.

This article reads to me more like right-wing concern trolling designed to set a narrative than any serious effort to actually gather information. I mean, yes, Democrats are almost certainly going to lose their majority in the midterms, but it won't be because Democrats as a whole are too leftist (a claim that is objectively just ridiculous, and very suspect for a supposedly neutral pollster to take for granted), nor will it be because Democrats are too focused on "identity politics" (a snarl term used almost exclusively these days by conservatives, to uncritically use a term like that is also very suspect for a supposedly neutral pollster). It'll be because Republicans have used their own strong messaging and gamed a spineless media into accommodating them for fear of being accused of bias to create a playing field that overwhelmingly favors them. The pattern works like this: Right-wing media decide on a falsehood to sell to the public. It could be the idea that there's a war on Christmas, that Dr. Seuss has somehow been banned by liberals, that schools are teaching white kids to hate themselves, that LGBT teachers are somehow indoctrinating kids into the LGBT lifestyle, or any other of the numerous cultural boogeymen they've dreamed up over the years. Right-wing politicians pick up on the lie and begin repeating it themselves. The back-and-forth amplifies the controversy until the mainstream media takes notice, and because they know that they'll be attacked for "bias" if they accurately report that, no, of course schools aren't teaching white kids to hate themselves, they report it like "Some people say that schools are teaching white kids to hate themselves. Some people say they aren't. Who can say what's true? Both sides have a point, really." Then stupid polls like this one ask people "Do you agree or disagree with teaching white kids to hate themselves?" and when they get the obvious answer, they write stupid articles saying, "The public largely reject teaching white kids to hate themselves! This is bad news for Democrats!"
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on March 14, 2022, 05:52:45 AM
Its rather simple.

Gas prices are high.
The economy is getting hit with inflation.
Those in power are blamed.
Those not in power are given power.
Forces eventually return to normal naturally.

Republicans saved us!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on March 14, 2022, 03:26:53 PM
I'm rather shocked that the Democrats plan of doing as little as possible is proving to be unpopular.  Perhaps if they tried to do absolutely nothing they'll have better luck during the next election.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on March 14, 2022, 05:21:44 PM
What's costing Dems the most is the ongoing, desperate narrative that the economy is doing great. Biden repeatedly saying he's "added more jobs than any other president ever" is pouring salt on the wound. Repeating talking points with the assumption that your electoral base has actual mental retardation is not going to be popular. The economy is not doing great. Food and energy prices are going through the roof. One remarkable historic event regarding food prices was the time that the French invented a very efficient head chopping machine and started chopping off heads. Dems are lucky the ongoing inflation screwups will only cost them the midterms.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on March 14, 2022, 10:10:37 PM
What's costing Dems the most is the ongoing, desperate narrative that the economy is doing great. Biden repeatedly saying he's "added more jobs than any other president ever" is pouring salt on the wound. Repeating talking points with the assumption that your electoral base has actual mental retardation is not going to be popular. The economy is not doing great. Food and energy prices are going through the roof. One remarkable historic event regarding food prices was the time that the French invented a very efficient head chopping machine and started chopping off heads. Dems are lucky the ongoing inflation screwups will only cost them the midterms.
Isn't the food costs directly related to the fuel costs tho?
Which is a result of the Russia invasion making the oil market panic?

What have Dems done that caused this?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 14, 2022, 11:26:15 PM
What's costing Dems the most is the ongoing, desperate narrative that the economy is doing great. Biden repeatedly saying he's "added more jobs than any other president ever" is pouring salt on the wound. Repeating talking points with the assumption that your electoral base has actual mental retardation is not going to be popular. The economy is not doing great. Food and energy prices are going through the roof. One remarkable historic event regarding food prices was the time that the French invented a very efficient head chopping machine and started chopping off heads. Dems are lucky the ongoing inflation screwups will only cost them the midterms.
Isn't the food costs directly related to the fuel costs tho?
Which is a result of the Russia invasion making the oil market panic?

What have Dems done that caused this?

No, food price related inflation has been rising for months now.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2022, 05:50:59 AM
What's costing Dems the most is the ongoing, desperate narrative that the economy is doing great. Biden repeatedly saying he's "added more jobs than any other president ever" is pouring salt on the wound. Repeating talking points with the assumption that your electoral base has actual mental retardation is not going to be popular. The economy is not doing great. Food and energy prices are going through the roof. One remarkable historic event regarding food prices was the time that the French invented a very efficient head chopping machine and started chopping off heads. Dems are lucky the ongoing inflation screwups will only cost them the midterms.
Isn't the food costs directly related to the fuel costs tho?
Which is a result of the Russia invasion making the oil market panic?

What have Dems done that caused this?

No, food price related inflation has been rising for months now.

Why?
Trucker protests?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on March 16, 2022, 08:20:22 PM
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/597987-new-polling-confirms-democrats-left-leaning-policies-are-out-of-touch

tldr: It will take a miracle for the Democrats to hold onto a majority in the midterms.

This article reads to me more like right-wing concern trolling designed to set a narrative than any serious effort to actually gather information. I mean, yes, Democrats are almost certainly going to lose their majority in the midterms, but it won't be because Democrats as a whole are too leftist (a claim that is objectively just ridiculous, and very suspect for a supposedly neutral pollster to take for granted), nor will it be because Democrats are too focused on "identity politics" (a snarl term used almost exclusively these days by conservatives, to uncritically use a term like that is also very suspect for a supposedly neutral pollster). It'll be because Republicans have used their own strong messaging and gamed a spineless media into accommodating them for fear of being accused of bias to create a playing field that overwhelmingly favors them. The pattern works like this: Right-wing media decide on a falsehood to sell to the public. It could be the idea that there's a war on Christmas, that Dr. Seuss has somehow been banned by liberals, that schools are teaching white kids to hate themselves, that LGBT teachers are somehow indoctrinating kids into the LGBT lifestyle, or any other of the numerous cultural boogeymen they've dreamed up over the years. Right-wing politicians pick up on the lie and begin repeating it themselves. The back-and-forth amplifies the controversy until the mainstream media takes notice, and because they know that they'll be attacked for "bias" if they accurately report that, no, of course schools aren't teaching white kids to hate themselves, they report it like "Some people say that schools are teaching white kids to hate themselves. Some people say they aren't. Who can say what's true? Both sides have a point, really." Then stupid polls like this one ask people "Do you agree or disagree with teaching white kids to hate themselves?" and when they get the obvious answer, they write stupid articles saying, "The public largely reject teaching white kids to hate themselves! This is bad news for Democrats!"

You know, there is a link in the article to the poll itself. You can actually read it instead of guessing at what nefariously biased questions it asks.  ::)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 16, 2022, 11:46:22 PM
The economy is not doing great. Food and energy prices are going through the roof.

... and the Repugnicans want to tax the small guy even more, so they can give the donor class more tax breaks .....

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on March 17, 2022, 12:40:21 AM
What's costing Dems the most is the ongoing, desperate narrative that the economy is doing great. Biden repeatedly saying he's "added more jobs than any other president ever" is pouring salt on the wound. Repeating talking points with the assumption that your electoral base has actual mental retardation is not going to be popular. The economy is not doing great. Food and energy prices are going through the roof. One remarkable historic event regarding food prices was the time that the French invented a very efficient head chopping machine and started chopping off heads. Dems are lucky the ongoing inflation screwups will only cost them the midterms.

Prices are higher but let's not overstate it.  Other than real estate and cars inflation looks to be around 10%.  Not great, don't get me wrong.  But hardly worth breaking out the guillotines over.

I know republicans are hammering democrats over this.  As they should, democrats are in power so it's up to them to do something.  But I really haven't heard any plans to deal with this from the republicans other than taxing the hell out of poor people.

As far as I can tell this inflation is the result of a massive supply chain disruption.  Some people blame it on covid stimulus packages but the amount of money a country has spent on stimulus and the amount of inflation they're experiencing really don't seem to correlate.  I think it's just something we're going to have to ride out.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2022, 01:01:32 AM
As they should, democrats are in power so it's up to them to do something.

Don't worry. The Democrats are hard at work fixing the gas crisis.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-democrats-biden-declare-climate-emergency-ban-oil-drilling-federal-lands

(https://i.imgur.com/hUCFBo5.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 17, 2022, 09:55:04 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/hUCFBo5.png)

Wow. Fox got it from Politico, who got it from... a DRAFT report. Not the final version. From a work in progress.

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2022, 10:15:17 AM
As they should, democrats are in power so it's up to them to do something.

Don't worry. The Democrats are hard at work fixing the gas crisis.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-democrats-biden-declare-climate-emergency-ban-oil-drilling-federal-lands

(https://i.imgur.com/hUCFBo5.png)

Wow. Fox got it from Politico, who got it from... a DRAFT report. Not the final version. From a work in progress.

So the story is true then. Thanks for verifying it for us.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 17, 2022, 10:48:06 AM
So the story is true then. Thanks for verifying it for us.

The story fails to match the headline. All that can be said is that SOME of the House Dems put this into a report which has not yet been finalised nor published. The matter is still under discussion within the House Dems. It only becomes overall House Dem policy when published finally.

You agree, surely, that sometimes content of a DRAFT report does not make its way into the FINAL report?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2022, 11:10:26 AM
The story fails to match the headline.

Actually the Politico source has the same headline - House liberals to urge Biden to declare climate emergency, ban drilling on federal lands (https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2022/03/house-liberals-to-urge-biden-to-declare-climate-emergency-ban-drilling-on-federal-lands-00017349?source=email)

You agree, surely, that sometimes content of a DRAFT report does not make its way into the FINAL report?

I think the fact that those ideas exited their brain is a more important point than whether the paper is a draft or final.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on March 17, 2022, 11:32:37 AM
Oh, the horror, the evil of it.

Dems want to do something to safeguard the Earth.

Meanwhile, all the Repugnicans want to do is pass legislation that hurts people and makes people suffer. Death penalty for participation in abortion. Felony for parents to seek therapy help for trans children, AND a felony to leave the state to seek same. 
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on March 17, 2022, 07:01:43 PM
You know, there is a link in the article to the poll itself. You can actually read it instead of guessing at what nefariously biased questions it asks.  ::)

Interesting how you're assuming that I'm assuming. I did read the poll, and even if it were a perfectly sensible, objective poll, there still would be no reason for the authors to describe its findings using right-wing snarl terms like "identity politics" or casually present the misinformation their respondents expressed belief in as fact. But of course the poll is neither sensible nor objective. To look at just a couple of questions here:

Quote
Please indicate if you agree or disagree with the following statement.

Joe Biden and Democrats in Congress are out of touch with hardworking Americans. They have been so focused on catering to the far-left wing of the party that they’re ignoring Americans’ day to day concerns, such as addressing the rising prices for goods and gasoline and combatting violent crime.

This question is ludicrously loaded. Good, reputable polls don't just blatantly spell out a narrative using this kind of partisan language and somehow maintain their neutrality by simply including the option to disagree. The question also takes it for granted that "catering to the far-left wing of the party" is a negative - the respondent is only asked if it's what they think Biden is doing, not if they think that Biden doing it is good or bad.

Quote
Do you think President Biden and the Democratic Party should move more to the left and embrace more liberal policies, move more to the center and embrace more moderate policies, or do you think President Biden and the Democratic Party should stay where it is right now?

This question, meanwhile, indicates their expected answer to the previous question, because here they are taking it for granted that Biden and the Democrats are already on the left, a claim that, regardless of anyone's opinions of the merits of being on the left, is objectively just untrue. Biden is not a leftist, he is a centrist, and there's no indication that more left-leaning Democrats have any real influence over his agenda or the party's as a whole. The notion that the Democratic Party as a whole is trending far to the left is yet another right-wing lie that conservatives are repeating as much as possible to gaslight the rest of the country into thinking that Democrats should in the interests of fairness move further to the right. And no matter how many concessions Democrats make or compromises they offer, Republicans continue to drift further and further into extremism while their stooges in the media keep up the chorus of how Democrats are so unfairly devoted to the left. This poll/article is just another example of that. Don't fall for it.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on March 17, 2022, 08:15:57 PM
You know, there is a link in the article to the poll itself. You can actually read it instead of guessing at what nefariously biased questions it asks.  ::)

Interesting how you're assuming that I'm assuming. I did read the poll, and even if it were a perfectly sensible, objective poll, there still would be no reason for the authors to describe its findings using right-wing snarl terms like "identity politics" or casually present the misinformation their respondents expressed belief in as fact. But of course the poll is neither sensible nor objective. To look at just a couple of questions here:

Quote
Please indicate if you agree or disagree with the following statement.

Joe Biden and Democrats in Congress are out of touch with hardworking Americans. They have been so focused on catering to the far-left wing of the party that they’re ignoring Americans’ day to day concerns, such as addressing the rising prices for goods and gasoline and combatting violent crime.

This question is ludicrously loaded. Good, reputable polls don't just blatantly spell out a narrative using this kind of partisan language and somehow maintain their neutrality by simply including the option to disagree. The question also takes it for granted that "catering to the far-left wing of the party" is a negative - the respondent is only asked if it's what they think Biden is doing, not if they think that Biden doing it is good or bad.

Quote
Do you think President Biden and the Democratic Party should move more to the left and embrace more liberal policies, move more to the center and embrace more moderate policies, or do you think President Biden and the Democratic Party should stay where it is right now?

This question, meanwhile, indicates their expected answer to the previous question, because here they are taking it for granted that Biden and the Democrats are already on the left, a claim that, regardless of anyone's opinions of the merits of being on the left, is objectively just untrue. Biden is not a leftist, he is a centrist, and there's no indication that more left-leaning Democrats has any real influence over his agenda or the party's as a whole. The notion that the Democratic Party as a whole is trending far to the left is yet another right-wing lie that conservatives are repeating as much as possible to gaslight the rest of the country into thinking that Democrats should in the interests of fairness move further to the right. And no matter how many concessions Democrats make or compromises they offer, Republicans continue to drift further and further into extremism while their stooges in the media keep up the chorus of how Democrats are so unfairly devoted to the left. This poll/article is just another example of that. Don't fall for it.

I feel like if your point was really valid you wouldn't have had to make up an obviously far more biased and ridiculous question to try to make it. Obviously there are no questions like the one you used as an "example" in the post of yours I initially quoted. I didn't assume anything; you clearly didn't read the poll; because if you had, and the examples you cite above that actually do appear in the poll really served as examples of your point, you wouldn't have felt it necessary to make one up.

I also don't recall the phrase "identity politics" actually showing up in the poll. I used it, to illustrate my point, independent of what the poll actually said. If you think the party whose current leader once opined on a popular nationally syndicated radio show "If you're not voting for me, you ain't black!" doesn't engage in identity politics, you're delusional.

But anyway, I was glad to see that you at least attempted to rationalize your ridiculous post, even if you did fail spectacularly at doing so.

You should probably stick to analyzing the capeshit movies rather than politics. You're obviously much more comfortable dealing with fiction than reality.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on March 17, 2022, 10:03:13 PM
I feel like if your point was really valid you wouldn't have had to make up an obviously far more biased and ridiculous question to try to make it. Obviously there are no questions like the one you used as an "example" in the post of yours I initially quoted. I didn't assume anything; you clearly didn't read the poll; because if you had, and the examples you cite above that actually do appear in the poll really served as examples of your point, you wouldn't have felt it necessary to make one up.

You've misunderstood my point. I wasn't criticizing the poll for asking biased questions, but for presenting misinformation and right-wing talking points as objective fact. Asking if white kids should be taught to hate themselves isn't even a biased question, so I would hardly have used that as a faux-example of the poll asking biased questions. You've conflated two related but different points - one being that the poll launders misinformation by including it among its questions, and the other being that the poll asks biased, loaded questions to get the responses the pollsters want. I only criticized the latter point in my second post because it looked like you wanted me to.

Quote
I also don't recall the phrase "identity politics" actually showing up in the poll. I used it, to illustrate my point, independent of what the poll actually said.

It isn't in the poll, but it is in the article. I'm inclined to believe that was what put the term in your head to begin with.

Quote
If you think the party whose current leader once opined on a popular nationally syndicated radio show "If you're not voting for me, you ain't black!" doesn't engage in identity politics, you're delusional.

Irrelevant. I'm not talking about engaging in identity politics, but specifically using the term "identity politics." Because it's a snarl term. It carries a negative connotation, and almost every time it's used nowadays, it's by a conservative who's bashing progressives or progressive ideals. It's a major red flag, same as it would have been if they had used a term like "SJW."

Quote
But anyway, I was glad to see that you at least attempted to rationalize your ridiculous post, even if you did fail spectacularly at doing so.

You should probably stick to analyzing the capeshit movies rather than politics. You're obviously much more comfortable dealing with fiction than reality.

You don't need to get mad at me just because I recognized that these shitty pollsters were a bunch of right-wing concern trolls and you didn't. Work on your critical thinking skills - analyzing capeshit movies is good practice - and you'll reach my level soon enough.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on March 18, 2022, 10:59:45 AM
Irrelevant. I'm not talking about engaging in identity politics, but specifically using the term "identity politics." Because it's a snarl term. It carries a negative connotation, and almost every time it's used nowadays, it's by a conservative who's bashing progressives or progressive ideals. It's a major red flag, same as it would have been if they had used a term like "SJW."
Describe "identity politics," in a positive fashion.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on March 18, 2022, 10:50:43 PM
A more positive spin on the concept is simply that it's people supporting laws, policies, or agendas that they feel benefit or protect those of the group or class of people which they identify with or belong to. Politicians of both parties have for decades made explicit calls for the support of members of various groups or classes, insisting that their election will be the best outcome for people of that group or class in particular. It's hardly a phenomenon unique to Democrats.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 28, 2022, 08:56:46 PM
Why is the Biden allowing billionaires to pay staff in the White House science office?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10661039/Google-billionaire-Eric-Schmidt-PAID-salaries-staff-inside-Bidens-science-office.html

(https://i.imgur.com/QoSkLgE.png)

The science office actively arranged payment from Schmidt Futures.

(https://i.imgur.com/AQ5JrlN.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 29, 2022, 12:11:59 AM
Why is the Biden allowing billionaires to pay staff in the White House science office?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10661039/Google-billionaire-Eric-Schmidt-PAID-salaries-staff-inside-Bidens-science-office.html

(https://i.imgur.com/QoSkLgE.png)

The science office actively arranged payment from Schmidt Futures.

(https://i.imgur.com/AQ5JrlN.png)

Because it’s America and you guys love this shit. Remember when Louis Dejoy donated $700k to Trump and then immediately got a job as postmaster general? This kind of stuff happens everywhere, all the time in the USA.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 29, 2022, 12:28:45 AM
Because it’s America and you guys love this shit. Remember when Louis Dejoy donated $700k to Trump and then immediately got a job as postmaster general? This kind of stuff happens everywhere, all the time in the USA.

Ah yes, the classic liberal "yes he is corrupt and I don't care" defense.  ::)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on March 29, 2022, 08:24:48 AM
Because it’s America and you guys love this shit. Remember when Louis Dejoy donated $700k to Trump and then immediately got a job as postmaster general? This kind of stuff happens everywhere, all the time in the USA.

Ah yes, the classic liberal "yes he is corrupt and I don't care" defense.  ::)

(https://i.ibb.co/zPsD957/rn-Zl-JGXa7-GMl.png)

Only one of us has mentioned not caring and it's not me.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: WTF_Seriously on March 29, 2022, 05:13:35 PM
Because it’s America and you guys love this shit. Remember when Louis Dejoy donated $700k to Trump and then immediately got a job as postmaster general? This kind of stuff happens everywhere, all the time in the USA.

Ah yes, the classic liberal "yes he is corrupt and I don't care" defense.  ::)

Imagine unironically thinking this is strictly a liberal affliction.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 02, 2022, 09:21:47 PM
I wonder if Joe thinks Michelle Obama was Vice President or his wife was.

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1510286436909699081
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on April 02, 2022, 09:54:26 PM
I wonder if Joe thinks Michelle Obama was Vice President or his wife was.

Is that minor slip really what you think is of importance at the moment?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on April 02, 2022, 11:16:22 PM
Who cares? Criticize something that actually matters.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 03, 2022, 05:20:53 PM
I wonder if Joe thinks Michelle Obama was Vice President or his wife was.

Is that minor slip really what you think is of importance at the moment?

His "flubs" are so rampant that Wall Street Journal editors are writing opinion articles pleading with him publicly to avoid speaking. Yes, the coherency of the US President is important.

https://archive.ph/ucDqf

(https://i.imgur.com/Qs7g2l7.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on April 03, 2022, 06:06:40 PM
A WSJ Opinion piece? I see your cherrypick and raise you...

From the WSJ Opinion section:

Biden Will Make America Lead Again (https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/biden-will-make-america-lead-again-11603127677)
If we remain indifferent to our role in the world, if we retreat from our obligation to our citizens and our allies and if we fail to choose the right leader, then we will pay the highest price for our neglect and shortsightedness.

I voted for Joe Biden.


Now see how little opinion pieces matter?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 03, 2022, 06:26:27 PM
Actually, it's not possible to state that Joe Biden should stop speaking without it being an opinion. All narratives, interpretations, suggestions, and insights are opinions. The criticism of "that's an opinion!" is terrible and childish. No effort to show that the author is wrong at all.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on April 03, 2022, 06:36:08 PM
Yes, the coherency of the US President is important.
Agreed.

Stuff like this will get Biden a lot of negative press covfefe
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on April 03, 2022, 06:45:33 PM
Actually, it's not possible to state that Joe Biden should stop speaking without it being an opinion. All narratives, interpretations, suggestions, and insights are opinions. The criticism of "that's an opinion!" is terrible and childish. No effort to show that the author is wrong at all.

Correct, no effort shown that the author was wrong about how 'Biden will make America lead again'.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 03, 2022, 07:12:13 PM
Actually, it's not possible to state that Joe Biden should stop speaking without it being an opinion. All narratives, interpretations, suggestions, and insights are opinions. The criticism of "that's an opinion!" is terrible and childish. No effort to show that the author is wrong at all.

Correct, no effort shown that the author was wrong about how 'Biden will make America lead again'.

Yeah, that article has nothing to do with Joe Biden flubs or the article posted about it. Argument via avoidance.  ::)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on April 03, 2022, 09:36:47 PM
Actually, it's not possible to state that Joe Biden should stop speaking without it being an opinion. All narratives, interpretations, suggestions, and insights are opinions. The criticism of "that's an opinion!" is terrible and childish. No effort to show that the author is wrong at all.

Correct, no effort shown that the author was wrong about how 'Biden will make America lead again'.

Yeah, that article has nothing to do with Joe Biden flubs or the article posted about it. Argument via avoidance.  ::)

No, it's an argument about the veracity of opinion pieces. I don't think anyone would contest that Biden is the master at flubs and gaffes. Nothing new. He's been notorious for that for decades. So some guy thinks that Biden shouldn't speak anymore? Cool opinion from some guy. I had the same opinion about DJT. Some guy also wrote an opinion piece saying Biden is the guy we need to lead America and reestablish our good faith and dominance in the world. Another cool opinion from some guy. In the same publication.

So what? Do you put more faith in the opinion that fits your narrative? If so, good for you. Now two guys have that opinion. So what? I mean what's your point? That some guy wrote something as an opinion you agree with? Wow, amazing stuff. Keep providing us with these amazing insights and opinions you share with some guy.  ::)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on April 03, 2022, 10:02:34 PM
The WSJ's opinion piece (https://thehiu.com/the-president-should-avoid-public-speaking/) (link is to another website to avoid their paywall) is not a sincere plea made in good faith by an objective observer; it's a sarcastic piece of vitriol from a notoriously right-wing editorial board. The author is dramatically exaggerating the incoherence of the cited snippets from Biden's statements. It's clear what he's saying in both instances, and to interpret them as Biden possibly threatening to use chemical weapons is just willful stupidity.

The same thing applies to the Jill Biden comment that started this whole dumb discussion. Obviously Biden was referring to himself being the VP, not his wife. It was a minor, easy mistake to make that in no way obscured the meaning of what he was saying. All conservatives are doing by playing dumb in response to every verbal stumble from Biden is making themselves look dumb.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on April 03, 2022, 10:07:33 PM
Yes, the coherency of the US President is important.

OK, so you've been active here a while ... you jumped on every flub of every previous President, didn't you? You were even-handed, you didn't favour one over the other, and you pointed out all of their flubs, regardless of which party they were from .... right?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on April 04, 2022, 11:15:25 AM
A more positive spin on the concept is simply that it's people supporting laws, policies, or agendas that they feel benefit or protect those of the group or class of people which they identify with or belong to. Politicians of both parties have for decades made explicit calls for the support of members of various groups or classes, insisting that their election will be the best outcome for people of that group or class in particular. It's hardly a phenomenon unique to Democrats.
You think that's positive, uh?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 04, 2022, 05:11:27 PM
Hey look. The Washington Post Editorial Board is admitting complicity in covering up the the Hunter Biden Laptop story. Looks like it was a false narrative after all and honk was wrong that the laptop was fake.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220403141320/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/03/hunter-biden-story-is-an-opportunity-reckoning/

Quote
Opinion: The Hunter Biden story is an opportunity for a reckoning
By Editorial Board


...

For now, what’s more compelling than the assorted accusations about the Bidens’ behavior is this question: Why is confirmation of a story that first surfaced in the fall of 2020 emerging only now? When the New York Post published its blockbuster exclusive on the contents of a laptop said to have been abandoned at a Delaware repair shop by Hunter Biden, mainstream media organizations balked at running with the same narrative. Social media sites displayed even greater caution. Twitter blocked the story altogether, pointing to a policy against hacked materials, and suspended the New York Post’s account for sharing it; Facebook downranked the story in the algorithms that govern users’ news feeds for fear that it was based on misinformation. Now, The Washington Post and the New York Times have vouched for many of the relevant communications.

This series of events has prompted allegations of a coverup, or at best a double standard in the treatment of conservative and liberal politicians by mainstream media and social media sites. Yet there was reason in this case for reluctance on the part of the publications and the platforms alike. Both had been the unwitting tools of a Russian influence campaign in 2016, and it was only prudent to suspect a similar plot lay behind the mysterious appearance of a computer stuffed with juicy documents and conveniently handed over to President Donald Trump’s toxic personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.

Quote from: stack
No, it's an argument about the veracity of opinion pieces. I don't think anyone would contest that Biden is the master at flubs and gaffes. Nothing new. He's been notorious for that for decades. So some guy thinks that Biden shouldn't speak anymore? Cool opinion from some guy. I had the same opinion about DJT.

Yeah, major media outlets pleading with the President to stop publicly speaking and causing chaos with his numerous flubs and gaffes is totally normal.  ::)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: garygreen on April 04, 2022, 06:02:32 PM
lol a laptop magically appears from the aether, has absolutely no documented chain of custody, gets passed around between a bunch of gop fixers, and i'm supposed to automatically believe that everything on it is authentic. lmao. get real.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on April 04, 2022, 06:33:31 PM
Hey look. The Washington Post Editorial Board is admitting complicity in covering up the the Hunter Biden Laptop story. Looks like it was a false narrative after all and honk was wrong that the laptop was fake.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220403141320/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/03/hunter-biden-story-is-an-opportunity-reckoning/

Quote
Opinion: The Hunter Biden story is an opportunity for a reckoning
By Editorial Board


...

For now, what’s more compelling than the assorted accusations about the Bidens’ behavior is this question: Why is confirmation of a story that first surfaced in the fall of 2020 emerging only now? When the New York Post published its blockbuster exclusive on the contents of a laptop said to have been abandoned at a Delaware repair shop by Hunter Biden, mainstream media organizations balked at running with the same narrative. Social media sites displayed even greater caution. Twitter blocked the story altogether, pointing to a policy against hacked materials, and suspended the New York Post’s account for sharing it; Facebook downranked the story in the algorithms that govern users’ news feeds for fear that it was based on misinformation. Now, The Washington Post and the New York Times have vouched for many of the relevant communications.

This series of events has prompted allegations of a coverup, or at best a double standard in the treatment of conservative and liberal politicians by mainstream media and social media sites. Yet there was reason in this case for reluctance on the part of the publications and the platforms alike. Both had been the unwitting tools of a Russian influence campaign in 2016, and it was only prudent to suspect a similar plot lay behind the mysterious appearance of a computer stuffed with juicy documents and conveniently handed over to President Donald Trump’s toxic personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.

You left off this bit, right at the end of your quote:

Indeed, at the time there was also an ongoing disinformation operation from Moscow involving — among other things — doctored recordings supposedly showing Joe Biden improperly pressuring the then-president of Ukraine to aid Hunter Biden’s business interests — a fraud promoted by Mr. Giuliani.

And this:

This context doesn’t necessarily exonerate every action of every publication and platform. It makes obvious sense for newspapers to wait to verify information before turning it into a story; the harder conundrum is what to do with true information that comes from a hack, and harder still is how to treat true information that hasn’t been stolen but has been selectively shared to further an agenda. Social media sites face a tougher choice when it comes to whether and how to dampen the spread of a story when they’re unsure of its truthfulness or origins. None of these dilemmas have easy answers. The lesson learned from 2016 was evidently to err on the side of setting aside questionable material in the heat of a political campaign. The lesson learned from 2020 may well be that there’s also a danger of suppressing accurate and relevant stories.

Quote from: stack
No, it's an argument about the veracity of opinion pieces. I don't think anyone would contest that Biden is the master at flubs and gaffes. Nothing new. He's been notorious for that for decades. So some guy thinks that Biden shouldn't speak anymore? Cool opinion from some guy. I had the same opinion about DJT.

Yeah, major media outlets pleading with the President to stop publicly speaking and causing chaos with his numerous flubs and gaffes is totally normal.  ::)

I think you mean "outlet", not "outlets" and one opinion piece pleading.

“I was down there and I watched our police and our firemen down there on 7/11,”
“He’s not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”
“Look at my African American over here!”
"Covfefe"
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on April 04, 2022, 06:49:49 PM
Hey look. The Washington Post Editorial Board is admitting complicity in covering up the the Hunter Biden Laptop story. Looks like it was a false narrative after all and honk was wrong that the laptop was fake.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220403141320/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/03/hunter-biden-story-is-an-opportunity-reckoning/

Quote
Opinion: The Hunter Biden story is an opportunity for a reckoning
By Editorial Board


...

For now, what’s more compelling than the assorted accusations about the Bidens’ behavior is this question: Why is confirmation of a story that first surfaced in the fall of 2020 emerging only now? When the New York Post published its blockbuster exclusive on the contents of a laptop said to have been abandoned at a Delaware repair shop by Hunter Biden, mainstream media organizations balked at running with the same narrative. Social media sites displayed even greater caution. Twitter blocked the story altogether, pointing to a policy against hacked materials, and suspended the New York Post’s account for sharing it; Facebook downranked the story in the algorithms that govern users’ news feeds for fear that it was based on misinformation. Now, The Washington Post and the New York Times have vouched for many of the relevant communications.

This series of events has prompted allegations of a coverup, or at best a double standard in the treatment of conservative and liberal politicians by mainstream media and social media sites. Yet there was reason in this case for reluctance on the part of the publications and the platforms alike. Both had been the unwitting tools of a Russian influence campaign in 2016, and it was only prudent to suspect a similar plot lay behind the mysterious appearance of a computer stuffed with juicy documents and conveniently handed over to President Donald Trump’s toxic personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.

Quote from: stack
No, it's an argument about the veracity of opinion pieces. I don't think anyone would contest that Biden is the master at flubs and gaffes. Nothing new. He's been notorious for that for decades. So some guy thinks that Biden shouldn't speak anymore? Cool opinion from some guy. I had the same opinion about DJT.

Yeah, major media outlets pleading with the President to stop publicly speaking and causing chaos with his numerous flubs and gaffes is totally normal.  ::)

Tuckerson also buried it.  Remember that?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on April 04, 2022, 08:28:45 PM
Tucker Carlson Suddenly Says It’s Time to Leave Hunter Biden Alone (https://www.thedailybeast.com/tucker-carlson-suddenly-says-its-time-to-leave-hunter-biden-alone)

Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who has obsessively covered Hunter Biden’s emails since the story exploded in conservative media earlier this month, suddenly said on Thursday night that he didn’t want to be involved with “piling on” Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s son.

Hmmm, I wonder why...

Email leak reveals the surprising friendship between Hunter Biden and his 'buddy' Tucker Carlson, says report (https://www.businessinsider.com/hunter-biden-tucker-carlsons-close-friendship-revealed-in-email-expose-2021-12)

Emails published by The Daily Mail appear to show a surprisingly close friendship between Hunter Biden and Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
In the emails, President Joe Biden's son tells Carlson that he loves him and his family and describes him as his "friend" and "buddy."
The Daily Mail said it found the emails on Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop, which was the subject of intense controversy before the 2020 presidential election.


One email exchange published by the outlet revealed that Biden wrote a letter of recommendation to Georgetown University for Carlson's son.

"Hunter! I can't thank you enough for writing that letter to Georgetown on Buckley's behalf," Carlson wrote in the email from November 2014.
"So nice of you. I know it'll help. Hope you're great and we can all get dinner soon. Tucker," the email continued.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on April 05, 2022, 02:35:42 AM
The article Tom linked is an excellent example of the mainstream media weakly capitulating to unreasonable demands and claims from conservatives in a desperate attempt to convince them that they're not unfairly biased in favor of liberals. It'll never work. No matter how far to the right the media lurches, conservatives will never stop insisting that the media is unfairly biased in favor of liberals, because they're not saying that because it's what they actually believe - they're saying it because it's an excellent tactic to continually push the media further and further to the right, as well as a way to spread doubt in their followers' minds whenever the media report on news they don't like. Why would they ever abandon a winning strategy like that? The media are basically trying to referee a soccer game in which one side has given up trying to kick the ball and instead just picked it up and started running away with it. They simply can't accept that one side is now operating entirely in bad faith and should therefore be treated as such.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 05, 2022, 09:50:56 PM
The article Tom linked is an excellent example of the mainstream media weakly capitulating to unreasonable demands and claims from conservatives in a desperate attempt to convince them that they're not unfairly biased in favor of liberals. It'll never work. No matter how far to the right the media lurches, conservatives will never stop insisting that the media is unfairly biased in favor of liberals, because they're not saying that because it's what they actually believe - they're saying it because it's an excellent tactic to continually push the media further and further to the right, as well as a way to spread doubt in their followers' minds whenever the media report on news they don't like. Why would they ever abandon a winning strategy like that? The media are basically trying to referee a soccer game in which one side has given up trying to kick the ball and instead just picked it up and started running away with it. They simply can't accept that one side is now operating entirely in bad faith and should therefore be treated as such.

It seems that you missed the part where the WaPo article says:

Quote
Now, The Washington Post and the New York Times have vouched for many of the relevant communications.

In another WaPo article conceding that Hunter Biden Laptop emails are true a WaPo columnist admits that the original claims from mainstream media was disinformation and that mainstream media is not entirely trustworthy

https://web.archive.org/web/20220331171945/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/27/mainstream-media-disinformation-hunter-biden/

Quote
Opinion: Mainstream media have failed to notice their own disinformation issue

...

An actual solution will require the recognition that we in the mainstream media are part of the problem: We are not trusted because we are not entirely trustworthy.

The New York Post says that the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, CBS News, and others are joining the chase and conceding that the emails found on the Hunter Biden laptop are authentic:

https://nypost.com/2022/04/02/joe-biden-flying-too-close-to-the-son/

Quote
If there’s one thing Joe Biden doesn’t need, it’s more problems. With soaring inflation pushing household budgets into the red, crime rising everywhere, the southern border open to all comers and his agenda stalled in Congress, the 46th president is beyond beleaguered.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine and his efforts to rally NATO initially seemed to give him a second chance with disappointed voters. After Biden focused a big portion of his State of the Union address on the war, he did get a bump in the polls.

But it didn’t last, and even his recent trip to Europe that was filled with photo ops with refugees and tough, if bizarre, talk about Vladimir Putin couldn’t stop the spiral. Two surveys released since the president returned show him with just 38% and 39% approval, respectively.

These are dead-man-walking numbers, and another bombshell waits in the wings. This one has the potential to deliver a fatal blow to his presidency.

The federal probe of Hunter Biden is no longer taboo, and the media floodgates are opening. Where once The New York Post stood alone in reporting the skeezy details of the many millions the first son gained by selling his family name overseas, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and CBS News, among others, are belatedly joining the chase and conceding e-mails found on a laptop Hunter abandoned are authentic, just as The Post said they were 17 months ago.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: garygreen on April 05, 2022, 11:53:30 PM
It seems that you missed the part where the WaPo article says:

Quote
Now, The Washington Post and the New York Times have vouched for many of the relevant communications.

it seems that you missed the part where nobody knows where the laptop came from or what was done with it while it was being passed around the hands of trump's inner circle. that many of the emails are valid does not actually imply that they all are. this is pretty important since the laptop has a completely unknown provenance and no documented chain of custody.

lmao your argument literally is "wapo and nyt say that document A is authentic. if wapo and nyt say it, then it must be true. and if document A is authentic, then document B must also be authentic because they are on the same laptop."

pathetic.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on April 06, 2022, 03:47:45 AM
Wait... Is Tom trusting the NYT?  Oh man... He really is reaching, huh?

Even so, I haven't heard anything stating he'd give access to VP biden to anyone in exchange for money. 

Also, spoofing emails on a laptop's ost file that someone hacked into is not difficult.  Also, how did the NYT verify the emails were there?  And why didn't Tucker show them 17 months ago?

Clearly something is wrong...
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on April 06, 2022, 04:16:47 AM
snip

Showing me even more evidence of the media weakly capitulating to bad-faith right-wing complaints about their supposed liberal bias in a futile attempt to stop the criticism is hardly going to change my position. If you want me to go into specifics, though, then I'll be clear - none of this supposed vindication means that the media were wrong to treat this story as cautiously as they did. Known liars presented very sketchy sources who told an implausible story to a newspaper of dubious reliability - and all these people refused to share any of the evidence with any media outlets that they didn't feel were conservative enough. The media were not wrong to not blindly parrot the NYP's story; yes, even if it turns out that the story was largely true. You can't just boil it down to "The story was true; therefore repeating it was good and not repeating it was bad." That's simply not how it works, and Trump's team and the NYP have nobody to blame but themselves for their suspicious story being received with suspicion.

Also, the NYP's attempt to conflate this specific story with general news of Hunter being a failson who trades on his father's name, as indicated by "Where once The New York Post stood alone in reporting the skeezy details of the many millions the first son gained by selling his family name overseas," is absurd. Most people could intuit that Hunter was a loser who used his last name to get high-paying jobs back when Trump first tried to smear Biden as corrupt over the whole Burisma thing, long before the laptop or the investigation into his taxes became a story. There's a world of difference between Hunter being a self-serving failson and Hunter and his father being partners in an international corruption scheme, and it's perfectly reasonable to accept the former while questioning the latter.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on April 06, 2022, 05:33:06 AM
https://youtu.be/sfACAtXNeS8
A voice so strong, you cannot help but listen.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 06, 2022, 06:02:59 AM
Extremely sad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pfu9wmi3n0k
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on April 06, 2022, 06:31:18 AM
Apparently not. Your cherry-picked video snippet stopped too soon. Here's what happened after your video ends (41:36):

https://youtu.be/huyAKpYMpoQ?t=2496

You'll fall for just about anything that feeds your narrative. Sad.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 06, 2022, 07:10:00 AM
Still looks pretty sad. Barely an acknowledgement. Totally ignoring the President trying to get his attention.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on April 06, 2022, 07:29:45 AM
The folks who spend their working day with Biden, most every day, take a few minutes to greet an honoured guest at a public event.

Sheesh, if this is what passes for meaningful critique in your world.....
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on April 06, 2022, 07:51:21 AM
It's very on brand of Tom, when he's shown that the video which fits his narrative is cherry picked and doesn't paint the full picture, for him to just double down.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on April 06, 2022, 11:20:05 AM
They just off their knees for a president who could not tolerate being anything but the centre of attention. It’s what they think makes someone powerful: constantly demanding the spotlight no matter what the circumstance. Forgive them for witnessing a normal human interaction and thinking it looks strange.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 06, 2022, 03:02:42 PM
Totally normal.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10690391/Joe-Biden-looks-bereft-White-House-event-fans-flock-former-President-Barack-Obama.html

(https://i.imgur.com/HTN0fZ2.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on April 06, 2022, 03:06:57 PM
For those not from the UK, the Daily Mail is a right wing rag well known for being full of shit

https://www.thefactual.com/blog/is-the-daily-mail-reliable/

Quote
Over a dataset of 1,000 articles, the Daily Mail scored an average Factual Grade of 39.7%. This is well below the average of 61.9% for all 240 news sources that we analyzed. This places Daily Mail in the 1st percentile of our dataset — it scored the third-lowest of any news source.

A range of factors contribute to these low scores. Articles generally link only to other Daily Mail articles, leading to low scores for cited evidence; headlines and text are generally heavily opinionated or sensationalized; and author expertise is low, given the wide range of new and unrecognized authors.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 06, 2022, 03:11:31 PM
You posted an opinion from a blog declaring that they are able to "fact-check" the news. Real legitimate  ::)

Conservative or right wing isn't an analogy with fake. Multiple outlets came to the same conclusion.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1591832/Joe-Biden-barack-obama-Affordable-Care-Act-ont

(https://i.imgur.com/2MOuFhR.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/JgGhKxV.png)

https://www.westernjournal.com/joe-biden-wanders-around-crowd-looking-totally-lost-everyone-around-completely-ignores/

(https://i.imgur.com/CX8tROR.png)

https://nypost.com/2022/04/06/obama-backs-biden-as-video-shows-audience-ignoring-president/

(https://i.imgur.com/PY7kzwg.png)

https://www.the-sun.com/news/5061074/joe-biden-lost-staff-fawn-barack-obama-white-house/

(https://i.imgur.com/WdLGM1c.png)

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/04/06/biden-got-ignored-by-obama-at-the-white-house-and-it-was-brutal-n2605550

(https://i.imgur.com/8pUyeYk.png)

https://dailycaller.com/2022/04/05/biden-obama-affordable-care-act-white-house/

(https://i.imgur.com/q8mrgL4.png)

https://metro.co.uk/video/joe-biden-ignored-crowd-flocks-barack-obama-visit-white-house-2656811/

(https://i.imgur.com/TzvQzki.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/F9nyAXw.png)

https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-mocked-over-video-of-white-house-event-literally-no-one-wants-to-talk-to-joe-biden

(https://i.imgur.com/68rNKj6.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on April 06, 2022, 03:49:52 PM
If you host a party and the cool kid comes... Guess whose gonna be mobbed?

Just like if Trump walked into an NRA rally.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on April 06, 2022, 04:51:19 PM
So what if everyone paid more attention to Obama?

Did we see Biden throwing a hissy fit? No.
Did we see Biden shoving people out of the way so that he could be the focus of attention? No.
Did we see Biden try to hog the attention in any way? No.
Any hint of bad manners or oafishness from Biden? No.

He was polite and diplomatic about it. Just the way that a decent person should be.

Tom, you're really scraping around the bottom of the barrel now ....
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on April 06, 2022, 05:09:05 PM
To Tom, being polite is being weak.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on April 06, 2022, 05:40:02 PM
I think Tom prefers this behavior in a POTUS:

(https://i.imgur.com/nwic8Lz.gif)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 06, 2022, 06:00:14 PM
MSNBC is the latest major outlet to speak out about Hunter Biden.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/hunter-biden-s-business-bad-look-here-s-how-fix-n1294057

(https://i.imgur.com/x0M4mQT.jpg)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on April 06, 2022, 06:12:44 PM
Quote
Far-right Trump lackeys quickly pounced on the Post report and called for a special prosecutor to look at the Biden family, and while that request is obviously politically motivated, all Americans, regardless of party, ought to be asking why we don’t require all candidates for high office to report not only their own foreign financial interests — but also those of their immediate family members.
Ask Trump.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on April 06, 2022, 06:15:16 PM
MSNBC is the latest major outlet to speak out about Hunter Biden.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/hunter-biden-s-business-bad-look-here-s-how-fix-n1294057

(https://i.imgur.com/x0M4mQT.jpg)

Yeah, and here's the thrust of the opinion piece:

"Far-right Trump lackeys quickly pounced on the Post report and called for a special prosecutor to look at the Biden family, and while that request is obviously politically motivated, all Americans, regardless of party, ought to be asking why we don’t require all candidates for high office to report not only their own foreign financial interests — but also those of their immediate family members."

We probably should look at family members. Especially when they are actually employed by the Whitehouse as "advisors". And maybe even get to review their tax returns.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: garygreen on April 06, 2022, 07:16:29 PM
does the msnbc piece account for where the laptop came from, who possessed it between its discovery and publication, and/or what was done with it during that very long period of time? because if not, then who cares?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on April 06, 2022, 07:35:23 PM
does the msnbc piece account for where the laptop came from, who possessed it between its discovery and publication, and/or what was done with it during that very long period of time? because if not, then who cares?

Well, its an opinion piece so... someone cares?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on April 06, 2022, 08:38:04 PM
MSNBC is the latest major outlet to speak out about Hunter Biden

Has POTUS installed Hunter in a position in the WH admin, say as Presidential Adviser, or spouse of Presidential Adviser, or perhaps as a Sports Liaison?  No.  HB holds no position in the WH.

Has HB gone to any international summits with POTUS? Has he mingled with world leaders, showing his total lack of prior experience in suitable office?  No. The only involvement seen was HB holding the family bible as his father was sworn in.

Tom, can you think of any previous administration where these things actually DID happen?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on April 06, 2022, 08:39:54 PM
I don't think Joe Biden should have used the strategic oil reserves to lower gas prices. I also don't think he should have used an old war power to spin up battery production. These sorts of things are meant for more literal WWIII scenarios, not Jimmy and Bimmy whining about $4/gal gas.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on April 06, 2022, 11:27:21 PM
Gas prices were clearly inflated and not due to any scarcity, real or manufactured. Exxon just posted record profits while assuring people it’s prices had to go up because times were so tough.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on April 07, 2022, 12:33:52 AM

The Democratic party with help from Rino's stole the election. Poopy pants Biden won NOTHING !

https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1511802778578006030?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1511802778578006030%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2022%2F04%2Fbombshell-biden-fec-nominee-admits-name-legal-document-attesting-voting-machines-used-ga-illegally-switched-votes-one-candidate-another-video%2F
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on April 07, 2022, 12:49:27 AM
Looks like organized crime?

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/04/hunter-biden-laptop-whistleblower-reveals-450-gigabytes-deleted-material-will-released-soon-including-80000-never-seen-images-videos/
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on April 07, 2022, 01:11:52 AM

The Democratic party with help from Rino's stole the election. Poopy pants Biden won NOTHING !

"While the lawsuit remains active, Fair Fight and other plaintiffs amended the complaint in December 2020 to remove many of its assertions detailing problematic voting machines."

Here's the actual complaint:
https://fairfight.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Second-Amended-Complaint.pdf
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on April 07, 2022, 01:18:44 AM
Looks like organized crime?

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/04/hunter-biden-laptop-whistleblower-reveals-450-gigabytes-deleted-material-will-released-soon-including-80000-never-seen-images-videos/

I can't wait to see what's on the HD. However, the laptop in question was a Macbook Pro and dropped off in 2019. So let's say it was a 2019 version. Back then, you could get the 15-inch or 13-Inch models. Both with storage options of 256 or 512 GB. 450GB of recovered deleted files out of a possible 512 Gigs seems a little odd.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 07, 2022, 01:31:12 AM
Looks like organized crime?

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/04/hunter-biden-laptop-whistleblower-reveals-450-gigabytes-deleted-material-will-released-soon-including-80000-never-seen-images-videos/

I can't wait to see what's on the HD. However, the laptop in question was a Macbook Pro and dropped off in 2019. So let's say it was a 2019 version. Back then, you could get the 15-inch or 13-Inch models. Both with storage options of 256 or 512 GB. 450GB of recovered deleted files out of a possible 512 Gigs seems a little odd.

Actually 2019 Macbooks are configurable to multi TB.

https://support.apple.com/kb/SP794?locale=en_US

(https://i.imgur.com/kRLrpxR.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/pETQkf8.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on April 07, 2022, 04:55:31 AM
Looks like organized crime?

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/04/hunter-biden-laptop-whistleblower-reveals-450-gigabytes-deleted-material-will-released-soon-including-80000-never-seen-images-videos/

I can't wait to see what's on the HD. However, the laptop in question was a Macbook Pro and dropped off in 2019. So let's say it was a 2019 version. Back then, you could get the 15-inch or 13-Inch models. Both with storage options of 256 or 512 GB. 450GB of recovered deleted files out of a possible 512 Gigs seems a little odd.

The real questions are:
Why did it take so long?  Seems fishy....
How much if that data is deleted internet browsing cache?  Like say... Youtube videos?  Or porn?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on April 07, 2022, 08:15:38 AM
450GB of recovered deleted files out of a possible 512 Gigs seems a little odd.

80,000 images seems a lot.

The machine is reported to be a 2017 Macbook Pro, according to https://securityboulevard.com/2020/10/no-thats-not-how-warrantee-expiration-works/ , not a 2019 model. 

80,000 images in 2 years - 40,000 per year, if we assume a 16-hour waking day, that's 6 new images every hour, every day, constantly, for the whole two years. Does that sound remotely probable? On a machine without a built-in camera?

 

 
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on April 07, 2022, 09:49:39 AM
450GB of recovered deleted files out of a possible 512 Gigs seems a little odd.

80,000 images seems a lot.

The machine is reported to be a 2017 Macbook Pro, according to https://securityboulevard.com/2020/10/no-thats-not-how-warrantee-expiration-works/ , not a 2019 model. 

80,000 images in 2 years - 40,000 per year, if we assume a 16-hour waking day, that's 6 new images every hour, every day, constantly, for the whole two years. Does that sound remotely probable? On a machine without a built-in camera?

 

 
Look at your internet cache.  The number of images, gifs, icons, blank gifs, etc.... Is... Alot.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on April 07, 2022, 10:48:57 AM
Look at your internet cache.  The number of images, gifs, icons, blank gifs, etc.... Is... Alot.

So ... it's stuff that might have been in a web page that HB might have browsed, and which got "deleted" when the internet cache was cleared?

That's the incriminating stuff? Really?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on April 07, 2022, 10:54:49 AM
Look at your internet cache.  The number of images, gifs, icons, blank gifs, etc.... Is... Alot.

So ... it's stuff that might have been in a web page that HB might have browsed, and which got "deleted" when the internet cache was cleared?

That's the incriminating stuff? Really?
Most likely, yeah.
It sounds like a huge number until you do it to your own pc and realize 90% of it is banners, google ads, site icons, and other little, 1kb or less graphic.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on April 07, 2022, 02:26:23 PM
Gas prices were clearly inflated and not due to any scarcity, real or manufactured. Exxon just posted record profits while assuring people it’s prices had to go up because times were so tough.

That's very much a separate issue. If it is truly artificial scarcity, then it needs to be resolved in a way that doesn't involve pissing away ~30% of the entire country's lifeline supplies. The strategic reserve is for when shit hits the fan; when we're getting nuked on one coast and invaded on the other. It's when we need to keep basic services running to prevent mass chaos. It should not be used to resolve short term discomfort.



Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on April 07, 2022, 02:38:38 PM
Perhaps it would help if US vehicle owners switched to fuel-efficient vehicles, as opposed to swanning around in vanity trucks which "piss away" fuel ... ?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on April 07, 2022, 02:49:36 PM
It is true that some Americans are idiots who like big trucks with questionable utility.

However "just buy a Tesla" is not something the vast majority of Americans can afford to do.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on April 07, 2022, 02:54:34 PM
It is true that some Americans are idiots who like big trucks with questionable utility.

However "just buy a Tesla" is not something the vast majority of Americans can afford to do.

Similarly, neither is eating the cost of inflated gas prices.

 
Gas prices were clearly inflated and not due to any scarcity, real or manufactured. Exxon just posted record profits while assuring people it’s prices had to go up because times were so tough.

That's very much a separate issue. If it is truly artificial scarcity, then it needs to be resolved in a way that doesn't involve pissing away ~30% of the entire country's lifeline supplies. The strategic reserve is for when shit hits the fan; when we're getting nuked on one coast and invaded on the other. It's when we need to keep basic services running to prevent mass chaos. It should not be used to resolve short term discomfort.

Maybe. As I understand it, the reserve is to mitigate disruptions, not necessarily disruptions caused by threats such as you propose. Don’t get me wrong, I think the economy should have done the hard work of pivoting from fossil fuels a long time ago, but this doesn’t seem to be the worst use of it. The worst use would be selling it to finance the deficit. Big yikes on that happening.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on April 07, 2022, 03:16:46 PM
Gas prices were clearly inflated and not due to any scarcity, real or manufactured. Exxon just posted record profits while assuring people it’s prices had to go up because times were so tough.

That's very much a separate issue. If it is truly artificial scarcity, then it needs to be resolved in a way that doesn't involve pissing away ~30% of the entire country's lifeline supplies. The strategic reserve is for when shit hits the fan; when we're getting nuked on one coast and invaded on the other. It's when we need to keep basic services running to prevent mass chaos. It should not be used to resolve short term discomfort.

It's an optics move and not a very good one.  I think it's predicted to bring down the price by like 10 cents a gallon.  On top of that countries like Saudi Arabia can just cut production to undo the effectiveness of this move.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on April 07, 2022, 03:17:51 PM
It is true that some Americans are idiots who like big trucks with questionable utility.

However "just buy a Tesla" is not something the vast majority of Americans can afford to do.

Similarly, neither is eating the cost of inflated gas prices.


I think you should check your math on that one.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on April 07, 2022, 03:25:13 PM
Perhaps it would help if US vehicle owners switched to fuel-efficient vehicles, as opposed to swanning around in vanity trucks which "piss away" fuel ... ?

Obviously that would help but I don't see how bringing up a separate topic is related to my point at all.

It is true that some Americans are idiots who like big trucks with questionable utility.

However "just buy a Tesla" is not something the vast majority of Americans can afford to do.

Tesla isn't the only EV/Hybrid manufacturer. Plenty of people could have made the switch a long time ago. They chose not to do so. Toyota has been making reasonably affordable hybrid vehicles that get 40+ MPG for well over a decade now and the majority of vehicles that Americans drive to work cost well over the price of a 10 year old Prius. Those same people are the ones going "oooohhh noooooo gas is toooooo expensive for meeeee noooooow" wow, that's too bad. Maybe one day they will develop the ability to think more than 10 seconds into the future.

Similarly, neither is eating the cost of inflated gas prices.

Forcing people to eat the cost of gasoline is exactly what is necessary to force them to move on to something else. Personal cost and liability is the only motivational wand for the majority of humans.


Maybe. As I understand it, the reserve is to mitigate disruptions, not necessarily disruptions caused by threats such as you propose. Don’t get me wrong, I think the economy should have done the hard work of pivoting from fossil fuels a long time ago, but this doesn’t seem to be the worst use of it. The worst use would be selling it to finance the deficit. Big yikes on that happening.

We aren't experiencing a supply disruption, merely a price rise due to inflation. That inflation was caused by poor fiscal policy implemented by Powell, Trump, and now continued by Biden. In other words, Biden is using a poor solution to a problem he helped create in the first place.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on April 07, 2022, 04:02:13 PM

Tesla isn't the only EV/Hybrid manufacturer. Plenty of people could have made the switch a long time ago. They chose not to do so. Toyota has been making reasonably affordable hybrid vehicles that get 40+ MPG for well over a decade now and the majority of vehicles that Americans drive to work cost well over the price of a 10 year old Prius. Those same people are the ones going "oooohhh noooooo gas is toooooo expensive for meeeee noooooow" wow, that's too bad. Maybe one day they will develop the ability to think more than 10 seconds into the future.


Fair enough.  But have you ever driven a Prius? 

There are worse things than ending humanity by destroying our planet through climate change.  One would be having to drive a Prius.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on April 07, 2022, 07:52:02 PM
The strategic reserve is for when shit hits the fan; when we're getting nuked on one coast and invaded on the other. It's when we need to keep basic services running to prevent mass chaos. It should not be used to resolve short term discomfort.

Kinda for when shit hits the fan, but not really in practice. Though I agree that it should not be used to resolve short-term discomfort. We've been selling/using the reserves for all kinds of events, not just 'shit hits the fan' scenarios, for decades:

Petroleum sales from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve - Prior to 2015

- 1985: Test sale—1.1 million barrels (170,000 m3)
- 1990–1991: Desert Storm sale—21 million barrels (3,300,000 m3)
- 4 million barrels (640,000 m3) in October 1990 test sale[27]
- 17 million barrels (2,700,000 m3) in January 1991 presidentially ordered drawdown
- 1996–1997: 28 million barrels (4,500,000 m3) non-emergency sales for deficit reduction
- July–August 2000: 2.8 million barrels (450,000 m3) to supply the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.
- September–October 2000: 30 million barrels (4,800,000 m3) in response to a concern over low distillate levels in the northeastern U.S.
- 2005 Hurricane Katrina sale: 11 million barrels (1,700,000 m3)—Katrina shut down 95% of crude production and 88% of natural gas output in the Gulf of Mexico. This amounted to a quarter of total U.S. output. About 735 oil and natural gas rigs and platforms had been evacuated due to the hurricane.
- 2011 Arab Spring sale: 30 million barrels (4,800,000 m3)—non-emergency sale to offset disruptions caused by political upheaval in Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East. The amount was matched by IEA countries, for a total of 60 million barrels (9,500,000 m3) released from stockpiles around the world.[28] discomfort, it often has been used that way. Not to mention that we've been selling from it for decades, which is bizarre.

Post 2015

- Another section of the Bipartisan Budget Act (Section 403), enacted in 2015, mandates SPR crude oil sales for fiscal years 2018 through 2025 on a volumetric basis, rather than on a dollar basis, as specified in Section 404. The revenues from sales authorized under section 403 will be deposited into the general fund of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.[34]
- The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, enacted in December 2015, calls for SPR sales totaling 66 million barrels from fiscal years 2023 through 2025.[34]
- The 21st Century Cures Act, enacted in December 2016, calls for the sale of 25 million barrels of SPR crude oil for fiscal years 2017 through 2019. The first portion of these sales is expected in late spring 2017.[34]
- In December 2016, the DOE announced it would begin the sale of 190 million barrels (30,000,000 m3) in January 2017.[24]
- The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, enacted in December 2017, calls for the sale of 7 million barrels over the two-year period of FY 2026 through FY 2027.[10]
- The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, enacted in February 2018, calls for the sale of 30 million barrels over the four-year period of FY 2022 through FY 2025, 35 million barrels in FY 2026, and 35 million barrels in FY 2027.[10]
- In November 2021, the White House announced the release of 50 million barrels (7,900,000 m3) to address high gasoline prices.[35][36]
- On March 1, 2022, President Biden announced the release of 30 million barrels of oil from the reserve in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.[37]
- On March 31, 2022, President Biden announced that his administration would release 1 million barrels of oil per day from the reserve for the next 180 days.[38]
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on April 07, 2022, 11:18:32 PM
Kinda for when shit hits the fan, but not really in practice. Though I agree that it should not be used to resolve short-term discomfort. We've been selling/using the reserves for all kinds of events, not just 'shit hits the fan' scenarios, for decades:

Petroleum sales from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve - Prior to 2015

- 1985: Test sale—1.1 million barrels (170,000 m3)
- 1990–1991: Desert Storm sale—21 million barrels (3,300,000 m3)
- 4 million barrels (640,000 m3) in October 1990 test sale[27]
- 17 million barrels (2,700,000 m3) in January 1991 presidentially ordered drawdown
- 1996–1997: 28 million barrels (4,500,000 m3) non-emergency sales for deficit reduction
- July–August 2000: 2.8 million barrels (450,000 m3) to supply the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.
- September–October 2000: 30 million barrels (4,800,000 m3) in response to a concern over low distillate levels in the northeastern U.S.
- 2005 Hurricane Katrina sale: 11 million barrels (1,700,000 m3)—Katrina shut down 95% of crude production and 88% of natural gas output in the Gulf of Mexico. This amounted to a quarter of total U.S. output. About 735 oil and natural gas rigs and platforms had been evacuated due to the hurricane.
- 2011 Arab Spring sale: 30 million barrels (4,800,000 m3)—non-emergency sale to offset disruptions caused by political upheaval in Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East. The amount was matched by IEA countries, for a total of 60 million barrels (9,500,000 m3) released from stockpiles around the world.[28] discomfort, it often has been used that way. Not to mention that we've been selling from it for decades, which is bizarre.

Post 2015

- Another section of the Bipartisan Budget Act (Section 403), enacted in 2015, mandates SPR crude oil sales for fiscal years 2018 through 2025 on a volumetric basis, rather than on a dollar basis, as specified in Section 404. The revenues from sales authorized under section 403 will be deposited into the general fund of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.[34]
- The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, enacted in December 2015, calls for SPR sales totaling 66 million barrels from fiscal years 2023 through 2025.[34]
- The 21st Century Cures Act, enacted in December 2016, calls for the sale of 25 million barrels of SPR crude oil for fiscal years 2017 through 2019. The first portion of these sales is expected in late spring 2017.[34]
- In December 2016, the DOE announced it would begin the sale of 190 million barrels (30,000,000 m3) in January 2017.[24]
- The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, enacted in December 2017, calls for the sale of 7 million barrels over the two-year period of FY 2026 through FY 2027.[10]
- The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, enacted in February 2018, calls for the sale of 30 million barrels over the four-year period of FY 2022 through FY 2025, 35 million barrels in FY 2026, and 35 million barrels in FY 2027.[10]
- In November 2021, the White House announced the release of 50 million barrels (7,900,000 m3) to address high gasoline prices.[35][36]
- On March 1, 2022, President Biden announced the release of 30 million barrels of oil from the reserve in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.[37]
- On March 31, 2022, President Biden announced that his administration would release 1 million barrels of oil per day from the reserve for the next 180 days.[38]


A long history of stupid decisions doesn't surprise me at all.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on April 07, 2022, 11:29:44 PM
A long history of stupid decisions doesn't surprise me at all.

Well, that's your opinion based upon your notion that the SPR is only to be used for "when we're getting nuked on one coast and invaded on the other." And as shown, that has not been the bar that needs to be exceeded for its intended use. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, in part, was designed to "give the executive branch additional powers to respond to disruptions in energy supply".

So should we open up the reserves for the existing situation? I would prefer we don't. But an argument can be made that it's well within the parameters of use, historically and by design, and we need not be engaged in homeland fight for survival to do so.

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on April 07, 2022, 11:34:19 PM
A long history of stupid decisions doesn't surprise me at all.

Well, that's your opinion based upon your notion that the SPR is only to be used for "when we're getting nuked on one coast and invaded on the other." And as shown, that has not been the bar that needs to be exceeded for its intended use. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, in part, was designed to "give the executive branch additional powers to respond to disruptions in energy supply".

So should we open up the reserves for the existing situation? I would prefer we don't. But an argument can be made that it's well within the parameters of use, historically and by design, and we need not be engaged in homeland fight for survival to do so.

Of course it's my opinion. What do you think adding "well that's just like, your opinion, man" actually adds to the discussion? All facets of politics are collections of opinions. Any possible argument or choice in politics is merely an opinion.

The US making stupid decisions over and over again is nothing new. I'm simply disappointed that Biden is yet another bad decision. I can't wait to see what the next bad decision our two-party system (also a bad decision in and of itself) will generate next.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on April 08, 2022, 12:02:28 AM
A long history of stupid decisions doesn't surprise me at all.

Well, that's your opinion based upon your notion that the SPR is only to be used for "when we're getting nuked on one coast and invaded on the other." And as shown, that has not been the bar that needs to be exceeded for its intended use. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, in part, was designed to "give the executive branch additional powers to respond to disruptions in energy supply".

So should we open up the reserves for the existing situation? I would prefer we don't. But an argument can be made that it's well within the parameters of use, historically and by design, and we need not be engaged in homeland fight for survival to do so.

Of course it's my opinion. What do you think adding "well that's just like, your opinion, man" actually adds to the discussion? All facets of politics are collections of opinions. Any possible argument or choice in politics is merely an opinion.

Fair point.

The US making stupid decisions over and over again is nothing new. I'm simply disappointed that Biden is yet another bad decision. I can't wait to see what the next bad decision our two-party system (also a bad decision in and of itself) will generate next.

It's not clear to me if all those "decisions" were stupid. I'd have to look at each and see if it was beneficial or detrimental. All I'm saying is that the way it's been used is as intended. It wasn't created solely for doomsday scenarios. The argument can be made for whether its intended use was incorrect to begin with. Maybe it should have been a system designed only for Defcon 1.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on April 12, 2022, 05:55:53 PM
Biden the laughing stock of the world now.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/you-know-things-are-bad-when-saudi-state-tv-mocks-biden


(https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/saudisketch.jpg?itok=yplAgQ_b)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on April 12, 2022, 07:19:13 PM
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/05/23/world/23orb/23orb-superJumbo.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on April 12, 2022, 07:41:52 PM
Biden the laughing stock of the world now.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/you-know-things-are-bad-when-saudi-state-tv-mocks-biden


(https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/saudisketch.jpg?itok=yplAgQ_b)

Oh no... A comedy show making fun of people...
What, next you'll tell me SNL does it too...
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on April 13, 2022, 09:26:48 AM
Biden the laughing stock of the world now.

Believe it or not, political satire as a form of comedy is not limited to the Western World.

(https://i.insider.com/5e5d2aa1fee23d10847a28f8?width=1000&format=jpeg&auto=webp)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkSLYp9UcAAiRXE?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on April 13, 2022, 03:52:00 PM
 Mr. poopy pants thought it was ice cream and licked it off, off camera, lmao

(https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/376656A6-A02E-49B2-859F-A9CD66185AFE.jpeg)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 13, 2022, 03:58:41 PM
Liberals BTFO by a literal pigeon  8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on April 13, 2022, 03:59:13 PM
... thought it was ice cream and licked it off, off camera, lmao

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-a-bird-poop-on-biden/

"distiller's grain"

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 14, 2022, 03:23:15 PM
The President of El Salvador says that the Biden Administration is pro-crime.

https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1513659282566361102
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on April 14, 2022, 04:22:21 PM
The President of El Salvador says that the Biden Administration is pro-crime.

https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1513659282566361102

Isn't it very UnTrump like to send money to a foreign country to fix their problems?
I call BS, personally.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on April 14, 2022, 04:47:41 PM
The President of El Salvador says that the Biden Administration is pro-crime.

https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1513659282566361102

Improving social conditions is a long lasting way to fight crime. Turns out disenfranchisement and poverty lead to systemic criminality. Don’t mistake political messages for statements of fact.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on April 14, 2022, 04:53:11 PM
The President of El Salvador says that the Biden Administration is pro-crime.

So are you saying the Biden admin is doing something different to what the former admin did? If so, what?

If the former admin was sending them $X to fight crime, and those payments continued after the election, what's the issue? Surely that suggests the recipients are doing something different with the money?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on April 14, 2022, 05:35:04 PM
The President of El Salvador
Who you couldn’t have named to save your life, but he’s saying something which fits your agenda so is suddenly worth quoting. Owned dem libs!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on April 14, 2022, 06:58:21 PM
Seems like El Salvador could definitely use some help:

On 26 March 2022, El Salvador recorded 62 murders committed in a single day, the deadliest day in Salvadoran history in 30 years since the end of the civil war.[109] Most of the murders were committed by MS-13 and 18th Street Gang.[110] The following day, the Legislative Assembly voted to enact article 29 of the Salvadoran constitution,[111] declaring a 30-day state of emergency which suspended some constitutional civil liberties and mobilized the military to neighborhoods controlled by the country's criminal gangs.

This might be part of the issue why Bukele is pissed:

U.S. Treasury: El Salvador government negotiated with gangs (https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-treasury-el-salvador-government-negotiated-gangs-81629503)
MEXICO CITY -- El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele's government secretly negotiated a truce with leaders of the country’s powerful street gangs, the U.S. Treasury charged Wednesday, contradicting Bukele's denials and raising tensions between the two nations.

The U.S government alleges Bukele's government bought the gangs' support with financial benefits and privileges for their imprisoned leaders including prostitutes and cellphones. The explosive accusation cuts to the heart of one of Bukele’s most highly touted successes in office: a plunge in the country’s homicide rate.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on April 16, 2022, 05:07:09 PM
Biden BS's more than anyone I've ever known.

"Even though President Biden has said the US will accept up to 100,000 Ukrainian refugees, his administration hasn't yet created a pathway for Ukrainians fleeing the war."

 https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/14/world/gallery/ukrainians-us-mexico-border/index.html
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on April 16, 2022, 05:49:00 PM
Biden BS's more than anyone I've ever known.

"Even though President Biden has said the US will accept up to 100,000 Ukrainian refugees, his administration hasn't yet created a pathway for Ukrainians fleeing the war."

 https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/14/world/gallery/ukrainians-us-mexico-border/index.html

What's the issue?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on April 16, 2022, 08:43:40 PM
"Even though President Biden has said the US will accept up to 100,000 Ukrainian refugees, his administration hasn't yet created a pathway for Ukrainians fleeing the war."

"Even though President Biden has said the US will accept (Future tense. Not present, not past) up to 100,000 Ukrainian refugees, his administration hasn't yet created a pathway for Ukrainians fleeing the war (because that will happen... in the future)."
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on April 16, 2022, 09:56:46 PM
I got a feeling my household just dumped a bunch more cash into Bidens BS ideas.

https://www.zerohedge.com/military/russia-renews-long-range-strikes-kiev-following-disastrous-loss-warship

(https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/teaser_desktop_2x/public/2022-04/ukrtrnsportplane.png?itok=hEyezPeK)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on April 17, 2022, 12:33:27 AM
What ideas are you referring to?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on April 17, 2022, 04:06:17 AM
I still can't get over the "Tyler Durden" byline. It really tells us everything we need to know about the maturity and outlook of the author. Why would you ever trust news and analysis coming from someone who's publicly advertising that he's still in the teenage edgelord phase of his life?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 09, 2022, 04:55:35 PM
Sometimes it seems like Biden is speaking a foreign language.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HmFnp-jgfw
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on May 10, 2022, 09:56:25 AM
Sometimes it seems like Biden is speaking a foreign language.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HmFnp-jgfw

Covfefe! I remember when Trump mumbled and spoke nonsensically you went out of your way to defend it. You don’t care about this issue. Why do you pretend to care?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 11, 2022, 10:21:44 AM
Covfefe! I remember when Trump mumbled and spoke nonsensically

Yeah, that didn't happen. That was text in a tweet, not a speech.

Biden's speeches can be very odd. On multiple occasions during speeches he just started whispering into the microphone:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuY4PbBx90I

Weird.

He did the same creepy whispering in a recent speech a couple of weeks ago. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBOngESN_Ck)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on May 11, 2022, 11:56:16 AM
Covfefe! I remember when Trump mumbled and spoke nonsensically

Yeah, that' didn't happen.

Right. Trump never spoke nonsense. Got it
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on May 11, 2022, 12:40:23 PM
Covfefe! I remember when Trump mumbled and spoke nonsensically

Yeah, that' didn't happen.

Right. Trump never spoke nonsense. Got it

Quote
“Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor
and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good
genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton
School of Finance, very good, very smart —you know, if
you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if,
like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m
one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s
true!—but when you’re a conservative Republican they
try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start
off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there,
went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to
give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little
disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the
thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy,
and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is
powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many
years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he
would explain the power of what’s going to happen and
he was right—who would have thought?), but when you
look at what’s going on with the four prisoners—now it
used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and
even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger;
fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they
haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now
than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about
another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators,
the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just
killed, they just killed us.”
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 11, 2022, 12:47:07 PM
You forgot that a linguist analyzed that speech and concluded that it was natural casual speech.

https://archive.ph/PJcMg

What Trump’s Speech Says About His Mental Fitness
By JOHN MCWHORTER

"As part of the discussion about Donald Trump’s lack of fitness for the presidency, some have argued that his linguistic capacities have worsened, suggesting significant cognitive decline.

...

Casual speech tends towards the repetitious, as we seek to indicate sincerity and make sure our meaning has gotten across. Mr. Trump, because he speaks casually, does a lot of repeating.

...

Real speech tends to be fundamentally subjective rather than objective, and is therefore decorated with what linguists call pragmatic words and constructions, expressing attitude rather than content

...

This passage also has a kind of coherence. Mr. Trump starts out addressing the nuclear deal with Iran, but then interjects some insights about his elevated qualifications for discussing the subject and his resentment of a purportedly biased media that forces him to mention them – and then he does get back to the nuclear subject. Elegant? No, but not demented, either. Facial expression and context, which print obscures, made Mr. Trump’s meaning clear.

...

The difference between the younger man talking in sentences and the older one talking in vocal ejaculations is evidence not of decline but authenticity – he has settled into his normal. Late in life an artless man has learned that he could leave his linguistic fly unzipped and life would go on. It may not be pretty, but it isn't a sign that his pants are going to fall down.

...

John McWhorter is a linguist, an associate professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia, the author of books like “Words on the Move,” and host of Slate’s language podcast “Lexicon Valley.”
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on May 11, 2022, 12:48:26 PM
Biden's speeches can be very odd.
It's hilarious, and a bit depressing, how easy it is for FOX to tell you what to think.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 11, 2022, 12:56:32 PM
Biden's speeches can be very odd.
It's hilarious, and a bit depressing, how easy it is for FOX to tell you what to think.

So you have no defense at all about Biden whispering into the microphone during speeches?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on May 11, 2022, 01:07:03 PM
Defence  :D
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on May 11, 2022, 01:42:17 PM
Biden is awful but my god, Tom, this is a reach.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on May 11, 2022, 04:11:04 PM
So you have no defense at all about Biden whispering into the microphone during speeches?

Why does this require a "defence"?

The whole idea of having a microphone and associated public address system is that the speaker does not need to raise his voice or shout.

I don't see any problem with him lowering his voice.  If the best critique that you can manage is that you think it is "creepy", that's not much of a critique.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on May 11, 2022, 04:33:11 PM
When I think of creepy, I think of this:

https://youtu.be/DP7yf8-Lk80?t=44
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on May 11, 2022, 04:45:52 PM
When I think of creepy, I think of this:
Yeah, but he's not whispering so it's fine.
I can't even believe you think Trump talking about banging his own daughter is anywhere near as creepy as Biden whispering.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on May 11, 2022, 05:11:38 PM
I know. My priorities are obviously way out of whack.

(https://bostonglobe-prod.cdn.arcpublishing.com/resizer/z-95jfb4DuQAZzbOQaIttWCBOEU=/1440x0/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-bostonglobe.s3.amazonaws.com/public/WLH6TPWKJYI6PFMZ3TKCYTNITI.jpg)

Covfefe!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on May 11, 2022, 09:44:25 PM
Biden's speeches can be very odd.
It's hilarious, and a bit depressing, how easy it is for FOX to tell you what to think.

So you have no defense at all about Biden whispering into the microphone during speeches?
He was probably whispering for dramatic effect.
Quote from: https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-entertainment-government-and-politics-b272d873e3363f61c95e324244e92e62
“Hey, guys, I think it’s time to give ordinary people a tax break,” he said, almost whispering as he addressed his critics. “The wealthy are doing fine.”

It was the latest instance of Biden speaking volumes by whispering.

The White House and communications experts say Biden’s whispering is just this veteran politician’s old-school way of trying to make a connection while emphasizing a point.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on May 23, 2022, 05:49:53 PM
https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-biden-zeroes-in-on-student-loan-forgiveness-decision-voter-anxiety-grows-11653298200

Joe is going to forgive student loans. He really means it this time, you guys. He's going to do it... as long as you vote for a (D) this midterm. He can't do it before then. It's not possible. Come on, man!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on May 23, 2022, 05:51:56 PM
Only half my loans are federal subsidized.  And thats been on pause for like 2 years?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on May 23, 2022, 11:25:39 PM
https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-biden-zeroes-in-on-student-loan-forgiveness-decision-voter-anxiety-grows-11653298200

Joe is going to forgive student loans. He really means it this time, you guys. He's going to do it... as long as you vote for a (D) this midterm. He can't do it before then. It's not possible. Come on, man!

Politicians and unkept election promises, so iconic.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 24, 2022, 03:46:18 AM
Hey look, your liberal hero Joe Biden opposed gay marriage.

https://twitter.com/LadyPieLives/status/1528460869574832130

You can tell that this was from a time when he was more coherent and had two brain cells.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on May 24, 2022, 04:00:52 AM
That clip is from I think around 2006.

Behind Joe Biden’s Evolution on L.G.B.T.Q. Rights (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/21/us/politics/biden-gay-rights-lgbt.html)
Mr. Biden’s support for same-sex marriage in 2012 was a reversal for him and a watershed moment in his shift — and the nation’s — on L.G.B.T.Q. issues.

Mr. Biden’s shifting views over the course of his political career illustrate the extent to which the Democratic Party has changed as it sought to keep pace with Americans, especially younger ones, who have dismissed traditional stances on issues like same-sex marriage. Mr. Biden has managed to not only keep pace with these evolving views, but on same-sex marriage, he was a step ahead of many of his fellow Democrats.


I guess you are anti-enlightenment and anti-human ideological progression/evolution.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 24, 2022, 04:06:21 AM
Joe Biden was 70 years old in 2012. Kind of late there. Why did it take him 70 years to accept gay rights?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on May 24, 2022, 04:12:54 AM
Joe Biden was 70 years old in 2012. Kind of late there. Why did it take him 70 years to accept gay rights?

Because it took him 70 years to accept gay rights. (Though I'd be surprised if he was thinking about gay rights at age, say, 10 - So let's go with 60 years) Better late than never.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on May 24, 2022, 05:47:49 AM
It's interesting to see people who are themselves firmly opposed to gay rights criticize politicians for having not always supported gay rights. It might seem completely nonsensical at first, but you have to remember that right-wing political discourse isn't so much focused on reason and logic as it on just trying to own the libs in any way possible.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on May 24, 2022, 10:15:11 AM
Joe Biden was 70 years old in 2012. Kind of late there. Why did it take him 70 years to accept gay rights?

That means there is still time for you.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on May 24, 2022, 11:51:36 PM
It's interesting to see people who are themselves firmly opposed to gay rights criticize politicians for having not always supported gay rights. It might seem completely nonsensical at first, but you have to remember that right-wing political discourse isn't so much focused on reason and logic as it on just trying to own the libs in any way possible.

The point is that it's less likely that Biden changed his mind and more likely that he restated certain positions based on popularity. The old guard of the DNC by and large flipped the switch on their gay rights stances in order to appease voters and not necessarily because they think gay marriage is acceptable. You should always be incredibly suspicious of some politician that changes their mind on an incredibly controversial subject after one side becomes much more favorable to their voter base than the other.

It's the same reason he keeps bringing up things like student loan forgiveness. It's popular. It brings in votes. He doesn't actually care about it one way or another and he isn't going to run around fighting for it.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on May 25, 2022, 04:50:21 AM
Halfhearted support of gay rights, even for the wrong reasons, is vastly preferable to enthusiastic opposition to gay rights. But yes, the Democrats as a whole are more than overdue for the old guard to cede their dominance to the newer, more progressive wing of the party.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on May 25, 2022, 06:57:52 AM
It's interesting to see people who are themselves firmly opposed to gay rights criticize politicians for having not always supported gay rights. It might seem completely nonsensical at first, but you have to remember that right-wing political discourse isn't so much focused on reason and logic as it on just trying to own the libs in any way possible.

The point is that it's less likely that Biden changed his mind and more likely that he restated certain positions based on popularity. The old guard of the DNC by and large flipped the switch on their gay rights stances in order to appease voters and not necessarily because they think gay marriage is acceptable. You should always be incredibly suspicious of some politician that changes their mind on an incredibly controversial subject after one side becomes much more favorable to their voter base than the other.

It's the same reason he keeps bringing up things like student loan forgiveness. It's popular. It brings in votes. He doesn't actually care about it one way or another and he isn't going to run around fighting for it.

I don't disagree with your assessment. But there is know way to really know the motivation. We can speculate, but we don't know.

As far as appeasing voters, isn't that kinda part of the job description? After all, they are supposed to represent their constituents. As voter sentiment changes, I would expect, for the most part, my governmental proxies that I voted for to represent me to evolve as well.

Regardless of motivation, did Biden land on the correct side of history? In my mind, as a voter, a constituent, yes.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on May 25, 2022, 01:57:58 PM
It's interesting to see people who are themselves firmly opposed to gay rights criticize politicians for having not always supported gay rights. It might seem completely nonsensical at first, but you have to remember that right-wing political discourse isn't so much focused on reason and logic as it on just trying to own the libs in any way possible.

The point is that it's less likely that Biden changed his mind and more likely that he restated certain positions based on popularity. The old guard of the DNC by and large flipped the switch on their gay rights stances in order to appease voters and not necessarily because they think gay marriage is acceptable. You should always be incredibly suspicious of some politician that changes their mind on an incredibly controversial subject after one side becomes much more favorable to their voter base than the other.

It's the same reason he keeps bringing up things like student loan forgiveness. It's popular. It brings in votes. He doesn't actually care about it one way or another and he isn't going to run around fighting for it.

He doesn't have to care about either issue. That's really not important. What's important is that he politically exercises the will of the people he represents, and as you point out, he does so smashingly.

I don't think shifting perspective because that's what your constituents are doing is the "wrong reason", as honk suggests. Really it's exactly what he should be doing.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on May 25, 2022, 02:09:24 PM
I don't disagree with your assessment. But there is know way to really know the motivation. We can speculate, but we don't know.

Yes, but the point is to assess which politicians are more likely to pull this stunt. They're all liars and thieves, but just how much they lie and thieve is on a spectrum of lying and thieving.

As far as appeasing voters, isn't that kinda part of the job description? After all, they are supposed to represent their constituents. As voter sentiment changes, I would expect, for the most part, my governmental proxies that I voted for to represent me to evolve as well.

Regardless of motivation, did Biden land on the correct side of history? In my mind, as a voter, a constituent, yes.

The thing is, he didn't. His stated support for gay marriage now doesn't retroactively help it pass in the first place. This is a case of all-too-often mentioned "virtue signaling". Biden is willing to state popular beliefs in order to garner support but he doesn't seem interested in fighting for those beliefs (because, all too likely, they're not genuine). This is why I brought up the student loan debacle. His support for student loan forgiveness likely isn't genuine (as well as most of the DNC's support). He's had a D majority in Congress for two years now. They forgave a few token loans and said "job done, lads!" Bringing it up again at this point is spitting on your supporters and laughing about it.

Halfhearted support of gay rights, even for the wrong reasons, is vastly preferable to enthusiastic opposition to gay rights. But yes, the Democrats as a whole are more than overdue for the old guard to cede their dominance to the newer, more progressive wing of the party.

Support that doesn't attempt to contribute meaningful change isn't support. If I'm anti-abortion before Roe v Wade and then flip to pro-abortion afterwards, I haven't actually made a difference. Waiting until after gay marriage passes to support gay marriage isn't support, it's at best described as tolerance of the status quo.

Also, the reason why you haven't seen the party flip to the "newer, more progressive wing" is because that newer, more progressive wing is too small to make an impact on their voter base. If more voters were more progressive, you'd see more candidates pandering to them. The left wing in the US is comically small and irrelevant to federal elections. Far left candidates like Bernie can't even beat Hillary Clinton in a primary, the very same woman who lost to literally Donald Trump. That should indicate just how outnumbered the left wing is in this country.

He doesn't have to care about either issue. That's really not important. What's important is that he politically exercises the will of the people he represents, and as you point out, he does so smashingly.

I don't think shifting perspective because that's what your constituents are doing is the "wrong reason", as honk suggests. Really it's exactly what he should be doing.

I agree, my point is that he isn't politically exercising "the will of the people". He's ignoring them because he's not genuinely interested in his more recent stated positions.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on May 25, 2022, 04:57:56 PM
I don't disagree with your assessment. But there is know way to really know the motivation. We can speculate, but we don't know.

Yes, but the point is to assess which politicians are more likely to pull this stunt. They're all liars and thieves, but just how much they lie and thieve is on a spectrum of lying and thieving.

You'll get no argument from me on that. To be a politician, especially at the higher levels, you have to be basically a narcissistic borderline personality disordered individual. Then it's a sliding scale within that diagnosis.

As far as appeasing voters, isn't that kinda part of the job description? After all, they are supposed to represent their constituents. As voter sentiment changes, I would expect, for the most part, my governmental proxies that I voted for to represent me to evolve as well.

Regardless of motivation, did Biden land on the correct side of history? In my mind, as a voter, a constituent, yes.

The thing is, he didn't. His stated support for gay marriage now doesn't retroactively help it pass in the first place.

I don't know what his impact was, but for the record, Biden “came out” on same sex marriage way before the SCOTUS ruling in 2015. Specifically, in May of 2012 (Granted, an election year, go figure):

Biden was asked by anchor David Gregory on May 4, 2012, whether he had rethought his longstanding opposition to same-sex marriage. “I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties,” Biden responded. “Who do you love? And will you be loyal to the person you love? And that’s what people are finding out is what all marriages, at their root, are about, whether they’re marriages of lesbians or gay men or heterosexuals.”

And even before Obama “came out”.

Were Biden’s statements genuine? Anyone’s guess.

This is a case of all-too-often mentioned "virtue signaling". Biden is willing to state popular beliefs in order to garner support but he doesn't seem interested in fighting for those beliefs (because, all too likely, they're not genuine). This is why I brought up the student loan debacle. His support for student loan forgiveness likely isn't genuine (as well as most of the DNC's support). He's had a D majority in Congress for two years now. They forgave a few token loans and said "job done, lads!" Bringing it up again at this point is spitting on your supporters and laughing about it.

I'm not super up on the student loan forgiveness thing. But it was a Biden campaign promise. Apparently, something has been done since then:

Biden has forgiven debt for some disabled and defrauded borrowers, and made it easier for those already in the public service loan forgiveness program to have their debt forgiven. So far, his administration has forgiven over $17 billion of student loan debt. Still, borrowers owe over $1.74 trillion, collectively, with federal loans comprising over $1.6 trillion of that.
https://fortune.com/2022/05/04/will-biden-forgive-student-loan-debt-where-things-stand/

I think the thinking now is some sort of $10k forgiveness per borrower. But a bunch of stuff needs to still be worked out like the final amount, qualifications for forgiveness, retroactiveness, etc.

But, to your point, his polling is disaterously low. Mid-terms are 20 minutes away. So the genuiness of motivation behind any of this is certainly questionable. But maybe the ends justify the means. Pretty much every first term president in modern times loses the mid-terms, so it will be interesting to see how many of these populist policies come to the fore to try and break the cycle of a somewhat guaranteed mid-term gutting of the executive branch party in Congress.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on May 26, 2022, 07:20:34 AM
Contrast and compare;

Following the shooting at the school in Uvalde, Texas, Biden took to the mike to offer his sympathies to the families, and to promise to enact legislation to prevent, or at least reduce occurrence of, events like this.

Trump will be speaking at the NRA Convention this weekend, and despite their exhortations that guns make them safer, attendees will be banned from taking their guns into the room for Trump's speech.

Police spokesperson, interviewed after the shooting, stated outright "First, let's thank the brave law enforcement ..." without a thought for the families or their slaughtered children.

Ted Cruz thinks the doors are the problem, and reckons everything will be solved with "one door in, one door out".
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on May 26, 2022, 08:24:17 AM
I agree, mostly, with Rushy.  All lip service, no action, doesn't help much.
What it does do is allow congress to pass laws on it and assume the stance of the president on such laws.  Because congress likes to make sure everything will pass before they bother voting.  But if Biden just says "I love gay rights" but then does nothing to ensure they're kept, he's not being very helpful.


Trump will be speaking at the NRA Convention this weekend, and despite their exhortations that guns make them safer, attendees will be banned from taking their guns into the room for Trump's speech.

In fairness, that's likely Secret Service rules + location rules.
See, its ok (well, more ok) for a business to ban guns, but not the state or federal government.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on May 26, 2022, 02:16:57 PM
I don't know what his impact was, but for the record, Biden “came out” on same sex marriage way before the SCOTUS ruling in 2015. Specifically, in May of 2012 (Granted, an election year, go figure):

Biden was asked by anchor David Gregory on May 4, 2012, whether he had rethought his longstanding opposition to same-sex marriage. “I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties,” Biden responded. “Who do you love? And will you be loyal to the person you love? And that’s what people are finding out is what all marriages, at their root, are about, whether they’re marriages of lesbians or gay men or heterosexuals.”

And even before Obama “came out”.

Were Biden’s statements genuine? Anyone’s guess.

I was mistaken on that, then. I believed gay marriage to have passed in 2011 and failed to bother looking it up.

I'm not super up on the student loan forgiveness thing. But it was a Biden campaign promise. Apparently, something has been done since then:

Biden has forgiven debt for some disabled and defrauded borrowers, and made it easier for those already in the public service loan forgiveness program to have their debt forgiven. So far, his administration has forgiven over $17 billion of student loan debt. Still, borrowers owe over $1.74 trillion, collectively, with federal loans comprising over $1.6 trillion of that.
https://fortune.com/2022/05/04/will-biden-forgive-student-loan-debt-where-things-stand/

I think the thinking now is some sort of $10k forgiveness per borrower. But a bunch of stuff needs to still be worked out like the final amount, qualifications for forgiveness, retroactiveness, etc.

But, to your point, his polling is disaterously low. Mid-terms are 20 minutes away. So the genuiness of motivation behind any of this is certainly questionable. But maybe the ends justify the means. Pretty much every first term president in modern times loses the mid-terms, so it will be interesting to see how many of these populist policies come to the fore to try and break the cycle of a somewhat guaranteed mid-term gutting of the executive branch party in Congress.

Yes, those are the token loans I mentioned. To put it another way, he ran on forgiving $10,000 in student debt per debtor and then forgave about 0.98% of all student debt. It was very much a "look, I did something!" move in an effort to appease voters. It's better than nothing, but he continually pulls that $10,000 number back out of the bag in time for midterms while knowing that it's not an achievable number.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 26, 2022, 03:08:21 PM
I don't know what his impact was, but for the record, Biden “came out” on same sex marriage way before the SCOTUS ruling in 2015. Specifically, in May of 2012 (Granted, an election year, go figure):

Biden was asked by anchor David Gregory on May 4, 2012, whether he had rethought his longstanding opposition to same-sex marriage. “I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties,” Biden responded. “Who do you love? And will you be loyal to the person you love? And that’s what people are finding out is what all marriages, at their root, are about, whether they’re marriages of lesbians or gay men or heterosexuals.”

And even before Obama “came out”.

Were Biden’s statements genuine? Anyone’s guess.

Yes, such an early adopter, even before Obama, because no one was thinking about gay rights until the year 2012.  ::)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on May 26, 2022, 06:03:38 PM
You don't care about gay rights, though.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on May 26, 2022, 08:04:44 PM
I'm not super up on the student loan forgiveness thing. But it was a Biden campaign promise. Apparently, something has been done since then:

Biden has forgiven debt for some disabled and defrauded borrowers, and made it easier for those already in the public service loan forgiveness program to have their debt forgiven. So far, his administration has forgiven over $17 billion of student loan debt. Still, borrowers owe over $1.74 trillion, collectively, with federal loans comprising over $1.6 trillion of that.
https://fortune.com/2022/05/04/will-biden-forgive-student-loan-debt-where-things-stand/

I think the thinking now is some sort of $10k forgiveness per borrower. But a bunch of stuff needs to still be worked out like the final amount, qualifications for forgiveness, retroactiveness, etc.

But, to your point, his polling is disaterously low. Mid-terms are 20 minutes away. So the genuiness of motivation behind any of this is certainly questionable. But maybe the ends justify the means. Pretty much every first term president in modern times loses the mid-terms, so it will be interesting to see how many of these populist policies come to the fore to try and break the cycle of a somewhat guaranteed mid-term gutting of the executive branch party in Congress.

Yes, those are the token loans I mentioned. To put it another way, he ran on forgiving $10,000 in student debt per debtor and then forgave about 0.98% of all student debt. It was very much a "look, I did something!" move in an effort to appease voters. It's better than nothing, but he continually pulls that $10,000 number back out of the bag in time for midterms while knowing that it's not an achievable number.

Yeah, I agree. He may be genuine, he may not be or somewhere in between. But I'm sure he himself and/or his handlers have a whole bag of stuff they are holding on to for the run-up to the mid-terms. Just waiting to pull something out to dangle in front of voters. And be all carrot/stick, "Look, see! If you don't vote Dem you won't get $10k, you won't get this other thing I said I would do that I haven't even mentioned since the campaign either..."

I'm pretty sure that's the tried and true gameplan for every politician.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on May 26, 2022, 08:10:56 PM
I don't know what his impact was, but for the record, Biden “came out” on same sex marriage way before the SCOTUS ruling in 2015. Specifically, in May of 2012 (Granted, an election year, go figure):

Biden was asked by anchor David Gregory on May 4, 2012, whether he had rethought his longstanding opposition to same-sex marriage. “I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties,” Biden responded. “Who do you love? And will you be loyal to the person you love? And that’s what people are finding out is what all marriages, at their root, are about, whether they’re marriages of lesbians or gay men or heterosexuals.”

And even before Obama “came out”.

Were Biden’s statements genuine? Anyone’s guess.

Yes, such an early adopter, even before Obama, because no one was thinking about gay rights until the year 2012.  ::)

What point are you failing to make? That Biden didn't come around to advocating for same-sex marriage until 10 years ago? So what? Why do you care?

You've never come around to it and are just as old. So you stand on the wrong side of history and humanity. Good for you. Regardless of motivation, at least he evolved a decade ago. You've never evolved. You're stuck in the 1840's. At least Biden is operating in the 21st century.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 27, 2022, 02:11:00 AM
I've never said that gays shouldn't be allowed to form a union together or be recognized. I support civil unions. My issue with gay marriage was that they should not necessarily be paid for it (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3149.msg72965#msg72965).

I don't see how my particular beliefs have anything to do with Joe Biden opposing the marriage of gays for multiple human generations though.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: BillO on May 27, 2022, 02:35:51 AM
I've never said that gays shouldn't be allowed to form a union together or be recognized. I support civil unions. My issue with gay marriage was that they should not necessarily be paid for it (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3149.msg72965#msg72965).

I don't see how my particular beliefs have anything to do with Joe Biden opposing the marriage of gays for multiple human generations though.

I may be over stepping my bounds here, but, In my opinion you may be mistaken.  Do you honestly believe that a statement like "Civil Unions did not come with the financial benefits of a heterosexual marriage" is not reprehensible?  Tell me something, what difference does it make to you if two people 500 miles away want to marry, and I mean regardless of how they dress, piss or identify?  Seriously, what gives you, or anyone else, the right to determine what constitutes a marriage? 

Forget all that.  Let me just ask a simple question.  What if a transgender woman that identifies as lesbian wants to marry a transgender man that identifies as gay ?  Is that OK where you are coming from?  After all they were born with different genitals.

Why should any marriage be any different than any other marriage?  Do you feel some sort of personal threat?  Is your own sexuality in doubt?

I honestly do not mean to be obtuse, but I seriously don't get your objection.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on May 27, 2022, 02:42:46 AM
I don't see how my particular beliefs have anything to do with Joe Biden opposing the marriage of gays for multiple human generations though.
That depends.  Are you criticizing Biden for opposing gay marriage for many years or are you criticizing him for changing his mind and choosing to support gay marriage?  What position would you rather he support?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 27, 2022, 02:45:55 AM
Quote from: BillO
Why should any marriage be any different than any other marriage?

You can find the discussion of that in the thread I linked (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3149.msg72837#msg72837). I don't think society should necessarily be paying out the same amount of money to homosexual and heterosexual couples if they are not providing equal benefit to society. There were links in that thread showing that 93% of opposite sex married people have children, and that the only 11% of gay couples adopt, and that an adopted child of a lesbian couple has a 69% chance of ending up on welfare, and so on.

It is not an equivalent benefit to society, and so the financial benefits should not be equivalent. My reasons were purely financial, and have pointed out that I am not against the officious recognition of their union. However, Joe Biden's reasons for opposing the marriage of gays in the video I posted earlier (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17706.msg265340#msg265340) was because "Marriage is between a man and a woman and states must respect that!" and because "Marriage is between a man and a woman. What's the game going on here??"

Biden clearly thought that two men should not be together and was against the officious recognition of their love on basis of them not being a man and a woman.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: BillO on May 27, 2022, 03:10:09 AM
Quote from: BillO
Why should any marriage be any different than any other marriage?

You can the discussion of that the thread I linked (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3149.msg72965#msg72965). I don't think society should necessarily be paying out the same amount of money to homosexual and heterosexual couples if they are not providing equal benefit to society. There were links showing that 93% of opposite sex married people have children, and that the only 11% of gay couples adopt, and that an adopted child of a lesbian couple has a 69% chance of ending up on welfare, and so on.

It's not an equivalent benefit to society, and so the financial benefits should not be equivalent. My reasons were purely financial. Joe Biden's reasons for opposing the marriage of gays were that "Marriage should be between a man and a woman!"

Biden clearly thought that two men should not be together because he was against the officious recognized union of their love in any manner.
Tom, your use of the word "officious" ( more than once in this thread) in place of the word "official" speaks way, way louder than your other words do.

Just to be clear, I did read the post you linked to.  It was offensive.  I'll try to put that aside.

So, you think a person's only worth in a marital union is how many offspring they can produce, is that correct?

What do you say about heterosexual unions that do not produce offspring?

 What do you say about his: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/09/fifteen-percent-of-same-sex-couples-have-children-in-their-household.html (https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/09/fifteen-percent-of-same-sex-couples-have-children-in-their-household.html) ?  Where it is shown that same sex unions foster or adopt more children than do "fruitless" heterosexual unions.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on May 27, 2022, 03:22:22 AM
Why should any marriage be any different than any other marriage? 

The purpose of marriage, first and foremost, is the continuation of the State and society as a whole. If it does not engage in that purpose (i.e. childless couples) then it should not confer any benefits to the parties involved.

That is to say: any marriage that doesn't result in procreation or adoption should be null and void within a few years from the government's perspective.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: BillO on May 27, 2022, 04:46:34 AM
Why should any marriage be any different than any other marriage? 

The purpose of marriage, first and foremost, is the continuation of the State and society as a whole. If it does not engage in that purpose (i.e. childless couples) then it should not confer any benefits to the parties involved.

That is to say: any marriage that doesn't result in procreation or adoption should be null and void within a few years from the government's perspective.
Source?  I'm not American so I don't know this from experience.  It would be appreciated if you could point me in the right direction.  I assume your statements are from a USA perspective as they do not apply globally.

However, is the continuation of the State and society as a whole solely based on reproductive success alone?  What about art, music, literature, engineering, technology, science, industry, commerce, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 27, 2022, 01:01:39 PM
Quote from: BillO
So, you think a person's only worth in a marital union is how many offspring they can produce, is that correct?

Society pays out subsidies as incentive to do something that benefits and furthers society, yes. Marriage has traditionally been a structure to foster the creation of families. Financial benefits were not simply given for the fun of it, because a judge said "good for you, you like each other, here is money!". Money was given for a reason, clearly. Like when a farmer receives farming subsidies upon merely buying an empty plot of farm land without any further action, society gives tax breaks for marriage to foster the preparation for the creation of a family. Society then gives a second level break upon the birth of children. Children are future tax payers, future service workers, future college graduates, future engineers and so on. The larger benefit to society is obvious.

My objection was a based on giving out financial benefits to people who want the recognition of marriage without providing equal benefit to society, not that they shouldn't be together or receive recognition. Joe Biden's objection was because he doesn't like the idea of two men or two women being married to each other. Again, Biden's reasoning in the video (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17706.msg265340#msg265340) is "Marriage is between a man and a woman and states must respect that!" and "Marriage is between a man and a woman. What's the game going on here?"

Why was Biden's reasoning better than mine?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on May 27, 2022, 01:12:30 PM
Tom, no one here said Biden’s reasoning was good. Perhaps you can stop lying for a bit?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 27, 2022, 01:40:15 PM
You guys have been defending him and his choices for the last 50 pages, and seem to say that he is better than Trump. You certainly should defend Biden's lifetime of opposing gays as well.

Here is a link on Biden's prolific anti-gay past. Source links to the bullets are in the page:

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/campaign-press-release-nothing-be-proud-the-biden-lgbt-record

Quote
- In 1973, Biden suggested that gay federal employees were "security risks"

https://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/The_Morning_News_Tue__Sep_25__1973_.pdf

(https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/Iq-nEUpO4RlhF7QAvT3O6IAbsJb9DKv4Qh5Gxx70LFWi9TZmNAsP015CqedDVCSOMCXkOK98VqqeMko5qObNhIi4dD9j8Xslp11Bxw0UzvftUJbbyUq4eC2Wn7cRHckElzIT3HW7NrigaA=s0-d-e1-ft#http://i1.cmail20.com/ei/r/13/2DB/68F/050442/csfinal/LGBTrecord131-99045106db03cf3c.jpg)

- In 1993, Biden voted to block the immigration of HIV+ individuals into the United States

- In 1993, Biden voted for the bill that created "Don't Ask Don't Tell"

- In 1994, Biden voted to cut off federal funding for schools that taught "acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle"

For decades, Biden opposed same-sex marriage

- In 1996, Biden voted for the Defense Of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman

- In the 2000s, Biden claimed that same-sex marriage was a "state" issue and repeatedly said that marriage was "between a man and a woman"

Biden refused to characterize a Constitutional marriage amendment as "writing discrimination into the Constitution"

Biden suggested he was opposed to the "timing" of the marriage amendment, not its substance

 - In 2008, both before and after he became Obama's Vice-Presidential nominee, Biden said he opposed same-sex marriage

Biden is falsely claiming he was the first major leader to support same-sex marriage

- 12 years before Biden did, Vice President Dick Cheney opposed federal restrictions on same-sex marriage

Biden wasn't even the first Obama Cabinet member to support same-sex marriage

- In 2012, after Biden accidentally supported same-sex marriage, his staff and White House aides attempted to clean up and walk back Biden's remarks, saying he had not actually endorsed it
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on May 27, 2022, 01:55:25 PM
It’s been pretty widely acknowledged in this thread that Biden is a pandering corporatist. I bet you couldn’t find a quote of anyone saying Biden is generally a good person or politician. But it turns out you can have a homophobic past and it still makes you better than the guy who jokes about fucking his daughter and underage girls. Sorry you are butt hurt that sex offender Don is the worst.

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on May 27, 2022, 02:07:21 PM
Source?  I'm not American so I don't know this from experience.  It would be appreciated if you could point me in the right direction.  I assume your statements are from a USA perspective as they do not apply globally.

Asking me to source an opinion is comical. It's the same as someone saying "I think the death penalty is morally wrong" and you ask "Source?" in response.

However, is the continuation of the State and society as a whole solely based on reproductive success alone?  What about art, music, literature, engineering, technology, science, industry, commerce, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

A society that doesn't reproduce doesn't continue. Art, music, etc. are not a society but merely products of one. Those same products are often destroyed by societies that follow, so reproductive success of a society also impacts its products. There were plenty of societies throughout human history that made great art which is now lost because they failed continuation and were destroyed.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: BillO on May 27, 2022, 02:12:07 PM
Why was Biden's reasoning better than mine?
Biden is a politician.  Reasoning is not a qualification for the job.

I'm not sure how the Americans approach it, but there are benefits for society when people create unions and work together in a familial setting.  These are usually recognized by providing tax breaks for those willing to declare that union under contract (marriage).  These should apply regardless what genitals the people in that union have as the societal benefits will be the same.  In most countries I know of there are also tax benefits and possibly even cash benefits for caring for children.  These are usually separate from and not tied to being married.  In Canada for instance, anyone couple or single person can claim these benefits if they are the primary caregivers to children under 17 years of age.

I am not a Biden supporter, or a supporter of any particular political party or politician.  Almost all politicians are reprehensible, lying a'holes.  However I am a supporter of human rights, freedoms, benefits and privileges being applied without bias or prejudice.  If that's where a government wants to go I'm all for it.  Who it looks like is making the decision, or what they thought before is not material in my opinion.

The only recent politician I have any respect for is Angela Merkel.  One thing I'll say Biden has going for him is that he is not Trump.  A piece of e-coli and dysentery ridden shit would be better than Trump.

Anyway, I'll leave you guys to your discussion.  I not an American and we have our own useless politicians to worry about up here.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: BillO on May 27, 2022, 02:26:01 PM
Asking me to source an opinion is comical.
Sorry, you are right.  In my defense it did not read like an opinion to me.

A society that doesn't reproduce doesn't continue. Art, music, etc. are not a society but merely products of one. Those same products are often destroyed by societies that follow, so reproductive success of a society also impacts its products. There were plenty of societies throughout human history that made great art which is now lost because they failed continuation and were destroyed.
So then if the non-traditional couple were to adopt and care for children, then they should be treated the same as a traditional couple and given the same incentives, benefits and privileges, right?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on May 27, 2022, 02:43:19 PM
So then if the non-traditional couple were to adopt and care for children, then they should be treated the same as a traditional couple and given the same incentives, benefits and privileges, right?

Yes, that's a valid and productive relationship.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on May 27, 2022, 02:53:07 PM
Remove the tax benefits from any couple who use contraceptives in order to stay childless, or who can’t have kids. And anyone whose kids end up on welfare should need to pay a fee to the government.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on May 27, 2022, 04:19:40 PM
My objection was a based on giving out financial benefits to people who want the recognition of marriage without providing equal benefit to society, not that they shouldn't be together or receive recognition.

What financial benefits do married people get? You've heard of the "marriage" penalty, right?

Joe Biden's objection was because he doesn't like the idea of two men or two women being married to each other. Again, Biden's reasoning in the video (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17706.msg265340#msg265340) is "Marriage is between a man and a woman and states must respect that!" and "Marriage is between a man and a woman. What's the game going on here?"

Why was Biden's reasoning better than mine?

Yes, Joe Biden's reasoning is better than yours as he evolved and changed his stance a decade ago. You're still living in the 1840's.

As well, the study you keep citing is not without controversy:

Major academic organizations including the American Sociological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics and American Medical Association dispute the validity of Regnerus's data and conclusions reached thereof, arguing that unlike previous studies, the statistically tiny number of same sex couples in a study whose sample group largely consisted of failed heterosexual marriages where one of the parents was allegedly homosexual, make it impossible to extrapolate any information about same sex parenting. A review carried out by the American Medical Association noted that:[20]

... The data does not show whether the perceived romantic relationship ever in fact occurred; nor whether the parent self-identified as gay or lesbian; nor whether the same sex relationship was continuous, episodic, or one-time only; nor whether the individual in these categories was actually raised by a homosexual parent (children of gay fathers are often raised by their heterosexual mothers following divorce), much less a parent in a long-term relationship with a same-sex partner. Indeed, most of the participants in these groups spent very little, if any, time being raised by a “same-sex couple.”[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Regnerus#Same-sex_relationships_controversy
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on May 28, 2022, 07:55:22 AM
Why should any marriage be any different than any other marriage? 

The purpose of marriage, first and foremost, is the continuation of the State and society as a whole. If it does not engage in that purpose (i.e. childless couples) then it should not confer any benefits to the parties involved.

That is to say: any marriage that doesn't result in procreation or adoption should be null and void within a few years from the government's perspective.

What about after the kids move out?  Or the woman goes through metapause and is unable to have kids?  Should the marriage be null and void in a legal sense?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on May 28, 2022, 09:57:37 AM
Why should any marriage be any different than any other marriage? 

The purpose of marriage, first and foremost, is the continuation of the State and society as a whole. If it does not engage in that purpose (i.e. childless couples) then it should not confer any benefits to the parties involved.

That is to say: any marriage that doesn't result in procreation or adoption should be null and void within a few years from the government's perspective.

You think the Government should treat the populace as livestock, then?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on May 28, 2022, 10:03:14 AM
You guys seem to say that he (Biden) is better than Trump

He is. By any reasonable metric, by his actions, by his life in general, he is better than Trump.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on May 28, 2022, 11:23:26 PM
Another metric has emerged where Biden may be judged better than Trump. Despite the ongoing furore around the Uvalde school shooting, Trump went ahead and delivered his word salad to the assembled faithful at the NRA convention.

He read out the names of the children killed, struggling to pronounce them, and to top it all, he DANCED on stage at the end of his speech. These kids haven't even had a proper burial yet, and he's dancing. Dancing.

Biden took to the mic soon after to express his sympathies and offer hope for change for the better following this. Trump danced.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on May 29, 2022, 12:30:31 AM
What about after the kids move out?

Evidence of contribution is fine for the continuation of the marriage as a reward.

Or the woman goes through metapause and is unable to have kids?  Should the marriage be null and void in a legal sense?

Yes, if she already doesn't have any children.

You think the Government should treat the populace as livestock, then?

Already does. All of them.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on May 29, 2022, 01:44:55 AM
In the Rushy Regime, you're not allowed to get/be married if you don't procreate? How long does a newly married couple get to pop out a kid before their marriage is nullified? I think you said "a few years", so 3? You may have answered this, but what if I find out I can't procreate after I get married, do I have to adopt a kid in order to stay married?

I don't seem to get any governmental benefits from being married. I think there might be an estate tax bene, but that's really about it that I can think of. If there were no government benefits to being married, whatever they may be, would you still allow marriage if non-procreation occurs within 3 years?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on May 29, 2022, 03:48:02 AM
In the Rushy Regime, you're not allowed to get/be married if you don't procreate?
What about those who procreate without getting married?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on May 29, 2022, 06:31:06 AM
In the Rushy Regime, I think they would be awarded a marriage license whether they want one or not.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on May 29, 2022, 04:46:13 PM
A terrifying vision of thr rushy regime.

https://www.theonion.com/desire-to-ejaculate-motivates-local-christian-to-wed-1819564595
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on May 31, 2022, 03:51:44 AM
Changing the subject back to actual news about Biden:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/30/biden-guns-congress-00035882

No, Joe. This is bad and you should know better.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on May 31, 2022, 04:26:05 AM
It's actually kind of a funny jab.

“I don’t know, but I think there’s a realization on the part of rational Republicans — and I consider Sen. McConnell a rational Republican, and Cornyn is as well,” Biden said. “I think there’s a recognition on their part … that we can’t continue like this. We can’t do this.”

The realization of "rational Republicans" - Like there are only perhaps 2. The rest are batshit crazy, the irrational ones...
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on May 31, 2022, 05:18:56 AM
They're rational, but they're cynical to the core and have long since abandoned their principles in favor of grasping at power wherever they can at the expense of our democracy. They can't be trusted, and making any sort of plan that relies on their help or cooperation is guaranteed to backfire.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on May 31, 2022, 06:38:43 AM
No truer words spoken.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on May 31, 2022, 07:29:30 AM
They're rational, but they're cynical to the core and have long since abandoned their principles in favor of grasping at power wherever they can at the expense of our democracy. They can't be trusted, and making any sort of plan that relies on their help or cooperation is guaranteed to backfire.

And they say the same about Democrats.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Clyde Frog on May 31, 2022, 08:19:40 PM
They're rational, but they're cynical to the core and have long since abandoned their principles in favor of grasping at power wherever they can at the expense of our democracy. They can't be trusted, and making any sort of plan that relies on their help or cooperation is guaranteed to backfire.

And they say the same about Democrats.
Remember when Democrats negotiated on Obamacare in good faith, caving to Republican demands even though they had the votes to put through something truly differentiating like Universal Health Care if they wanted to, only to find that not a single Republican voted in favor of it despite the fact that it was a near-replication of Romneycare? So they can say what you are saying they will say, but they would be wrong. Democrats have been much better about negotiating in good faith than Republicans for most of my adult life. They are just shit at actually enacting anything of substance, usually because they campaign on the lofty goals, then whittle away at those to appease Republican legislators when courting votes, then don't get a single Republican to actually side with them (or sometimes, a single-digit number of Republicans might side with them), then lose power because they didn't accomplish what they set out to do.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on May 31, 2022, 08:51:29 PM
They're rational, but they're cynical to the core and have long since abandoned their principles in favor of grasping at power wherever they can at the expense of our democracy. They can't be trusted, and making any sort of plan that relies on their help or cooperation is guaranteed to backfire.

And they say the same about Democrats.
Remember when Democrats negotiated on Obamacare in good faith, caving to Republican demands even though they had the votes to put through something truly differentiating like Universal Health Care if they wanted to, only to find that not a single Republican voted in favor of it despite the fact that it was a near-replication of Romneycare? So they can say what you are saying they will say, but they would be wrong. Democrats have been much better about negotiating in good faith than Republicans for most of my adult life. They are just shit at actually enacting anything of substance, usually because they campaign on the lofty goals, then whittle away at those to appease Republican legislators when courting votes, then don't get a single Republican to actually side with them (or sometimes, a single-digit number of Republicans might side with them), then lose power because they didn't accomplish what they set out to do.
I never said they were right.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 21, 2022, 09:08:59 PM
It sounds like Joe Biden is doing a poor job.

https://twitter.com/mjrusher/status/1538890135730806786
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on June 21, 2022, 09:11:31 PM
It sounds like Joe Biden is doing a poor job.

https://twitter.com/mjrusher/status/1538890135730806786

It sounds like he is unpopular, you mean, obviously.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on June 21, 2022, 11:18:35 PM
It sounds like Joe Biden is doing a poor job.

I don't quite understand the point of this post.

Biden:
54.6% Disapprove
39.5% Approve

The twitter thing cites Gallop. Gallop has Trump's lowest approval rating at 34% in Jan of 2021. Also has Truman at 22% Feb, 1952. (Ouch!)

So I'm not sure where this 'lowest ever' thing comes from, maybe on exactly the 571 day mark? But there have been Presidents with far lower approval ratings. In other words, the twitter thing makes no logical sense.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidential-approval-ratings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 21, 2022, 11:21:11 PM
Yes, the tweet clearly states that it is at the 571 mark. The graph shows that his popularity has been dropping to the point that he is now the most unpopular president at this point in his presidency in recorded US History.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on June 21, 2022, 11:44:55 PM
Yes, the tweet clearly states that it is at the 571 mark. The graph shows that his popularity has been dropping to the point that he is now the most unpopular president at this point in his presidency in recorded US History.

Cool. And Trump was the most unpopular president in history at the 1462 day mark.

And yeah, DJT was pretty much flatlined throughout his tenure:

(https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/rgl2_sx1zkutugtxzb72uw.png)

W pretty much cratered:

(https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/1rgktrfxgkc1y6lhk2lm2g.png)

Obama faired pretty well:

(https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/js8gl6shpkger88cuonz5w.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on June 26, 2022, 02:27:22 PM
Speaking of oil...

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/26/1107265390/refinery-shortage-high-gas-prices-russia

Summary:
Shit sucks.  Russia's invasion, a hurricane, Covid, Biden's transition... all of it is basically helping to hurt oil and gasoline production, which is causing a massive increase.  We've got several refineries that have been damaged or shut down during or prior to Covid.  Which didn't help and with Russia's invasion and the subsequent oil embargo, supply is low for both oil and gasoline.  Demand is high. 



Biden is trying to get oil companies to do more, drill more but, well... this isn't a communist country.  Only so much Biden can do.  And since the energy transition is being worked on, there isn't alot of interest to build new refineries.  (last one was built in the 70s fyi)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 06, 2022, 04:03:39 AM
The despicable Biden Administration doesn't want states to require proof of citizenship to vote.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-administration-sues-arizona-over-proof-of-citizenship-requirement-for-federal-elections

(https://i.imgur.com/2el5KY7.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on July 06, 2022, 04:33:00 AM
The 2020 election is probably the most heavily scrutinized election in history, Arizona especially.  Cyber Ninjas made a business out of taking gullible Trump supporter's money to something, anything.  They found exactly nothing.

This new law from Arizona isn't intended to address any fraud because no such fraud exists.  it's just there to suppress votes.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on July 06, 2022, 06:39:39 AM
The despicable Biden Administration doesn't want states to require proof of citizenship to vote.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-administration-sues-arizona-over-proof-of-citizenship-requirement-for-federal-elections

(https://i.imgur.com/2el5KY7.png)

Why would someone be a registered voter if they aren't a citizen?
Why isn't the government keeping a record of all citizens and sharing it with all states so they don't need proof from people, just an ID with a birth date and social security number?  Sounds easy enough.  You could have automatic voter rolls based on federal data.  Someone moves states?  Deleted automatically from the old state to the new.


Also, I thought the voter fraud in 2020 was from extra, fake ballots, not illegal aliens voting.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on July 06, 2022, 08:36:51 AM
Yes, the tweet clearly states that it is at the 571 (517 according to the above, not 571 - T) mark. The graph shows that his popularity has been dropping to the point that he is now the most unpopular president at this point in his presidency in recorded US History.

His net approval has been higher than Trump's for around 490 days out of those 517, though. So on balance, he has greater approval than Trump. 

Scroll down to the graphs with the sliders - https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/?ex_cid=rrpromo
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 06, 2022, 09:15:44 AM
So on balance, he has greater approval than Trump. 
It also shows that, with the exception of Literally Orange Man, Biden is less popular than just about any POTUS at just about any point in their presidency. Thanks for sharing this damning data!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on July 07, 2022, 09:56:11 PM
The despicable Biden Administration doesn't want states to require proof of citizenship to vote.
When was the last time that you were required to show proof of citizenship when you went to vote?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on July 07, 2022, 10:25:59 PM
Wanna talk proof of citizenship?

My Social Security card is a piece of thick paper.
My original nirth certificate is lost... Or at my parents, dunno.  The copy I have is a literal piece of paper peinted in Maryland with an imprint.
Both of these would be proof but are so easily forged its not worth it.

My passport, which cost a fair bit of money, is a secure document thats less easy to forge.  At least, id you read the security.

But here's the thing.  The one bit everyone glosses over.
Every American Citizen has the right to vote.  So it shouldn't matter if you're homeless, penniless, and living inside a cardboard box, you have the right to vote.  So how would such a person vote?  Or is voting reserved for people who aren't fucked over by life?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on July 08, 2022, 06:19:41 AM
Or is voting reserved for people who aren't fucked over by life?
The Republicans would certainly like that to be the case. Because they don’t care about such people, so such people aren’t going to vote for them.

They pretend to be concerned about voter fraud - as we saw from the last election despite desperate searches there is no credible evidence that it’s a problem. What they really want is to stop people who they know won’t vote for them from voting at all. Now that is despicable.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 08, 2022, 08:03:10 AM
So how would such a person vote?  Or is voting reserved for people who aren't fucked over by life?
This problem has been solved by most countries that require ID to vote. You set up a free and mandatory national ID card scheme.

These are unpopular in Anglophone countries, because they somehow convinced themselves that this would impact their privacy, or that being given a piece of plastic violates their freedom. I guess it's down to the Democrats to convince voters otherwise.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on July 08, 2022, 08:42:00 AM
So how would such a person vote?  Or is voting reserved for people who aren't fucked over by life?
This problem has been solved by most countries that require ID to vote. You set up a free and mandatory national ID card scheme.
I'm not adverse to that idea, but the key thing is it being free. But I've yet to be convinced that there is a problem to solve here.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 08, 2022, 08:51:37 AM
I'm not adverse to that idea, but the key thing is it being free.
Yes. Anything else would just result in repeating the problem.

But I've yet to be convinced that there is a problem to solve here.
Personally, I don't know how you'd be able to establish whether the problem is widespread. I know people say voter fraud is not a widespread issue, but it genuinely stumps me how you could conclude that.

The UK just sends you a piece of paper that tells you where to turn up to vote. You don't even need to bring it with you, it's just there for information. I got one of these for people who no longer lived at my address for almost every general election, and I've moved several times in my time here. This means that I, personally, could have voted in most elections by just walking in and being like "why yes, I am Name Lastname and my address is this and that".

How do you catch me? How do I get included in the statistics that tell us this is totally, definitely not a problem? The entire system is designed to make this analysis nigh-impossible.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on July 08, 2022, 10:01:15 AM
So how would such a person vote?  Or is voting reserved for people who aren't fucked over by life?
This problem has been solved by most countries that require ID to vote. You set up a free and mandatory national ID card scheme.

These are unpopular in Anglophone countries, because they somehow convinced themselves that this would impact their privacy, or that being given a piece of plastic violates their freedom. I guess it's down to the Democrats to convince voters otherwise.

I am not against the free ID systems.  Weird that these voter ID laws never have that, just "oh, pay a fee when you visit this specific location"


I don't know how its done here, but they do use a Personal Number (social security).  What i like about it is that it includes your birthdate.  So to steal an ID number, you'd need to match, within like 10-15 years, of the person you stole it from otherwise it would be easy enough to spot.

Could also have a state run voter database linked to social security so at worse, you can only fraud vote once in the state, even if you try at multiple locations.
Link the state databases together to run queries and you can match SS#s across states to see if two people voted with the same number.

But god forbid states link data...
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on July 08, 2022, 01:45:46 PM
The UK just sends you a piece of paper that tells you where to turn up to vote. You don't even need to bring it with you, it's just there for information.
I have to say our system has always felt a bit flaky for the reasons you've mentioned.

I guess if I turned up and said I'm Mr Neighbours Name from Neighbour's Address then they'd let me vote.
But if my neighbour had already been to vote then I'd get caught in the lie. Or if they turned up later in the day to then they'd realise something is up when his name is already crossed off. I might get lucky and he might not vote I guess. I guess I could go at the start of the day and vote as him and then go later as me and hope they don't recognise me. Or send someone not registered to vote to pretend to be him I guess.

But it's all a fair amount of effort for...one extra vote. The risk/reward calculation doesn't really make it worth it. Especially if you're not in a marginal seat, often it's pretty clear who is going to win anyway. As much as I rail against FPTP, it almost protects against this sort of thing because it's just not worth it. I've not seen any evidence that voter fraud is a problem here although I agree I don't know how they check.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on July 09, 2022, 08:50:18 AM
End of quote. Repeat the line.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on July 09, 2022, 05:01:48 PM
The UK just sends you a piece of paper that tells you where to turn up to vote. You don't even need to bring it with you, it's just there for information.
I have to say our system has always felt a bit flaky for the reasons you've mentioned.

I guess if I turned up and said I'm Mr Neighbours Name from Neighbour's Address then they'd let me vote.
But if my neighbour had already been to vote then I'd get caught in the lie. Or if they turned up later in the day to then they'd realise something is up when his name is already crossed off. I might get lucky and he might not vote I guess. I guess I could go at the start of the day and vote as him and then go later as me and hope they don't recognise me. Or send someone not registered to vote to pretend to be him I guess.

But it's all a fair amount of effort for...one extra vote. The risk/reward calculation doesn't really make it worth it. Especially if you're not in a marginal seat, often it's pretty clear who is going to win anyway. As much as I rail against FPTP, it almost protects against this sort of thing because it's just not worth it. I've not seen any evidence that voter fraud is a problem here although I agree I don't know how they check.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/11/29/true-tale-absentee-voter-fraud-north-carolina-523238

It's a lot more difficult to get away with retail voting fraud than one would think.  The anomaly tends to stick out to accountants and data scientists.  To change an election it would take a lot of people coordinating to do something extremely illegal.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on July 10, 2022, 01:47:27 PM
The UK just sends you a piece of paper that tells you where to turn up to vote. You don't even need to bring it with you, it's just there for information.
I have to say our system has always felt a bit flaky for the reasons you've mentioned.

I guess if I turned up and said I'm Mr Neighbours Name from Neighbour's Address then they'd let me vote.
But if my neighbour had already been to vote then I'd get caught in the lie. Or if they turned up later in the day to then they'd realise something is up when his name is already crossed off. I might get lucky and he might not vote I guess. I guess I could go at the start of the day and vote as him and then go later as me and hope they don't recognise me. Or send someone not registered to vote to pretend to be him I guess.

But it's all a fair amount of effort for...one extra vote. The risk/reward calculation doesn't really make it worth it. Especially if you're not in a marginal seat, often it's pretty clear who is going to win anyway. As much as I rail against FPTP, it almost protects against this sort of thing because it's just not worth it. I've not seen any evidence that voter fraud is a problem here although I agree I don't know how they check.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/11/29/true-tale-absentee-voter-fraud-north-carolina-523238

It's a lot more difficult to get away with retail voting fraud than one would think.  The anomaly tends to stick out to accountants and data scientists.  To change an election it would take a lot of people coordinating to do something extremely illegal.
You mean like the lot occupying Langley and Arlington, in conjunction with Beijing?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on July 10, 2022, 03:45:14 PM
So we shouldn't even bother to vote because Langley and Arlington will decide it anyway?

How and why did you swizzle China into the mix?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on July 10, 2022, 06:29:02 PM
The UK just sends you a piece of paper that tells you where to turn up to vote. You don't even need to bring it with you, it's just there for information.
I have to say our system has always felt a bit flaky for the reasons you've mentioned.

I guess if I turned up and said I'm Mr Neighbours Name from Neighbour's Address then they'd let me vote.
But if my neighbour had already been to vote then I'd get caught in the lie. Or if they turned up later in the day to then they'd realise something is up when his name is already crossed off. I might get lucky and he might not vote I guess. I guess I could go at the start of the day and vote as him and then go later as me and hope they don't recognise me. Or send someone not registered to vote to pretend to be him I guess.

But it's all a fair amount of effort for...one extra vote. The risk/reward calculation doesn't really make it worth it. Especially if you're not in a marginal seat, often it's pretty clear who is going to win anyway. As much as I rail against FPTP, it almost protects against this sort of thing because it's just not worth it. I've not seen any evidence that voter fraud is a problem here although I agree I don't know how they check.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/11/29/true-tale-absentee-voter-fraud-north-carolina-523238

It's a lot more difficult to get away with retail voting fraud than one would think.  The anomaly tends to stick out to accountants and data scientists.  To change an election it would take a lot of people coordinating to do something extremely illegal.
You mean like the lot occupying Langley and Arlington, in conjunction with Beijing?

No.  This incident actually happened.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on July 10, 2022, 07:15:00 PM
The UK just sends you a piece of paper that tells you where to turn up to vote. You don't even need to bring it with you, it's just there for information.
I have to say our system has always felt a bit flaky for the reasons you've mentioned.

I guess if I turned up and said I'm Mr Neighbours Name from Neighbour's Address then they'd let me vote.
But if my neighbour had already been to vote then I'd get caught in the lie. Or if they turned up later in the day to then they'd realise something is up when his name is already crossed off. I might get lucky and he might not vote I guess. I guess I could go at the start of the day and vote as him and then go later as me and hope they don't recognise me. Or send someone not registered to vote to pretend to be him I guess.

But it's all a fair amount of effort for...one extra vote. The risk/reward calculation doesn't really make it worth it. Especially if you're not in a marginal seat, often it's pretty clear who is going to win anyway. As much as I rail against FPTP, it almost protects against this sort of thing because it's just not worth it. I've not seen any evidence that voter fraud is a problem here although I agree I don't know how they check.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/11/29/true-tale-absentee-voter-fraud-north-carolina-523238

It's a lot more difficult to get away with retail voting fraud than one would think.  The anomaly tends to stick out to accountants and data scientists.  To change an election it would take a lot of people coordinating to do something extremely illegal.
You mean like the lot occupying Langley and Arlington, in conjunction with Beijing?

No.  This incident actually happened.
So, you are claiming it doesn't take massive voter fraud to alter the outcome of an election.

Gotcha.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on July 10, 2022, 07:23:07 PM
So we shouldn't even bother to vote because Langley and Arlington will decide it anyway?

How and why did you swizzle China into the mix?
I vote every election, as it is a personal choice to be made, regardless of other things outside of my purview.

Not once, since 1978 when I first started voting, have I been swayed by the notion that my vote would actually be counted or not be counted, to deter me from that act.

I figure when you can get 210 million gallons of free petroleum product, you gotta have some sort of pull, even on a voting lever.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on July 10, 2022, 07:46:46 PM
I don't know what any of that means.

What's this about millions of gallons of fuel?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on July 10, 2022, 08:33:41 PM
I don't know what any of that means.

What's this about millions of gallons of fuel?
Well, go study some more.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on July 11, 2022, 12:22:55 AM
The UK just sends you a piece of paper that tells you where to turn up to vote. You don't even need to bring it with you, it's just there for information.
I have to say our system has always felt a bit flaky for the reasons you've mentioned.

I guess if I turned up and said I'm Mr Neighbours Name from Neighbour's Address then they'd let me vote.
But if my neighbour had already been to vote then I'd get caught in the lie. Or if they turned up later in the day to then they'd realise something is up when his name is already crossed off. I might get lucky and he might not vote I guess. I guess I could go at the start of the day and vote as him and then go later as me and hope they don't recognise me. Or send someone not registered to vote to pretend to be him I guess.

But it's all a fair amount of effort for...one extra vote. The risk/reward calculation doesn't really make it worth it. Especially if you're not in a marginal seat, often it's pretty clear who is going to win anyway. As much as I rail against FPTP, it almost protects against this sort of thing because it's just not worth it. I've not seen any evidence that voter fraud is a problem here although I agree I don't know how they check.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/11/29/true-tale-absentee-voter-fraud-north-carolina-523238

It's a lot more difficult to get away with retail voting fraud than one would think.  The anomaly tends to stick out to accountants and data scientists.  To change an election it would take a lot of people coordinating to do something extremely illegal.
You mean like the lot occupying Langley and Arlington, in conjunction with Beijing?

No.  This incident actually happened.
So, you are claiming it doesn't take massive voter fraud to alter the outcome of an election.

Gotcha.

No.  It did take massive voter fraud to change this particular election and the fraud is very obvious.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on July 11, 2022, 03:54:46 AM
The UK just sends you a piece of paper that tells you where to turn up to vote. You don't even need to bring it with you, it's just there for information.
I have to say our system has always felt a bit flaky for the reasons you've mentioned.

I guess if I turned up and said I'm Mr Neighbours Name from Neighbour's Address then they'd let me vote.
But if my neighbour had already been to vote then I'd get caught in the lie. Or if they turned up later in the day to then they'd realise something is up when his name is already crossed off. I might get lucky and he might not vote I guess. I guess I could go at the start of the day and vote as him and then go later as me and hope they don't recognise me. Or send someone not registered to vote to pretend to be him I guess.

But it's all a fair amount of effort for...one extra vote. The risk/reward calculation doesn't really make it worth it. Especially if you're not in a marginal seat, often it's pretty clear who is going to win anyway. As much as I rail against FPTP, it almost protects against this sort of thing because it's just not worth it. I've not seen any evidence that voter fraud is a problem here although I agree I don't know how they check.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/11/29/true-tale-absentee-voter-fraud-north-carolina-523238

It's a lot more difficult to get away with retail voting fraud than one would think.  The anomaly tends to stick out to accountants and data scientists.  To change an election it would take a lot of people coordinating to do something extremely illegal.
You mean like the lot occupying Langley and Arlington, in conjunction with Beijing?

No.  This incident actually happened.
So, you are claiming it doesn't take massive voter fraud to alter the outcome of an election.

Gotcha.

No.  It did take massive voter fraud to change this particular election and the fraud is very obvious.
I see.

Massive = 124 votes.

When you get your story straight, then you should come back and start posting again.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on July 21, 2022, 04:47:22 PM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62256544

He’s even handling getting Covid better than Trump. None of this being hospitalised and nearly dying nonsense
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on July 21, 2022, 09:20:05 PM
Biden got what after 4 shots? Oh dementia...
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on July 21, 2022, 10:19:46 PM
Biden got what after 4 shots? Oh dementia...

He had that before.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Fortuna on July 22, 2022, 06:14:34 AM
Biden got what after 4 shots?

They never claimed the shot would make you completely immune to covid. That's just some little gotcha fantasy conservatives have. Like oh this Dem got covid, haha see I told you my dumb redneck non-scientific opinion was right!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on July 22, 2022, 05:03:06 PM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62256544

He’s even handling getting Covid better than Trump. None of this being hospitalised and nearly dying nonsense

It's because Biden is being blessed by the combined prayers of liberals and conservatives: liberals praying that he's fine because they like him and conservatives praying that he's fine so that they avoid President Harris.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2022, 03:33:14 AM
Under Biden the White House is an assisted living facility.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-sYBc3AIvs&ab_channel=JohnTalks
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on July 24, 2022, 04:04:49 AM
I’m Tom Bishop and I hate old people, when they’re Liberal.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on July 24, 2022, 01:50:01 PM
The doctor obviously isn't taking the detail about Biden showing him his empty plate seriously. He just meant it as a funny little anecdote about his recovery. Personally, I welcome the openness concerning Biden's medical details. It's a nice change from Trump's doctors lying about his height and weight, secret hospital visits, and general insistence on the fact that an obese slug of a man who could barely stand up straight was actually a superman in peak physical condition.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on July 24, 2022, 02:36:29 PM
Hey that big fat ass of his might have saved this country. What if he was actually capable of walking to congress on January 6?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on July 24, 2022, 02:51:51 PM
Hey that big fat ass of his might have saved this country. What if he was actually capable of walking to congress on January 6?

The deleted secret service texts are all “yo POTUS so fat” jokes
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on July 24, 2022, 04:29:40 PM
Hey that big fat ass of his might have saved this country. What if he was actually capable of walking to congress on January 6?

The deleted secret service texts are all “yo POTUS so fat” jokes

Yo POTUS so fat, it takes a whole squad to body cover one side.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on July 30, 2022, 04:32:44 PM
Quick questions...

Do you think Brandon is gonna send a slate of fake construction workers to erect "the foot of wall" he swore would never be built during his administration?

Or will he send pedos to finish it?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on July 30, 2022, 05:35:55 PM
this guy is brain dead, send me the money MF

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/joe-biden-seems-think-sent-americans-checks-8000-video/
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on July 30, 2022, 10:41:51 PM
this guy is brain dead, send me the money MF

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/joe-biden-seems-think-sent-americans-checks-8000-video/

Yeah, definitely a gaf on his part.  Probably got a bunch of numbers and summaries mixed up.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on July 31, 2022, 01:17:06 AM
this guy is brain dead, send me the money MF

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/joe-biden-seems-think-sent-americans-checks-8000-video/

Yeah, definitely a gaf on his part.  Probably got a bunch of numbers and summaries mixed up.

The guy is old and not all there. He needs a rest.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on August 03, 2022, 09:50:37 PM
Joes looking to go in for a sniffer doodle.

Cute dress, with all the money we sent your daddy boy you could have had a tailor add two buttons and move those nips.

https://nypost.com/2022/07/26/zelensky-urges-biden-to-visit-ukraine/

(https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/07/biden-2-2.jpg?quality=75&strip=all&w=1535)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on August 03, 2022, 11:01:11 PM
Joes looking to go in for a sniffer doodle.

Cute dress, with all the money we sent your daddy boy you could have had a tailor add two buttons and move those nips.

https://nypost.com/2022/07/26/zelensky-urges-biden-to-visit-ukraine/

(https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/07/biden-2-2.jpg?quality=75&strip=all&w=1535)

Are you ok?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on September 01, 2022, 07:42:38 PM
Joe is an idiot with all the Dems..

Grid can't and will never handle electric vehicles.

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/california-advises-slower-ev-charging-175627840.html
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on September 01, 2022, 07:53:42 PM
Joe is an idiot with all the Dems..

Grid can't and will never handle electric vehicles.

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/california-advises-slower-ev-charging-175627840.html

Perhaps it will encourage people to drive less.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on September 01, 2022, 07:55:00 PM
Joe is an idiot with all the Dems..

Grid can't and will never handle electric vehicles.

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/california-advises-slower-ev-charging-175627840.html

Why never?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on September 01, 2022, 08:43:31 PM
Joe is an idiot with all the Dems..

Grid can't and will never handle electric vehicles.

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/california-advises-slower-ev-charging-175627840.html

Perhaps it will encourage people to drive less.
Or invest in upgrading the grid.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on September 02, 2022, 12:03:35 AM
Joe is an idiot with all the Dems..

Grid can't and will never handle electric vehicles.

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/california-advises-slower-ev-charging-175627840.html

These people are just being alarmist.  California is recommending cutting back on all electrical use to avoid rolling blackouts.  EVs don't use anywhere near enough electricity to stress the grid under normal circumstances.

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on September 02, 2022, 02:52:20 AM
Joe is an idiot with all the Dems..

Grid can't and will never handle electric vehicles.

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/california-advises-slower-ev-charging-175627840.html

These people are just being alarmist.  California is recommending cutting back on all electrical use to avoid rolling blackouts.  EVs don't use anywhere near enough electricity to stress the grid under normal circumstances.

I charged two teslas on a 50 amp rv plug on my service pole. $120....Thats stress. Solar also doesn't do well at night :)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on September 02, 2022, 05:22:32 AM
Joe is an idiot with all the Dems..

Grid can't and will never handle electric vehicles.

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/california-advises-slower-ev-charging-175627840.html

These people are just being alarmist.  California is recommending cutting back on all electrical use to avoid rolling blackouts.  EVs don't use anywhere near enough electricity to stress the grid under normal circumstances.

I charged two teslas on a 50 amp rv plug on my service pole. $120....Thats stress. Solar also doesn't do well at night :)

Nah, thats your sorry asses overcharging.

Tho electricity prices are fairly high.


But curious on the math...
Lets assume model S, so 100kwh.  Highest they have.

So 200 kwh (for both)
Means $60 per tesla.
$60/100 kwh
So $0.60/kwh
LA paid about $.025/kwh in July 2022.

So you're charging people 3x the power cost.
You bastard.

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on September 02, 2022, 05:37:37 AM
Joe is an idiot with all the Dems..

Grid can't and will never handle electric vehicles.

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/california-advises-slower-ev-charging-175627840.html

These people are just being alarmist.  California is recommending cutting back on all electrical use to avoid rolling blackouts.  EVs don't use anywhere near enough electricity to stress the grid under normal circumstances.

I charged two teslas on a 50 amp rv plug on my service pole. $120....Thats stress. Solar also doesn't do well at night :)

I call BS.  I own a Telsa it and it just doesn't take anywhere near that much electricity.

Also solar has nothing to do with this.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on September 02, 2022, 01:16:24 PM
I charged a Tesla from 20% to full for $15 in the spring.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on September 02, 2022, 07:38:07 PM
Joe is an idiot with all the Dems..

Grid can't and will never handle electric vehicles.

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/california-advises-slower-ev-charging-175627840.html

These people are just being alarmist.  California is recommending cutting back on all electrical use to avoid rolling blackouts.  EVs don't use anywhere near enough electricity to stress the grid under normal circumstances.

I charged two teslas on a 50 amp rv plug on my service pole. $120....Thats stress. Solar also doesn't do well at night :)

Nah, thats your sorry asses overcharging.

Tho electricity prices are fairly high.


But curious on the math...
Lets assume model S, so 100kwh.  Highest they have.

So 200 kwh (for both)
Means $60 per tesla.
$60/100 kwh
So $0.60/kwh
LA paid about $.025/kwh in July 2022.

So you're charging people 3x the power cost.
You bastard.

I went back and looked at bill. AZ 94 kwh (conservative) for both during peak hours. Also a demand charge over the top because peak and high 50 amp demand. Teslas suck....

solar sucks...it's not cost effective even over the long haul. I have a buddy who is an expert at building these facilities and has maybe 10 under his belt. 50-200 megs
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on September 02, 2022, 08:20:19 PM
EVs don't use anywhere near enough electricity to stress the grid under normal circumstances.

Average one-way commute in the US is 39 miles (one-way).

Quote
The electric car with the best kWh per mile is the 2020 Tesla Model 3, with 24 kWh/100 mi (or 0.24kWh per mile)

That's a total of ~19 kWh per work day per EV on average.

Quote
In 2020, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 10,715 kilowatthours (kWh), an average of about 893 kWh per month.

That's about 30 kWh per day for the 'average' household.

Putting all of this together, every time someone buys an EV to drive, they're effectively adding 2/3 of a household load to the grid. If one million people in California buy an EV, that's the same thing as building 700,000 new homes. There's a very obvious reason why California now sees routine rolling blackouts and imports more electricity than any other state in the nation.

EVs use a lot of power. There's no low-energy way to sling a metal box down an interstate at 70 mph.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on September 02, 2022, 10:49:01 PM
I'm seeing a variety of sources say the average commute is about 30 miles both ways.

It would be 30% if everyone sold their gas vehicles and went electric overnight.  The change is going to be gradual though as will the improvements to the grid to handle it.

My point being that the grid buckling under the weight of EVs is not something to be all that worried about.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on September 03, 2022, 01:32:44 AM
There's a very obvious reason why California now sees routine rolling blackouts and imports more electricity than any other state in the nation.

California hasn't had rolling blackouts due to surge use in forever. Like back in the early naughts. There were multiple factors; deregulation in the late 90's, critical infrastructure updates weren't done due to cost, Pac Northwest hydro imports were pulled back and so on. Complicated as always. So there's been no "routine" in a long time. But I do remember them well. They sucked.

California does have blackouts every now and again. But they are localized to the areas where something went wrong. Not like the old rolling blackouts that hit the whole State. Most today are due to actual physical interruptions in service from things like wildfires, lines cut, etc. Not routine rolling, semi-planned or planned, blackouts, aka, 'brownouts'.

As far as CA importing the most, true, and by a lot:

(https://i.imgur.com/3ZqSoc5.png)

But it's complicated when you look at the net import v export. CA doesn't make the top 5. I mean, what's going on with Mass & Maryland...

(https://i.imgur.com/WoqXcFJ.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on September 03, 2022, 02:12:42 AM
My point being that the grid buckling under the weight of EVs is not something to be all that worried about.

It's almost like you just made this up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/10/13/electric-vehicles-grid-upgrade/

The only places saying the grid will be fine are, coincidentally, EV blogs where no one in the room has a degree in power engineering. Every time I watch power engineers talk about the grid at conferences, they look nervous as all hell and say the grid needs massive upgrades, then I hear politicians and environmental morons say "don't worry about it". Who do you think I'm going to believe? It's not coincidence that the same people saying it's "not something to be all that worried about" are the same people who know absolutely nothing about electrical power.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on September 03, 2022, 03:39:07 AM
Then it's probably a good thing that Biden just signed an infrastructure bill allocating $65 billion to upgrade the power grid.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on September 03, 2022, 06:33:34 AM
My point being that the grid buckling under the weight of EVs is not something to be all that worried about.

It's almost like you just made this up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/10/13/electric-vehicles-grid-upgrade/

The only places saying the grid will be fine are, coincidentally, EV blogs where no one in the room has a degree in power engineering. Every time I watch power engineers talk about the grid at conferences, they look nervous as all hell and say the grid needs massive upgrades, then I hear politicians and environmental morons say "don't worry about it". Who do you think I'm going to believe? It's not coincidence that the same people saying it's "not something to be all that worried about" are the same people who know absolutely nothing about electrical power.

My goodness.  You act like the grid is some kind of otherworldly entity that has been gifted to us by aliens and as such as may never touch it or leave it as is.

I assure you this is not the case.  We regularly upgraded it for whatever need arises and I'm sure your power engineer friends will back me up on this, grumble as they might for having to do work.

FYI, I do know something about power.  And when I saw that, I'm being modest.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on September 03, 2022, 09:19:07 AM
My point being that the grid buckling under the weight of EVs is not something to be all that worried about.

It's almost like you just made this up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/10/13/electric-vehicles-grid-upgrade/

The only places saying the grid will be fine are, coincidentally, EV blogs where no one in the room has a degree in power engineering. Every time I watch power engineers talk about the grid at conferences, they look nervous as all hell and say the grid needs massive upgrades, then I hear politicians and environmental morons say "don't worry about it". Who do you think I'm going to believe? It's not coincidence that the same people saying it's "not something to be all that worried about" are the same people who know absolutely nothing about electrical power.

My goodness.  You act like the grid is some kind of otherworldly entity that has been gifted to us by aliens and as such as may never touch it or leave it as is.

I assure you this is not the case.  We regularly upgraded it for whatever need arises and I'm sure your power engineer friends will back me up on this, grumble as they might for having to do work.

FYI, I do know something about power.  And when I saw that, I'm being modest.

Rushy is right tho.
Its a massive undertaking that most electrical companies don't want to do unless they have to.  Not to mention building more power plants and that cost.

America has been dragging its feet on upgrades for decades because its not profitable to do so.  Instead of planning ahead and doing it before its needed.

Having alot of EVs at once is a big power need and will cause issues if the grid isn't ready.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on September 03, 2022, 01:21:32 PM
Grid can't and will never handle electric vehicles.

Change the focus from the car, then.  Pedestrianise city centres. Introduce cycle paths. Build more railways. Get out of your cars and walk some more.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on September 05, 2022, 12:46:49 AM
Biden looks like hes Aldolf or satans child in speech. Blood red evil.  Raids a 16 year olds bedroom and turns it upside down. Barron were sorry these goons exists. 

https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/biden-speech1.jpg?itok=HE6pXONS
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on September 05, 2022, 02:34:33 AM
Having alot of EVs at once is a big power need and will cause issues if the grid isn't ready.

Key phrase is "all at once".

From a car and driver report (August 2022):

Currently, it's estimated that around 1 percent of the 250 million cars, SUVs, and light-duty trucks on American roads are electric. However, while it's difficult to estimate future sales, an analysis by IHS Markit projects that 25–30 percent of new car sales could be electric by 2030 and then 40–45 percent by 2035. Using the rates for those projections, Reuters estimates that by 2050 more than half of the vehicles on U.S. roads could be EVs.

And utilities are fairly profitable, from Investopedia:

The utilities industry ranks highly in terms of margin metrics. The average net profit margin in the sector was nearly 10% in the first quarter of 2022 and for the trailing 12 months (TTM) was almost 11%.

Looks like the grid will have to expand in line with usage over time, like it's always done successfully (and unsuccessfully). And we need to incrementally get our grid shit together over the next 30 years.

Granted, EV sales are kind of currently rocketing upward, but as it stands today in 2022, at a 1% share of vehicles, I'd say EV's are a net zero burden on the current grid.

As an aside, if anyone really wants to get freaked out by resource burdens/constraints, EV's impact on the grid issues are minuscule in comparison to the biggy: Water. I have a close friend who is the director of a major metro municipal water dept in the US. S/he goes around the country and the world in fact giving talks regarding the system, resources, treatment, conservation, etc. as it's considered one of the best around. To hear him/her talk about the water issues we're facing in the next 25 years, not just globally, but in the US too, sends shivers down your spine.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on September 05, 2022, 03:50:07 AM
Having alot of EVs at once is a big power need and will cause issues if the grid isn't ready.

Key phrase is "all at once".

From a car and driver report (August 2022):

Currently, it's estimated that around 1 percent of the 250 million cars, SUVs, and light-duty trucks on American roads are electric. However, while it's difficult to estimate future sales, an analysis by IHS Markit projects that 25–30 percent of new car sales could be electric by 2030 and then 40–45 percent by 2035. Using the rates for those projections, Reuters estimates that by 2050 more than half of the vehicles on U.S. roads could be EVs.

And utilities are fairly profitable, from Investopedia:

The utilities industry ranks highly in terms of margin metrics. The average net profit margin in the sector was nearly 10% in the first quarter of 2022 and for the trailing 12 months (TTM) was almost 11%.

Looks like the grid will have to expand in line with usage over time, like it's always done successfully (and unsuccessfully). And we need to incrementally get our grid shit together over the next 30 years.

Granted, EV sales are kind of currently rocketing upward, but as it stands today in 2022, at a 1% share of vehicles, I'd say EV's are a net zero burden on the current grid.

As an aside, if anyone really wants to get freaked out by resource burdens/constraints, EV's impact on the grid issues are minuscule in comparison to the biggy: Water. I have a close friend who is the director of a major metro municipal water dept in the US. S/he goes around the country and the world in fact giving talks regarding the system, resources, treatment, conservation, etc. as it's considered one of the best around. To hear him/her talk about the water issues we're facing in the next 25 years, not just globally, but in the US too, sends shivers down your spine.

Yes and thatz the world Biden wants in 30 years.  Which means uograding needed to start 10 years ago.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on September 05, 2022, 07:12:48 AM
My point being that the grid buckling under the weight of EVs is not something to be all that worried about.

It's almost like you just made this up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/10/13/electric-vehicles-grid-upgrade/

The only places saying the grid will be fine are, coincidentally, EV blogs where no one in the room has a degree in power engineering. Every time I watch power engineers talk about the grid at conferences, they look nervous as all hell and say the grid needs massive upgrades, then I hear politicians and environmental morons say "don't worry about it". Who do you think I'm going to believe? It's not coincidence that the same people saying it's "not something to be all that worried about" are the same people who know absolutely nothing about electrical power.

My goodness.  You act like the grid is some kind of otherworldly entity that has been gifted to us by aliens and as such as may never touch it or leave it as is.

I assure you this is not the case.  We regularly upgraded it for whatever need arises and I'm sure your power engineer friends will back me up on this, grumble as they might for having to do work.

FYI, I do know something about power.  And when I saw that, I'm being modest.

Rushy is right tho.
Its a massive undertaking that most electrical companies don't want to do unless they have to.  Not to mention building more power plants and that cost.

America has been dragging its feet on upgrades for decades because its not profitable to do so.  Instead of planning ahead and doing it before its needed.

Having alot of EVs at once is a big power need and will cause issues if the grid isn't ready.

I must disagree with the severity of the undertaking. 

There are about 2.32 million evs in the US.  The average distance they drive is 14263 miles in a year = 33,090,160,000.

At 330 wats per mision that's 10,919,752,800 kwh vs the grid's output of 4.12 trillion kwh. 

So currently EVs overall draw less than a percent of the grid.  Increase the number of EVs to 100% of passenger vehicles and the load would be 5%.

I think some of the confusion might be coming from comparing EV power draws to residential sources.  Residential makes up a relatively minor pie of the power grid.

I admit.  It is 1 in the morning and its easily possible that my numbers are wrong.  Feel free to correct me.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on September 05, 2022, 08:46:48 AM
My point being that the grid buckling under the weight of EVs is not something to be all that worried about.

It's almost like you just made this up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/10/13/electric-vehicles-grid-upgrade/

The only places saying the grid will be fine are, coincidentally, EV blogs where no one in the room has a degree in power engineering. Every time I watch power engineers talk about the grid at conferences, they look nervous as all hell and say the grid needs massive upgrades, then I hear politicians and environmental morons say "don't worry about it". Who do you think I'm going to believe? It's not coincidence that the same people saying it's "not something to be all that worried about" are the same people who know absolutely nothing about electrical power.

My goodness.  You act like the grid is some kind of otherworldly entity that has been gifted to us by aliens and as such as may never touch it or leave it as is.

I assure you this is not the case.  We regularly upgraded it for whatever need arises and I'm sure your power engineer friends will back me up on this, grumble as they might for having to do work.

FYI, I do know something about power.  And when I saw that, I'm being modest.

Rushy is right tho.
Its a massive undertaking that most electrical companies don't want to do unless they have to.  Not to mention building more power plants and that cost.

America has been dragging its feet on upgrades for decades because its not profitable to do so.  Instead of planning ahead and doing it before its needed.

Having alot of EVs at once is a big power need and will cause issues if the grid isn't ready.

I must disagree with the severity of the undertaking. 

There are about 2.32 million evs in the US.  The average distance they drive is 14263 miles in a year = 33,090,160,000.

At 330 wats per mision that's 10,919,752,800 kwh vs the grid's output of 4.12 trillion kwh. 

So currently EVs overall draw less than a percent of the grid.  Increase the number of EVs to 100% of passenger vehicles and the load would be 5%.

I think some of the confusion might be coming from comparing EV power draws to residential sources.  Residential makes up a relatively minor pie of the power grid.

I admit.  It is 1 in the morning and its easily possible that my numbers are wrong.  Feel free to correct me.

The problem isn't now.
The problem is in 20 years when its 200 million EVs.
Also you're looking at the entire grid as a whole.  You can't.  Power in New York can't go to California.  So you need to take each area.
Then look at peak power, like summers.  Air conditioners use a ton of power, which already stress the grid.
Percentages aren't what ya need to look it, its load.

Here's california, live grid usage.
https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx

It actually hits capacity around 6pm.
Which is whwn people start plugging in EVs to charge.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on September 05, 2022, 02:26:08 PM
Ah. So a localized grid problem. That I can believe. Some states grids are better than others.

But like the good book says, all grids are upgradeable through christ Jesus.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on September 05, 2022, 08:10:43 PM
The problem isn't now.
The problem is in 20 years when its 200 million EVs.

Same issue at the turn of the last century, the advent of electricity in general, proliferation of electric light. We'll stumble to make it work like we always have.

Here's california, live grid usage.
https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx

It actually hits capacity around 6pm.
Which is whwn people start plugging in EVs to charge.

I've never seen that link, thx.

8/22:
California already has the largest zero-emission car market in the country, with more than 1.13 million plug-in vehicles registered across the state. Nationally there are about 2.64 million. That means California accounts for 43% of the nation's plug-in cars.

CA:
12.5%
New Plug-in Electric Car Share - 2021


Apparently, here's what might be what we need to do infrastructure-wise:

Scott Painter is the CEO and founder of Autonomy, an electric vehicle subscription app. He says expanding DC charging stations will help because they are battery-powered and charge a vehicle in minutes.

"So when you go and charge at a DC fast-charging station you are not putting load on the grid so that's going to be by far the most responsible way for EV owners to lighten the load on the grid," said Painter.

The California legislature has made it a goal to have 10,000 DC fast charging stations across the state by 2025.


CA will most likely screw up the plan.

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on September 06, 2022, 12:12:47 AM
What they really should have done is pushed for plug in hybrids.  DC fast charging would have been a non issue.  Everyone charging when they get home from work would still be an issue though.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on September 06, 2022, 12:23:31 AM
You should all pray for the EU and Germany as they freeze this winter thanks to Biden. Putin said enough, ty bye bye come again.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on September 06, 2022, 03:08:44 AM
I don't get it. What does Biden have to do with the EU not getting oil/nat gas from Russia this winter?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on September 06, 2022, 02:59:41 PM
I don't get it. What does Biden have to do with the EU not getting oil/nat gas from Russia this winter?

Stick with your science BS as Puttie freezes your kester. Leave foreign policy to NATO forces and the Pedo man.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on September 06, 2022, 03:36:47 PM
I don't get it. What does Biden have to do with the EU not getting oil/nat gas from Russia this winter?

Stick with your science BS as Puttie freezes your kester. Leave foreign policy to NATO forces and the Pedo man.

That doesn't answer the question.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on September 06, 2022, 04:47:06 PM
People talk the smack around here and only know what NASA goons tell them. Minions...

BATTERY POWERED VEHICLES:  The Green New Deal seeks to replace gas guzzling vehicles with battery power to reduce hydro carbon buildup.  This is not a simple matter. Some factors impacting on this green issue:

All world transportation (cars, trucks, planes, boats, trains) account for about 23% of greenhouse gas emissions while vehicles alone contribute about 15%.  There are over 1.45 billion vehicles in the world and less than half of one per cent are electric. There are about 291 million vehicles in the U.S., 20% of the world total, also with only about half of one percent electric.  Point being, we have a long way to go to reach the Paris Agreement goal of, “limiting greenhouse gas emissions by 50 % by 2030”.

Fact:  Increasing the number of EVs is not just a U.S. issue, it is a world issue: 80% of vehicles are outside the U.S.

"One electric car battery, weighs in at about 1000 pounds.  To produce one battery requires digging up and processing about 500,000 pounds of raw materials such as cadmium, cobalt, lead, lithium, and nickel. For example, for some of these type materials, the end product is about one half of one percent of the weight of the material dug out of the ground.

Here is the magnitude of the problem: To power 50% of the world’s vehicles by batteries, we would have to dig up, transport and process about 175 billion tons of earth’s materials. Currently, electric car battery life is about ten years and then we need to dig another 175 billion tons, and again and again and that is just to power half the cars."

https://wethepeoplespeaking.com/2022/06/12/lithium-how-much-for-how-long/

EV cars don't work for anything reasonable...Just look at Musk. My daughter has one of his shitty cars and regrets it.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on September 06, 2022, 06:14:16 PM
I don't get it. What does Biden have to do with the EU not getting oil/nat gas from Russia this winter?

Stick with your science BS as Puttie freezes your kester. Leave foreign policy to NATO forces and the Pedo man.

I still don't get it. What does Biden and/or science BS have to do with the EU not getting oil/nat gas from Russia this winter?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on September 06, 2022, 06:36:16 PM
This is Hilarious.  Biden is the Extremist !

https://rumble.com/v1itg18-extremism.html
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on September 06, 2022, 06:40:36 PM
I wish Biden was an extremist.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on September 06, 2022, 06:46:20 PM
I don't get it. What does Biden have to do with the EU not getting oil/nat gas from Russia this winter?

Stick with your science BS as Puttie freezes your kester. Leave foreign policy to NATO forces and the Pedo man.

I still don't get it. What does Biden and/or science BS have to do with the EU not getting oil/nat gas from Russia this winter?

Try to follow the bouncing ball. According to this NATO has been in Ukraine since 2014 and to start a civil war with Russia in Donbass. Bingo.

Now ask yourself is Biden NATO man?

https://rumble.com/v1ism72-they-finally-admitted-it.html
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on September 06, 2022, 07:01:56 PM
I don't get it. What does Biden have to do with the EU not getting oil/nat gas from Russia this winter?

Stick with your science BS as Puttie freezes your kester. Leave foreign policy to NATO forces and the Pedo man.

I still don't get it. What does Biden and/or science BS have to do with the EU not getting oil/nat gas from Russia this winter?

Try to follow the bouncing ball. According to this NATO has been in Ukraine since 2014 and to start a civil war with Russia in Donbass. Bingo.

In April 2014, demonstrations by pro-Russian groups in the Donbas escalated into a war between the Armed Forces of Ukraine and Russian-backed separatists of the self-declared Donetsk and Luhansk republics, backed by Russian political and special-forces personnel and deniable military advisors.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on September 06, 2022, 07:12:15 PM
follow the bouncing ball...russia invaded with peace keepers in 2022

were not talking 2014 fighting..that was coup shit going on
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on September 06, 2022, 07:21:43 PM
russia invaded

Uh, excuse me, but Russia didn't invade anyone. They're conducting a special military operation and were invited. I've deducted 200 points from your account for this mishap, Ivan, don't let it happen again.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on September 06, 2022, 08:16:12 PM
what a loser

https://twitter.com/i/status/1566230943693676544
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on September 06, 2022, 08:21:12 PM
what a loser

https://twitter.com/i/status/1566230943693676544

Remember when MAGATs used this as a
Sure metric of Trumps imminent re-election? Yeah me too. Trump still hasn’t won a popular vote and couldn’t steal the 2020 election.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on September 06, 2022, 08:22:43 PM
Biden supporters are busy at work tending to their careers and contributing to society. Trump supporters don't want to work and want to party all day at rallies. Sad!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on September 06, 2022, 08:38:10 PM
Pretty obvious now Biden won nothing. The election is all the swing states was stolen by machines, hand votes and mules dropping illegal ballots.

We all now know that here in the USSA it's been going on for 10+ years.

Great Country....

 
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on September 06, 2022, 08:40:59 PM
If only we had honest elections decided by the people of the nation, just like Russia.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on September 06, 2022, 08:41:48 PM
We should play this here, reminds me of 1973 being a registered independent sitting next to Hanoi Jane, Lord she smelled good.

Everything was a lie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kwc-XBjl1tc&t=242s
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on September 06, 2022, 08:41:53 PM
Actually NO, Trump won by the landslide. The proof now is floating in and forming. Many will go to jail now and the majority will not seat Biden as President now. Big Fraud with Dominion and other countries with internet hooked machines.

How many have been jailed?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on September 06, 2022, 08:46:30 PM
Actually NO, Trump won by the landslide. The proof now is floating in and forming. Many will go to jail now and the majority will not seat Biden as President now. Big Fraud with Dominion and other countries with internet hooked machines.

How many have been jailed?
Seriously? you missed the raid on Barrons bedroom? some sick F's
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on September 06, 2022, 08:59:18 PM
Biden is on tilt and the news agencies are supporting these threats to Americans

https://www.bnc24.com/en/lead-news/2022/09/04/news/6365/

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/08/31/joe-biden-threatens-political-enemies-f-15-jets/
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on September 06, 2022, 09:31:42 PM
what a loser

https://twitter.com/i/status/1566230943693676544

Remember when MAGATs used this as a
Sure metric of Trumps imminent re-election? Yeah me too. Trump still hasn’t won a popular vote and couldn’t steal the 2020 election.

Trump rented out a stadium, housing probably 50,000 people capacity.  And charged for tickets.

Biden went to a local school gym.  Which probably has a max occupancy if 1,000 or less.
Biden went grass roots, talking directly to the people, Trump whined to a live studio audience.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on September 07, 2022, 01:19:08 AM
Kudlow nails it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmcwR5gEAdQ
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on September 07, 2022, 01:31:03 AM
At least Biden doesn't blab national security secrets to our adversaries.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on September 07, 2022, 04:34:16 AM
As I said in the Trump thread, Republicans and high-profile, mainstream conservatives insult and slander Democrats, Democratic voters, working-class people, and people who simply live in Democratic areas all the time. It's not just Trump; it's a ton of Republicans that do it, and they do it regularly. Here's Ted Cruz just the other day:

https://boingboing.net/2022/08/29/ted-cruz-thinks-student-loan-debt-makes-you-a-slacker-with-a-bong.html

Even though there was some deserved backlash to this comment, you probably didn't hear about this on the news. It's partially because the mainstream media is numb to the general level of crudeness from Republicans by now, and it's partially because they've enabled the major double standard that Democrats are the ones who have a problem with insulting and disrespecting their fellow Americans, despite the fact that the vast majority of insults, abuse, and lies come from the other side of the aisle. It's why we still hear about how upset Republicans were by Hillary's "deplorables" comment and how it was such a huge gaffe that it cost her the election and why can't Democrats learn from it and blah blah blah, while Republicans and Fox News continuing to talk about how Democrats are pedophiles and are currently burning down major cities goes unchallenged. The same thing applies in this case. There is nothing that Biden said in his speech that wasn't considerably more measured, nuanced, and factual than the torrent of abuse Republicans regularly pour on Democrats and the residents of Democrat-run areas. Yes, Trumpism is a threat to American democracy. Trump and his followers want to put themselves in power and pass laws to ensure they'll never lose power. They look towards Hungary under Viktor Orbán as a model for what America should be. That is a disastrous, fundamentally anti-democratic, and yes, fascist agenda to pursue, and it deserves to be called out for what it is. If that offends you, then you deserve to be offended.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on September 07, 2022, 01:31:30 PM
you missed the raid on Barrons bedroom?

Is there a valid reason that any room in MaL should have been excluded from the scope of the search warrant?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on September 11, 2022, 02:41:19 AM
Target the Trumper's...go get em Joe
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Fortuna on September 11, 2022, 03:45:15 AM
As I said in the Trump thread, Republicans and high-profile, mainstream conservatives insult and slander Democrats, Democratic voters, working-class people, and people who simply live in Democratic areas all the time. It's not just Trump; it's a ton of Republicans that do it, and they do it regularly. Here's Ted Cruz just the other day:

https://boingboing.net/2022/08/29/ted-cruz-thinks-student-loan-debt-makes-you-a-slacker-with-a-bong.html

Even though there was some deserved backlash to this comment, you probably didn't hear about this on the news. It's partially because the mainstream media is numb to the general level of crudeness from Republicans by now, and it's partially because they've enabled the major double standard that Democrats are the ones who have a problem with insulting and disrespecting their fellow Americans, despite the fact that the vast majority of insults, abuse, and lies come from the other side of the aisle. It's why we still hear about how upset Republicans were by Hillary's "deplorables" comment and how it was such a huge gaffe that it cost her the election and why can't Democrats learn from it and blah blah blah, while Republicans and Fox News continuing to talk about how Democrats are pedophiles and are currently burning down major cities goes unchallenged. The same thing applies in this case. There is nothing that Biden said in his speech that wasn't considerably more measured, nuanced, and factual than the torrent of abuse Republicans regularly pour on Democrats and the residents of Democrat-run areas. Yes, Trumpism is a threat to American democracy. Trump and his followers want to put themselves in power and pass laws to ensure they'll never lose power. They look towards Hungary under Viktor Orbán as a model for what America should be. That is a disastrous, fundamentally anti-democratic, and yes, fascist agenda to pursue, and it deserves to be called out for what it is. If that offends you, then you deserve to be offended.

It's progressives and woke culture that are at fault for riling people up to vote for Trump. We'd have our electric cars and renewable energy goals on track to being met if it wasn't for the whole anti-white crusade that progressives have been propagating for the last several years. They tried to change the culture too quickly.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on September 11, 2022, 04:53:37 AM
It's progressives and woke culture that are at fault for riling people up to vote for Trump. We'd have our electric cars and renewable energy goals on track to being met if it wasn't for the whole anti-white crusade that progressives have been propagating for the last several years. They tried to change the culture too quickly.

Those BLACKS wanted too much!  TOO FAST!  Let's get 'em!

-Fortuna, probably
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Fortuna on September 11, 2022, 07:10:18 AM
I can't read, apparently.

Progressives like you only care about black people as far as they will help you win points against conservatives. If there is a moral totem pole, you're on the lowest rung.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Iceman on September 11, 2022, 11:24:54 AM
Totem poles fall over if the lower rungs aren’t strong. Epic gotcha
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on September 11, 2022, 02:17:41 PM
As I said in the Trump thread, Republicans and high-profile, mainstream conservatives insult and slander Democrats, Democratic voters, working-class people, and people who simply live in Democratic areas all the time. It's not just Trump; it's a ton of Republicans that do it, and they do it regularly. Here's Ted Cruz just the other day:

https://boingboing.net/2022/08/29/ted-cruz-thinks-student-loan-debt-makes-you-a-slacker-with-a-bong.html

Even though there was some deserved backlash to this comment, you probably didn't hear about this on the news. It's partially because the mainstream media is numb to the general level of crudeness from Republicans by now, and it's partially because they've enabled the major double standard that Democrats are the ones who have a problem with insulting and disrespecting their fellow Americans, despite the fact that the vast majority of insults, abuse, and lies come from the other side of the aisle. It's why we still hear about how upset Republicans were by Hillary's "deplorables" comment and how it was such a huge gaffe that it cost her the election and why can't Democrats learn from it and blah blah blah, while Republicans and Fox News continuing to talk about how Democrats are pedophiles and are currently burning down major cities goes unchallenged. The same thing applies in this case. There is nothing that Biden said in his speech that wasn't considerably more measured, nuanced, and factual than the torrent of abuse Republicans regularly pour on Democrats and the residents of Democrat-run areas. Yes, Trumpism is a threat to American democracy. Trump and his followers want to put themselves in power and pass laws to ensure they'll never lose power. They look towards Hungary under Viktor Orbán as a model for what America should be. That is a disastrous, fundamentally anti-democratic, and yes, fascist agenda to pursue, and it deserves to be called out for what it is. If that offends you, then you deserve to be offended.

It's progressives and woke culture that are at fault for riling people up to vote for Trump. We'd have our electric cars and renewable energy goals on track to being met if it wasn't for the whole anti-white crusade that progressives have been propagating for the last several years. They tried to change the culture too quickly.
,
Ladies and gentlemen, the inherent racism of the average Republican, laid bare.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on September 11, 2022, 04:37:11 PM
Is racism a moral wrong no matter what or is it possible to scientifically support an argument such that racism is deemed acceptable?

The former is a moral debate and simply opinion. The latter is far more interesting. For example, do you hypothesize that the race of a person doesn't impact the outcome of their actions? If so, by what evidence?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on September 11, 2022, 05:01:39 PM
Is racism a moral wrong no matter what or is it possible to scientifically support an argument such that racism is deemed acceptable?

The former is a moral debate and simply opinion. The latter is far more interesting. For example, do you hypothesize that the race of a person doesn't impact the outcome of their actions? If so, by what evidence?
Humans (and a lesser extent dogs) are too complex, mentally, to follow set behavoral patters based on race.  Simply put, such patterns don't exist.

Wild animals, however, are another matter.  Some domesticated one as well like cows or sheep.  Very predictable and its easy to say that "Yes this is a cow and its dosile" because cows have been bred that way and nearly all cows are docile as a reault
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on September 11, 2022, 05:07:20 PM
Humans (and a lesser extent dogs) are too complex, mentally, to follow set behavoral patters based on race.  Simply put, such patterns don't exist.

By what evidence do you state this? In order to say this, you must vigorously research the subject. However, vigorous research on racial patterns is taboo and avoided. I don't see how there exists such a large amount of research to say definitively "the pattern does not exist".

Wild animals, however, are another matter.  Some domesticated one as well like cows or sheep.  Very predictable and its easy to say that "Yes this is a cow and its dosile" because cows have been bred that way and nearly all cows are docile as a reault

How is a human that much more complex than an animal when such a vast majority of our DNA is shared between them?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on September 11, 2022, 05:14:33 PM
Also, I want to expand a bit: if it were rigorously, scientifically shown that a specific group of people are, say, 70% more likely to do violence in their lifetime, is it the government's duty to marginalize them? If some X feature of a person (outside of their control) is shown to predispose them to murder people, should that person be marginalized (or even aborted before they are born)?

Further, would you agree or disagree that aborting a fetus detected to have down syndrome is reasonable?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on September 11, 2022, 06:27:41 PM
Also, I want to expand a bit: if it were rigorously, scientifically shown that a specific group of people are, say, 70% more likely to do violence in their lifetime, is it the government's duty to marginalize them? If some X feature of a person (outside of their control) is shown to predispose them to murder people, should that person be marginalized (or even aborted before they are born)?

Are you suggesting that such a race would be genetically predisposed to violence, or are you describing something that might exist in the real world?

Quote
Further, would you agree or disagree that aborting a fetus detected to have down syndrome is reasonable?

Sure, why not? As long as it's not late term.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on September 11, 2022, 08:53:15 PM
Humans (and a lesser extent dogs) are too complex, mentally, to follow set behavoral patters based on race.  Simply put, such patterns don't exist.

By what evidence do you state this? In order to say this, you must vigorously research the subject. However, vigorous research on racial patterns is taboo and avoided. I don't see how there exists such a large amount of research to say definitively "the pattern does not exist".
True but we have alot of research of psycholoigcal behavior of humans.  As a mixed group, presumably, with seemingly no negative effect on the results.
Tho I will admit that race would be a very hard variable to control as culture influences how we percieve race.  So even if you had two children, one black one white, growing up in the exact same family environemnt, they'll have vastly different experiences with regards to the rest of the world: Media representation, schools, racist people, news, etc... 
So I'd shudder to wonder how you could make any kind of research on the subject.

Quote
Wild animals, however, are another matter.  Some domesticated one as well like cows or sheep.  Very predictable and its easy to say that "Yes this is a cow and its dosile" because cows have been bred that way and nearly all cows are docile as a reault

How is a human that much more complex than an animal when such a vast majority of our DNA is shared between them?
Because it is.
A mouse and a human are very different both psychologically and physcially.  As far as we know, a mouse can't form language or complex thought.  It has no artistic capability.  No desire to build a society, just operate on instinct.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on September 12, 2022, 05:34:58 PM
Are you suggesting that such a race would be genetically predisposed to violence, or are you describing something that might exist in the real world?

I didn't say anything about race, my example could be any number of features outside of a person's control (which does include race, but not exclusively). This includes physical and mental disabilities.

Sure, why not? As long as it's not late term.

Generally speaking, the "why not" is an aversion to eugenics.

True but we have alot of research of psycholoigcal behavior of humans.  As a mixed group, presumably, with seemingly no negative effect on the results.
Tho I will admit that race would be a very hard variable to control as culture influences how we percieve race.  So even if you had two children, one black one white, growing up in the exact same family environemnt, they'll have vastly different experiences with regards to the rest of the world: Media representation, schools, racist people, news, etc... 
So I'd shudder to wonder how you could make any kind of research on the subject.

The point is that, as you've said, there's no way to scientifically verify that race does or doesn't show a pattern. There's a lot of variables involved that we cannot account for (in an ethical manner).

Because it is.
A mouse and a human are very different both psychologically and physcially.  As far as we know, a mouse can't form language or complex thought.  It has no artistic capability.  No desire to build a society, just operate on instinct.

Why is building a society not "operating on instinct"?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on September 24, 2022, 12:50:28 AM
pedo Joe

https://twitter.com/i/status/1573360055407484928
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on September 24, 2022, 03:05:31 AM
pedo Joe

https://twitter.com/i/status/1573360055407484928

Numbers scare you, don’t they?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on September 24, 2022, 03:19:21 AM
It's really sad how you guys would rather twist lines out of context and deliberately misinterpret them rather than argue in good faith and criticize Biden for his actual faults and weaknesses.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on September 24, 2022, 08:27:45 AM
It's really sad how you guys would rather twist lines out of context and deliberately misinterpret them rather than argue in good faith and criticize Biden for his actual faults and weaknesses.

The good things that he's doing outweigh any minor gaffes and mis-speaks. To borrow a self-help book title from years back - "Don't sweat the small stuff". 

The alternative at the moment is fluctuating between Trump and de Santis, which to my mind is a wholly unacceptable alternative.   
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on September 24, 2022, 03:09:53 PM
So sad this country is being run by Bidens handlers. Where's the potty? my diapers are soaked.

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1572695406915604481
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on September 24, 2022, 03:40:13 PM
So sad this country is being run by Bidens handlers. Where's the potty? my diapers are soaked.

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1572695406915604481

Or he really had to leave.  Schedule and all.
This could have also been unscripted.  Ie. That guy thanking him wasn't on the plan so he didn't expect it.

Or he really had to pee.  Because who here hasn't tried to escape when ya gotta pee?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on September 24, 2022, 05:50:14 PM
So sad this country is being run by Bidens handlers. Where's the potty? my diapers are soaked

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FdRYIfaX0AIozfD?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 25, 2022, 10:04:14 AM
People's obsession with Trump's dump truck of an arse is peak politics
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on September 25, 2022, 03:25:20 PM
People's obsession with Trump's dump truck of an arse is peak politics

Wouldn't have mentioned without the previous posts. Why aren't you asking the others why they were "obsessed" with Biden's lavatorial functions?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on September 25, 2022, 04:02:15 PM
People's obsession with Trump's dump truck of an arse is peak politics

Wouldn't have mentioned without the previous posts. Why aren't you asking the others why they were "obsessed" with Biden's lavatorial functions?

You are the literal god of whataboutism
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 25, 2022, 08:04:07 PM
Why aren't you asking the others why they were "obsessed" with Biden's lavatorial functions?
Because it's just one person, and he's completely unhinged. Not worth anyone's time.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tumeni on September 25, 2022, 10:18:09 PM
Why aren't you asking the others why they were "obsessed" with Biden's lavatorial functions?
Because it's just one person, and he's completely unhinged. Not worth anyone's time.

Well, unfortunately that implies you think I'm "worth the time", but if you want to take the attitude that I'm not, and simply walk on by when you see my name, that's fine with me.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on September 26, 2022, 01:59:35 AM
You know he's not going to just ignore your posts. And it's not just you in this case, anyway. I too am fascinated by Trump's enormous ass. He's definitely lost weight since leaving office, but his butt seems to be as robust as ever. Remarkable.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 27, 2022, 07:08:04 AM
Well, unfortunately that implies you think I'm "worth the time"
You really ought to try and process what you read sometime. I commented on the people who are obsessed with Trump's butt, and not the one person that keeps trying to make haha funny poop jokes.

I don't know why you've decided that everything I say is about you, but it isn't.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on September 27, 2022, 06:34:49 PM
I don't know why you've decided that everything I say is about you

It's called narcissism.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on October 05, 2022, 04:09:13 PM

(https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/teaser_desktop_2x/public/2022-10/biden%20yelling.jpg?itok=mfvytGGZ)Biden is such a poopy pants loser, back door deals..try sending in Hunter

https://twitter.com/shellenbergermd/status/1577680926816903168 (https://twitter.com/shellenbergermd/status/1577680926816903168)

In 2020, Democrats blocked Trump's proposal to buy American oil at $24 a barrel.

Yesterday, a Biden official disclosed a secret offer to buy OPEC+ oil at $80 a barrel in exchange for not cutting production.

Biden's efforts backfired. The US is weakened.

=====
The White House is furious.

https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/white-house-panics-prices-rebound-mulls-gasoline-export-ban-blasts-opec-hostile-acts
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on October 05, 2022, 07:39:34 PM

(https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/teaser_desktop_2x/public/2022-10/biden%20yelling.jpg?itok=mfvytGGZ)Biden is such a poopy pants loser, back door deals..try sending in Hunter

https://twitter.com/shellenbergermd/status/1577680926816903168 (https://twitter.com/shellenbergermd/status/1577680926816903168)

In 2020, Democrats blocked Trump's proposal to buy American oil at $24 a barrel.

Yesterday, a Biden official disclosed a secret offer to buy OPEC+ oil at $80 a barrel in exchange for not cutting production.

Biden's efforts backfired. The US is weakened.

=====
The White House is furious.

https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/white-house-panics-prices-rebound-mulls-gasoline-export-ban-blasts-opec-hostile-acts

Yep.  $30 billion dollars which was not in the stimulus package because the democrat minoroty manages to stop the majority republicans from putting it in.
Man, Democrats are POWERFUL.  Even as a minority, they control all.

But given the Strategic reserve was 95 billion barrels short of 714 billion barrels (aka capacity), wasn't a big deal.  And really, did you WANT oil prices to go up?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on October 07, 2022, 06:06:28 PM
"President Joe Biden has directed the Department of Energy to deliver another 10 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to the market next month, they added.

“The President will continue to direct SPR releases as appropriate to protect American consumers and promote energy security, and he is directing the Secretary of Energy to explore any additional responsible actions to continue increasing domestic production in the immediate term.”

[ZH: The SPR is already at a record low 22 days of supply...]"

Biden is such a dumb ass....oil is going to be pushed to $140+ a barrel....better start fracking idiot !!! The reserve is empty come next month. Biden has destroyed Amerika in less than 2 years..Does he know the world is laughing at him? Oh yeah run again sleepy joey. he he

https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/us-preparing-its-response-short-sighted-strategy-opec
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on October 07, 2022, 06:45:30 PM
"President Joe Biden has directed the Department of Energy to deliver another 10 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to the market next month, they added.

“The President will continue to direct SPR releases as appropriate to protect American consumers and promote energy security, and he is directing the Secretary of Energy to explore any additional responsible actions to continue increasing domestic production in the immediate term.”

[ZH: The SPR is already at a record low 22 days of supply...]"

Biden is such a dumb ass....oil is going to be pushed to $140+ a barrel....better start fracking idiot !!! The reserve is empty come next month. Biden has destroyed Amerika in less than 2 years..Does he know the world is laughing at him? Oh yeah run again sleepy joey. he he

https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/us-preparing-its-response-short-sighted-strategy-opec
This is not a shock.
Most of the country is bitching for him to do something to lower gas prices and his power is very limited on that.  America doesn't own oil companies.  He can't arbitrarily lower prices.

What he's doing is trying to create less demand while flooding the market.  Not his fault Saudi Arabia wants to keep oil prices high.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on October 07, 2022, 08:48:23 PM
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/10/06/oil-dispute-prompts-call-remove-us-troops-saudi-arabia-uae.html

I don't know how serious they are about this but I really want to see this happen.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on October 07, 2022, 09:10:30 PM
"President Joe Biden has directed the Department of Energy to deliver another 10 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to the market next month, they added.

Isn't that what a "Reserve" is for? Hence the word, 'Reserve'.

And US Oil production is up 5.2%.

And this 22 days of supply is by no means a "record low". Where do you get your erroneous info from?

(https://i.imgur.com/DYD0jRH.png)

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rama Set on October 08, 2022, 02:39:39 PM
https://www.thedailybeast.com/biden-calls-out-socialist-republicans-now-begging-for-money-from-program-they-voted-down

But really is anyone surprised?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on October 08, 2022, 02:49:05 PM
https://www.thedailybeast.com/biden-calls-out-socialist-republicans-now-begging-for-money-from-program-they-voted-down

But really is anyone surprised?

Oh good, both the Democrats and Republicans in America can be confirmed to not know what socialism is. Reminds me of when Bernie Sanders tried to say Sweden was a socialist nation. Why are American politicians this stupid? Is it something in the water?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on October 08, 2022, 03:15:24 PM
https://www.thedailybeast.com/biden-calls-out-socialist-republicans-now-begging-for-money-from-program-they-voted-down

But really is anyone surprised?

Oh good, both the Democrats and Republicans in America can be confirmed to not know what socialism is. Reminds me of when Bernie Sanders tried to say Sweden was a socialist nation. Why are American politicians this stupid? Is it something in the water?

Think he'll deny the requests from anyone who voted down the bill?  Just out of spite?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on October 24, 2022, 02:02:12 AM
seriously brain dead

https://twitter.com/i/status/1584325204485894144
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on October 24, 2022, 04:25:42 PM
seriously brain dead

https://twitter.com/i/status/1584325204485894144

Seems that way, yeah.
I saw the context and its in context.  He said he signed a law that got by by a few votes.
And thus, he lied.  Or mixed up a law.  Dunno which
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on October 24, 2022, 04:39:49 PM
Yep.  Another senior moment. 
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on October 24, 2022, 05:06:21 PM
But he was such a better choice than Bernie. ::)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: crutonius on October 24, 2022, 06:13:50 PM
To be honest I usually avoid his speeches.  Every time he pauses for a little too long and has that look like he's trying to remember where he is I have a panic attack that the rise of President Harris is imminent.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: beardo on October 25, 2022, 09:24:46 AM
That would actually be worse. Imagine becoming president and your only qualifications are you're black and female.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on October 25, 2022, 09:19:25 PM
To be honest I usually avoid his speeches.  Every time he pauses for a little too long and has that look like he's trying to remember where he is I have a panic attack that the rise of President Harris is imminent.
Being a stutterer, he's probably looking for an easier word when he pauses like that.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on November 02, 2022, 06:13:06 PM
https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden-mocked-claiming-there-54-states-this-guy-completely-senile

Biden mocked for claiming there are ’54 states’: ‘This guy is completely senile’


Bring on Mrs. Kackel
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on November 02, 2022, 06:51:18 PM
https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden-mocked-claiming-there-54-states-this-guy-completely-senile

Biden mocked for claiming there are ’54 states’: ‘This guy is completely senile’


Bring on Mrs. Kackel

I hate when they cut it off right after.  As though he corrected himself and they didn't want that.

Also, was he referring to the US territories?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on November 02, 2022, 07:25:38 PM
The media just loves a soundbite. All factions, persuasions, left or right, are guilty of this. In any case, I just watched the whole speech. He spoke for 33 minutes and that's the only gaff I saw. He was pretty fiery at points and seemed genuinely lucid.

54 states gaff at 01:49:27

https://youtu.be/3Eso9YOozjk
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on November 02, 2022, 08:41:59 PM
Oh no, Biden, a man known for his frequent verbal slip-ups, had a verbal slip-up. This changes everything.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on November 02, 2022, 09:34:24 PM
Biden mocked for claiming there are ’54 states’: ‘This guy is completely senile’
I've asked some young people how many states there are in the US and have gotten some pretty scary answers. 

BTW, the correct answer is 46.  Massachusetts, Kentucky, Virginia and Pennsylvania are commonwealths.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on November 02, 2022, 11:14:02 PM
Biden mocked for claiming there are ’54 states’: ‘This guy is completely senile’
I've asked some young people how many states there are in the US and have gotten some pretty scary answers. 

BTW, the correct answer is 46.  Massachusetts, Kentucky, Virginia and Pennsylvania are commonwealths.

Wrong. Pot, kettle.

https://www.mass.gov/service-details/why-is-massachusetts-a-commonwealth#:~:text=Kentucky%20is%20also%20called%20a,when%20used%20by%20a%20state.

Quote
Commonwealths are states, but the reverse is not true.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on November 03, 2022, 05:56:08 PM
It's clear the dumb ass was thinking 52 cards and 2 jokers.

Where did his son die?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on November 03, 2022, 08:34:03 PM
Where did his son die?

In a hospital.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on November 15, 2022, 07:05:42 PM
Poopy pants didn't make dinner at G20. Now thats a world leader.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: J-Man on November 15, 2022, 07:18:01 PM
(https://mf.b37mrtl.ru/files/2022.11/xxl/636f6bad85f54006ac67d37c.jpg)

I Love You MAN, can I sniff your hair now?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on April 07, 2023, 09:40:14 PM
Just asking...

Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?

Brandon's daughter did...
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on April 07, 2023, 11:22:44 PM
Just asking...

Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?

Brandon's daughter did...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-afraid/

Oops. Guess not. Isn't it funny how many people will believe and circulate anything they read on the internet if it enforces their silly worldview?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on April 08, 2023, 06:46:11 AM
Just asking...

Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?

Brandon's daughter did...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-afraid/

Oops. Guess not. Isn't it funny how many people will believe and circulate anything they read on the internet if it enforces their silly worldview?
Well, as there is no evidence the AI at snopes have any regard for facts, I'll stick with good ole Brandon for any testimony.

"Children love to rub my hairy legs," - President Brandon

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on April 08, 2023, 08:48:37 AM
Just asking...

Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?

Brandon's daughter did...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-afraid/

Oops. Guess not. Isn't it funny how many people will believe and circulate anything they read on the internet if it enforces their silly worldview?
Its frighting, i think.
If a single little sentence or two is enough to get thousands to believe, imagine what an AI generated lies could do?

http://smbc-comics.com/comic/words-3

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on April 08, 2023, 11:42:41 AM
Just asking...

Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?

Brandon's daughter did...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-afraid/

Oops. Guess not. Isn't it funny how many people will believe and circulate anything they read on the internet if it enforces their silly worldview?
Its frighting, i think.
If a single little sentence or two is enough to get thousands to believe, imagine what an AI generated lies could do?

http://smbc-comics.com/comic/words-3
AI is what you get from "fact checkers," and democrats.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on April 08, 2023, 11:46:50 AM
Just asking...

Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?

Brandon's daughter did...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-afraid/

Oops. Guess not. Isn't it funny how many people will believe and circulate anything they read on the internet if it enforces their silly worldview?
Its frighting, i think.
If a single little sentence or two is enough to get thousands to believe, imagine what an AI generated lies could do?

http://smbc-comics.com/comic/words-3
AI is what you get from "fact checkers," and democrats.
Ah, so you aren't a fact checker.  You must be a fact denier.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on April 08, 2023, 01:35:15 PM
Just asking...

Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?

Brandon's daughter did...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-afraid/

Oops. Guess not. Isn't it funny how many people will believe and circulate anything they read on the internet if it enforces their silly worldview?
Its frighting, i think.
If a single little sentence or two is enough to get thousands to believe, imagine what an AI generated lies could do?

http://smbc-comics.com/comic/words-3
AI is what you get from "fact checkers," and democrats.
Ah, so you aren't a fact checker.  You must be a fact denier.

Gee, do you think A69 is a fact denier? I'd have never guessed.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on April 08, 2023, 01:56:03 PM
Just asking...

Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?

Brandon's daughter did...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-afraid/

Oops. Guess not. Isn't it funny how many people will believe and circulate anything they read on the internet if it enforces their silly worldview?
Its frighting, i think.
If a single little sentence or two is enough to get thousands to believe, imagine what an AI generated lies could do?

http://smbc-comics.com/comic/words-3
AI is what you get from "fact checkers," and democrats.
Ah, so you aren't a fact checker.  You must be a fact denier.

Gee, do you think A69 is a fact denier? I'd have never guessed.
It required careful, diligent research. Interviews with his closest friends.  And alot of number crunching. 
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Shane on April 08, 2023, 01:59:34 PM
reality is well known to have a liberal bias.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on April 08, 2023, 02:09:23 PM
Just asking...

Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?

Brandon's daughter did...
Would you care to provide a link to a credible source that supports your claim?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on April 08, 2023, 03:57:30 PM
Just asking...

Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?

Brandon's daughter did...
Would you care to provide a link to a credible source that supports your claim?
Hairy Legs Brandon supports the claim...

"Little kids love to rub my hairy legs...I love kids jumping on my lap", he proudly claimed on the campaign trail...calls Ashley to come up and notice she doesn't respond...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oihV9yrZRHg

Lord Dave and Roundy don't mind if their kids are left alone with him though...

They believe Snopes because it a fount of credibility.

Here is Jeff Sessions doing the right thing...he doesn't want Brandon even thinking about touching his grandaughter...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wULYda4NzdQ

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on April 08, 2023, 04:19:38 PM
Just asking...

Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?

Brandon's daughter did...
Would you care to provide a link to a credible source that supports your claim?
Hairy Legs Brandon supports the claim...

"Little kids love to rub my hairy legs...I love kids jumping on my lap", he proudly claimed on the campaign trail...calls Ashley to come up and notice she doesn't respond...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oihV9yrZRHg

Lord Dave and Roundy don't mind if their kids are left alone with him though...

They believe Snopes because it a fount of credibility.

Here is Jeff Sessions doing the right thing...he doesn't want Brandon even thinking about touching his grandaughter...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wULYda4NzdQ
I wouldn't leave my kids alone with you either.  Guess that means you're a pedo.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on April 08, 2023, 04:29:53 PM
Just asking...

Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?

Brandon's daughter did...
Would you care to provide a link to a credible source that supports your claim?
Hairy Legs Brandon supports the claim...
Wrong claim.  I was talking about the shower claim.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on April 08, 2023, 05:25:26 PM
Just asking...

Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?

Brandon's daughter did...
Would you care to provide a link to a credible source that supports your claim?
Hairy Legs Brandon supports the claim...

"Little kids love to rub my hairy legs...I love kids jumping on my lap", he proudly claimed on the campaign trail...calls Ashley to come up and notice she doesn't respond...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oihV9yrZRHg

Lord Dave and Roundy don't mind if their kids are left alone with him though...

They believe Snopes because it a fount of credibility.

Here is Jeff Sessions doing the right thing...he doesn't want Brandon even thinking about touching his grandaughter...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wULYda4NzdQ
I wouldn't leave my kids alone with you either.  Guess that means you're a pedo.
I wouldn't want your kids anywhere near me, because I guess they come from a family of paedo supporters.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on April 08, 2023, 05:27:31 PM
Just asking...

Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?

Brandon's daughter did...
Would you care to provide a link to a credible source that supports your claim?
Hairy Legs Brandon supports the claim...
Wrong claim.  I was talking about the shower claim.
I guess when you have all sorts of statements from the perp himself, indicating kids are his type of thing, that is evidence to be ignored in the world of penguins.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on April 08, 2023, 05:44:10 PM
Just asking...

Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?

Brandon's daughter did...
Would you care to provide a link to a credible source that supports your claim?
Hairy Legs Brandon supports the claim...
Wrong claim.  I was talking about the shower claim.
I guess when you have all sorts of statements from the perp himself, indicating kids are his type of thing, that is evidence to be ignored in the world of penguins.
So you admit that you have no credible source for the shower claim.  Good to know.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on April 08, 2023, 07:13:39 PM
Just asking...

Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?

Brandon's daughter did...
Would you care to provide a link to a credible source that supports your claim?
Hairy Legs Brandon supports the claim...
Wrong claim.  I was talking about the shower claim.
I guess when you have all sorts of statements from the perp himself, indicating kids are his type of thing, that is evidence to be ignored in the world of penguins.
So you admit that you have no credible source for the shower claim.  Good to know.
I admit you believe Biden isn't credible.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on April 08, 2023, 07:22:54 PM
When did Biden ever say that he did something like that?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on April 08, 2023, 10:00:38 PM
When did Biden ever say that he did something like that?
When did any pedo ever say they ever did something like that?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on April 08, 2023, 10:27:06 PM
When did Biden ever say that he did something like that?
When did any pedo ever say they ever did something like that?

What did you mean when Markjo pointed out that you don't have a credible source for the shower story, and you replied that Markjo doesn't think Biden is credible, if not that Biden said something about it? ???
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on April 08, 2023, 11:13:08 PM
When did Biden ever say that he did something like that?
When did any pedo ever say they ever did something like that?

What did you mean when Markjo pointed out that you don't have a credible source for the shower story, and you replied that Markjo doesn't think Biden is credible, if not that Biden said something about it? ???
I agree.

Pedos aren't credible.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on April 09, 2023, 02:28:42 AM
When did Biden ever say that he did something like that?
When did any pedo ever say they ever did something like that?

What did you mean when Markjo pointed out that you don't have a credible source for the shower story, and you replied that Markjo doesn't think Biden is credible, if not that Biden said something about it? ???
I agree.

Pedos aren't credible.

Do you not get tired constantly posting meaningless non sequiturs all the time?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on April 09, 2023, 02:39:31 AM
This is the online equivalent of muttering something under your breath and immediately responding with "What what?" loudly when someone asks you what you said.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on April 09, 2023, 10:26:29 AM
When did Biden ever say that he did something like that?
When did any pedo ever say they ever did something like that?

What did you mean when Markjo pointed out that you don't have a credible source for the shower story, and you replied that Markjo doesn't think Biden is credible, if not that Biden said something about it? ???
I agree.

Pedos aren't credible.

Do you not get tired constantly posting meaningless non sequiturs all the time?
markjo pointed out what he believes isn't credible, which happens to be in line with your thinking. Given that pretty much constitutes the issue,  and pretty much Brandon admits he loves kids sitting on his lap and rubbing his hairy legs, there you have it.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on April 09, 2023, 03:27:50 PM
We weren't talking about Biden's hairy legs; we were talking about Biden supposedly creeping on his daughter in the shower. Do you have any evidence that's true?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on April 09, 2023, 03:54:30 PM
markjo pointed out what he believes isn't credible, which happens to be in line with your thinking.
Obviously you missed that I was pointing out that I believe that you aren't credible, which I'm fairly sure falls in line with pretty much everyone else's thinking.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on April 09, 2023, 04:02:51 PM
We weren't talking about Biden's hairy legs; we were talking about Biden supposedly creeping on his daughter in the shower. Do you have any evidence that's true?
Yeah, I presented it.

Snopes, a proven lying source claims the thing isn't true. You guys believe the proven lying source

Just take comfort in the fact you believe snopes... No big deal.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on April 09, 2023, 04:05:12 PM
markjo pointed out what he believes isn't credible, which happens to be in line with your thinking.
Obviously you missed that I was pointing out that I believe that you aren't credible, which I'm fairly sure falls in line with pretty much everyone else's thinking.
I know you aren't credible.

Knowing is better than believing.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on April 09, 2023, 04:35:53 PM
markjo pointed out what he believes isn't credible, which happens to be in line with your thinking.
Obviously you missed that I was pointing out that I believe that you aren't credible, which I'm fairly sure falls in line with pretty much everyone else's thinking.
I know you aren't credible.
Come now, you can do better than "I know you are, but what am I?".

Knowing is better than believing.
Being able to provide evidence that supports what you "know" is better yet.  Just calling Snopes unreliable isn't evidence of anything other than your own bias.  Providing a link to a reliable source would be a step in the right direction.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on April 09, 2023, 05:28:09 PM
markjo pointed out what he believes isn't credible, which happens to be in line with your thinking.
Obviously you missed that I was pointing out that I believe that you aren't credible, which I'm fairly sure falls in line with pretty much everyone else's thinking.
I know you aren't credible.
Come now, you can do better than "I know you are, but what am I?".
One always needs to consider the recipient(s) when contemplating effort.

"Don't cast pearls before the swine" comes to mind.
Knowing is better than believing.
Being able to provide evidence that supports what you "know" is better yet.  Just calling Snopes unreliable isn't evidence of anything other than your own bias.  Providing a link to a reliable source would be a step in the right direction.
I did provide evidence.

Offered in counter was a snopes "fact" check...HILARIOUS!

I didn't just call Snopes unreliable. Snopes has been proven to lie.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on April 09, 2023, 06:03:11 PM
You mean this?

Just asking...

Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?

Brandon's daughter did...

This is neither evidence nor a source. It's just an accusation. We're asking if you have evidence to support this accusation.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on April 09, 2023, 06:12:01 PM
You mean this?

Just asking...

Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?

Brandon's daughter did...

This is neither evidence nor a source. It's just an accusation. We're asking if you have evidence to support this accusation.

Wow. I really don't think he understands the difference lol
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on April 09, 2023, 07:05:52 PM
I did provide evidence.

Offered in counter was a snopes "fact" check...HILARIOUS!
You seem to have a strange idea of what "evidence" means.

I didn't just call Snopes unreliable. Snopes has been proven to lie.
That's weird.  Snopes is widely considered to be quite reliable.
Quote from: https://credibilitycoalition.org/credcatalog/project/snopes/
“Snopes got its start in 1994, investigating urban legends, hoaxes, and folklore. Founder David Mikkelson, later joined by his wife, was publishing online before most people were connected to the internet. As demand for reliable fact checks grew, so did Snopes. Now it’s the oldest and largest fact-checking site online, widely regarded by journalists, folklorists, and readers as an invaluable research companion.” (Source: Organization/Initiative Website)

Quote from: https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/2012/09/28/fact-check-so-whos-checking-fact-finders-we-are/984146007/
Although Snopes.com could do a better job of linking to sources within its stories, it does list its sources, so it is easy to confirm accuracy.

Now it's your turn to post a link where Snopes has been proven to lie.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2023, 07:51:45 PM
Snopes regularly lies. For example, the site tried to deny the basic fact that Hillary Clinton defended a child rapist and was later heard laughing about the case in an audiotape
- https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/31/bye-bye-snopes-youre-dead-to-me-now/

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on April 09, 2023, 08:11:11 PM
Snopes regularly lies. For example, the site tried to deny the basic fact that Hillary Clinton defended a child rapist and was later heard laughing about the case in an audiotape
- https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/31/bye-bye-snopes-youre-dead-to-me-now/
One questionable variance.
Got another?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on April 09, 2023, 08:22:09 PM
Notice how the article cited references to show that she did laugh about the case. That's the part that A69 is missing here.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on April 09, 2023, 08:38:49 PM
Oh no, she laughed about how inaccurate polygraphs are or how she had to get info from some guy.
Heaven forbid!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on April 09, 2023, 09:03:37 PM
Snopes regularly lies. For example, the site tried to deny the basic fact that Hillary Clinton defended a child rapist and was later heard laughing about the case in an audiotape
- https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/31/bye-bye-snopes-youre-dead-to-me-now/
Where in the Snopes article did they try to deny that Clintion defended a child rapist or that she laughed about certain aspects of the case?  Seems to me that your link is just a different interpretation of the facts presented.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on April 09, 2023, 09:45:41 PM
After reading that article twice, I still don't understand exactly what Snopes was supposedly lying about. It's mostly just splitting hairs about wording choices and weird assertions like this:

Quote
Then Snopes tries equivocation, saying that Clinton didn’t laugh about the outcome of the case. I see: she laughed (three times!) while talking about the case, but wasn’t laughing about the case’s outcome, just…the case.

Ridiculous.

How is that ridiculous? It's clearly what happened, and an entirely relevant point to make when the meme it was responding to was making out that Hillary was pleased or amused by a child rapist being acquitted.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2023, 11:19:57 PM
The lie is right here:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

Quote from: Snopes
(https://i.imgur.com/GCyetOM.png)

...

(https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2016/05/The_Hillary_Clinton_Tapes_-_YouTube2.jpg)

She is clearly laughing about the case there. She defended a child rapist, got him a lighter plea deal, and laughed about how he passed the polygraph, which destroyed her faith in polygraphs.

The Snopes argument is goalpost moving and making absurdist arguments without evidence that she wasn't laughing because she believed he was guilty, and was laughing about a different aspect of the case:

Quote from: Snopes
She did audibly laugh or chuckle at points, not about "knowing that the defendant was guilty" or "getting a guilty guy off" (which makes little sense, given that the defendant pled guilty) but rather while musing about how elements of the case that might ordinarily have supported the prosecution worked in the defendant's favor (i.e., observing that the defendant's passing a polygraph test had "forever destroyed her faith" in that technology)

How does Snopes know what she was laughing about? What evidence is there that Hillary wasn't laughing because she thought he was guilty and was actually laughing about something else?

Regardless, what she was laughing about in the case is irrelevant to the fact that she was laughing about the case.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: garygreen on April 10, 2023, 12:23:45 AM
hillary clinton caught LAUGHING this is epic

just out of curiosity, is the implication supposed to be that she thinks the sexual abuse of children is funny?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on April 10, 2023, 12:54:32 AM
Lots of interesting twists and turns in the Shelton case. All is not what it seems to appear. Sheltons recollections are a little all over the place - Part of the reason why the defendant got the plea deal to begin with. Documented in this WaPo article from 2016:

The facts about Hillary Clinton and the Kathy Shelton rape case (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/11/the-facts-about-hillary-clinton-and-the-kathy-shelton-rape-case/)

One bit here regarding the actual "laughing" audio tapes in question recorded for the unpublished interview with Arkansas reporter Roy Reed. Take note of Reed's assessment in the Update:

Shelton’s ire had risen with the 2014 discovery of previously unpublished audio recordings of Clinton discussing the case in the mid-1980s with Arkansas reporter Roy Reed for an article that was never published.

In the recorded interview, Clinton is heard laughing or giggling four times when discussing the case with unusual candor; the reporter is also heard laughing, and sometimes Clinton is responding to him.

[Update: Reed in an interview published Oct. 12 denied that Clinton was laughing at Shelton. “As far as her laughing, God knows she was not laughing over the notion that this rapist was going to go free," said Reed. “I challenge any fair-minded reader of that transcript to make a case that Hillary Rodham was a coldblooded lawyer who was laughing over the plight of the 12-year-old rape victim."]


I'm going to go with the guy, the reporter/interviewer, who was actually there and his assessment rather than some rando guy's blog opinion with a site called "Ethics Alarms", tagline, An ethics commentary blog on current events and issues.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 10, 2023, 01:01:59 AM
That interviewer isn't denying that she was laughing at the case. That is an argument about what she was specifically laughing about in regards to the case. That she was laughing in relation to the case and what she was laughing about are a different discussions altogether.

Whatever it was about "He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs." she apparently found funny. Arguing about what she specifically found funny is a different discussion than her laughing about the case. Again, this is goal post moving. The claim was that she laughed about the case, which she did, regardless of whatever inane argument you want to make about what she was laughing about.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on April 10, 2023, 01:17:21 AM
.
Again, this is goal post moving.

Not really. The insinuation was that she was laughing about the fact that she got a child rapist off (really a lighter sentence, but it's easy to assume otherwise if you don't know better, and it's not the case anyway). That's not the case, and whatever you think about the semantics of it it's a significant distinction that's worth making clear.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 10, 2023, 01:54:07 AM
Laughing at "He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs." to me implies that she found the idea of her guilty child molester client passing a polygraph to be funny.

It is impossible to know what she was "really" laughing at. But the claim as it was written was that she laughed about the case, which she clearly did. The verdict should be True with an asterisk that leftist liberals may justify it as her laughing at something that doesn't make her look like a callous fiend.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on April 10, 2023, 01:55:36 AM
Again, this is goal post moving. The claim was that she laughed about the case, which she did, regardless of whatever inane argument you want to make about what she was laughing about.

Speaking of moving the goal posts, here are the actual claims that the Snopes article is fact checking:
(https://mediaproxy.snopes.com/width/1200/https://media.snopes.com/2016/05/clinton-rape-meme.jpg)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 10, 2023, 02:10:54 AM
The details of that are generally true. Snopes goes on of a leftist rambling rampage to nitpick about the terminology used. "Volunteered" vs. "appointed and accepted", Clinton "knew" he was guilty vs. Clinton "believed" he was guilty. Clinton laughed about it vs. she was laughing about something tangential that doesn't make her look bad.

Clearly, this is more of an editorial site than a "fact check" site. Snopes internet editors interpreting for us what she is laughing about is not a "fact". It's an example of why Snopes is a bad source.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on April 10, 2023, 07:13:07 AM
The details of that are generally true. Snopes goes on of a leftist rambling rampage to nitpick about the terminology used. "Volunteered" vs. "appointed and accepted",

Wouldn't that make the meme nitpicking as well? Because, you know, "volunteering" is really the same thing as "appointed", right?

I don't think that's nitpicking at all. The assertion is that she willfully "volunteered" for the case which has a connotation that she gleefully raised her hand to defend a 42 year old rapist of a 12 year old girl.
(https://i.imgur.com/8SZHKZD.png)

Flip the script. What if the statement read:
(https://i.imgur.com/49RQsgG.jpg)     
To me this reads as because the defendant demanded a female lawyer as opposed the male he was originally assigned, the judge selected her from a list of female lawyers who defend low income defendants, much like how Public Defenders are assigned cases. So what? Happens all the time. A totally different connotation.           

And specifically as to the "appointed" and especially the "accepted", this from the WaPo (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/11/the-facts-about-hillary-clinton-and-the-kathy-shelton-rape-case/) article:

(The defendant) asked the judge to replace his court-appointed male attorney with a female one. The judge went through the list of a half-dozen women practicing law in the county and picked Clinton. She has said she was not thrilled with the assignment but felt she had little choice but to take the court appointment — which the prosecutor in the case confirmed to CNN (https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/25/prosecutor-in-controversial-case-says-clinton-had-no-choice-but-to-defend-rapist/).

From CNN (https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/25/prosecutor-in-controversial-case-says-clinton-had-no-choice-but-to-defend-rapist/):

Mahlon Gibson (prosecuting attorney in the case) told CNN on Wednesday the then 27-year-old Hillary Rodham (now Clinton) was "appointed" by the judge in the case, even though she voiced reservations...

Gibson said that it is “ridiculous” for people to question how Clinton became Taylor’s representation.

“She got appointed to represent this guy,” he told CNN when asked about the controversy.
According to Gibson, Maupin Cummings, the judge in the case, kept a list of attorneys who would represent poor clients. Clinton was on that list and helped run a legal aid clinic at the time.

Taylor was assigned a public defender in the case but Gibson said he quickly “started screaming for a woman attorney” to represent him.

Gibson said Clinton called him shortly after the judge assigned her to the case and said, “I don't want to represent this guy. I just can't stand this. I don't want to get involved. Can you get me off?”

“I told her, ‘Well contact the judge and see what he says about it,’ but I also said don't jump on him and make him mad,” Gibson said. “She contacted the judge and the judge didn't remove her and she stayed on the case.”


Clinton "knew" he was guilty vs. Clinton "believed" he was guilty. Clinton laughed about it vs. she was laughing about something tangential that doesn't make her look bad.

If anything, seems like you're nitpicking the nitpicking. I'm pretty sure defense attorneys/public defenders often times know and believe their client is guilty. More from CNN: "Once Clinton was assigned, Gibson said, she had a legal obligation to represent Taylor to the fullest, and she did."

Clearly, this is more of an editorial site than a "fact check" site. Snopes internet editors interpreting for us what she is laughing about is not a "fact". It's an example of why Snopes is a bad source.

And clearly the blogger you cited interpreting for us what she is laughing about is not a "fact". It's an example of why the blog 'Ethics Alarms' is a bad source.

Snopes' "interpretation" seems to be correct based upon the reporter, Roy Reed, who was actually there interviewing her, "As far as her laughing, God knows she was not laughing over the notion that this rapist was going to go free," said Reed. “I challenge any fair-minded reader of that transcript to make a case that Hillary Rodham was a coldblooded lawyer who was laughing over the plight of the 12-year-old rape victim."
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 10, 2023, 07:49:44 PM
If Clinton was appointed she could have tried taking it above the judge's head. She also could have quit if she felt that she was being asked to do something which compromised her morals. She could have also sued. From what you posted it sounds like she didn't do much to remedy the situation at all.

During the Nuremberg trials being told to do something immoral wasn't an acceptable excuse for the Nazis to avoid justice. And unlike the Nazi situation, there wasn't a potential SS Officer holding a gun to Clinton's head to force her to do immoral things. She willingly did this, and she is fully culpable here.

Quote from: stack
If anything, seems like you're nitpicking the nitpicking. I'm pretty sure defense attorneys/public defenders often times know and believe their client is guilty. More from CNN: "Once Clinton was assigned, Gibson said, she had a legal obligation to represent Taylor to the fullest, and she did."

Her responsibility as a lawyer isn't legally binding. No one is physically forcing lawyers to represent anyone. Clinton was not going to go to jail if she refused to represent or face physical harm. She had options available to her. She willingly represented a child rapist who she believed was guilty.

Quote from: stack
And clearly the blogger you cited interpreting for us what she is laughing about is not a "fact". It's an example of why the blog 'Ethics Alarms' is a bad source.

Snopes' "interpretation" seems to be correct based upon the reporter, Roy Reed, who was actually there interviewing her, "As far as her laughing, God knows she was not laughing over the notion that this rapist was going to go free," said Reed. “I challenge any fair-minded reader of that transcript to make a case that Hillary Rodham was a coldblooded lawyer who was laughing over the plight of the 12-year-old rape victim."

I didn't think Clinton was laughing that the rapist was going free either. I thought Clinton was laughing because her rapist client passed the polygraph test. She also appears to acknowledge that she believed he was guilty with the "forever destroyed my faith in polygraph" line.

Again, the claim Snopes was trying to rebut was that Clinton laughed about the case:

(https://i.imgur.com/GCyetOM.png)

So, she did laugh about something in relation to the case. No one is even denying that. Snopes is lying here.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on April 10, 2023, 08:11:21 PM
I feel like we've forgotten who this thread is actually about, can a mod please split all this irrelevant Hillary bullshit into its own thread please?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on April 10, 2023, 08:16:31 PM
I feel like we've forgotten who this thread is actually about, can a mod please split all this irrelevant Hillary bullshit into its own thread please?
Wait, you provided the snopes "fact check," in response to my evidence concerning Ashley Biden writing in her diary she didn't feel safe showering around Brandon and his hairy legs.

You stated snopes didn't find the claim credible because THEY didn't find anything to support it.

Now, when presented with the facts that snopes is a disingenuous garbage site, all of a sudden you don't like it anymore.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on April 10, 2023, 08:18:00 PM
I feel like we've forgotten who this thread is actually about, can a mod please split all this irrelevant Hillary bullshit into its own thread please?
Maybe we should just rename it to "Democrats"?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on April 10, 2023, 08:30:12 PM
I feel like we've forgotten who this thread is actually about, can a mod please split all this irrelevant Hillary bullshit into its own thread please?
Wait, you provided the snopes "fact check," in response to my evidence concerning Ashley Biden writing in her diary she didn't feel safe showering around Brandon and his hairy legs.

You stated snopes didn't find the claim credible because THEY didn't find anything to support it.

Now, when presented with the facts that snopes is a disingenuous garbage site, all of a sudden you don't like it anymore.

It must be nice living in a fantasy world. I didn't say I don't like it. I contributed to the discussion. It is a fine discussion about how Hillary Clinton is a cold bitch, something I don't even disagree with. But it is about Hillary Clinton, and this thread is supposed to be about Joe Biden, and now we have a full page of posts that don't even mention his name, or have anything to do with him.

I just feel like we got lost in the weeds a bit.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Magicalus on April 10, 2023, 09:01:54 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/5N5Rbnbz/Screenshot-2023-04-10-165330.png)

Let's just do some quick analysis here. Biden has announced he's planning to run for president. It was later announced that it will not soon be announced.

There is no contradiction here.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on April 10, 2023, 09:10:17 PM
I feel like we've forgotten who this thread is actually about, can a mod please split all this irrelevant Hillary bullshit into its own thread please?
Wait, you provided the snopes "fact check," in response to my evidence concerning Ashley Biden writing in her diary she didn't feel safe showering around Brandon and his hairy legs.

You stated snopes didn't find the claim credible because THEY didn't find anything to support it.
That's right, and you haven't provided anything to support it either.  You really shouldn't keep doubling down on claims that you can't support.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on April 10, 2023, 09:59:00 PM
I feel like we've forgotten who this thread is actually about, can a mod please split all this irrelevant Hillary bullshit into its own thread please?
Wait, you provided the snopes "fact check," in response to my evidence concerning Ashley Biden writing in her diary she didn't feel safe showering around Brandon and his hairy legs.

You stated snopes didn't find the claim credible because THEY didn't find anything to support it.

Now, when presented with the facts that snopes is a disingenuous garbage site, all of a sudden you don't like it anymore.

It must be nice living in a fantasy world. I didn't say I don't like it. I contributed to the discussion. It is a fine discussion about how Hillary Clinton is a cold bitch, something I don't even disagree with. But it is about Hillary Clinton, and this thread is supposed to be about Joe Biden, and now we have a full page of posts that don't even mention his name, or have anything to do with him.

I just feel like we got lost in the weeds a bit.
Yeah, you offered snopes into it. Tom pointed out snopes lies, employs plagiarists, and is generally considered by thinking people to be a for shit rag, loved by liberals.

When snopes writes something, it is generally a bunch of crap, just like their denial of Ashley Biden afraid to shower while Brandon is around.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on April 10, 2023, 10:00:34 PM
I feel like we've forgotten who this thread is actually about, can a mod please split all this irrelevant Hillary bullshit into its own thread please?
Wait, you provided the snopes "fact check," in response to my evidence concerning Ashley Biden writing in her diary she didn't feel safe showering around Brandon and his hairy legs.

You stated snopes didn't find the claim credible because THEY didn't find anything to support it.
That's right, and you haven't provided anything to support it either.  You really shouldn't keep doubling down on claims that you can't support.
When snopes claims something is false, you can pretty much guarantee it is true.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on April 10, 2023, 11:25:00 PM
When snopes claims something is false, you can pretty much guarantee it is true.
I trust Snopes a lot more than I trust you.  At least Snopes cites their sources so that you can fact check them yourself, which seems to be a lot more than you're willing to do.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on April 11, 2023, 02:35:57 AM
If Clinton was appointed she could have tried taking it above the judge's head. She also could have quit if she felt that she was being asked to do something which compromised her morals. She could have also sued. From what you posted it doesn't sound like she didn't do much to remedy the situation at all.

Please provide some evidence that one can go over the judge's head or sue somebody ???
Looks like you're just making things up.

During the Nuremberg trials being told to do something immoral wasn't an acceptable excuse for the Nazis to avoid justice. And unlike the Nazi situation, there wasn't a potential SS Officer holding a gun to Clinton's head to force her to do immoral things. She willingly did this, and she is fully culpable here.

As a defense attorney you are demanded to defend your client to the best of your ability. What do you think public defenders do all day when appointed to a case? Are all public defenders who believe their client is guilty immoral for defending them?

This all in the constitution:

Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

And as the prosecutor said in the case, "Once Clinton was assigned, Gibson said, she had a legal obligation to represent Taylor to the fullest, and she did."
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on April 11, 2023, 02:39:38 AM
When snopes claims something is false, you can pretty much guarantee it is true.
I trust Snopes a lot more than I trust you.  At least Snopes cites their sources so that you can fact check them yourself, which seems to be a lot more than you're willing to do.
Snopes cited nothing in claiming the Ashley Biden diary was false.

I don't really care what you trust or who you trust.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on April 11, 2023, 02:47:02 AM
If Clinton was appointed she could have tried taking it above the judge's head. She also could have quit if she felt that she was being asked to do something which compromised her morals. She could have also sued. From what you posted it doesn't sound like she didn't do much to remedy the situation at all.

Please provide some evidence that one can go over the judge's head or sue somebody ???
Looks like you're just making things up.
https://lawyersorbit.com/can-a-court-appointed-lawyer-refuse-a-case/
"Regardless of the fact that they have the authority to deny cases, they rarely think of refusing cases."
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on April 11, 2023, 03:07:26 AM
Snopes cited nothing in claiming the Ashley Biden diary was false.
Because that wasn't the claim.  The claim was that Ashley Biden supposedly wrote something in her diary about being afraid to shower because of her father and Snopes could not find any such entry in the leaked diary.  Do you have a link to the page in her diary where she made that entry or are you just taking some internet rando's word for it that it exists?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 11, 2023, 03:39:56 AM
Please provide some evidence that one can go over the judge's head or sue somebody ???
Looks like you're just making things up.

Courts have Human Resource departments like many other organizations. Ie. Maryland Courts Human Resources (https://www.mdcourts.gov/hr)

Hillary Clinton was selected because the child rapist was demanding a woman attorney. Hillary Clinton could have escalated the matter to HR and filed an ethics complaint, or she could have complained that she was being singled out to do something undesirable based on her gender. Gender is a protected class. This could be construed as sexual discrimination.

If that didn't work judges can also be sued for administrative decisions. They are not immune from that.

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/can-i-sue-the-court/

Quote
Can I Sue the Court?

~

Judges also do not have immunity regarding administrative decisions like hiring and firing court employees, and their immunity is limited when acting unconstitutionally.

Clinton was a public defender working for the court. Appointing employees falls under the same umbarella as hiring employees and is an administrative decision. The judge could have been sued.

She could have also simply quit. Nothing was actually forcing her to represent a child rapist.

Quote from: stack
As a defense attorney you are demanded to defend your client to the best of your ability. What do you think public defenders do all day when appointed to a case? Are all public defenders who believe their client is guilty immoral for defending them?

There are professions that involve doing immoral things, yes.

Quote from: stack
This all in the constitution:

Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

And as the prosecutor said in the case, "Once Clinton was assigned, Gibson said, she had a legal obligation to represent Taylor to the fullest, and she did."

The constitutional amendment is in regards to the state's responsibility, not her personal responsibility. She could have refused or quit without breaking the law. The state cannot refuse.

None of that makes it moral to represent someone who you believe to be a child rapist. None of that forces her to represent a child rapist. She willingly represented a child rapist who she believed was guilty.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on April 11, 2023, 04:46:59 AM
Its funny how Tom is like:

"Fuck the constitution.  If someone appears guilty, we should just not give them a lawyer."

Lawyers are specifically trained to be morally impartial.  Because someday, they might have to represent someone horrible.  Someone so evil that God himself wouldn't love them.  And by law, that person must have a defence that will do the best job they can.

It sucks but thats the job.   Sure, maybe Clinton could have quit.  But she'd probably be disbarred for failing to perform her duty simply becauae of the defendant's alleged crimes.  And that would not be ok  in any court system.

As for a lawsuit:
What would be the lawsuit?  She had no conflict of interest.  No protected reason why she couldn't do this job except for "I don't wanna.".

It would be like if you, in your job, decided that the worse part of your job shouldn't be something you have to do.  Give it to some other person.  Let them suffer.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on April 11, 2023, 05:10:37 AM
Tom said nothing of the sort.

There is nothing in the law that says a defendant must have the defense do the best job they can.

The defendant is entitled to counsel bound by criminal procedure in the jurisdiction.

That is it.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on April 11, 2023, 05:15:57 AM
 It's definitely a breach of ethics to not make an honest effort to defend your client, no matter the case.

Hillary Clinton is evil because she did her duty as a professional attorney. Tom gonna Tom lol
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on April 11, 2023, 05:59:04 AM
It's definitely a breach of ethics to not make an honest effort to defend your client, no matter the case.

Hillary Clinton is evil because she did her duty as a professional attorney. Tom gonna Tom lol
It is evil to defend a child rapist if you know they are guilty.

Kinda unsurprising reading you think that it's not.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on April 11, 2023, 05:59:34 AM
Tom said nothing of the sort.

There is nothing in the law that says a defendant must have the defense do the best job they can.

The defendant is entitled to counsel bound by criminal procedure in the jurisdiction.

That is it.

It's not a law, but a rule set forth by the American Bar Association (ABA).

Rule 1.3 Diligence - Comment (https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_3_diligence/comment_on_rule_1_3/)
Client-Lawyer Relationship
[1] A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction or personal inconvenience to the lawyer, and take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client's cause or endeavor. A lawyer must also act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client's behalf.


Ever hear of these ABA penalties for violating their rules; disbarment, suspension, sanction, and public or private censure?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Magicalus on April 11, 2023, 06:05:06 AM
I've seen the options of Hillary being a terrible person and Hillary being a good lawyer set forward, but there is a third:

She's a REALLY bad lawyer, who doesn't know about any of the ways she could have escaped the trial, and just got lucky to win.

I thought he got acquitted, my bad. Though, this does add to my theory working.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on April 11, 2023, 06:34:54 AM
Please provide some evidence that one can go over the judge's head or sue somebody ???
Looks like you're just making things up.

Courts have Human Resource departments like many other organizations. Ie. Maryland Courts Human Resources (https://www.mdcourts.gov/hr)

Hillary Clinton was selected because the child rapist was demanding a woman attorney. Hillary Clinton could have escalated the matter to HR and filed an ethics complaint, or she could have complained that she was being singled out to do something undesirable based on her gender. Gender is a protected class. This could be construed as sexual discrimination.

If that didn't work judges can also be sued for administrative decisions. They are not immune from that.

She also could have died her hair, got colored contacts, stolen a dead person's SSN and created a new identity, flown to Ibiza (no extradition) and live out her days as an ex-pat on the lam from the Arkansas judiciary.

How far do you want to go with all of your speculative extrapolations?

None of that makes it moral to represent someone who you believe to be a child rapist. None of that forces her to represent a child rapist. She willingly represented a child rapist who she believed was guilty.

How do you know that she "believed" he was guilty before she accepted the appointment? The polygraph thing took place after she accepted the appointment...

Clinton laughed after she said: “Of course he [the defendant] claimed he didn’t [rape]. All this stuff. He took a lie-detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.”

If you want to play your speculative extrapolation game, maybe the reason she asked the judge to not appoint her was because she was just uncomfortable with child rape cases in general regardless of guilt of innocence of the defendant. Maybe she just wasn't into handling rape cases. Maybe she didn't "believe" the defendant was guilty until after she begrudgingly accepted the appointment and got a look at all the evidence.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on April 11, 2023, 07:17:24 AM
Tom said nothing of the sort.

There is nothing in the law that says a defendant must have the defense do the best job they can.

The defendant is entitled to counsel bound by criminal procedure in the jurisdiction.

That is it.

They are also innocent until proven guilty.  FYI.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on April 11, 2023, 09:02:56 PM
She's a REALLY bad lawyer, who doesn't know about any of the ways she could have escaped the trial, and just got lucky to win.
Saying that she won implies that the defendant was acquitted.  He wasn't.  The case never went to trial.  Instead, he plead guilty to a lesser charge in a plea deal that she worked out with the DA.  This is quite common in our judicial system, even for people charged with horrible crimes.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on April 11, 2023, 10:44:15 PM
Hillary Clinton was selected because the child rapist was demanding a woman attorney. Hillary Clinton could have escalated the matter to HR and filed an ethics complaint, or she could have complained that she was being singled out to do something undesirable based on her gender. Gender is a protected class. This could be construed as sexual discrimination.

No, she could not go to HR because she was not employed by the court.
Quote from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/11/the-facts-about-hillary-clinton-and-the-kathy-shelton-rape-case/
In 1975, Clinton — then Hillary Rodham — was a 27-year-old law instructor running a legal aid clinic at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 12, 2023, 12:12:25 PM
She also could have died her hair, got colored contacts, stolen a dead person's SSN and created a new identity, flown to Ibiza (no extradition) and live out her days as an ex-pat on the lam from the Arkansas judiciary.

How far do you want to go with all of your speculative extrapolations?

She could have done that. Instead, she chose to fight on the side of a child rapist. Reprehensible.

None of that makes it moral to represent someone who you believe to be a child rapist. None of that forces her to represent a child rapist. She willingly represented a child rapist who she believed was guilty.

How do you know that she "believed" he was guilty before she accepted the appointment? The polygraph thing took place after she accepted the appointment...

It is clear that she believed he was guilty at the time he passed the polygraph. She did not remove herself from the case. Hillary Clinton willingly defended the actions of a child rapist.

Quote from: stack
Clinton laughed after she said: “Of course he [the defendant] claimed he didn’t [rape]. All this stuff. He took a lie-detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.”

If you want to play your speculative extrapolation game, maybe the reason she asked the judge to not appoint her was because she was just uncomfortable with child rape cases in general regardless of guilt of innocence of the defendant. Maybe she just wasn't into handling rape cases. Maybe she didn't "believe" the defendant was guilty until after she begrudgingly accepted the appointment and got a look at all the evidence.

Clinton did not try hard enough to remove herself from the case. There are many women who would quit their job if they found that they were forced to defend the actions of a child rapist.

Hillary doesn't mention that she tried escalating the issue beyond the judge. Other public defenders say that it is permissible to reject a case they find too immoral.

https://www.quora.com/In-the-USA-can-a-public-defender-refuse-to-defend-someone

(https://i.imgur.com/Xe4Gf7q.png)

No, she could not go to HR because she was not employed by the court.
Quote from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/11/the-facts-about-hillary-clinton-and-the-kathy-shelton-rape-case/
In 1975, Clinton — then Hillary Rodham — was a 27-year-old law instructor running a legal aid clinic at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville.

Private lawyers don't get "appointed" to cases. This clinic was likely being funded by the courts. And if it wasn't, then Clinton has even less of excuse for defending the actions of a child rapist as a private lawyer.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: stack on April 12, 2023, 04:30:16 PM
She also could have died her hair, got colored contacts, stolen a dead person's SSN and created a new identity, flown to Ibiza (no extradition) and live out her days as an ex-pat on the lam from the Arkansas judiciary.

How far do you want to go with all of your speculative extrapolations?

She could have done that. Instead, she chose to fight on the side of a child rapist. Reprehensible.

Apparently, you are unaware of the fundamental right of "Innocent until proven guilty", as pointed out previously by others.  Emphasis on 'proven'.

There's all kinds of stuff in the U.S. Constitution about the rights of the accused. You should read up a little on it. Here's a head start, the concept comes from the Constitutional Due Process protections provided under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as other statutes and case law.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on April 12, 2023, 06:16:32 PM
She also could have died her hair, got colored contacts, stolen a dead person's SSN and created a new identity, flown to Ibiza (no extradition) and live out her days as an ex-pat on the lam from the Arkansas judiciary.

How far do you want to go with all of your speculative extrapolations?

She could have done that. Instead, she chose to fight on the side of a child rapist. Reprehensible.

Apparently, you are unaware of the fundamental right of "Innocent until proven guilty", as pointed out previously by others.  Emphasis on 'proven'.

There's all kinds of stuff in the U.S. Constitution about the rights of the accused. You should read up a little on it. Here's a head start, the concept comes from the Constitutional Due Process protections provided under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as other statutes and case law.
Nothing Tom wrote indicates he isn't aware of earth-shattering news concerning the rights of the defendant. God, you better contact the Justice Department and let them know too, just in case.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on April 12, 2023, 08:59:07 PM
Nothing Tom wrote indicates he isn't aware of earth-shattering news concerning the rights of the defendant. God, you better contact the Justice Department and let them know too, just in case.
It appears that some here don't think that accused child rapists don't deserve the right to a lawyer.  After all, how could any defense attorney with a soul possibly defend an accused child rapist, sadistic murder or some other violent and depraved individual?  Sometimes they just have to suck it up and defend the indefensible.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 24, 2023, 02:15:49 AM
https://nypost.com/2023/04/23/at-least-a-dozen-biden-relatives-will-be-exposed-in-foreign-money-deals-james-comer/

At least Hunter Biden had a law degree and a terrible and desperate argument can be made that he sat on a board of a national energy company and he gave very special advice to receive millions of dollars from a foreign country without it having anything to do with influence peddling.

Apparently a dozen other Biden relatives were receiving money from foreign countries too. The leaps of logic aren't going to be sufficient to cover this one.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on April 24, 2023, 03:57:45 AM
https://nypost.com/2023/04/23/at-least-a-dozen-biden-relatives-will-be-exposed-in-foreign-money-deals-james-comer/

At least Hunter Biden had a law degree and a terrible and desperate argument can be made that he sat on a board of a national energy company and he gave very special advice to receive millions of dollars from a foreign country without it having anything to do with influence peddling.

Apparently a dozen other Biden relatives were receiving money from foreign countries too. The leaps of logic aren't going to be sufficient to cover this one.


Sssoo...
Relatives of the president or VP who get money or special treatment from foreign companies is bad?  Is that what you're saying?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on April 24, 2023, 04:01:48 AM
Members of important or well-connected families are regularly offered high-paying jobs in the hopes of currying favor or influence with their relatives. George W. Bush, for example, spent most of his adult life crashing and burning in multiple cushy high-paying jobs that his family had arranged for him until he stumbled into politics. It's not pretty, but it happens, and I don't see any realistic way of getting rid of the practice without severely curtailing the right to free enterprise. It could be worse, though. At least Biden's relatives are still just private citizens. It would be a pretty major scandal if these unscrupulous relatives held government positions and abused them to usher business their way, or indeed, if the president himself was the one doing that. Can you imagine how awful that would be?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: juner on April 24, 2023, 05:54:31 PM
10% to the big guy
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 02, 2023, 03:37:17 PM
Hunter Biden claims he has no money to avoid child support payments, forced to sleep in dad's room - https://www.frontpagemag.com/hunter-biden-has-no-money-forced-to-sleep-in-daddys-room/
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on May 02, 2023, 06:29:12 PM
Hunter Biden claims he has no money to avoid child support payments, forced to sleep in dad's room - https://www.frontpagemag.com/hunter-biden-has-no-money-forced-to-sleep-in-daddys-room/

Honestly, it feels pretty good that Joe is so hard to scandalize that Republicans feel the need to constantly go after his family to try to discredit him. It only underscores how squeaky clean and untouchable Joe himself really is.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on May 02, 2023, 06:39:07 PM
Hunter Biden claims he has no money to avoid child support payments, forced to sleep in dad's room - https://www.frontpagemag.com/hunter-biden-has-no-money-forced-to-sleep-in-daddys-room/

Possible.  His wife, South African model and filmmaker Melissa Cohen, could be paying for the mansion.

I think, with laws how they are, she isn't obligated to pay for the child support despite being married.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on June 05, 2023, 11:00:48 AM
Brandon being brandon...the front row couldn't stop laughing and smiling at this idiot clown.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXWSiWLanes
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on June 05, 2023, 12:14:16 PM
It's sad that we are now routinely giving one of the most stressful jobs on the planet to people who belong in an assisted living home. Our congressmen are looking similarly ancient.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on June 17, 2023, 08:59:49 AM
It's sad that we are now routinely giving one of the most stressful jobs on the planet to people who belong in an assisted living home. Our congressmen are looking similarly ancient.
For example…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-65936994

I mean, we have bloody awful politicians over here too but they are at least compus mentus.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on June 18, 2023, 06:35:12 PM
Brandon and his racist musings:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLJ9i38Mcrg
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on June 19, 2023, 01:29:06 AM
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/joe-biden-indian-ocean-bridge-b2358939.html

I think it's pretty easy to infer that he meant across to the Indian Ocean rather than just across the Indian Ocean. It's a minor verbal slip-up from a man whom we already know has a problem with making minor verbal slip-ups. Big deal.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on June 19, 2023, 05:57:01 AM
I think it is extremely easy to infer this bridge will never be built.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on June 19, 2023, 09:28:31 AM
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/joe-biden-indian-ocean-bridge-b2358939.html

I think it's pretty easy to infer that he meant across to the Indian Ocean rather than just across the Indian Ocean. It's a minor verbal slip-up from a man whom we already know has a problem with making minor verbal slip-ups. Big deal.

He's slipping up alot.
I wish the democrats would put up someone much younger and more mentally sharp. :/

I think it is extremely easy to infer this bridge will never be built.
Of course not.  That would be retarded to build a bridge over Africa instead of just building rail on Africa.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on June 19, 2023, 10:55:22 AM
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/joe-biden-indian-ocean-bridge-b2358939.html

I think it's pretty easy to infer that he meant across to the Indian Ocean rather than just across the Indian Ocean. It's a minor verbal slip-up from a man whom we already know has a problem with making minor verbal slip-ups. Big deal.

He's slipping up alot.
I wish the democrats would put up someone much younger and more mentally sharp. :/
Once again, wishing for the impossible...

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on June 19, 2023, 01:54:30 PM
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/joe-biden-indian-ocean-bridge-b2358939.html

I think it's pretty easy to infer that he meant across to the Indian Ocean rather than just across the Indian Ocean. It's a minor verbal slip-up from a man whom we already know has a problem with making minor verbal slip-ups. Big deal.

He's slipping up alot.
I wish the democrats would put up someone much younger and more mentally sharp. :/
Once again, wishing for the impossible...
Probably.  But hey, got a better shot than a wall.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: juner on June 21, 2023, 02:42:22 PM
lmao @ hunter

10% to the big guy
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on June 29, 2023, 04:30:54 PM
So how do conservatives feel about Hunter being guilty of the two things Conservatives love: buying guns and not paying taxes?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on June 29, 2023, 04:56:01 PM
So how do conservatives feel about Hunter being guilty of the two things Conservatives love: buying guns and not paying taxes?

Haha, guys, isn't it funny that a decade of corruption gets punished with a slap on the wrist and minimal charges for petty crimes?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on June 29, 2023, 05:04:00 PM
So how do conservatives feel about Hunter being guilty of the two things Conservatives love: buying guns and not paying taxes?

Haha, guys, isn't it funny that a decade of corruption gets punished with a slap on the wrist and minimal charges for petty crimes?

The minimal charges for petty crimes but is the best part.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on June 29, 2023, 05:21:28 PM
So how do conservatives feel about Hunter being guilty of the two things Conservatives love: buying guns and not paying taxes?

Haha, guys, isn't it funny that a decade of corruption gets punished with a slap on the wrist and minimal charges for petty crimes?

That's politics for you. *shrug*
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on June 29, 2023, 09:45:30 PM
So how do conservatives feel about Hunter being guilty of the two things Conservatives love: buying guns and not paying taxes?

Haha, guys, isn't it funny that a decade of corruption gets punished with a slap on the wrist and minimal charges for petty crimes?

You support tax evasion as a general thing, so I don't see why you even care.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 03, 2023, 07:20:20 PM
What a despicable family.

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2023/07/03/monsters-biden-hammered-over-ny-times-report-he-told-aids-to-only-count-6-grandchildren-not-hunters-lovechild-1373920/

(https://i.imgur.com/hG6A05G.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on July 05, 2023, 12:27:08 PM
Guys, did you know that telling social media companies to censor information is not considered freedom of speech? Biden didn't know that. A federal court had to inform him that such is the case:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-rules-biden-administration-likely-trampled-on-free-speech-on-social-media-29334362

Post your reactions when you realize you can't just ban wrongthink from reality. People who disagree with me shouldn't even be allowed on the internet at all, in my opinion.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 13, 2023, 06:55:39 PM
I'm still not sure what you guys see in this guy.

(https://i.imgur.com/xOMEsTG.jpg)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on July 13, 2023, 07:30:28 PM
I'm still not sure what you guys see in this guy.

(https://i.imgur.com/xOMEsTG.jpg)

-It's not his laptop.
-Inflation was inevitable after the last couple years and it's going downward on his watch.
-I don't even know what this is referring to. Did the Republicans cook up another fake scandal that I somehow missed??
-What reason does anybody have to think it was his cocaine?   ::)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on July 13, 2023, 09:01:17 PM
Hunter is a deadbeat dad to a kid that he denied being the father of and has reportedly never even met. Conservatives have decided to blame Joe for this. It sounds insane, but that really is it. As if Joe can reasonably be expected to just publicly declare that the child is Hunter's whether Hunter likes it or not.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on July 15, 2023, 07:06:40 PM
Crazy how the Republicans keep latching onto the President's son to try to discredit the President. It's almost like they have nothing tangible to attack the President himself about. We even see it in at least half of the grievances used in that meme Tom just shared (I say at least half because, predictably, a lot of people seem convinced that the cocaine was Hunter's).
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 15, 2023, 09:48:23 PM
In all of those cases Joe Biden is denying it as well. He is denying that those things are attributable to his family.

Denying his own grandchild is especially egregious and low, as she was proven to be Hunter's daughter with a blood test in 2019. (https://www.irishcentral.com/news/hunter-biden-child-lunden-alexis-roberts)

Yet the Joe and Jill Biden have repeatedly put up stockings at Christmas at the White House for only six of their seven grandchildren, leaving out Navy Joan Roberts.

They did it in Christmas of 2021:

https://nypost.com/2021/12/01/bidens-stocking-display-excludes-hunters-daughter-born-out-of-wedlock/

(https://i.imgur.com/rNqbwnk.jpg)

And again in Christmas of 2022:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/nov/28/biden-family-christmas-stockings-exclude-hunters-o/

(https://i.imgur.com/nuMjv1Z.jpg)

They reportedly even put Christmas stockings up for the dog and cat (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/11/joe-jill-biden-snub-granddaughter-navy-joan-white-house-christmas-stockings-new-dog-cat-not-hunters-love-child-navy-joan/) at the White House, but not for Navy Joan.

Biden repeatedly states that he has only six grandchildren:

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1651632958527111168

Jill Biden says it as well:

https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/04/06/jill-biden-misstates-number-of-grandchildren-she-and-joe-have/


Reporters have asked White House Press Secretary about this and there is a refusal to answer the question or acknowledge the grandchild as theirs:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/07/06/bidens-cruel-erasure-navy-joan-roberts/

(https://i.imgur.com/V64PTi7.png)

According to a Times report, White house aids have been told for years in strategy meetings that President Biden only has six grandkids, excluding Navy Joan

https://nypost.com/2023/07/05/wh-refuses-to-answer-questions-about-bidens-estranged-granddaughter-by-hunter/

(https://i.imgur.com/FoZ0L8a.png)

The little girl is also not even given secret service protection from kidnapping:

https://www.the-sun.com/news/1789245/hunter-biden-lovechild-navy-joan-security-fears/

(https://i.imgur.com/BKfpah2.png)

https://dcweekly.org/2022/06/06/revealed-joe-biden-refuses-to-provide-security-to-his-grandchild-and-hunter-bidens-arkansas-love-child-with-stripper/

(https://i.imgur.com/l6vrPAu.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on July 15, 2023, 10:24:58 PM
Its cute how Tom is trying to defend bastard children. 


In other news, States that champion states rights demand the ability to violate the rights of other states.

https://www.mississippifreepress.org/34705/mississippi-attorney-general-wants-info-on-out-of-state-abortions-gender-affirming-care?ICID=ref_fark

TLDR:
Biden wants to make it illegal to require one state to give up medical records to another relating to reproductive organs, abortions, or any such procedure.  This, it seems, has upset missouri because they want to persecute suspected violators of abortion and transgender care bans who went to other states to get those procedures.

Their arguments are basically the same as Runaway slave laws where slave states demanded free states return slaves who escaped there.  Because its wrong!  And could allow people to do illegal things in other states where its not illegal!  And how can we protect the children and punish those evil transgenders and mothers who get abortions if they do it outside of the state?!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on July 15, 2023, 10:33:33 PM
In all of those cases Joe Biden is denying it as well. He is denying that those things are attributable to his family.

Denying his own grandchild is especially egregious and low, as she was proven to be Hunter's daughter with a blood test in 1999. (https://www.irishcentral.com/news/hunter-biden-child-lunden-alexis-roberts)

Yet the Joe and Jill Biden have repeatedly put up stockings at Christmas at the White House for only six of their seven grandchildren, leaving out Navy Joan Roberts.

They did it in Christmas of 2021:

https://nypost.com/2021/12/01/bidens-stocking-display-excludes-hunters-daughter-born-out-of-wedlock/

(https://i.imgur.com/rNqbwnk.jpg)

And again in Christmas of 2022:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/nov/28/biden-family-christmas-stockings-exclude-hunters-o/

(https://i.imgur.com/nuMjv1Z.jpg)

They reportedly even put Christmas stockings up for the dog and cat (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/11/joe-jill-biden-snub-granddaughter-navy-joan-white-house-christmas-stockings-new-dog-cat-not-hunters-love-child-navy-joan/) at the White House, but not for Navy Joan.

Biden repeatedly states that he has only six grandchildren:

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1651632958527111168

Jill Biden says it as well:

https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/04/06/jill-biden-misstates-number-of-grandchildren-she-and-joe-have/

    “We have three children, and we have six grandchildren,” the former second lady said, with her husband adding their grandchildren ranged from “seniors in law school to little infants.”

Reporters have asked White House Press Secretary about this and there is a refusal to answer the question or acknowledge the grandchild as theirs:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/07/06/bidens-cruel-erasure-navy-joan-roberts/

(https://i.imgur.com/V64PTi7.png)

According to a Times report, White house aids have been told for years in strategy meetings that President Biden only has six grandkids, excluding Navy Joan

https://nypost.com/2023/07/05/wh-refuses-to-answer-questions-about-bidens-estranged-granddaughter-by-hunter/

(https://i.imgur.com/FoZ0L8a.png)

The little girl is also not even given secret service protection from kidnapping:

https://www.the-sun.com/news/1789245/hunter-biden-lovechild-navy-joan-security-fears/

(https://i.imgur.com/BKfpah2.png)

https://dcweekly.org/2022/06/06/revealed-joe-biden-refuses-to-provide-security-to-his-grandchild-and-hunter-bidens-arkansas-love-child-with-stripper/

(https://i.imgur.com/l6vrPAu.png)

Yes, your guy tried to overthrow the government, has been found in court to have sexually assaulted someone, and kept classified documents he had no right to keep to seem cool to his friends, and this is the kind of thing the Republicans are trying to use to discredit Biden. I already pointed out how amusing it is, you don't really need to continue trying to make me laugh.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 15, 2023, 10:41:21 PM
I don't see what your baseless accusations against Donald Trump have to do with the Bidens denying their own grandchild.

Jill Biden even wrote a book dedicated to their grandchildren and left her out of it:

https://www.thelist.com/1337001/joe-biden-seventh-grandchild-navy-joan/


This is clearly deliberate, and evidence of a despicable family.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on July 15, 2023, 10:42:59 PM
Like I said, it's ridiculous to expect Joe to go over Hunter's head and publicly declare that the child is part of the family whether Hunter likes it or not. It's just not how families work, and I'm certain that if Joe had disregarded his son and publicly acknowledged the child as part of the family, the same conservatives criticizing him now would be angrily yelling about how Joe has no right to be involving himself in a dispute between two parents and clearly has no love or loyalty towards his own son. I also like how the NYP and the Washington Times tried to put the emphasis on the child being illegitimate, as if that's what this is all about, rather than Hunter's disputes over parentage with the mother. As if shaming unmarried parents and their children hasn't always been a conservative thing. Every accusation is a confession.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 15, 2023, 10:56:13 PM
It's not a dispute over parentage. It was established with a court blood test in 2019 -

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/nov/21/filing-no-doubt-dad-of-baby-is-biden-so/

(https://i.imgur.com/7kVjo82.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/sw1R2TY.png)

Hunter agreed to child support in 2020 -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8106579/Hunter-Bidens-child-support-finalized-stripper-baby-mama.html

(https://i.imgur.com/KOapMHQ.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on July 16, 2023, 05:39:45 AM
Did it ever occurr to Tom that the mother doesn't want their child to be in the limelight anymore than they already are?  Perhaps they asked not to be included in the family events and such?  Maybe she's a republican and is ashamed to have a child with a democrat?  Or she's afraid of how much hate she and her child would get from republicans who attack the families of politicians.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 16, 2023, 09:28:16 AM
Did it ever occurr to Tom that the mother doesn't want their child to be in the limelight anymore than they already are?  Perhaps they asked not to be included in the family events and such?  Maybe she's a republican and is ashamed to have a child with a democrat?  Or she's afraid of how much hate she and her child would get from republicans who attack the families of politicians.

Yeah, this does not jibe with what the child's lawyer is saying:

June 29, 2023 - https://nypost.com/2023/06/29/hunter-biden-reaches-settlement-in-child-support-case-will-provide-art/


The above article also describes how the child support settlement prevented the child from using the Biden last name.


The child was disowned in all ways, and is even getting art to prevent her from using the Biden name as part of a court child support settlement. The mother says that the father never met the child and that the child is estranged from her paternal grandparents:


This hardly supports the notion that the little girl is secretly loved by the Bidens behind the scenes and that it is really the mother who doesn't want her daughter to be associated with them or in the limelight.

Joe and Jill Biden have centered their family lives around their grandchildren, yet exclude Navy Joan:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230705064130/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/01/us/politics/hunter-biden-daughter-arkansas.html


Despite the rejection from the Biden family, the mother says that she is teaching her daughter to be proud that her grandfather is the President. From the above nytimes article:


So sad and discraceful.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on July 16, 2023, 03:11:38 PM
It is sad and disgraceful - of Hunter. He's being a shitty father and a shitty person. Unfortunately, that's his decision to make. The Bidens' connection to the child comes through Hunter, and if he's choosing not to acknowledge her or have her in his life, then the same must apply to his own parents. They can't cut him out of the equation and include her in the family without his involvement. It's just not the done thing.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on July 16, 2023, 03:15:28 PM
Hunter does come across as a bit of a slimeball and for some reason the Republicans eat it up. You know what though? Hunter's not our President! Our President is so unimpeachable they need to attack his family. That they are so unapologetically doing so is the real disgrace.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on July 16, 2023, 04:07:48 PM
Hunter does come across as a bit of a slimeball and for some reason the Republicans eat it up. You know what though? Hunter's not our President! Our President is so unimpeachable they need to attack his family. That they are so unapologetically doing so is the real disgrace.

The entire point of this debacle is that Joe has been using Hunter as a scapegoat and liaison to enact personal corruption. I think you, and everyone else here, knows perfectly well that this isn't just about Hunter. He's not some random man who happens to be connected to Joe Biden. The meme of "I didn't vote for Hunter!" and "you just don't have anything on Joe!" is nonsense. Hunter didn't find himself on the boards of foreign oil and gas companies because of his extensive executive knowledge in how to run oil and gas companies. Joe used his son to personally gain from his political power. Now neither Joe nor his son will face consequences for doing so. This is okay to you because obviously they are not the same person and the idea of them coordinating with each other is utterly impossible.

Sometimes I think the idea of family members interacting with each other is so completely foreign to so many Democrats that they cannot even imagine it...

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on July 16, 2023, 05:03:06 PM
Hunter does come across as a bit of a slimeball and for some reason the Republicans eat it up. You know what though? Hunter's not our President! Our President is so unimpeachable they need to attack his family. That they are so unapologetically doing so is the real disgrace.

The entire point of this debacle is that Joe has been using Hunter as a scapegoat and liaison to enact personal corruption. I think you, and everyone else here, knows perfectly well that this isn't just about Hunter. He's not some random man who happens to be connected to Joe Biden. The meme of "I didn't vote for Hunter!" and "you just don't have anything on Joe!" is nonsense. Hunter didn't find himself on the boards of foreign oil and gas companies because of his extensive executive knowledge in how to run oil and gas companies. Joe used his son to personally gain from his political power. Now neither Joe nor his son will face consequences for doing so. This is okay to you because obviously they are not the same person and the idea of them coordinating with each other is utterly impossible.

Sometimes I think the idea of family members interacting with each other is so completely foreign to so many Democrats that they cannot even imagine it...

Sure, Democrats recognize that families work together; the Trump administration saw some epic nepotism, and Democrats definitely recognize that the Trump crime family has been working together shamelessly defrauding people for decades. I guess maybe some day we'll see some concrete evidence that Joe and Hunter conspired to do something similarly illegal together, who knows?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: ichoosereality on July 16, 2023, 06:15:37 PM
Sure, Democrats recognize that families work together; the Trump administration saw some epic nepotism, and Democrats definitely recognize that the Trump crime family has been working together shamelessly defrauding people for decades. I guess maybe some day we'll see some concrete evidence that Joe and Hunter conspired to do something similarly illegal together, who knows?
Indeed, who knows?  Further just the perception that a company has gained some sort of "inside track" by putting a member of a powerful and well connected family on their board can be useful to that company, whether said appointment actually provides such or not.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 16, 2023, 07:23:46 PM
The argument that Hunter is not Joe Biden cuts both ways. It makes Joe Biden independently and uniquely responsible for disowning and denying the existence of his granddaughter. The argument that Hunter convinced Joe to turn his back on his flesh and blood granddaughter simply doesn't fly, since Hunter is not Joe Biden.

A year after paternity was established in Nov 2019, Joe Biden put out statements in Oct 2020 stating that "I'll always answer a call from my grandchildren", and sold himself as a family man who was there for his grandchildren and wanted to be deeply involved in their lives.

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1317966186907226113

In the case of Navy Joan, Joe Biden is turning his back on his grandchild. He has not reached out to her, and has not involved her with the grandchildren activities. All of the grandchildren are named on Christmas stockings, and explicitly named in their book except for the granddaughter Navy Joan. Joe Biden is even telling staff to state that he has six and not seven grandchildren and to leave out Navy Joan. This is frankly terrible, and all on Joe Biden uniquely.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on July 16, 2023, 07:33:33 PM
Tom is weirdly fixated on the illegitimate grandchild thing.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 16, 2023, 07:46:22 PM
Imagine arguing that a child born outside of marriage or in an accident does not deserve to have contact with her grandparents, uncles, aunts, should be banned from family events, family references, and should banned from growing up in a childhood with her cousins.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on July 16, 2023, 07:46:56 PM
Hunter does come across as a bit of a slimeball and for some reason the Republicans eat it up. You know what though? Hunter's not our President! Our President is so unimpeachable they need to attack his family. That they are so unapologetically doing so is the real disgrace.

The entire point of this debacle is that Joe has been using Hunter as a scapegoat and liaison to enact personal corruption. I think you, and everyone else here, knows perfectly well that this isn't just about Hunter. He's not some random man who happens to be connected to Joe Biden. The meme of "I didn't vote for Hunter!" and "you just don't have anything on Joe!" is nonsense. Hunter didn't find himself on the boards of foreign oil and gas companies because of his extensive executive knowledge in how to run oil and gas companies. Joe used his son to personally gain from his political power. Now neither Joe nor his son will face consequences for doing so. This is okay to you because obviously they are not the same person and the idea of them coordinating with each other is utterly impossible.

Sometimes I think the idea of family members interacting with each other is so completely foreign to so many Democrats that they cannot even imagine it...
Wait... what political power did Joe Biden have via his son?  The VP of the US has a lot of power and I can't imagine that Hunter inserting himself into a company he's not qualified to operate somehow increased Biden's political power as VP of the USA.


Imagine arguing that a child born outside of marriage or in an accident does not deserve to have contact with her grandparents, uncles, aunts, should be banned from family events, family references, and banned from growing up in a childhood with her cousins.
You.... you realize this happens often, right?  Like... this is common in cases where the parents aren't together.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Rushy on July 16, 2023, 07:59:12 PM
Wait... what political power did Joe Biden have via his son?  The VP of the US has a lot of power and I can't imagine that Hunter inserting himself into a company he's not qualified to operate somehow increased Biden's political power as VP of the USA.

I pointed out his family made enormous amounts of money in positions they weren't qualified to be in. I don't know where you got the "political power increase" thing from, but I suggest you start reading sentences a bit slower or something.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 16, 2023, 08:46:29 PM
Imagine arguing that a child born outside of marriage or in an accident does not deserve to have contact with her grandparents, uncles, aunts, should be banned from family events, family references, and banned from growing up in a childhood with her cousins.
You.... you realize this happens often, right?  Like... this is common in cases where the parents aren't together.

You are arguing that because some people are pieces of excitement who disown their grandchildren, that it's okay for Joe Biden to do so as well. The little girl did nothing here, and is innocent. This is Joe Biden walking away from his responsibilities as a grandfather, specifically ignoring her and excluding one grandchild from calls and family activities with his other grandchildren.

Joe Biden appears to deny that he is even her grandfather, instructing aids to deny her existence. This is not normal, even in broken families, and something many rightly consider to be monstrous. This is a punishment on the little girl for doing nothing. She will have to grow up knowing her paternal family excluded her and that the President of the United States specifically disowned her as his grandchild.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on July 16, 2023, 08:50:24 PM
Imagine arguing that a child born outside of marriage or in an accident does not deserve to have contact with her grandparents, uncles, aunts, should be banned from family events, family references, and banned from growing up in a childhood with her cousins.
You.... you realize this happens often, right?  Like... this is common in cases where the parents aren't together.

You are arguing that because some people are pieces of excitement who disown their grandchildren, that it's okay for Joe Biden to do so as well. The little girl did nothing here, and is innocent. This is Joe Biden walking away from his responsibilities as a grandfather, specifically ignoring her and excluding one grandchild from phone calls and family activities with his other grandchildren.

Joe Biden appears to deny that he is even her grandfather, instructing aids to deny her existence. This is not normal, even in broken families, and something many rightly consider to be monstrous. This is a punishment on the little girl for doing nothing. She will have to grow up knowing her paternal family excluded her and that the President of the United States specifically disowned her as his grandchild.
Considering how you think Joe Biden likes to molest and/or sniff kids hair... why is this bad again?

You seem to think that being part of the Biden family is a blessing and this child would be very fortunate to be included in Joe Biden's political situation.  How very interesting.

Regardless, you probably need more perspective on the subject.  Family isn't always blood.  And blood doesn't make you family.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on July 16, 2023, 09:00:28 PM
Wait... what political power did Joe Biden have via his son?  The VP of the US has a lot of power and I can't imagine that Hunter inserting himself into a company he's not qualified to operate somehow increased Biden's political power as VP of the USA.

I pointed out his family made enormous amounts of money in positions they weren't qualified to be in. I don't know where you got the "political power increase" thing from, but I suggest you start reading sentences a bit slower or something.

Ahh, apologies.
I did misread.  This line:

"Joe used his son to personally gain from his political power."
I misread it to say that Joe biden used his son to gain political power.
Instead you're saying he used his own political power and Hunter Biden to gain money.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 16, 2023, 09:17:05 PM
Considering how you think Joe Biden likes to molest and/or sniff kids hair... why is this bad again?

You seem to think that being part of the Biden family is a blessing and this child would be very fortunate to be included in Joe Biden's political situation.  How very interesting.

Regardless, you probably need more perspective on the subject.  Family isn't always blood.  And blood doesn't make you family.

Actually blood does make you family. Navy Joan's other grandfather did not reject her as his grandchild, despite that she came from a broken family and was an accident with a crackhead father. Navy Joan's other grandfather recognizes that she is his granddaughter and promises to love and protect her as a grandfather should:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/07/06/bidens-cruel-erasure-navy-joan-roberts/

(https://i.imgur.com/2qU07lQ.png)

The other grandfather knows what's right.  Meanwhile Joe Biden put up a stocking for the dog and other grandchildren by name, but not for his granddaughter Navy Joan.

https://twitter.com/TomCottonAR/status/1675870779009794050
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on July 16, 2023, 09:21:32 PM
Considering how you think Joe Biden likes to molest and/or sniff kids hair... why is this bad again?

You seem to think that being part of the Biden family is a blessing and this child would be very fortunate to be included in Joe Biden's political situation.  How very interesting.

Regardless, you probably need more perspective on the subject.  Family isn't always blood.  And blood doesn't make you family.

Actually blood does make you family. Navy Joan's other grandfather did not reject her as his grandchild, despite that she came from a broken family and was an accident with a crackhead father. Navy Joan's other grandfather recognizes that she is his granddaughter and promises to love and protect her as a grandfather should:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/07/06/bidens-cruel-erasure-navy-joan-roberts/

(https://i.imgur.com/2qU07lQ.png)
It does not.  One can be blood related but not be family.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: juner on July 16, 2023, 11:54:14 PM
joe and hunter are simply different people and hunter has no place in joe's administration as he was not elected or appointed.

which is why the secret service went to the gun dealer and tried to get the paperwork from his firearm purchase. it is very obvious that someone with no ties to the administration would get favors from the secret service. i can confirm this as i have no ties to the administration but the secret service tries to help me out of jams all the time.

not sure why you people care about hunter so much smh.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on July 17, 2023, 03:07:04 AM
I won't bother repeating myself on the subject of Biden's grandchild. None of Tom's sanctimonious hand-wringing changes the bottom line.

joe and hunter are simply different people and hunter has no place in joe's administration as he was not elected or appointed.

which is why the secret service went to the gun dealer and tried to get the paperwork from his firearm purchase. it is very obvious that someone with no ties to the administration would get favors from the secret service. i can confirm this as i have no ties to the administration but the secret service tries to help me out of jams all the time.

not sure why you people care about hunter so much smh.

You're referring to an incident that took place in 2018 (https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/25/sources-secret-service-inserted-itself-into-case-of-hunter-bidens-gun-477879). The Biden Administration had yet to exist, and neither Joe nor Hunter were receiving Secret Service protection at the time. Why assume that this implicates them? Trump was the president at the time, after all, and he demonstrated during his presidency that he was both corrupt and willing to abuse the powers of his office to target his political rivals, and Biden in particular. Here's a conspiracy theory - maybe Trump sent the Secret Service for the paperwork, not to protect Hunter if a crime were committed with the gun, but to use it against him. There's no evidence of that being the case, of course, but it's an entirely valid alternative to the (also evidence-free) assumption that Biden was trying to cover the whole thing up.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: juner on July 17, 2023, 03:27:58 AM
yes honk is absolutely correct that and is exactly the point i was trying to convey, thank you

of course the former vp would have no access to secret service, and of course would have no influence as he wasn't elected president yet, and of course hunter would never be a part of any administration anyway.

i am glad we agree. hopefully sadaam's investigation will finally get people to stop talking about hunter, who is nothing but a wayward and misguided soul. he certainly didn't engage in any corruption with his dad; that would be an absurd thing to say.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on July 17, 2023, 04:46:20 AM
of course the former vp would have no access to secret service, and of course would have no influence as he wasn't elected president yet, and of course hunter would never be a part of any administration anyway.

100% correct! The Secret Service's coverage of a VP isn't for life like it is for a President. It ends six months after they serve. So, yeah. But whoever lets facts and details get in the way of a good conspiracy theory, eh?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 17, 2023, 08:20:40 AM
It is pretty odd that honk's narrative is that Hunter has fathered a child, abandoned it, and received support in so doing from his father the President of the United States of America, and somehow it is all solely Hunter's fault. Somehow, Joe Biden's hands in his participation in rejecting and abandoning his granddaughter are wiped clean and not worth discussing.

Lord Dave thinks that you can simply choose who your family is, and if you want to disown your four year old daughter or your four year old granddaughter, it's okay in his book.

Roundy is even here arguing that children born out of wedlock don't deserve to be part of their family's lives, part of family events, or grow up with their cousins. He pretends that it is completely normal and acceptable in 2023 that children born out of wedlock are disowned by their grandparents and families.

Considering the absurd and constantly changing range of excuses here, the obvious truth here is that this is difficult to defend. It is more than a partisan issue. Even the liberal media is roasting Biden on this. New York Times Pulitzer Prize winner Maureen Dowd, a fairly well known Democrat journalist, shuns Biden for his heinous actions.

https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/critics-attack-the-new-york-times-for-daring-to-do-journalism-on-the-biden-granddaughter-story/

(https://i.imgur.com/V2elHdK.png)

Her article is here - https://web.archive.org/web/20230708160326/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/08/opinion/hunter-biden-child.html
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on July 17, 2023, 10:41:04 AM
It is pretty odd that honk's narrative is that Hunter has fathered a child, abandoned it, and received support in so doing from his father the President of the United States of America, and somehow it is all solely Hunter's fault. Somehow, Joe Biden's hands in his participation in rejecting and abandoning his granddaughter are wiped clean and not worth discussing.

Lord Dave thinks that you can simply choose who your family is, and if you want to disown your four year old daughter or your four year old granddaughter, it's okay in his book.

Roundy is even here arguing that children born out of wedlock don't deserve to be part of their family's lives, part of family events, or grow up with their cousins. He pretends that it is completely normal and acceptable in 2023 that children born out of wedlock are disowned by their grandparents and families.

Considering the absurd and constantly changing range of excuses here, the obvious truth here is that this is difficult to defend. It is more than a partisan issue. Even the liberal media is roasting Biden on this. New York Times Pulitzer Prize winner Maureen Dowd, a fairly well known Democrat journalist, shuns Biden for his heinous actions.

https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/critics-attack-the-new-york-times-for-daring-to-do-journalism-on-the-biden-granddaughter-story/

(https://i.imgur.com/V2elHdK.png)

Her article is here - https://web.archive.org/web/20230708160326/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/08/opinion/hunter-biden-child.html

Tom thinks forcing people to be a family is healthy.
I'll tell that to any rape victim who gets pregnant (and can't get an abortion), any one night stand, any abused .other,  any messy divorceee, etc...
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: juner on July 17, 2023, 03:29:35 PM
of course the former vp would have no access to secret service, and of course would have no influence as he wasn't elected president yet, and of course hunter would never be a part of any administration anyway.

100% correct! The Secret Service's coverage of a VP isn't for life like it is for a President. It ends six months after they serve. So, yeah. But whoever lets facts and details get in the way of a good conspiracy theory, eh?

exactly right. and we know he would hold zero influence and have no ability to do anything. really can't believe people are still talking about hunter. not like he was giving 10% to the big guy.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on July 17, 2023, 05:15:53 PM
Then all we're left with is the assumption that Biden must have been responsible for what happened for no better reason than it being in his interests to do so, and not because he had any authority to order it. I say that Trump also had an interest in collecting the incriminating paperwork. Combine that with the fact that, unlike Biden, he had a history of weaponizing his office for his own personal political gain (particularly against Biden), and that, also unlike Biden, he actually had the authority to order the Secret Service around at the time, and on the face of it, Trump is a much stronger suspect than Biden.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on July 17, 2023, 08:27:35 PM
Hey, Brandon said Hunter was better than him...
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 20, 2023, 10:39:49 PM
Sounds like Biden is corrupt to me.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12320527/RELEASED-FBI-document-detailing-alleged-10M-Biden-bribery-scheme-publicized-Republicans-Burisma-CEO-Zlochevsky-called-Hunter-stupid-necessary-board-dad-Vice-President-Joe-Biden-protect-problems.html

(https://i.imgur.com/zQlYSxH.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/2B3kAuB.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: ichoosereality on July 21, 2023, 01:05:57 AM
One might want to be cautious about using the Daily Mail for a source:

https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/daily-mail-still-not-taking-climate-change-seriously/  says

Quote
The ‘Daily Mail’ has a long track record of promoting climate change denial. Its coverage of climate change before and after COP26 has been no exception.

Although it is the most widely-read newspaper in the UK, the ‘Daily Mail’ has a reputation for publishing inaccurate and misleading information. For instance, in 2017, Wikipedia’s editors concluded that there is “established consensus that the Daily Mail was not a reliable source, and that its use in most Wikipedia articles was prohibited”.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2023, 01:24:47 AM
Daily Mail didn't fabricate those FBI documents. It says the documents were recently authorized for release from the US Congress.

(https://i.imgur.com/8SH5nWT.png)

The type of criticism you are referring to is certain editorial slants on the content such as saying "Bombastic" and "Bombshell" when it is really not that Bombastic since the information was already largely known.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: ichoosereality on July 21, 2023, 01:45:01 AM
The screen shots are reports from a Confidential Human Source about claims of conversations between others claiming things.  Maybe its true, but its also here-say.   It also talks about the head of Bursima using the fact that Hunter was on their board in his conversations with others in a "hey you know how we have on our board" sort of tactic, but no proof that that path was actually employed.  Maybe, but no evidence showing that as yet anyway.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2023, 03:06:41 AM
If you argument is going to be essentially "yeah, the reporting is true, people were attesting to those things against Joe Biden" then I'm not sure why you jumped into denial mode to attack the source. They claimed that they received evidence that people were saying these things to the FBI about Joe Biden and that is how it was presented.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on July 21, 2023, 03:15:42 AM
There's certainly no doubt that Hunter was hired by Burisma in an effort to help protect themselves, either by simply currying favor with Joe or by having access to directly influence him. The leadership of Burisma were clearly corrupt, and Shokin's refusal to properly investigate them was a big part of why the international community as a whole wanted him fired. (This is an important detail that conservatives keep trying to rewrite history on. Shokin wasn't fired for investigating Burisma; he was fired for protecting them. Biden wasn't protecting Burisma by demanding that Shokin be fired; it was in fact the reverse.) That criminals were talking like criminals amongst themselves isn't exactly a surprise. Also, Mykola Zlochevsky has something of a history of offering bribes, as seen by the fact that he's currently wanted by Ukraine's government for trying to bribe the prosecutors looking into Burisma, so the fact that he was supposedly considering offering bribes to Biden was almost certainly more of a Zlochevsky thing than a Biden thing, so to speak.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: ichoosereality on July 21, 2023, 05:34:02 AM
If you argument is going to be essentially "yeah, the reporting is true, people were attesting to those things against Joe Biden" then I'm not sure why you jumped into denial mode to attack the source. They claimed that they received evidence that people were saying these things to the FBI about Joe Biden and that is how it was presented.
The reporting (by the CHS) is that the reported conversation took place, not that what the conversation was about is true which the CHS can not know and that fact is clearly downplayed in the article.  It seems pretty clear that Burisma put Hunter on their board to at least make it appear in their dealings with others that they had influence.  Whether they actually had influence with Biden via Hunter is not at all clear nor would it be necessary for Hunter's paycheck to be worthwhile to Bursima.  Also as Honk points out Biden wanted Shokin fired due to his NOT investigating Burisma, so that at least does not show Biden acting on Bursima's behalf but against them.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on July 21, 2023, 11:19:15 AM
ITT ^ Saddam engaging in revisionist history, with cosigners.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: juner on July 21, 2023, 05:21:25 PM
ITT ^ Saddam engaging in revisionist history, with cosigners.

sadaam loves sleepy joe more than batman
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on July 21, 2023, 08:38:08 PM
I had a feeling I'd be met with denials. Very well, then, here are the actual sources backing up what I'm saying:

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trump-revives-false-narrative-on-biden-and-ukraine/

https://www.apnews.com/united-states-presidential-election-9d4595ba4f3140c6bb6a3473a91f4a4c

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-07/timeline-in-ukraine-probe-casts-doubt-on-giuliani-s-biden-claim

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/politics/gop-senators-echoed-biden-on-ukraine-reforms-kfile/index.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what-really-happened-when-biden-forced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-hails-sacking-of-ukraine-s-prosecutor-viktor-shokin-1.2591190

The historical record is clear. Shokin was seen as corrupt by both parties in America as well as the international community at large, and more or less everyone supported firing him. If conservatives really thought that this was a corrupt action on Biden's part, they would have brought it up immediately to use it against him and Obama, not waited several years later until he was running for president.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on July 21, 2023, 11:54:50 PM
I had a feeling I'd be met with denials. Very well, then, here are the actual sources backing up what I'm saying:

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trump-revives-false-narrative-on-biden-and-ukraine/

https://www.apnews.com/united-states-presidential-election-9d4595ba4f3140c6bb6a3473a91f4a4c

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-07/timeline-in-ukraine-probe-casts-doubt-on-giuliani-s-biden-claim

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/politics/gop-senators-echoed-biden-on-ukraine-reforms-kfile/index.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what-really-happened-when-biden-forced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-hails-sacking-of-ukraine-s-prosecutor-viktor-shokin-1.2591190

The historical record is clear. Shokin was seen as corrupt by both parties in America as well as the international community at large, and more or less everyone supported firing him. If conservatives really thought that this was a corrupt action on Biden's part, they would have brought it up immediately to use it against him and Obama, not waited several years later until he was running for president.
The historical record is actually here in these threads, and it's funny you were not claiming any of this crap then that you are trotting out now.

Trump asking a foreign leader to investigate a political rival shortly before an election with the subject of military assistance to that country currently being an unsettled issue is ample evidence of his corruption and unfitness for office, and a more than good enough reason to impeach and convict him. The apologists who insist that this actually exonerates Trump because he didn't explicitly threaten the minister with withholding military aid, or explicitly spell out that this was for his own political gain, will never be satisfied, because that's now how real people talk in real life. Nobody would ever have their own words used against them in court going by this unreasonably high standard of evidence. Of course military aid was on the line for this agreement to investigate Biden. Trump knew it, Zelensky knew it, and you knew it. It didn't need to be spelled out for everyone to know it. And of course Trump was doing this for his own political gain. He didn't give a shit about the Biden's son and this supposed corruption issue until very recently, when he saw an opportunity to use it against him. This wasn't some natural concern for the president that just organically drifted across his desk. Everybody knows it. Trying to deny what's so clearly obvious is just playing dumb.
I think you need to rethink the whole reasoning about what motivates Trump apologists regarding this matter.

You see, there is no evidence that anything you have written in this polemic is true.

What you write is not obvious.

But just in case, go ahead and point to the lines in the transcript for everyone. You know, the line where Trump says to Zelensky, "Either investigate the Biden issue or else you get no military aid!"

By the way, when you do that, point to a law that says this is illegal.

Cause when you do, the actual videotape (still currently airing on YouTube since it was first recorded) of Biden bragging about exactly that type of behavior will be right here...

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/24/watch-joe-biden-brag-about-bribing-ukraine-to-fire-the-prosecutor-investigating-his-sons-company/ (https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/24/watch-joe-biden-brag-about-bribing-ukraine-to-fire-the-prosecutor-investigating-his-sons-company/)

"While the whistleblower complaint is based on hearsay, we do know that Joe Biden, while serving as vice president, pressured the Ukrainian government to fire the prosecutor who was investigating his son’s company. Hunter Biden joined the board of Ukrainian national gas company Burisma in 2014 while his father was managing the United States’ Ukraine policy and despite zero personal experience in the field. At the time Hunter Biden joined its board, Burisma was embroiled in allegations of corruption, allegations serious enough that Ukraine’s prosecutor general launched an investigation into the company."


Very weak effort Saddam...truly, truly weak...but typical liberal...
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on July 22, 2023, 07:04:20 AM
Why did you counter a post about Biden and Hunter with Trump and Ukraine and call that evidence?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on July 22, 2023, 10:20:42 AM
Why did you counter a post about Biden and Hunter with Trump and Ukraine and call that evidence?
All humans can see the subject matter is the same.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on July 22, 2023, 11:09:46 AM
Why did you counter a post about Biden and Hunter with Trump and Ukraine and call that evidence?
All humans can see the subject matter is the same.
I am not human so please explain how your post proves that Biden tried to protect Hunter's company.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on July 22, 2023, 01:15:16 PM
Why did you counter a post about Biden and Hunter with Trump and Ukraine and call that evidence?
All humans can see the subject matter is the same.
I am not human so please explain how your post proves that Biden tried to protect Hunter's company.
I only explain things to humans.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on July 22, 2023, 11:41:38 PM
The historical record is actually here in these threads

No, it isn't. ??? What a strange thing to say.

Quote
and it's funny you were not claiming any of this crap then that you are trotting out now

How is at all relevant what I did or didn't say in a post four years ago?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2023, 11:50:12 PM
Imagine pretending that Hunter Biden's business is unrelated to Joe Biden.

https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1684653912689872896?s=20

Quote
BREAKING🚨 Rep. James Comer says six banks, including JP Morgan, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo, submitted over 170 suspicious activity reports to the Treasury Department regarding the Biden family, alleging their involvement in money laundering, human trafficking, and tax fraud.

The American banks also raised concerns about wire transfers received by the Bidens from foreign state-owned entities, notably from the Chinese government, allegedly for the purpose of money laundering and tax evasion.

The foreign wires were found to be directed towards Biden's business associates before being funneled through 20 shell companies associated with the Bidens. Subsequently, the funds were distributed among various Biden family members.

SARs are vital documents that financial institutions must file with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) when they suspect any cases of money laundering or fraudulent activities.

Rep. Comer highlighted one specific SAR linked to a $3 million wire from China to Biden's business partner, Rob Walker. This money was received in an inactive account that had maintained a $50,000 balance for ten years before the significant wire transaction from China.

Within just 24 hours of receiving the wire, Walker initiated incremental payments to several Biden shell companies, eventually disbursing funds to four different Biden family members.

Comer explained that concealing the source of money through the use of shell companies to deceive the IRS is considered money laundering and racketeering.

He noted that if the funds were intended for legitimate purposes, they could have been wired directly to Hunter Biden, but instead, they were routed through business partners and various companies with no clear legitimate purpose.

Senator Ted Cruz asked, "So the Chinese Communist government was sending the money?"

Rep. Comer replied, "Yes."

"If Hunter Biden was doing something legitimate for China, they could have just wired the money to Hunter Biden, but they didn't," he explained.

"They sent it to a company called Robinson Walker. Then they wired it to a company called Owasco. Then they wired it to another company called Bohai. These companies don't do anything with the money."

Senator Cruz responded, "It's just a bucket to pour the water in, then a bucket to pour it into somewhere else?"

Rep Comer said, "That's exactly what it is and it was organized. This is like organized crime."

When the corporate media foolishly asks where is the evidence that the Bidens committed crimes?

American banks have submitted hundreds of suspicious activity reports on the Biden family, alleging their involvement in human trafficking, money laundering, and tax fraud.

Congressional investigators have obtained bank account records and wire transfer statements on twenty shell companies owned by the Bidens, which were allegedly used for laundering illegally obtained money from China, Russia, Ukraine, Romania, and Kazakhstan as unregistered foreign agents.

This evidence is supported by hundreds of thousands of emails, tens of thousands of text messages, photographs, audio recordings, calendar statements, and ten years of data from Hunter Biden's laptop, which the FBI took into its possession in 2019.

@MarcoPolo501c3
 published a comprehensive "Report on the Biden Laptop," documenting 459 alleged crimes involving the Biden family and their associates, including 140 business crimes, 191 sex crimes, and 128 drug crimes.

A $1,000 reward is offered for any verifiable corrections, but thus far, no crimes have been disputed.

In addition, credible IRS whistleblowers have accused the Justice Department of obstructing the Hunter Biden investigation by blocking felony charges, search warrants, and interviews while preventing any investigation of the President and his family.

Furthermore, just yesterday, a judge highlighted an unprecedented lenient deal offered by the Justice Department to Hunter Biden, which would result in no felony charges or jail time for tax fraud and lying on a gun form.

This DOJ deal would have also granted protection to the First Son from any future prosecution related to illegally obtained money from foreign nations as an unregistered foreign agent.

What is more corrosive and destructive to our nation than a politicized Justice Department that applies different legal standards depending on whether one's last name is Trump or Biden?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on July 28, 2023, 01:54:50 AM
Show me the evidence. Not Ted Cruz and another partisan stooge talking about all the evidence, but the actual evidence itself, or at least a summary of it from a trustworthy source, and then maybe I'll agree there's something there. That Republicans like Cruz are making wild promises about how super-duper corrupt the Bidens are means nothing. Also, a couple of highlights from that lengthy spiel:

Quote
@MarcoPolo501c3 published a comprehensive "Report on the Biden Laptop," documenting 459 alleged crimes involving the Biden family and their associates, including 140 business crimes, 191 sex crimes, and 128 drug crimes.

Very believable numbers there. At this point you might as well just say "omg the Bidens have stolen a gorillion bazillion dollars!"

Quote
A $1,000 reward is offered for any verifiable corrections, but thus far, no crimes have been disputed.

As I've said before in other threads, these "Prove x and I'll pay you money!" gimmicks are meaningless regardless of the subject under discussion. The people who put these challenges up usually provide themselves with an escape hatch to avoid having to pay if they don't want to, and even if they don't, the number of legal hoops you'd have to jump through to force them to pay is unfeasible for most people. They're publicity stunts, nothing more.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on July 28, 2023, 05:10:52 AM
Ssooo... All these crimes were discovered by Trump while he was president and he did nothing?  How interesting....
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on July 28, 2023, 08:48:25 AM
The historical record is actually here in these threads

No, it isn't. ??? What a strange thing to say.

Quote
and it's funny you were not claiming any of this crap then that you are trotting out now

How is at all relevant what I did or didn't say in a post four years ago?
Because if these sources actually stated then what you are claiming they state now, it would have been trotted out then.

But thank you for the insight as to how revisionist history is so conveniently manufactured in this age of the AI internet.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 28, 2023, 09:02:10 AM
Show me the evidence. Not Ted Cruz and another partisan stooge talking about all the evidence, but the actual evidence itself, or at least a summary of it from a trustworthy source, and then maybe I'll agree there's something there. That Republicans like Cruz are making wild promises about how super-duper corrupt the Bidens are means nothing. Also, a couple of highlights from that lengthy spiel:

The other guy there is the chair of the House Oversight Committee, who is talking about its current investigation into the Bidens. The explanation here is that either the House Oversight Committee is framing Biden, or that this is a legitimate investigation. Considering that you have not presented any evidence at all for your claims that Congress is framing Biden, it appears that we have more evidence that Biden is corrupt. Framing a sitting President is, of course, illegal, and you should get on with building a case for your wild claims.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on July 28, 2023, 12:44:45 PM
Show me the evidence. Not Ted Cruz and another partisan stooge talking about all the evidence, but the actual evidence itself, or at least a summary of it from a trustworthy source, and then maybe I'll agree there's something there. That Republicans like Cruz are making wild promises about how super-duper corrupt the Bidens are means nothing. Also, a couple of highlights from that lengthy spiel:

The other guy there is the chair of the House Oversight Committee, who is talking about its current investigation into the Bidens. The explanation here is that either the House Oversight Committee is framing Biden, or that this is a legitimate investigation. Considering that you have not presented any evidence at all for your claims that Congress is framing Biden, it appears that we have more evidence that Biden is corrupt. Framing a sitting President is, of course, illegal, and you should get on with building a case for your wild claims.
Then I look forward to the results of the actual investigation.  Probably right after they investigate the voter fraud from the 2020 election, right?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on July 28, 2023, 04:25:40 PM
Because if these sources actually stated then what you are claiming they state now, it would have been trotted out then.

I really don't think you can be basing deductions about the non-existence of prominent sources purely on the whims of an online discussion. There are a million reasons why I or anyone else might address one but not another particular facet of a complex subject in any given post. Looking at the post of mine you quoted, it's pretty clear that I was talking about the validity of Trump's impeachment rather than whether or not the underlying claim that Biden was corrupt was true, and in particular that there didn't need to be an explicit quid pro quo for what Trump did to be an abuse of power. (I love how you responded with "So where's the explicit quid pro quo?" Great reading comprehension.) For what it's worth - in my view, nothing - Rama Set brought up the point that everyone wanted Shokin fired on the previous page (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg199732#msg199732) of that thread, and I've discussed (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16615.msg221392;topicseen#msg221392) Shokin (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17475.msg227429;topicseen#msg227429) multiple (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19071.msg256736;topicseen#msg256736) times over the past few years. I don't know what makes this forum's records more trustworthy than that of the numerous websites I cited, and I find it very, very unlikely that all these websites could have planted those articles with false dates and pretended that it was information we've known for years with nobody noticing.

The explanation here is that either the House Oversight Committee is framing Biden, or that this is a legitimate investigation.

No, this is just a couple of prominent Republicans publicly lying about Biden and slandering him as a crook to rile up the base.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 28, 2023, 07:01:27 PM
No, this is just a couple of prominent Republicans publicly lying about Biden and slandering him as a crook to rile up the base.

It's not just a couple of people "lying". The Oversight Committee is investigating the Bidens and what was posted was part of the investigation. Under your narrative of people "lying" Congress would need to be officially lying and framing the Bidens for crimes.

https://oversight.house.gov/landing/biden-family-investigation/

(https://i.imgur.com/Y8LCP2q.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/C03MHsF.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/324algO.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/wrABYff.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on July 31, 2023, 08:43:18 PM
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/31/politics/devon-archer-house-testimony/index.html

Well that was a bust. But if you keep digging, Republicans, maybe you can get President Biden to perjure himself over a blowjob or something.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: ichoosereality on July 31, 2023, 09:42:36 PM
"Former business partner says Hunter Biden sold ‘illusion’ of access to Joe Biden, source says"
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/31/politics/devon-archer-house-testimony/index.html

Just as I and undoubtedly others have speculated.  Hunter did not have to actually have any influence with his father to get high paying jobs where his employer wanted it to look like he had such.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on August 01, 2023, 12:17:58 AM
Because if these sources actually stated then what you are claiming they state now, it would have been trotted out then.

I really don't think you can be basing deductions about the non-existence of prominent sources purely on the whims of an online discussion. There are a million reasons why I or anyone else might address one but not another particular facet of a complex subject in any given post. Looking at the post of mine you quoted, it's pretty clear that I was talking about the validity of Trump's impeachment rather than whether or not the underlying claim that Biden was corrupt was true, and in particular that there didn't need to be an explicit quid pro quo for what Trump did to be an abuse of power. (I love how you responded with "So where's the explicit quid pro quo?" Great reading comprehension.) For what it's worth - in my view, nothing - Rama Set brought up the point that everyone wanted Shokin fired on the previous page (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg199732#msg199732) of that thread, and I've discussed (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16615.msg221392;topicseen#msg221392) Shokin (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17475.msg227429;topicseen#msg227429) multiple (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19071.msg256736;topicseen#msg256736) times over the past few years. I don't know what makes this forum's records more trustworthy than that of the numerous websites I cited, and I find it very, very unlikely that all these websites could have planted those articles with false dates and pretended that it was information we've known for years with nobody noticing.
And as I stated then, the entire US administration and the entire EU wanted him gone because he was investigating Burisma, which was funding the entire Democratic socialist enterprise. You didn't bring up any revisionist history bullcrap then, because it wasn't written then as it is in your latest line of malarkey you are trotting out.
The explanation here is that either the House Oversight Committee is framing Biden, or that this is a legitimate investigation.
No, this is just a couple of prominent Republicans publicly lying about Biden and slandering him as a crook to rile up the base.
What's the lie?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 01, 2023, 08:05:08 PM
Wow. Democrats have been backed into a corner have resorted to this new narrative they that bribery did occur, but Joe Biden wasn't part of it:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/08/01/democrats-hunter-biden-sold-business-partners-an-illusion-of-access-to-joe-biden/

(https://i.imgur.com/WuTWdqb.png)

This doesn't hold up of course, and only digs the Democrats into a deeper hole. We are expected to believe that foreign entities continually paid millions of dollars for something they did not get:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12361723/MAUREEN-CALLAHAN-Damning-testimony-shows-Biden-reeks-corruption-despite-Democrats-attempts-bury-truth-Dont-know-theyre-throwing-away-2024-Joes-biggest-liability.html


It is clear this narrative by the Democrats is a poor-effort excuse and lie. In the testimony it was admitted that Burisma pressured Hunter Biden to do something about the prosecutor that was giving them trouble.

https://nypost.com/2023/07/31/ex-hunter-biden-partner-devon-archer-arrives-for-house-deposition/


Joe Biden took care of it:

https://twitter.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1686372318602231808

Honk and Roundy want us to believe that the prosecutor really was corrupt and it is only a coincidence that the Bidens were receiving millions of dollars from the company that was being prosecuted, and that it was only a coincidence that they pressured Hunter Biden to take care of it. It is one coincidence after the next.

And now, with this new narrative, we are expected to believe that corruption occurred, but everyone involved was corrupt except for Joe Biden, who was somehow fooled by his son in his son's corrupt bribery business dealings. Hunter Biden is the bad and evil one who is tricking his father into policy decisions. What an odd and increasingly desperate argument this is turning into.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on August 01, 2023, 08:39:35 PM
Wow. Democrats have been backed into a corner have resorted to this new narrative they that bribery did occur, but Joe Biden wasn't part of it:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/08/01/democrats-hunter-biden-sold-business-partners-an-illusion-of-access-to-joe-biden/

(https://i.imgur.com/WuTWdqb.png)

This doesn't hold up of course, and only digs the Democrats into a deeper hole. We are expected to believe that foreign entities continually paid millions of dollars for something they did not get:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12361723/MAUREEN-CALLAHAN-Damning-testimony-shows-Biden-reeks-corruption-despite-Democrats-attempts-bury-truth-Dont-know-theyre-throwing-away-2024-Joes-biggest-liability.html

    CNN: 'Hunter Biden sold 'illusion' of access to Joe Biden.'

    Sure. What foreign entities would continue to spend millions with no return on their investment?

It is clear this narrative by the Democrats is a poor-effort excuse and lie. In the testimony it was admitted that Burisma pressured Hunter Biden to do something about the prosecutor that was giving them trouble.

https://nypost.com/2023/07/31/ex-hunter-biden-partner-devon-archer-arrives-for-house-deposition/

    According to Archer, Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky —  who allegedly told an FBI informant in 2016 he was “coerced” to pay $10 million in bribes to Hunter and Joe Biden — put intense pressure on Hunter in late 2015 to enlist US support for ousting Ukrainian prosecutor-general Viktor Shokin, who had investigated Burisma, the Republican readout said.

Joe Biden took care of it:

https://twitter.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1686372318602231808

Honk and Roundy want us to believe that the prosecutor really was corrupt and it is only a coincidence that the Bidens were receiving millions of dollars from the company that was being prosecuted, and that it was only a coincidence that they pressured Hunter Biden to take care of it.

And now, with this new narrative, we are expected to believe that corruption occurred, but everyone involved was corrupt except for Joe Biden, who was somehow fooled by his son in his son's corrupt bribery business dealings. What an odd and increasingly desperate argument this is turning into.
In fairness, Elon Musk spent Billions and is getting no Return on Investment.  Or profit.  Or an easier life.  So that part actually makes sense. 

But really... why fire him in 2015 when the investigation began in 2012?  Seems like an awfully long time to wait before pressuing Ukraine to fire someone, eh?
And why did  Vitaly Kasko provide documentation of a dormant investigation?
And why did the investigation only focus on the years prior to Hunter biden being put on the board?

Seems all oddly uncoincidental that all these things aren't related to Hunter Biden...
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on August 01, 2023, 08:45:22 PM
It is clear this narrative by the Democrats is a poor-effort excuse and lie. In the testimony it was admitted that Burisma pressured Hunter Biden to do something about the prosecutor that was giving them trouble.

https://nypost.com/2023/07/31/ex-hunter-biden-partner-devon-archer-arrives-for-house-deposition/

    According to Archer, Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky —  who allegedly told an FBI informant in 2016 he was “coerced” to pay $10 million in bribes to Hunter and Joe Biden — put intense pressure on Hunter in late 2015 to enlist US support for ousting Ukrainian prosecutor-general Viktor Shokin, who had investigated Burisma, the Republican readout said.

Joe Biden took care of it:

But did he really?
Quote from: https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine-top-prosecutor-fired-viktor-shokin/30181445.html
However, there are two big problems with the narrative presented by Trump and Giuliani, according to activists in Ukraine and others.

For one thing, Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption advocates who were pushing for an investigation into the dealings of Burisma and its owner, Mykola Zlochevskiy, said the probe had been dormant long before Biden leveled his demand.

"There was no pressure from anyone from the United States" to close the case against Zlochevskiy, Vitaliy Kasko, who was a deputy prosecutor-general under Shokin and is now first deputy prosecutor-general, told Bloomberg News in May. "It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015," he added.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on August 01, 2023, 10:16:12 PM
The only ones trying to sell a narrative is the Republicans, who are desperate for a scandal (any scandal!) involving Biden to deflect from the fact that their likely candidate is in seriously deep shit. The Democrats have the facts on their side. The line about "selling the illusion" doesn't come from some spin doctors, it comes directly from the latest star witness that was supposed to blow the Biden Crime Family's ( ;D) corruption wide open, and ended up being yet another dud, because the Biden Crime Family is a figment of the imagination.

If there's evidence of corruption on Joe's part I'm sure it will come out. Unfortunately all the Repugnicans have been able to produce are half-baked accusations and conspiracy theories. But I wish them all the luck, if Biden really is the master criminal they desperately want the public to  believe he is then it should be exposed.

On the other hand there are REAMS of evidence damning Trump. And as a bonus Biden never tried to overthrow the government, so on balance I think he's the better candidate.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on August 02, 2023, 02:38:06 AM
And as I stated then, the entire US administration and the entire EU wanted him gone because he was investigating Burisma, which was funding the entire Democratic socialist enterprise. You didn't bring up any revisionist history bullcrap then, because it wasn't written then as it is in your latest line of malarkey you are trotting out.

Just to be clear, you believe that almost the entire media have colluded to carefully construct an elaborate retroactive narrative by planting numerous fabricated and falsely-dated articles, nobody noticed this blatant rewriting of history but you, and your sole evidence for believing this is the fact that a guy on the Internet didn't cite these articles during a discussion on a related (not even the same, just related) subject a few years ago?

Also, while I don't plan on doing this with every article I linked, I checked for the Bloomberg article on the Internet Archive. It's been copied over seven hundred times between now and its supposed publication date, with the earliest being this one (https://web.archive.org/web/20190507115133/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-07/timeline-in-ukraine-probe-casts-doubt-on-giuliani-s-biden-claim) from that same day, May 7th, 2019. How does this square with your theory of the article being posted recently and falsely dated? Is the Archive in on this conspiracy?

Wow. Democrats have been backed into a corner have resorted to this new narrative they that bribery did occur, but Joe Biden wasn't part of it:

Yes, Hunter Biden is sleazy and corrupt. We already knew this. Nobody has ever tried to deny it. You keep making the same basic observation over and over again and acting each time like it's brand new information. It's not.

Quote
We are expected to believe that foreign entities continually paid millions of dollars for something they did not get:

...

Sure. What foreign entities would continue to spend millions with no return on their investment?

Wealthy corporations and individuals (not sure what difference it makes if they're foreign) make poor investments and waste lots of money all the time. And if we're going to go down this route of "common sense" arguments that don't rely on actual evidence, then I have two of my own to make. Why would Biden partner with someone as flaky as his son for his criminal schemes? Hunter has been a drug addict for years, and he's well known for his wild partying and cavorting with prostitutes. Surely Joe would have enough connections through his decades in politics to find himself a far more reliable and discreet partner. Also, do you think that Hunter himself would be keeping quiet about it if Joe were connected with his crimes? This is the guy who made a move on his brother's widow and, as previously discussed, isn't enough of a man to be a part of his young daughter's life or even properly acknowledge her existence. He's a selfish, weak man with no real loyalty to his family. If he had been working with his father, he would have flipped on him a long time ago.

Quote
Honk and Roundy want us to believe that the prosecutor really was corrupt and it is only a coincidence that the Bidens were receiving millions of dollars from the company that was being prosecuted, and that it was only a coincidence that they pressured Hunter Biden to take care of it. It is one coincidence after the next.

And now, with this new narrative, we are expected to believe that corruption occurred, but everyone involved was corrupt except for Joe Biden, who was somehow fooled by his son in his son's corrupt bribery business dealings. Hunter Biden is the bad and evil one who is tricking his father into policy decisions. What an odd and increasingly desperate argument this is turning into.

No, it's not a coincidence. Burisma certainly hired Hunter in the hopes that he could curry favor with his father. But firing Shokin was not a result of this, because he was widely viewed as corrupt by the international community and the investigation into Burisma was dormant. Biden did not protect Burisma by demanding that Shokin be fired. That's simply not what happened, and it's pig-headed denialism to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it was otherwise.

That being said, though, I do appreciate you linking me the webpage from Congress that has actual documents on it rather than just a Twitter link to Ted Cruz bloviating on camera. I'll look into their claims and see what case they've made.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on August 02, 2023, 12:38:20 PM
And as I stated then, the entire US administration and the entire EU wanted him gone because he was investigating Burisma, which was funding the entire Democratic socialist enterprise. You didn't bring up any revisionist history bullcrap then, because it wasn't written then as it is in your latest line of malarkey you are trotting out.

Just to be clear, you believe that almost the entire media have colluded to carefully construct an elaborate retroactive narrative by planting numerous fabricated and falsely-dated articles, nobody noticed this blatant rewriting of history but you, and your sole evidence for believing this is the fact that a guy on the Internet didn't cite these articles during a discussion on a related (not even the same, just related) subject a few years ago?

Also, while I don't plan on doing this with every article I linked, I checked for the Bloomberg article on the Internet Archive. It's been copied over seven hundred times between now and its supposed publication date, with the earliest being this one (https://web.archive.org/web/20190507115133/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-07/timeline-in-ukraine-probe-casts-doubt-on-giuliani-s-biden-claim) from that same day, May 7th, 2019. How does this square with your theory of the article being posted recently and falsely dated? Is the Archive in on this conspiracy?
WEB ARCHIVE!!!! TOTALLY LEGIT!!!! HONEST!!!!

...the investigation into Burisma was dormant...
ITT^ Saddam - "Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma...therefore he was fired."
        Saddam - "Shokin was investigating Burisma...I cannot get my own story straight."

Yeah, we can see why you cannot get your facts straight, Saddam.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on August 02, 2023, 01:00:25 PM
There had been an investigation into Burisma, but it was dormant. Therefore, Shokim was not investigating Burisma.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on August 02, 2023, 02:59:20 PM
There had been an investigation into Burisma, but it was dormant. Therefore, Shokim was not investigating Burisma.
ITT^ Saddam states his undying belief that all investigations must be continuously ongoing and in the news in order to be considered active.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on August 02, 2023, 04:40:18 PM
There had been an investigation into Burisma, but it was dormant. Therefore, Shokim was not investigating Burisma.
ITT^ Saddam states his undying belief that all investigations must be continuously ongoing and in the news in order to be considered active.

Yes.
If an investigation is not ongoing its inactive.  (News not required)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on August 09, 2023, 01:07:00 PM
Joe Biden is helping to save the middle class.

https://fortune.com/2023/08/08/ups-drivers-170000-union-agreement-teamsters-middle-class-bidenomics/

Thanks Joe!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on August 09, 2023, 02:42:35 PM
Joe Biden is helping to save the middle class.

https://fortune.com/2023/08/08/ups-drivers-170000-union-agreement-teamsters-middle-class-bidenomics/

Thanks Joe!

I can't read it but I know several people who drove for ups.  Or rather a contractor for ups.  They have few if any actual drivers and rely on local contractors which are kept on a stupidly tight leash.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on August 17, 2023, 02:13:58 AM
Just so you guys know, the latest scandal (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/karine-jean-pierre-twitter-biden-mishap-b2394032.html) rocking Biden's world is that his press secretary accidentally tweeted something from her own account that looks like it was supposed to have been sent from Biden's account instead, which proves that Biden...has a comms team, like literally any other politician in the world. I guess that's a bad thing when you're used to Trump's spontaneous shitposting.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on August 17, 2023, 03:59:44 AM
Just so you guys know, the latest scandal (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/karine-jean-pierre-twitter-biden-mishap-b2394032.html) rocking Biden's world is that his press secretary accidentally tweeted something from her own account that looks like it was supposed to have been sent from Biden's account instead, which proves that Biden...has a comms team, like literally any other politician in the world. I guess that's a bad thing when you're used to Trump's spontaneous shitposting.
Brandon - "No comment."

ETA - Nobody gives a good goddamn about the idiot press secretary.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on August 17, 2023, 04:24:00 AM
Just so you guys know, the latest scandal (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/karine-jean-pierre-twitter-biden-mishap-b2394032.html) rocking Biden's world is that his press secretary accidentally tweeted something from her own account that looks like it was supposed to have been sent from Biden's account instead, which proves that Biden...has a comms team, like literally any other politician in the world. I guess that's a bad thing when you're used to Trump's spontaneous shitposting.

WHAT?!
Fuck him!
I want my president to be on twitter, not delegating that so he can do other things.  His tweets are the only real thing about him.  And if they aren't real then I have no choice then to vote for a president who takes his tweeting seriously.  Like more seriously than being president!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on August 18, 2023, 12:57:48 AM
Just so you guys know, the latest scandal (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/karine-jean-pierre-twitter-biden-mishap-b2394032.html) rocking Biden's world is that his press secretary accidentally tweeted something from her own account that looks like it was supposed to have been sent from Biden's account instead, which proves that Biden...has a comms team, like literally any other politician in the world. I guess that's a bad thing when you're used to Trump's spontaneous shitposting.

WHAT?!
Fuck him!
I want my president to be on twitter, not delegating that so he can do other things.  His tweets are the only real thing about him.  And if they aren't real then I have no choice then to vote for a president who takes his tweeting seriously.  Like more seriously than being president!
I agree.  If someone isn't constantly posting their every random thought in real time...  Covfefe
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2023, 07:30:51 PM
Inexplicable

(https://i.imgur.com/kMaFdEC.jpg)

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/09/opinion/joe-biden-unpopular.html
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2023, 08:49:15 PM
Imagine having to pretend that this is normal

https://twitter.com/DontWalkRUN/status/1700886354966573388
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on September 11, 2023, 07:38:49 AM
Imagine having to pretend that this is normal

https://twitter.com/DontWalkRUN/status/1700886354966573388

Yes, he's old and shouldn't be president.  Honestly, once you get to your 70s, you really shouldn't be president.

Tho the piano music was distracting.  Why would they put that in? (They being the maker of the video clip)

-edit-
Ok the piano was from the event.
And apparently... it was actually over before he fielded unrelated questions.  Watch the full video.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?530300-1/president-biden-holds-press-conference-vietnam

He finishes up with "I don't don't know about you but I'm going to bed".
Which would usually signal the end of the press conference.  But he started fielding more questions.

So... yeah.  Seems pretty normal.  You got time limits and jetlag is a bitch.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on September 11, 2023, 10:38:26 AM
Imagine having to pretend that this is normal
You understand that Trump will be older than Biden is now at the end of his term if he becomes the next president?
Trump does seem more "with it" than Biden, admittedly - there's other reasons I wouldn't want him being US president. But the whole idea of you electing guys in their 70s to run the country is ludicrous. It has to be one of the most stressful jobs in the country, and you're giving it to people who in pretty much any other career would be long since retired and for good reason - no-one is as sharp in their 70s as they are in their prime.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2023, 02:37:04 PM
You seem to be mistaking age with competency. Here is Donald Trump to set you straight:

(https://i.imgur.com/VGO4xMO.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: ichoosereality on September 14, 2023, 03:21:48 PM
Trump does seem more "with it" than Biden, admittedly
Not sure about that.  With Biden's (life long) speech impediment and Trump's (life long) MO of just making stuff up (who knows if he believes it or not), its hard to tell.

- there's other reasons I wouldn't want him being US president. But the whole idea of you electing guys in their 70s to run the country is ludicrous. It has to be one of the most stressful jobs in the country, and you're giving it to people who in pretty much any other career would be long since retired and for good reason - no-one is as sharp in their 70s as they are in their prime.
You got that right.  I liked Romney's retirement announcement about being time for the baby boomers to make way for a new generation.   I wish Biden would pass the torch.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on September 14, 2023, 03:48:14 PM
You seem to be mistaking age with competency.
I'm not, but there is some correlation between those two things. No-one is as sharp in their late 70s as they are at their prime.

Quote
Here is Donald Trump to set you straight
Well, he's nice and impartial. I note he doesn't cite which poll so is this just more stuff he's just making up? He does do that, you know.

Does he mean this poll, maybe?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/28/biden-voters-age

Quote
More than three-quarters of respondents in a new US poll said Joe Biden would be too old to be effective if re-elected president next year.
But as many people in the survey said the 80-year-old Biden was “old” and “confused”, so a similar number saw his 77-year-old likely challenger, Donald Trump, as “corrupt” and “dishonest”.

So yeah, a lot of people to think Biden is too old. I'm one of them. I happen to think Trump is too, not as many people agree with that but they're not exactly giving ringing endorsement of him either. Only his cult members are doing that.

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 15, 2023, 05:18:25 PM
You seem to be mistaking age with competency.
I'm not, but there is some correlation between those two things. No-one is as sharp in their late 70s as they are at their prime.

It depends what you are measuring. After adulthood fluid intelligence decreases as you age, but crystalized intelligence increases as you age - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8809681/

"Population-average declines are observed across adulthood for fluid abilities, whereas population average increases are observed through the seventh decade of life for crystallized abilities (8, 9)."

For example, a young person might be better at adapting to the mechanics of a new video game than an older person. But for an existing skill like social interaction and the ability to use it to your advantage, an old person is much better at navigating social dynamics and utilizing social manipulation as a tool than a young person, as they have had more time to hone those skills, and will tend to dominate in that aspect. And it's not just social pressures to submit to old people. They are objectively better in areas like that. Managers in their 60's tend to dominate in business over managers in their 30's and 40's, who should presumably be more capable due to youth and stage of maturity, but are not and still have a lot to learn.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on September 16, 2023, 05:10:09 AM
You seem to be mistaking age with competency.
I'm not, but there is some correlation between those two things. No-one is as sharp in their late 70s as they are at their prime.

It depends what you are measuring. After adulthood fluid intelligence decreases as you age, but crystalized intelligence increases as you age - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8809681/

"Population-average declines are observed across adulthood for fluid abilities, whereas population average increases are observed through the seventh decade of life for crystallized abilities (8, 9)."

For example, a young person might be better at adapting to the mechanics of new video game than an older person. But for an existing skill like social interaction and the ability to use it to your advantage, an old person is much better at navigating social dynamics and utilizing social manipulation as a tool than a young person, as they have had more time to hone those skills, and will tend to dominate in that aspect. And it's not just social pressures to submit to old people. They are objectively better in areas like that. Managers in their 60's tend to dominate in business over managers in their 30's and 40's, who should presumably be more capable due to youth and stage of maturity, but are not and still have a lot to learn.

This is largely the problem.
The 70 year old politicians are so crystalized in their opinions and intelligence that new things ,like the internet, is hard to grasp and make law for.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 17, 2023, 01:35:43 AM
In the past decade the people have had the opportunity to elect someone younger with those qualities. Plenty of younger people have run.

The problem is that if you compare these people directly, one younger person with new knowledge like knowledge of the internet, and an older person with the experiential skills of a manager, the later wins for the position.

Tech-bros ran in 2016, 2020, and will be running in 2024. Vivek Ramaswamy is a 38 year old pharma and finance-bro with a science degree and new knowledge, who is running right now. He also has a JD, and has started his own successful companies. By all accounts he appears to be a very smart and accomplished individual.

Unfortunately he will not win because the skills of an older manager outshine what he has to bring to the table. He is currently lagging behind Trump and DeSantis in the polls, and is presently fighting Mike Pence and Nikki Haley for third place deep down near the sixth percentile.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on September 17, 2023, 06:30:06 AM
In the past decade the people have had the opportunity to elect someone younger with those qualities. Plenty of younger people have run.

The problem is that if you compare these people directly, one younger person with new knowledge like knowledge of the internet, and an older person with the experiential skills of a manager, the later wins for the position.

Tech-bros ran in 2016, 2020, and will be running in 2024. Vivek Ramaswamy is a 38 year old pharma and finance-bro with a science degree and new knowledge, who is running right now. He also has a JD, and has started his own successful companies. By all accounts he appears to be a very smart and accomplished individual.

Unfortunately he will not win because the skills of an older manager outshine what he has to bring to the table. He is currently lagging behind Trump and DeSantis in the polls, and is presently fighting Mike Pence and Nikki Haley for third place deep down near the sixth percentile.

But you are forgetting something: Brand recognition.  I've never heard if Vivek.  And if I know nothing about him, why would I vote for him?  How would he even get on the ballot?

I couldn't find the rules with a quick google but I think he needs a certain percentage in the polls to be on the primary ballot.
So if he isn't a household name, few who votes in the primary is gonna vote for him. 
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on September 17, 2023, 04:26:59 PM
I couldn't find the rules with a quick google but I think he needs a certain percentage in the polls to be on the primary ballot.
So if he isn't a household name, few who votes in the primary is gonna vote for him.
The rules vary by state, but usually involve filing petitions with a number of signatures with the state election board.
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 17, 2023, 05:41:15 PM
But you are forgetting something: Brand recognition.  I've never heard if Vivek.  And if I know nothing about him, why would I vote for him?  How would he even get on the ballot?

I couldn't find the rules with a quick google but I think he needs a certain percentage in the polls to be on the primary ballot.
So if he isn't a household name, few who votes in the primary is gonna vote for him.

You have to gain some organic momentum first and get a number of signatures and show of support. As a rising star you attend party conventions and are eligible to participate in the presidential debates.

Vivek met all of that and is one of the contenders in the televised mainstream debates, and has already participated in one GOP presidential debate. He went from zero point zero in the polls to ranking about third place, neck-in-neck and just above Mike Pence and Nikki Hailey. There will be more debates and the lowest people will be cast off the island until there is one remaining winner who typically becomes the GOP presidential nominee.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on September 17, 2023, 09:01:26 PM
But you are forgetting something: Brand recognition.  I've never heard if Vivek.  And if I know nothing about him, why would I vote for him?  How would he even get on the ballot?

I couldn't find the rules with a quick google but I think he needs a certain percentage in the polls to be on the primary ballot.
So if he isn't a household name, few who votes in the primary is gonna vote for him.

You have to gain some organic momentum first and get a number of signatures and show of support. As a rising star you attend party conventions and are eligible to participate in the presidential debates.

Vivek met all of that and is one of the contenders in the televised mainstream debates, and has already participated in one GOP presidential debate. He went from zero point zero in the polls to ranking about third place, neck-in-neck and just above Mike Pence and Nikki Hailey. There will be more debates and the lowest people will be cast off the island until there is one remaining winner who typically becomes the GOP presidential nominee.
Indeed.  But regardless of his skills or ideas, he will be drowned out by the name Donald Trump in the media.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 19, 2023, 04:17:31 AM
I don't see how that factors. Joe Biden is mentioned plenty of times in the media, yet remains unpopular in general and in his own party, and a large percentage want someone else to be the nominee.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on September 19, 2023, 04:19:46 AM
And he's not going to be primaried.  Thank you two party system....
And one does not need to be popular to drown out others.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 19, 2023, 04:13:52 PM
As far as I can tell the DNC refuses to even hold primary debates.

https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_debates,_2024

(https://i.imgur.com/gf2bjUM.png)

https://www.foxnews.com/media/democrats-rip-dnc-not-holding-2024-primary-debates-robs-voters

(https://i.imgur.com/karokBi.jpg)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on September 19, 2023, 04:53:35 PM
As far as I can tell the DNC refuses to even hold primary debates.

https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_debates,_2024

(https://i.imgur.com/gf2bjUM.png)

https://www.foxnews.com/media/democrats-rip-dnc-not-holding-2024-primary-debates-robs-voters

(https://i.imgur.com/karokBi.jpg)
Yeah.  The Repubs did that in 2020.  Its all about ensuring the emcubrant isn't primaried and thus divide the party.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2023, 02:47:13 AM
Two wrongs do not make a right.

So you have your answer now for why newcomers are not given a chance in the 2024 DNC primaries, and know now where to direct your criticism.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on September 20, 2023, 04:06:37 AM
There aren't going to be any debates for the Democratic presidential primary because Biden has no real competition. Even if they held a debate, Biden wouldn't attend. Why would he legitimize and potentially boost fringe candidates like RFK Jr. and Marianne Williamson by debating them? It's all well and good to say you don't want Biden to be the nominee in a general sense, but for that to mean something, you also have to have someone specific who can replace him. If no serious Democratic candidate will step forward - and none have - then Biden will have to be the nominee.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2023, 02:03:20 PM
According to the fox news article above the DNC has been publicly refusing to have primary debates since at least April 2023 when that article came out. Why would significant democrats go through the process and step up and run for president, knowing that they will be stifled by the DNC?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on September 21, 2023, 05:08:23 PM
You seem to be mistaking age with competency. Here is Donald Trump to set you straight:

(https://i.imgur.com/VGO4xMO.png)

This is the same Donald Trump that just vowed to defeat Obama in 2024 right? Yes, he seems fully with it.  ::)

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/trump-confuses-obama-and-biden-in-speech-warns-biden-will-lead-u-s-into-world-war-ii-193178181948
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 21, 2023, 06:45:24 PM
Did you watch the first fifteen seconds of that video? He didn't mix Biden and Obama there. He was talking about Obama.


In his second sentence there he says to look at some of the bad things Obama has done, indicating that he was saying in his previous statement that Obama also weaponized law enforcement.

This claim against Obama weaponizing law enforcement is not new -

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/2020-07/2020-07-28-Examining-Democrat-Allegations-Against-Attorney-General-William-P-Barr.pdf

"The Obama-Biden Justice Department investigated journalists, targeted legitimate businesses disliked by the Obama-Biden Administration, and flouted Congressional oversight. Most notoriously, the Obama-Biden Justice Department weaponized its law-enforcement apparatus against the campaign of Donald Trump."

Obama had weaponized law enforcement against conservatives, including Donald Trump.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on September 21, 2023, 07:33:40 PM
I'm sorry but that sounds like he's having a stroke.
The first sentance says that biden is having his leading politician arrested, including Obama.

"We won an election they said we could win" - uhhh... Yeah?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on September 22, 2023, 02:11:25 AM
Did you watch the first fifteen seconds of that video? He didn't mix Biden and Obama there. He was talking about Obama.

    As you know Crooked Joe Biden and
    the radical left thugs have weaponized
    law enforcement to arrest  their leading
    political opponent, leading by a lot,
    including Obama. I'll tell you what, you
    look at Obama and some of the thing
    he's done. We did it with Obama, we
    won an election they said could be won

In his second sentence there he says to look at some of the bad things Obama has done, indicating that he was saying in his previous statement that Obama also weaponized law enforcement.

This claim against Obama weaponizing law enforcement is not new -

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/2020-07/2020-07-28-Examining-Democrat-Allegations-Against-Attorney-General-William-P-Barr.pdf

"The Obama-Biden Justice Department investigated journalists, targeted legitimate businesses disliked by the Obama-Biden Administration, and flouted Congressional oversight. Most notoriously, the Obama-Biden Justice Department weaponized its law-enforcement apparatus against the campaign of Donald Trump."

Obama had weaponized law enforcement against conservatives, including Donald Trump.

My bad, he clearly says that he already defeated Obama in an election they said "could be won". He goes on to say that Biden is going to get us into World War II. Oops. And for a refreshing change of pace Dave is absolutely right, he literally looks like he's having a stroke in that video. But tell me again how Biden is cognitively impaired and unfit to be President.  ::)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on September 22, 2023, 11:42:19 AM
But tell me again how Biden is cognitively impaired and unfit to be President.  ::)
\
Can't you visit your local pre-school and ask one of the students to inform you concerning the facts of this matter?

If you take Brandon along, you would be even more enlightened...amirite?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2023, 04:25:14 AM
Anyone watching the fist fifteen seconds of the video knows that he said "couldn't be won".

I sense some denial here. Not to worry though, because you are in warm company with the liberal media.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/wapo-scrambles-after-own-poll-accidentally-shows-trump-crushing-biden

(https://i.imgur.com/QHnRMtx.jpg)

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/09/abc-news-takes-down-video-gop-analyst-citing/

(https://i.imgur.com/n8dyY70.png)

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/111123274488248502

(https://i.imgur.com/QzVdneL.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on September 25, 2023, 06:39:43 AM
Anyone watching the fist fifteen seconds of the video knows that he said "couldn't be won".
Then why did you not write that?  I just read what you wrote.  Never watched the video.

Quote
I sense some denial here. Not to worry though, because you are in warm company with the liberal media.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/wapo-scrambles-after-own-poll-accidentally-shows-trump-crushing-biden

(https://i.imgur.com/QHnRMtx.jpg)

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/09/abc-news-takes-down-video-gop-analyst-citing/

(https://i.imgur.com/n8dyY70.png)

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/111123274488248502

(https://i.imgur.com/QzVdneL.png)
Considering how you spent the months of October, November, December of 2020 and January to March of 2021 saying how Trump won/will win/have the election overturned... I'm guessing you're an expert on denial.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: garygreen on September 25, 2023, 08:45:36 PM
Considering how you spent the months of October, November, December of 2020 and January to March of 2021 saying how Trump won/will win/have the election overturned... I'm guessing you're an expert on denial.

let's not forget the time he spent a whole month insisting that obama and hillary had been executed because he saw one tweet about it lol
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 28, 2023, 11:24:21 PM
More proof that you are following deception.

https://twitter.com/ImMeme0/status/1707450919493800046
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on September 28, 2023, 11:42:16 PM
It would have taken you two seconds to check this with a Google search and confirm for yourself that it's absolutely untrue. CNN has a page with live updates to the story:

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/biden-impeachment-hearing-house-oversight-09-28-23/index.html

MSNBC has also plenty of articles about what's happening on their website - they're making no effort to be neutral, but they're still covering the subject. I don't usually watch the news on TV, but I think I can still say with some confidence that I'm sure they're covering it too. Don't listen to right-wing grifters. They're liars.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 28, 2023, 11:58:41 PM
The twitter comment was specifically talking about television networks, so your comment about you not watching tv is an automatic submission.

That page you linked as your evidence is featured on neither the front page of https://cnn.com or https://www.cnn.com/politics. Having a page for it hardly shows that it is being treated in the same manner as the Trump Impeachment. You can go there yourself and see that it is wrong that it is being treated in the same way.

If you go to https://cnn.com and search for "impeachment" you see some non-featured links to "Fact check: Republicans make false, misleading claims at first Biden impeachment inquiry hearing" and "Republican witnesses directly undercut GOP narrative at impeachment hearing"

On television the Trump impeachment was treated with as much importance as a major terrorist attack, that everybody just had to know about, which it is clearly not in the case of the Biden impeachment.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on September 29, 2023, 01:47:26 AM
The twitter comment was specifically talking about television networks

That's odd, because I would have thought that "CNN, MSNBC and the Big 3 TV networks" would in fact refer to CNN, MSNBC, and the Big 3 TV networks.

Quote
That page you linked as your evidence is featured on neither the front page of https://cnn.com or https://www.cnn.com/politics. Having a page for it hardly shows that it is being treated in the same manner as the Trump Impeachment. You can go there yourself and see that it is wrong that it is being treated in the same way.

If you go to https://cnn.com and search for "impeachment" you see some non-featured links to "Fact check: Republicans make false, misleading claims at first Biden impeachment inquiry hearing" and "Republican witnesses directly undercut GOP narrative at impeachment hearing"

On television the Trump impeachment was also treated with as much importance as a major terrorist attack, that everybody just had to know about, which it is clearly not in the case of the Biden impeachment.

You're changing the subject. This tweet is claiming that CNN is blacking out coverage of the Biden impeachment inquiry, not simply that it's downplaying it or not treating it as momentous as Trump's impeachment. That's not a simple misunderstanding or a poor choice of words; that's a blatant lie.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on September 29, 2023, 02:11:27 AM
I'm not gonna lose sleep if they're not covering a sham inquiry intended as nothing but political assassination anyway tbh
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2023, 03:02:54 AM

That's odd, because I would have thought that "CNN, MSNBC and the Big 3 TV networks" would in fact refer to CNN, MSNBC, and the Big 3 TV networks.

You're changing the subject. This tweet is claiming that CNN is blacking out coverage of the Biden impeachment inquiry, not simply that it's downplaying it or not treating it as momentous as Trump's impeachment. That's not a simple misunderstanding or a poor choice of words; that's a blatant lie.

The Tweet is claiming that the big television networks are not covering it. Your response is that you do not watch TV, but suspect that it is incorrect and immediately claimed in the same post that he is lying. How is it a blatant lie considering that you do not watch TV, exactly?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on September 29, 2023, 03:33:05 AM
The Tweet is claiming that the big television networks are not covering it. Your response is that you do not watch TV, but suspect that it is incorrect and immediately claimed in the same post that he is lying. How is it a blatant lie considering that you do not watch TV, exactly?

And also that CNN and MSNBC weren't covering it. By showing that CNN and MSNBC were in fact covering it, I showed that the post was lying. Your logic basically amounts to "Well, if you omit the part where they lied, then it turns out that they didn't lie." And in the interests of putting this ambiguity to rest, I looked it up and it turns out that the big three TV networks did in fact cover this, and posted their livestreams on YouTube. Here's NBC, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reFwscf4pE0) here's ABC, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVzPAzP2Ey0) and here's CBS. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbNeM_H7P60) There we go, every part of that stupid tweet was a lie.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2023, 03:39:00 AM
Those are links to Youtube channels. That is not television. Yes, there were cameras there as there always are, but they didn't play this six hour video on television -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbNeM_H7P60 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbNeM_H7P60)

"CBS News Streaming Network is the premier 24/7 anchored streaming news service from CBS News and Stations, available free to everyone with access to the Internet."

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2023, 03:47:02 AM
Real Clear Investigations reporter and NY Post columnist Paul Sperry also notes that television networks are not covering it.

https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1707444425670942748

Comments in the post only note internet streams available.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on September 29, 2023, 09:42:00 PM
The Tweet is claiming that the big television networks are not covering it.
That depends on what level of coverage you're looking for.  If you want wall to wall coverage, then you're out of luck, but all of the news outlets are acknowledging that an impeachment inquiry has begun.  But, then again, what do you expect when even a number of Republicans are saying that there doesn't appear to be much of any evidence of wrongdoing?

I would also suggest that there is a difference between a "coverage blackout" and "just not bothering to cover it".
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on September 30, 2023, 04:31:08 PM
all of the news outlets are acknowledging that an impeachment inquiry has begun

What? You mean this guy on Twitter is lying? Surely not!
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on September 30, 2023, 05:24:14 PM
all of the news outlets are acknowledging that an impeachment inquiry has begun

What? You mean this guy on Twitter is lying? Surely not!
Nah.  He's just using a different definition of "blacked out" than most of the rest of the English speaking world.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2023, 10:47:33 PM
There was not any notable television coverage by the big three, and the total corporate news media coverage including internet articles was cursory and misleading.

https://thefederalist.com/2023/09/29/yes-the-biden-impeachment-hearing-presented-evidence-of-corruption-lots-of-it/

Quote
Yes, The Biden Impeachment Hearing Presented Evidence Of Corruption — Lots Of It

The corporate news media all but refused to cover the opening hearing of the House impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden on Thursday, and to the extent they did, it was only to repeat, at the behest of the White House, the exhausted mantra that there’s “no evidence” connecting Biden to his son Hunter’s international bribery scheme.

(The New York Times ran with a cursory and misleadingly headlined article, “First Impeachment Hearing Yields No New Information on Biden,” that boasted “even their [Republicans’] witnesses said the case for impeachment hadn’t been made.” Which, of course the case hasn’t been made yet. That’s why you launch an inquiry, of which Thursday was day one.)

But if the media had actually covered it, the American public might have heard more about the mounds of damning evidence now piling up by the day, including the release on Wednesday by the House Ways and Means Committee of reams of text messages and emails between Hunter Biden, his uncle James Biden, and a colorful array of foreign oligarchs, business associates, and bagmen. All told, House Republicans presented more than two dozen pieces of evidence on Thursday linking Joe Biden to his son’s overseas business dealings.


Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: garygreen on September 30, 2023, 11:04:16 PM
https://thefederalist.com/2023/09/29/yes-the-biden-impeachment-hearing-presented-evidence-of-corruption-lots-of-it/

Quote
mounds of damning evidence now piling up by the day, including the release on Wednesday by the House Ways and Means Committee of reams of text messages and emails between Hunter Biden, his uncle James Biden, and a colorful array of foreign oligarchs, business associates, and bagmen.

hey which one of those is joe biden
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on September 30, 2023, 11:32:02 PM
https://thefederalist.com/2023/09/29/yes-the-biden-impeachment-hearing-presented-evidence-of-corruption-lots-of-it/

Quote
mounds of damning evidence now piling up by the day, including the release on Wednesday by the House Ways and Means Committee of reams of text messages and emails between Hunter Biden, his uncle James Biden, and a colorful array of foreign oligarchs, business associates, and bagmen.

hey which one of those is joe biden

I know the evidence against Joe is coming any day now, and I'm sure whatever it might be it will be damning.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on October 01, 2023, 02:15:52 AM
https://thefederalist.com/2023/09/29/yes-the-biden-impeachment-hearing-presented-evidence-of-corruption-lots-of-it/

Quote
mounds of damning evidence now piling up by the day, including the release on Wednesday by the House Ways and Means Committee of reams of text messages and emails between Hunter Biden, his uncle James Biden, and a colorful array of foreign oligarchs, business associates, and bagmen.

hey which one of those is joe biden

I know the evidence against Joe is coming any day now, and I'm sure whatever it might be it will be damning.
I'm sure that the My Pillow guy is working on it and will deliver a massive data dump that will put the whole Biden family, all of Burisma and most of the Ukrainian government behind bars forever.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on October 01, 2023, 04:42:01 AM
https://thefederalist.com/2023/09/29/yes-the-biden-impeachment-hearing-presented-evidence-of-corruption-lots-of-it/

Quote
mounds of damning evidence now piling up by the day, including the release on Wednesday by the House Ways and Means Committee of reams of text messages and emails between Hunter Biden, his uncle James Biden, and a colorful array of foreign oligarchs, business associates, and bagmen.

hey which one of those is joe biden
And how many of the actual texts and emails are documenting crimes?
Like I can release gigabytes of emails but most of them are reminders about payments.
And as someone who works for a major company, he would have texts and emails with business associates.  Probably even major foreign investors.  Especially when you work in a foreign country.


As an example:
I reguarly communicate company secrets with foreign entities.
The foreign entities being my coworkers.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on October 02, 2023, 03:48:20 AM
This isn't strictly speaking related to Biden, but I think the recent story about Jamaal Bowman deserves some attention, because we can learn a lot from it about false equivalencies, media negligence, and one key difference between Republicans and Democrats:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bowman-fire-alarm-congressional-vote/story?id=103629140

Conservatives have been delighted with this story, and everyone from Trump on down has been loudly crowing about how this is a huge scandal totally on par with the insurrection (while also paradoxically maintaining that the insurrection wasn't a big deal and its participants have been treated unjustly and at the same time that the insurrection was an elaborate false flag meant to make conservatives look bad). A Democratic congressman tried to sabotage the vote on a bill to end the shutdown! There are two major flaws in this narrative. One, the bill passed with the near-unanimous support of House Democrats. Why would Bowman want to sabotage voting on a bill that he and virtually his entire party supported? Two, and perhaps more importantly, this wasn't in the Capitol building. This was the Cannon House Office Building, a different building entirely. Bowman didn't disrupt the vote or even disturb his fellow legislators at all. He set off a fire alarm in a nearby building.

The article I linked mentions these facts, as most of the mainstream media did, but makes no effort to be proactive and emphasize the actual consequences, or lack thereof, of what Bowman did. Instead, the media just sat back and let the conservative propaganda machine set the narrative they must have known was coming. There was a Democrat, there was a false alarm in a building on the Capitol grounds, and there was an upcoming vote. Therefore, Democrats were trying to sabotage the vote! Anyone could have predicted this, let alone the people in the media. Why didn't they make the effort to combat this? Just add a couple of lines near the end of the article emphasizing that what Bowman did was in a different building to where the vote was being held and also that he supported it. In today's media landscape, clarifying those points is necessary context. It's not neutral or objective reporting to do nothing and let known bad actors set a false narrative. It's the opposite, in fact.

And as a final point, maybe I'm wrong and Bowman really was more than just careless here. Maybe he was trying to delay the vote rather than outright sabotage it, as some people have speculated. His actions should be investigated, and if it turns out that he did this on purpose, then he should face the consequences. And here's the great part - he will face the consequences! Because no matter what the both-sides edgelords would have you believe, there are some pretty major differences between Republicans and Democrats, and here's one of the biggest - Democrats actually answer for their misconduct. Republicans will close their ranks and faithfully defend the likes of Donald Trump, Roy Moore, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Greg Gianforte, Duncan Hunter, and George Santos. From sex pests to violent criminals to genuinely crazy people who would be babbling on street corners if they weren't born into wealth and privilege, the Republican Party will protect every flavor of distasteful and outright horrible people as long as they vote the right way. But the Democratic Party generally holds its members accountable. Sometimes to a fault, like with Katie Hill. But in any case, yes, Bowman will answer for what he's done. He wouldn't if he were a Republican.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 10, 2023, 12:20:19 PM
Well this is ironic

(https://i.imgur.com/rSgQOp6.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on October 10, 2023, 03:30:50 PM
Well this is ironic

(https://i.imgur.com/rSgQOp6.png)

It's disappointing. But people forget that the border wall was never a specifically Trump, or even Republican, concept. Clinton's administration was the first to start construction on a border between Mexico and the US and Obama added to it.

Honestly I think it's a mistake politically on Biden's part, even though those funds were appropriated for the wall in 2019 and the money would have just languished in limbo if he hadn't approved it. We probably shouldn't be doing it if we need to waive 20 federal laws and regulations to build it. In the end I think the constant cost of repairs and upgrades aren't worth it.

Imagine if Trump had actually delivered on his promises and built a solid wall from end to end. Keeping the wall stable long term would be a nightmare fiscally. It already pretty much is, given that if it weren't for the need to repair sections of the wall that had already been built by the time Trump was president he might have actually been able to deliver on his promise. Of course Trump said he would force Mexico to pay for it, giving the illusion to people susceptible to his bullshit that the financial issue was solved. But any rational person could see that that was always just a pipe dream, as indeed it ended up being. And despite Trump's promises that his financial acumen would allow the wall to be built more cheaply and efficiently than previous administrations, he ended up spending five times per mile more than previous administrations had, a cost that we as taxpayers had to pay. Oops.

So we've been trying to build this wall for nearly 30 years now, and have made little progress, and clearly what's already been done has done little to nothing to stop the border crossings. If the wall worked like Trump insisted it would we wouldn't be facing this crisis now. It was a failed experiment, and it's time to abandon it and try to find a solution that actually works.

The wall is a financial and logistical nightmare, and it demonstrably failed in its intended purpose. That's why Democrats were against it, and that's why Biden promised not to add to it. There's no way this decision isn't going to cost Biden politically. If he's doing it only for the financial reasons (which I think are offset by the negatives) he should have waited until after he won the election. Caving now makes him look weak.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on November 30, 2023, 05:24:13 PM
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/hunter-biden-agrees-testify-house-oversight-committee-rcna126962

So "We need transparency" Republicans really really don't want Hunter Biden's testemony to be public.  Wonder why?

Any insights Tom?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on November 30, 2023, 08:59:23 PM
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/hunter-biden-agrees-testify-house-oversight-committee-rcna126962

So "We need transparency" Republicans really really don't want Hunter Biden's testemony to be public.  Wonder why?

Any insights Tom?

The punchline is that most Republicans can't explain specifically any evidence supporting their narrative. After years of searching, all we keep hearing is 'foreign money from U.S. adversaries' without a molecule of proof. They know how stupid they're going to look when they put Hunter on the stand and it becomes obvious that they have no real evidence.

This is how the Republican party operates now. They launch attacks and worry about reality later. Just like their impeachment of Joe Biden, their first witness "acknowledged that the evidence Republicans had gathered so far, however, doesn't prove their case."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-republicans-hold-first-hearing-biden-impeachment-inquiry-rcna117657


Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on November 30, 2023, 09:10:42 PM
That was a brilliant move on Hunter's part, really. He knows they don't have shit and he wants to make sure the world knows, too.

This whole thing is such a clown show, smoke and mirrors to try to convince the country that Biden is somehow an even bigger criminal than Trump. It plays well to the base (who almost by nature are suckers) and maybe some gullible independents so why not?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on November 30, 2023, 10:30:29 PM
The punchline is that most Republicans can't explain specifically any evidence supporting their narrative. After years of searching, all we keep hearing is 'foreign money from U.S. adversaries' without a molecule of proof. They know how stupid they're going to look when they put Hunter on the stand and it becomes obvious that they have no real evidence.
Nah.  They'll probably just double down and accuse Hunter of lying and charge him with obstruction or something stupid like that,
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 01, 2023, 03:22:34 AM
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/hunter-biden-agrees-testify-house-oversight-committee-rcna126962

So "We need transparency" Republicans really really don't want Hunter Biden's testemony to be public.  Wonder why?

Any insights Tom?

If you ever watch a public congressional testimony a good percentage of the responses to the questions are "I can't mention names in public" or "I can't disclose that in this public setting" and that somehow passes for an answer.

It sounds like they want a private deposition and are also open to a public one at a future date as well.

https://twitter.com/GOPoversight/status/172951168330171608 (https://twitter.com/GOPoversight/status/172951168330171608)8

(https://i.imgur.com/c16tkWP.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on December 01, 2023, 06:31:02 AM
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/hunter-biden-agrees-testify-house-oversight-committee-rcna126962

So "We need transparency" Republicans really really don't want Hunter Biden's testemony to be public.  Wonder why?

Any insights Tom?

If you ever watch a public congressional testimony a good percentage of the responses to the questions are "I can't mention names in public" or "I can't disclose that in this public setting" and that somehow passes for an answer.

It sounds like they want a private deposition and are also open to a public one at a future date as well.

https://twitter.com/GOPoversight/status/172951168330171608 (https://twitter.com/GOPoversight/status/172951168330171608)8

(https://i.imgur.com/c16tkWP.png)

Since the investigation is about foreign entites outside US jurisdiction, Joe Biden, and Hunter Biden... Not sure what names they could mention that shouldn't be public.  That sounds like an excuse. 

As for the future: is that before or after they release edited, out of context clips?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 01, 2023, 06:57:52 PM
Well a deposition regarding potentially illegal activity should probably be done in private. If anything illegal was done then the names Hunter Biden has to mention should probably go to law enforcement or the Congressional Sergeant at Arms rather than speak the names in public and tip off a potential criminal who thought that they were safe or that they wouldn't be pointed out, and cause people to destroy records and documents in a mad panic.

Among its powers, the House performs law enforcement functions and has powers to arrest people (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/05/15/house-has-power-arrest-people-who-defy-its-orders/) who defy their orders. If you are called by the House to testify in a private deposition, you should probably do what they say.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on December 01, 2023, 07:44:08 PM
The Republicans want this done in private so they will be free to tell their mindless followers what Hunter Biden said instead of them hearing what Hunter Biden actually said. They did the same with other testimonies done in private. They don't give a shit about judicial integrity or protecting the process, they want to control the narrative to program their base of subnormal simpletons.

They understand that the Trumpians don't read and will never look at the transcripts of what's really happening. It's the same trick they did with the Mueller report. He told his idiot army that the report exonerated him and they believed him without one split second of fact checking or critical thinking.

The Republicans are going to lie about what Hunter Biden says. It what's they do. Fortunately, some of us are literate enough to find out the truth.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on December 01, 2023, 09:29:50 PM
Well a deposition regarding potentially illegal activity should probably be done in private. If anything illegal was done then the names Hunter Biden has to mention should probably go to law enforcement or the Congressional Sergeant at Arms rather than speak the names in public and tip off a potential criminal who thought that they were safe or that they wouldn't be pointed out, and cause people to destroy records and documents in a mad panic.

Among its powers, the House performs law enforcement functions and has powers to arrest people (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/05/15/house-has-power-arrest-people-who-defy-its-orders/) who defy their orders. If you are called by the House to testify in a private deposition, you should probably do what they say.

Again, sounds like an excuse.  Especially for a fishing deposition since no illegal activity has yet been found or charges brought.  Republicans have nothing to charge him on and this is purely a ploy to drum up either something they can use in sound bites for the election or a despirate hope that they can get him to admit to something illegal.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2023, 10:37:35 PM
They do claim to have evidence for the Biden's pay-for-play schemes - https://oversight.house.gov/landing/biden-family-investigation/
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on December 04, 2023, 07:27:56 AM
They do claim to have evidence for the Biden's pay-for-play schemes - https://oversight.house.gov/landing/biden-family-investigation/
They've had the same claim for what.... 4 years? 
Trump has claimed election fraud for 8.
And democrats claimed Trump had russian influence for 2.

None of them produced any usable evidence so you'll excuse me if I don't trust a press release.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2023, 10:39:30 PM
They do claim to have evidence for the Biden's pay-for-play schemes - https://oversight.house.gov/landing/biden-family-investigation/
They've had the same claim for what.... 4 years? 
Trump has claimed election fraud for 8.
And democrats claimed Trump had russian influence for 2.

None of them produced any usable evidence so you'll excuse me if I don't trust a press release.

It's not the same four year old claims. They have been posting new evidence and new claims to the link I gave all year. They most recently added something today December 4th -

https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-releases-direct-monthly-payments-to-joe-biden-from-hunter-bidens-business-entity%ef%bf%bc/

"WASHINGTON—Today, House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) released subpoenaed bank records revealing Hunter Biden’s business entity, Owasco PC, made direct monthly payments to Joe Biden. Hunter Biden is currently under an investigation by the Department of Justice for using the Owasco PC corporate account for tax evasion and other serious crimes.

Following subpoenas to obtain Biden family associates’ bank records, Chairman Comer issued subpoenas for Hunter and James Biden’s personal and business bank records. The House Oversight Committee has identified over 20 shell companies and uncovered how the Bidens and their associates raked in over $24 million dollars between 2015 and 2019 by selling Joe Biden as “the brand.” Financial records obtained show Hunter Biden’s business account, Owasco PC, received payments from Chinese-state linked companies and other foreign nationals and companies."
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on December 04, 2023, 11:22:43 PM
They do claim to have evidence for the Biden's pay-for-play schemes - https://oversight.house.gov/landing/biden-family-investigation/
They've had the same claim for what.... 4 years? 
Trump has claimed election fraud for 8.
And democrats claimed Trump had russian influence for 2.

None of them produced any usable evidence so you'll excuse me if I don't trust a press release.

It's not the same four year old claims. They have been posting new evidence and new claims to the link I gave all year. They most recently added something today December 4th -

https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-releases-direct-monthly-payments-to-joe-biden-from-hunter-bidens-business-entity%ef%bf%bc/

"WASHINGTON—Today, House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) released subpoenaed bank records revealing Hunter Biden’s business entity, Owasco PC, made direct monthly payments to Joe Biden. "
What years?  That would seem to be important.  And how much?  Because if its like $1,000 a month for the political campaign, it would make sense.  Hell, every politician gets money from businesses, sad as it is.

Quote
Hunter Biden is currently under an investigation by the Department of Justice for using the Owasco PC corporate account for tax evasion and other serious crimes.
I look forward to seeing how that goes or if charges are ever brought.

Quote
Following subpoenas to obtain Biden family associates’ bank records, Chairman Comer issued subpoenas for Hunter and James Biden’s personal and business bank records. The House Oversight Committee has identified over 20 shell companies and uncovered how the Bidens and their associates raked in over $24 million dollars between 2015 and 2019 by selling Joe Biden as “the brand.” Financial records obtained show Hunter Biden’s business account, Owasco PC, received payments from Chinese-state linked companies and other foreign nationals and companies."
And?  Selling famous people as a brand is a time honored tradition.  Tho wasn't Trump president during half of that time, not Biden?  Sounds like we need a better breakdown of the time period.  If biden was sold as "the brand" when he wasn't VP, wouldn't help your case.  Hell, him being VP and being sold as a brand isn't really all that unusual. 
I mean, Trump himself made $24 in 2018 alone.  You know, when he was president.

And Chinese-state linked companies needs clarification because that means nothing.  Tik-Tok is a chinese state linked company and if you get ad money from tik-tok... you get money from a chinese-state linked company! He could also own stocks in these companies, which would earn him income from the stocks and the company itself.  They should have released more information like which companies, how much, and what the payments were for.

So far, they might have Hunter Biden on selling his father's position for his own gain.  But they haven't linked anything illegal to Joe Biden.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on December 05, 2023, 01:43:22 AM
It took them years to find a micropenis of evidence involving less dollars than Russia donated to the NRA under the Trump administration. Too bad they don't bring that same level of scrutiny to their own idiots like Trump and Santos. If they ask the Bidens about any of this, all they would have to do is quote the Trump Family Defense, "I don't remember."

The Democrats were quick to chase Menendez out of the Senate. But the Republicans were covering for a guy who lied about his mom being in 9/11 and his grandparents being in the Holocaust. The hypocrisy is particularly stark when you think about they would say if Biden gave the unhinged, gaffe-filled, speeches that Trump has given lately.





Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on December 05, 2023, 05:58:54 AM
Is trying to profit off the presidency and informally sell access to power illegal or not? You can't say that it's not a big deal when Trump and his family do it and then flip out when a couple of Biden's relatives (not even Biden himself, just his relatives) try to do something similar.

And democrats claimed Trump had russian influence for 2.

Don't let conservatives rewrite history on this. There is ample evidence that Russia wanted Trump elected and interfered with the 2016 election to achieve that goal. Now, is there any proof that Trump only won because of that interference? No. Does this mean that the 2016 election was somehow invalid or illegitimate? No. And is acknowledging this interference in any way "equivalent" to Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election? No, absolutely not. But it happened, no matter how much conservatives wish that it didn't.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on December 05, 2023, 08:32:40 AM
Is trying to profit off the presidency and informally sell access to power illegal or not? You can't say that it's not a big deal when Trump and his family do it and then flip out when a couple of Biden's relatives (not even Biden himself, just his relatives) try to do something similar.

And democrats claimed Trump had russian influence for 2.

Don't let conservatives rewrite history on this. There is ample evidence that Russia wanted Trump elected and interfered with the 2016 election to achieve that goal. Now, is there any proof that Trump only won because of that interference? No. Does this mean that the 2016 election was somehow invalid or illegitimate? No. And is acknowledging this interference in any way "equivalent" to Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election? No, absolutely not. But it happened, no matter how much conservatives wish that it didn't.

You misunderstand.  I meant that Trump was being directly influenced/bribed/blackmailed by Russia, not that Russia wanted him in power.  Thats a given.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 05, 2023, 04:41:51 PM
We appear to be at the point where you guys are claiming that multiple Biden family members were being bribed by foreign country entities to trick Joe Biden into influencing policy decisions, but Joe Biden didn't know about it. ::)

Quote from: Lord Dave
So far, they might have Hunter Biden on selling his father's position for his own gain.  But they haven't linked anything illegal to Joe Biden.

Ok. So you admit that Hunter Biden was selling access to his father's power (through tricking his father into influencing or doing things). How can you maintain that congress doesn't need to investigate that?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on December 05, 2023, 08:20:13 PM
We appear to be at the point where you guys are claiming that multiple Biden family members were being bribed by foreign country entities to trick Joe Biden into influencing policy decisions, but Joe Biden didn't know about it. ::)

No one is suggesting this.
Also, please point to policies that the VP of America enacted on behalf of foriegn governments through Hunter. >_>

Quote
Quote from: Lord Dave
So far, they might have Hunter Biden on selling his father's position for his own gain.  But they haven't linked anything illegal to Joe Biden.

Ok. So you admit that Hunter Biden was selling access to his father's power (through tricking his father into influencing or doing things). How can you maintain that congress doesn't need to investigate that?

???
If I tell you that Bill Gates is my best friend and I can totally put in a good word for you, does that mean Bill Gates is doing what I say?

Please stop putting words in my mouth.  One can sell a relationship for gain without actually doing anything.  Hunter doesn't need to even communicate to his father to use his father's position to his advantage.  Networking is literally the most effective way to get a job and what better way than to namedrop your famous dad? 


Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: ichoosereality on December 06, 2023, 03:08:37 AM
...One can sell a relationship for gain without actually doing anything.  Hunter doesn't need to even communicate to his father to use his father's position to his advantage.  Networking is literally the most effective way to get a job and what better way than to namedrop your famous dad?
Absolutely, and even beyond getting the job, having a namedropable person on your board can be an advantage even if they never do anything.  In some deal one CEO says to another "well you know we have the Presidents son on our board...".  All the more so in areas where influence is at times pedaled this way, but it need not always be so.  Just the appearance of the possibility can easily be enough.  If it went further in this case I have no idea, but it need not have done so and I am not aware of any evidence that it did.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on December 06, 2023, 04:16:16 AM
Or maybe Hunter Biden was just so fucked up on drugs and alcohol that his daddy had to co-sign for his truck. It happens in the trailer parks of South Texas everyday.

But you know those Chinese bastards were in on it somehow.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/04/politics/oversight-committee-hunter-biden-car-payments/index.html

Decades of Trump's documented business ties to Russia, working to  compromise the election, full-on insurrection and now they expect me to take them seriously with this $1300 bullshit. That's the dinner bill at the club for Giuliani and his buddies, Lev and Igor (their actual fucking names).

Meanwhile to bring this thread back to its actual subject, Biden, let us reflect on what the nature of Fox News reporting would look like if they were talking about two Biden family friends that went to prison that were seriously named LEV AND IGOR!

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2023, 05:51:05 PM
Even under the scenario that Hunter Biden was collecting money under the guise of providing access to political power, but was really scamming the people paying him, how can you maintain that this shouldn't be investigated by Congress? Why are you guys crying that this should not be investigated?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on December 06, 2023, 06:07:57 PM
Even under the scenario that Hunter Biden was collecting money under the guise of providing access to political power, but was really scamming the people paying him, how can you maintain that this shouldn't be investigated by Congress? Why are you guys crying that this should not be investigated?

Yo, this is a thread about Joe Biden. If there's evidence that Hunter Biden did something corrupt of course it should be investigated. But without evidence that Joe was involved it's just another scandal involving a President's relative and is definitely not a basis for impeachment. That whole angle is just a clown show, meant to even the playing field a bit (Look, their guy got impeached too!!) and thus far has been demonstrated to be nothing but a desperate fever dream concocted by some truly corrupt politicians.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on December 06, 2023, 07:49:32 PM
Even under the scenario that Hunter Biden was collecting money under the guise of providing access to political power, but was really scamming the people paying him, how can you maintain that this shouldn't be investigated by Congress? Why are you guys crying that this should not be investigated?
Probably because they aren't investigating anyone else.  I'm rather certain the number of people, including the Trumps, who personally benefitted from a relative in high office is pretty damn high.  Do you agree every single political family should be investigated to check for such wrongdoings?  Maybe make it illegal (because its not).
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on December 06, 2023, 10:20:21 PM
Even under the scenario that Hunter Biden was collecting money under the guise of providing access to political power, but was really scamming the people paying him, how can you maintain that this shouldn't be investigated by Congress? Why are you guys crying that this should not be investigated?
Hey, it's not as if Joe Biden appointed Hunter as a presidential advisor while Hunter was making truckloads of money from outside business interests.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/jared-and-ivanka-made-up-to-640-million-in-the-white-house/
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: ichoosereality on December 07, 2023, 02:17:45 AM
Even under the scenario that Hunter Biden was collecting money under the guise of providing access to political power, but was really scamming the people paying him, how can you maintain that this shouldn't be investigated by Congress? Why are you guys crying that this should not be investigated?
First I did NOT say it was a scam, there are multiple reasons to put a high profile person on your board, one is just how it appears.   We should investigate things of which we have reason to believe (i.e. evidence) that there was illegal activity.  I am not aware of such in the Hunter Biden case.

What there IS apparently evidence for is that Hunter Biden did not pay his federal taxes for a number of years and dealing with that (in addition to paying the back taxes and interest which he did already) was all part of the plea deal that fell apart a while back.  So now he is being charged with federal tax violations.  I think that was all pretty much expected.  How much of that plea deal failure is politically motivated (to have the case going on during the campaign season)  and how it will all eventually turn out, I have no idea.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2023, 05:51:23 AM
Even under the scenario that Hunter Biden was collecting money under the guise of providing access to political power, but was really scamming the people paying him, how can you maintain that this shouldn't be investigated by Congress? Why are you guys crying that this should not be investigated?

Yo, this is a thread about Joe Biden. If there's evidence that Hunter Biden did something corrupt of course it should be investigated. But without evidence that Joe was involved it's just another scandal involving a President's relative and is definitely not a basis for impeachment. That whole angle is just a clown show, meant to even the playing field a bit (Look, their guy got impeached too!!) and thus far has been demonstrated to be nothing but a desperate fever dream concocted by some truly corrupt politicians.

Hunter Biden was collecting money on the suggestion of providing access to Joe Biden's political power. How is that not about Joe Biden, or warranting of an investigation?

The purpose of an investigation is to investigate things and collect evidence. Your statement of "without evidence that Joe was involved" suggests that you want Congress to investigate this and collect evidence. Oddly, you are simultaneously expressing a desire for an investigation while telling us that they should not investigate this.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on December 09, 2023, 04:46:17 PM
Even under the scenario that Hunter Biden was collecting money under the guise of providing access to political power, but was really scamming the people paying him, how can you maintain that this shouldn't be investigated by Congress? Why are you guys crying that this should not be investigated?

Yo, this is a thread about Joe Biden. If there's evidence that Hunter Biden did something corrupt of course it should be investigated. But without evidence that Joe was involved it's just another scandal involving a President's relative and is definitely not a basis for impeachment. That whole angle is just a clown show, meant to even the playing field a bit (Look, their guy got impeached too!!) and thus far has been demonstrated to be nothing but a desperate fever dream concocted by some truly corrupt politicians.

Hunter Biden was collecting money on the suggestion of providing access to Joe Biden's political power. How is that not about Joe Biden, or warranting of an investigation?

The purpose of an investigation is to investigate things and collect evidence. Your statement of "without evidence that Joe was involved" suggests that you want Congress to investigate this and collect evidence. Oddly, you are simultaneously expressing a desire for an investigation while telling us that they should not investigate this.

Except I never argued it didn't warrant an investigation. The Republicans have been investigating this for years now and have turned up 0 evidence of corruption on Joe Biden's part. Try harder, Tom.  ::)

Clown show. You're a part of it.  ;D
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2023, 07:29:43 PM
The questions you replied to are "how can you maintain that this shouldn't be investigated by Congress? Why are you guys crying that this should not be investigated?" Presumably anyone replying to me with an argument must think that this should not be investigated. It's good that you can be honest with yourself and have clarified that you think that this should be investigated.

In regards to evidence produced, there has been plenty.

Hunter Biden is giving a portion of his money to the "Big Guy". Aren't you curious who this person is? Joe Biden's brother referred to Joe Biden as the "Big Guy" (https://nypost.com/2023/09/29/bidens-brother-frank-interrupted-meetings-to-take-calls-from-the-big-guy-report/). Hunter Biden's business partner also says that Joe Biden was the "Big Guy" (https://nypost.com/2022/07/27/hunter-bidens-biz-partner-called-joe-biden-the-big-guy-in-panic-over-laptop/). Why is Joe Biden receiving a portion of the money Hunter is getting for this influence peddling scheme?

We have a Birisma executive admitting to the FBI that they paid Hunter and Joe Biden millions in bribes. (https://nypost.com/2023/07/20/biden-bribe-file-released-burisma-chief-said-both-joe-and-hunter-involved/)

Hunter Biden's business partner admitted that he used Hunter Biden to "get help from D.C." in firing the infamous Ukranian prosecutor that honk really loves -

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/devon-archer-hunter-biden-burisma-execs-ukrainian-prosecutor-fired

Quote
Archer said Zlochevsky and Pozharski "placed constant pressure on Hunter Biden to get help from D.C." in getting Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin ousted. Shokin was investigating Burisma for corruption.

According to the source, Archer testified that in December 2015, Hunter Biden, Zlochevsky and Pozharski "called D.C." to discuss the matter. Archer testified that Biden, Zlochevsky and Pozharski stepped away to make the call.

It is unclear if Hunter and the Burisma executives spoke directly to Joe Biden on the matter.

At the time, though, Joe Biden was in charge of U.S.-Ukraine policy for the Obama administration.

As stated above, Joe Biden was in charge of the US-Ukrainian policy at the time. Joe Biden incidentally also admits that he was instrumental in firing the prosecutor.

So please clarify that nothing has been produced.

Even more wild, it seems to go further than Hunter Biden. Multiple Biden family members were apparently receiving foreign money.

https://nypost.com/2023/05/10/nine-biden-family-members-who-allegedly-got-foreign-money-identified-by-house-gop/

Quote
Nine Biden family members who allegedly got foreign money identified by House GOP

...

Joe Biden’s son [Hunter], Joe Biden’s brother [James], Joe Biden’s brother’s wife [Sara], Hunter Biden’s girlfriend or Beau Biden’s widow [Hallie], however, you want to write that, Hunter Biden’s ex-wife [Kathleen Buhle], Hunter Biden’s current wife [Melissa Cohen], and three children of the president’s son and the president’s brother,” Comer said.

The chairman seemed to indicate that only one of Biden’s grandchildren and two of his brother’s children got the foreign funds.

“We’re talking about grandchil — a grandchild,” Comer said at the press conference. “That’s odd, most people that work hard every day’s grandchild doesn’t get a wire from a foreign national.

https://www.swiowanewssource.com/audubon/article_cab0ad73-0d63-5ff5-bcd8-611ebd4372c9.html

Quote
WASHINGTON—House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) today released a bank records memorandum detailing new information obtained in the committee’s investigation into the Biden family’s influence peddling and business schemes. The Oversight Committee has obtained thousands of pages of financial records revealing the Biden family and associates’ complicated network of companies set up during Joe Biden’s vice presidency and the millions the Bidens received from foreign sources. The financial records also reveal how the Bidens used complicated transactions to hide payments from foreign nationals, including CCP-linked associates, and provide clear indications of influence peddling schemes during then-Vice President Biden’s tenure.

“The Bidens intentionally sought to hide, confuse, and conceal their influence peddling schemes, but bank records don’t lie. The Bidens made millions from foreign nationals providing what seems to be no services other than access and influence. From the thousands of records we’ve obtained so far, we know the Biden family set up over a dozen companies when Joe Biden was vice president. The Bidens engaged in many intentionally complicated financial transactions to hide these payments and avoid scrutiny. In at least one instance, the Bidens’ CCP-linked associates took steps to conceal the source of the payment to the Bidens.

“The Bidens’ foreign entanglements are breathtaking and raise serious questions about why foreign actors targeted the Biden family, what they expected in return, and whether our national security is threatened. We will continue to pursue additional bank records to follow the money trail and inform legislative solutions to prevent this type of corruption. Americans deserve answers, transparency, and accountability,” said Chairman Comer.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on December 09, 2023, 08:30:07 PM
The questions you replied to are "how can you maintain that this shouldn't be investigated by Congress? Why are you guys crying that this should not be investigated?" Presumably anyone replying to me with an argument must think that this should not be investigated.

Well there's your problem. You assumed something that, based on my response, was clearly not what I was arguing. It's ok Tom we all make mistakes from time to time.

Again this has already been investigated thoroughly without a shred of evidence (seriously, it's absurd for you to have this line of argument now anyway, given that Biden has already been so thoroughly investigated, but Tom gonna Tom). When is it time to throw in the towel? For the Republicans in this instance, never, because it's not actually about finding the truth, it's about smearing a political enemy. Leveling the playing field. Who cares if we've fished and fished for evidence of wrongdoing and found not a shred, let's impeach him anyway because it makes Trump look a little better if they've both been impeached.

Clown show. And puppet show (people like you are the puppets).
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on December 09, 2023, 09:25:25 PM
Is it legal to peddle influence or not? The exact same people who willfully turned a blind eye to four years of Trump and his family very openly monetizing his office and selling access to him are now furiously pounding away at what looks to be a far weaker case against Biden for doing something similar. Even if we take it for granted for a moment that Devon Archer isn't just a crook who's trying to wriggle out of his own legal problems (possibly angling for a future pardon from Trump?) by telling Republicans what they want to hear and that Mykola Zlochevsky wasn't desperately trying to offer bribes to anyone he possibly could shortly before his downfall, what has Biden done that Trump hasn't done? Why should Congress put Biden through the wringer for something they refused to hold Trump accountable for?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: markjo on December 09, 2023, 09:33:28 PM
Why should Congress put Biden through the wringer for something they refused to hold Trump accountable for?
Because Trump is above the law and Biden isn't.  Why else?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 01, 2024, 04:01:07 AM
It seems that Biden is closing out the year on C-SPAN with some high energy support.

https://twitter.com/liz_churchill10/status/1741576898608607272?t=rIfHIx9mIYnHu6Ln7yt7hg&s=19
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on January 01, 2024, 05:42:00 AM
A small handful of hecklers met up with each other to scream at Biden once he stepped outside a building. Yes, this really tells us a lot about Biden and not about the dozen or so weirdos who went to all this time and effort to arrange a scene where they would get to yell abuse at Biden together for a few seconds on camera. I don't doubt the passion of Trump supporters. They passionately worship Trump and passionately hate anyone he tells them to hate with an ardor that goes well, well, well beyond anything you'd see from normal people. What they fundamentally don't seem to understand, though, is that their passion doesn't translate into extra numbers for them. No matter how earnestly, how fervently, how devotedly they adore Trump and despise his opponents, they still don't count as more than one person each with only one vote each - and only one voice each, in the case of this video.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on January 23, 2024, 10:29:55 PM
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/13/1219065166/biden-phillips-new-hampshire-primary

TLDR:
Biden isn't on the New Hampshire ballot because of rules that conflict with state laws.

Young Biden(Dean Phillips) hopes to win so he can be the nomine instead of old Biden.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on February 08, 2024, 11:29:41 PM
Holy shit will you stop electing people who should be in assisted living?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68244611
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 09, 2024, 04:09:53 AM
Is this headline even satire?

https://babylonbee.com/news/man-ruled-too-senile-to-stand-trial-still-fine-to-run-country

(https://i.imgur.com/j0aamDk.jpg)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on February 09, 2024, 05:05:25 AM
Seriously. At this point I think the Democrats are just as wrongheaded to stick with Biden as the Republicans are to stick with Trump. It's fucking embarrassing.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on February 15, 2024, 08:31:29 PM
Putin endorses Joe Biden for POTUS. Very interesting.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on February 15, 2024, 08:57:54 PM
Putin endorses Joe Biden for POTUS. Very interesting.

Yes I'm sure that the master propagandist and manipulator isn't propagandizing and being manipulative with that endorsement. Seems legit.  ::)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 16, 2024, 12:03:22 PM
Liberals aren't looking too confident about this to me. Apparently The Atlantic is shocked that Joe Biden would put his own self-regard ahead of the good of the country. They are begging for the DNC to pick a new candidate.

https://twitter.com/AlecMacGillis/status/1757411805868036201
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on February 16, 2024, 01:05:15 PM
Liberals aren't looking too confident about this to me. Apparently The Atlantic is shocked that Joe Biden would put his own self-regard ahead of the good of the country. They are begging for the DNC to pick a new candidate.

https://twitter.com/AlecMacGillis/status/1757411805868036201

It makes sense not to.
If you pick a new candidate you're signaling that your current guy is weak. And if he's weak, Trump is correct, so what else is he right about?

Its no different than choosing not to let Trump get primaried in 2020.  If they did, he'd look weak and maybe the dems were right.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on February 16, 2024, 04:47:08 PM
Sitting presidents generally aren't primaried at all, to say nothing of the unique degree of loyalty and devotion that Trump's fans show him, so it makes no sense to compare this to other primaries to begin with. Obviously this is a unique situation. Your other point seems to be more concerned with some imaginary game of saving face rather than winning the election. Refusing to address an obvious weakness simply because your opponent has already identified that weakness and you don't want to admit that they were right is insanity.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on February 16, 2024, 05:40:37 PM
Sitting presidents generally aren't primaried at all, to say nothing of the unique degree of loyalty and devotion that Trump's fans show him, so it makes no sense to compare this to other primaries to begin with. Obviously this is a unique situation. Your other point seems to more concerned with some imaginary game of saving face rather than winning the election. Refusing to address an obvious weakness simply because your opponent has already identified that weakness and you don't want to admit that they were right is insanity.

At what point did I claim US politics were sane?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on February 17, 2024, 01:29:08 AM
Well, you said it made sense for Biden not to drop out. It doesn't.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on February 17, 2024, 10:13:31 AM
Well, you said it made sense for Biden not to drop out. It doesn't.
Who would even replace him?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on February 17, 2024, 01:20:30 PM
Well, you said it made sense for Biden not to drop out. It doesn't.
Who would even replace him?
There surely has to be someone else who is vaguely popular and who has the mental ability to be the president. No?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on February 17, 2024, 01:37:51 PM
Well, you said it made sense for Biden not to drop out. It doesn't.
Who would even replace him?
There surely has to be someone else who is vaguely popular and who has the mental ability to be the president. No?
I can't think of anyone off hand.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on February 17, 2024, 04:41:10 PM
^ITT LD finally admits there are no democrats in possession of "vague" popularity or mental acuity.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on February 17, 2024, 08:18:17 PM
I can't think of anyone off hand.
Trump it is then, unless he’s in prison.
I was talking to a mate about this yesterday and we both agreed we’d both probably vote for Trump if we were in the US. I can’t stand him, but he is at least compus mentus. Biden just isn’t fit to run the country. Even if he was now, he’s 81. There’s no guarantee he’d get through the 4 years. Why the hell would you elect someone of that age to be president? No one is as sharp at that age as they are in their prime.

Our lot aren’t competent and the options in the UK are fairly depressing but they are at least physically and mentally fit enough to govern.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 17, 2024, 10:43:03 PM
I was talking to a mate about this yesterday and we both agreed we’d both probably vote for Trump if we were in the US. I can’t stand him, but he is at least compus mentus.
This really surprises me. I'm no fan of Jo Biden, but to say that Trump is compos mentis1 seems off. Many of the things he's said, especially during his presidency when his publicity was at its highest, strongly suggested that his grasp on reality was tenuous at best. Are you sure that you're comparing the two fairly, rather than falling for the trap of hearing Biden say silly things more recently?

1 - yeah, yeah, I'm just correcting your spelling here. Gimme a break.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: BillO on February 17, 2024, 11:16:47 PM
I'd honestly hate to have to choose between the two, but if push came to shove I'd have to go with Mr. Biden.

Trump is just full of himself, and where there's a little room it's all just shlt.  If he goes off script (which is frequently) he just strings un-related words together.  He can't even get his political opponents right.

Plus, Biden just seems less outwardly criminal.

The pick'ns be slim.

Not that there is much to toot about in Canada either.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on February 18, 2024, 11:27:42 AM
compos mentis1
Ah. Thanks. I rarely see it written down so I took a punt!

Quote
Many of the things he's said, especially during his presidency when his publicity was at its highest, strongly suggested that his grasp on reality was tenuous at best. Are you sure that you're comparing the two fairly, rather than falling for the trap of hearing Biden say silly things more recently?

I largely agree that Trump has little grasp of reality but I think it’s in a different way to Biden. Trump doesn’t seem to know or care what is true, and I agree that’s not an ideal trait in a president. And I basically hate everything he says and stands for. But I think he’s basically mentally all there. He talks bollocks but does so because he’s an idiot and a narcissist. He’s not actually demented. I think he’d get through to the end of the presidency without needing to go into a care home. We had 4 years of Trump before and although I tired of his nonsense the world didn’t fall apart.
Biden just isn’t well enough to be president. He’s not well enough physically or mentally.

They’re both terrible options and it’s quite the dilemma for the US population. Obviously the Trump cult will vote for him whatever happens. That’s not enough to win an election though and I thought after Trump’s behaviour there’s no way they’d elect him again. But with the state of Biden’s health I don’t see how they can give him a second term.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: garygreen on February 18, 2024, 02:28:44 PM
We had 4 years of Trump before and although I tired of his nonsense the world didn’t fall apart.

is the world currently falling apart? how is biden any different in this respect?

Biden just isn’t well enough to be president. He’s not well enough physically or mentally.

i keep hearing this. based on what? a video of a guy with a stutter fumbling some words? a news report that someone said he forgot a thing? is there anything more substantive to this claim than just "i read thing that say joe dumb"? because i kinda feel like if literally every single moment of my life were being watched and recorded, you may be able to find some of instances in which i don't seem too bright.

has there been a policy breakdown somewhere? or any material consequence you can point to?

fwiw i don't give two shits about biden, i just think this whole line of thought is weird.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on February 18, 2024, 03:55:56 PM
you may be able to find some of instances in which i don't seem too bright.

has there been a policy breakdown somewhere? or any material consequence you can point to?

fwiw i don't give two shits about biden, i just think this whole line of thought is weird.
Well, this ^ post would be one of those instances.

Policy breakdown? How about the border?

How about radical inflation?

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on February 18, 2024, 05:13:28 PM
compos mentis1
Ah. Thanks. I rarely see it written down so I took a punt!

Quote
Many of the things he's said, especially during his presidency when his publicity was at its highest, strongly suggested that his grasp on reality was tenuous at best. Are you sure that you're comparing the two fairly, rather than falling for the trap of hearing Biden say silly things more recently?

I largely agree that Trump has little grasp of reality but I think it’s in a different way to Biden. Trump doesn’t seem to know or care what is true, and I agree that’s not an ideal trait in a president. And I basically hate everything he says and stands for. But I think he’s basically mentally all there. He talks bollocks but does so because he’s an idiot and a narcissist. He’s not actually demented.

I strongly disagree. His grasp of reality was already tenuous while he was president, and he's only gotten more unhinged as time has gone on. Those little gaffes of Biden's that have everyone so worried about his mental state? Those moments where he seems to lose track of what's going on? Such moments exist for Trump as well, in spades.

I'm not sure either one of them is "all there". But all things being equal (which as far as their mental acuity goes they probably are, or very close to it anyway) I'll take benevolent over evil any fucking day and I think it's insane to think otherwise.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: garygreen on February 18, 2024, 05:34:16 PM
How about the border?

How about radical inflation?

those are policy positions you don't like, not examples of biden's supposed mental deficiencies. unless you're saying he forgot the border existed or something? idgi.

i'm not taking a position on biden's policies, it's cool if you hate them. not my point.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on February 19, 2024, 10:30:58 AM
How about the border?

How about radical inflation?

those are policy positions you don't like, not examples of biden's supposed mental deficiencies. unless you're saying he forgot the border existed or something? idgi.

i'm not taking a position on biden's policies, it's cool if you hate them. not my point.
Well, it is obvious he does not know where the border is, for christ sake.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2024/feb/09/israeli-offensive-on-gaza-over-the-top-says-biden-video (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2024/feb/09/israeli-offensive-on-gaza-over-the-top-says-biden-video)

Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on February 19, 2024, 11:39:39 AM
How about the border?

How about radical inflation?

those are policy positions you don't like, not examples of biden's supposed mental deficiencies. unless you're saying he forgot the border existed or something? idgi.

i'm not taking a position on biden's policies, it's cool if you hate them. not my point.
Well, it is obvious he does not know where the border is, for christ sake.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2024/feb/09/israeli-offensive-on-gaza-over-the-top-says-biden-video (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2024/feb/09/israeli-offensive-on-gaza-over-the-top-says-biden-video)

So... Mixing up foreign names means he doesn't know where a border is?

Does that mean that if you mix up your coworker's name, you don't know where you work?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on February 19, 2024, 01:00:40 PM
So... Mixing up foreign names means he doesn't know where a border is?

Does that mean that if you mix up your coworker's name, you don't know where you work?
What name did he mix up?

What does my coworker have to do with the border?
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on February 19, 2024, 02:07:10 PM
So... Mixing up foreign names means he doesn't know where a border is?

Does that mean that if you mix up your coworker's name, you don't know where you work?
What name did he mix up?

What does my coworker have to do with the border?
The Egyptian and Mexican leaders.  As your link states.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on February 19, 2024, 03:04:55 PM
So... Mixing up foreign names means he doesn't know where a border is?

Does that mean that if you mix up your coworker's name, you don't know where you work?
What name did he mix up?

What does my coworker have to do with the border?
The Egyptian and Mexican leaders.  As your link states.
He only mentioned one name. In the same press conference where he was scolding the special counsel who stated the reason why he wasn't charged with lying about and mishandling classified documents was because he was (effectively) senile and he doubted he would be convicted.

I mean, the reason why he wasn't charged is actually the same reason why none of the charges against Trump will ever result in anything of consequence and that is because these "special counsels" have no real standing under US Code to prosecute charges.

But Joe is senile, no doubt about it.

That "Corn Pop," fella is vicious, I tell ya...
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: honk on February 19, 2024, 06:02:38 PM
As I pointed out (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17706.msg245947#msg245947) a couple of years ago, the Corn Pop story has been corroborated. Intuitively you feel that it isn't true, but the evidence shows that it actually is. Not a great start if that's Exhibit A of Biden's supposed mental incompetence.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Action80 on February 19, 2024, 07:38:38 PM
As I pointed out (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17706.msg245947#msg245947) a couple of years ago, the Corn Pop story has been corroborated. Intuitively you feel that it isn't true, but the evidence shows that it actually is. Not a great start if that's Exhibit A of Biden's supposed mental incompetence.
Wearing your hard hat backward is an important first step in challenging vicious men named "Corn Pop," on the mean streets of Wilmington, DE.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 19, 2024, 08:29:03 PM
Biden just isn’t well enough to be president. He’s not well enough physically or mentally.
Hmm. I dunno about this. To me, one of them (Trump, to avoid ambiguity) has bad intentions, while the other one is "just" in bad health*. We definitely agree that neither is ideal. But, to me, it seems like our options are a comparably healthy person who's actively malicious, and one person who might end up handing power over to another milquetoast Democrat if things get bad enough.

* - if we even accept that narrative to begin with. I honestly don't know if he's any worse than Trump on that front. Recall the hysteria around Trump's health when he was president - and the counter-argument in which his health was declared to be Truly Presidential™ by his doctor.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2024, 08:56:56 PM
The problem with the Democrat's ability to find someone electable in the upcoming presidential election is directly related to the below.

https://www.wtnh.com/news/washington/dems-launch-new-hip-hop-task-force/

https://twitter.com/ProudElephantUS/status/1759670892072767883
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on February 20, 2024, 06:06:36 PM
Biden just isn’t well enough to be president. He’s not well enough physically or mentally.
Hmm. I dunno about this. To me, one of them (Trump, to avoid ambiguity) has bad intentions, while the other one is "just" in bad health*. We definitely agree that neither is ideal. But, to me, it seems like our options are a comparably healthy person who's actively malicious, and one person who might end up handing power over to another milquetoast Democrat if things get bad enough.

* - if we even accept that narrative to begin with. I honestly don't know if he's any worse than Trump on that front. Recall the hysteria around Trump's health when he was president - and the counter-argument in which his health was declared to be Truly Presidential™ by his doctor.
I'm not sure Trump is actually malicious. He's not trying to take America down from the inside. He's certainly a narcissist and I suspect he mostly wants to be president to go down in history and as a route to making ever more money. His physical health probably isn't that great, I think mentally he's mostly all there, but in other ways he does have a somewhat tenuous grip on reality. I was reminded earlier about Trump's rambling about Covid - his thoughts that they could just shine UV light into people to eradicate the virus. Chuckle. But, overall, I don't think the world will fall apart if (I'm coming to the depressing opinion that it's "when") he's president again.

But I do take gary's point that the world isn't falling apart now either, so maybe I'll change my vote. Not that I get one. It's two pretty depressing options, makes our lot almost look competent. Almost...
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 01, 2024, 03:29:42 AM
Sounds about right.

https://dailycaller.com/2024/02/29/hunter-biden-deposition-transcript-house-oversight-committee-joe-biden-burisma-cefc/

(https://i.imgur.com/XvogXE7.jpg)

How odd.

https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1763331623683018935 (https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1763331623683018935)

(https://i.imgur.com/RbnuPvD.png)
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on March 01, 2024, 11:43:01 AM
Yeah, see, ask me what I did 5 years ago and I'll look at you with a blank stare.
Even in my prime, I couldn't remember much past a few days.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on March 01, 2024, 07:46:11 PM
Biden just isn’t well enough to be president. He’s not well enough physically or mentally.
Hmm. I dunno about this. To me, one of them (Trump, to avoid ambiguity) has bad intentions, while the other one is "just" in bad health*. We definitely agree that neither is ideal. But, to me, it seems like our options are a comparably healthy person who's actively malicious, and one person who might end up handing power over to another milquetoast Democrat if things get bad enough.

* - if we even accept that narrative to begin with. I honestly don't know if he's any worse than Trump on that front. Recall the hysteria around Trump's health when he was president - and the counter-argument in which his health was declared to be Truly Presidential™ by his doctor.
I'm not sure Trump is actually malicious. He's not trying to take America down from the inside.

Interesting take, that the man who literally led a violent effort to subvert our Democratic process isn't "actually malicious". I'm sure a lot of people who aren't crazy about Trump but can't stomach the thought of 4 more years of Biden are rationalizing things the same way.

It's demonstrably wrong, of course...
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on March 01, 2024, 08:13:56 PM
Biden just isn’t well enough to be president. He’s not well enough physically or mentally.
Hmm. I dunno about this. To me, one of them (Trump, to avoid ambiguity) has bad intentions, while the other one is "just" in bad health*. We definitely agree that neither is ideal. But, to me, it seems like our options are a comparably healthy person who's actively malicious, and one person who might end up handing power over to another milquetoast Democrat if things get bad enough.

* - if we even accept that narrative to begin with. I honestly don't know if he's any worse than Trump on that front. Recall the hysteria around Trump's health when he was president - and the counter-argument in which his health was declared to be Truly Presidential™ by his doctor.
I'm not sure Trump is actually malicious. He's not trying to take America down from the inside.

Interesting take, that the man who literally led a violent effort to subvert our Democratic process isn't "actually malicious". I'm sure a lot of people who aren't crazy about Trump but can't stomach the thought of 4 more years of Biden are rationalizing things the same way.

It's demonstrably wrong, of course...

He strongly encouraged others to do a thing.  Not really leading, per se.

That being said, maybe he's so delusional with rich man privledge that he honestly thinks he won? 
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on March 01, 2024, 10:23:19 PM
Biden just isn’t well enough to be president. He’s not well enough physically or mentally.
Hmm. I dunno about this. To me, one of them (Trump, to avoid ambiguity) has bad intentions, while the other one is "just" in bad health*. We definitely agree that neither is ideal. But, to me, it seems like our options are a comparably healthy person who's actively malicious, and one person who might end up handing power over to another milquetoast Democrat if things get bad enough.

* - if we even accept that narrative to begin with. I honestly don't know if he's any worse than Trump on that front. Recall the hysteria around Trump's health when he was president - and the counter-argument in which his health was declared to be Truly Presidential™ by his doctor.
I'm not sure Trump is actually malicious. He's not trying to take America down from the inside.

Interesting take, that the man who literally led a violent effort to subvert our Democratic process isn't "actually malicious". I'm sure a lot of people who aren't crazy about Trump but can't stomach the thought of 4 more years of Biden are rationalizing things the same way.

It's demonstrably wrong, of course...

He strongly encouraged others to do a thing.  Not really leading, per se.

That being said, maybe he's so delusional with rich man privledge that he honestly thinks he won?

Dave, he was asking for it for months. His followers wouldn't have been there if he hadn't been asking for it. He was the leader of our country, and for a lot of people he held, and still holds, the power of a cult leader, and he encouraged his followers to lead an insurrection to subvert our Democratic process and install him as a dictator.

I can't imagine how it can be argued that he didn't literally lead it.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2024, 08:32:14 AM
Biden just isn’t well enough to be president. He’s not well enough physically or mentally.
Hmm. I dunno about this. To me, one of them (Trump, to avoid ambiguity) has bad intentions, while the other one is "just" in bad health*. We definitely agree that neither is ideal. But, to me, it seems like our options are a comparably healthy person who's actively malicious, and one person who might end up handing power over to another milquetoast Democrat if things get bad enough.

* - if we even accept that narrative to begin with. I honestly don't know if he's any worse than Trump on that front. Recall the hysteria around Trump's health when he was president - and the counter-argument in which his health was declared to be Truly Presidential™ by his doctor.
I'm not sure Trump is actually malicious. He's not trying to take America down from the inside.

Interesting take, that the man who literally led a violent effort to subvert our Democratic process isn't "actually malicious". I'm sure a lot of people who aren't crazy about Trump but can't stomach the thought of 4 more years of Biden are rationalizing things the same way.

It's demonstrably wrong, of course...

He strongly encouraged others to do a thing.  Not really leading, per se.

That being said, maybe he's so delusional with rich man privledge that he honestly thinks he won?

Dave, he was asking for it for months. His followers wouldn't have been there if he hadn't been asking for it. He was the leader of our country, and for a lot of people he held, and still holds, the power of a cult leader, and he encouraged his followers to lead an insurrection to subvert our Democratic process and install him as a dictator.

I can't imagine how it can be argued that he didn't literally lead it.

I'd argue it (weakly) that he's got the leadership skills of a chatbot.  And therefore not a leader but a spokesman or figurehead.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Roundy on March 02, 2024, 11:30:20 AM
And therefore not a leader but a spokesman or figurehead.

Wow. Ok, look up the definition of the word "president" as it pertains to our government and get back to me. This isn't the fucking Royal Family we're talking about here.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2024, 04:14:23 PM
And therefore not a leader but a spokesman or figurehead.

Wow. Ok, look up the definition of the word "president" as it pertains to our government and get back to me. This isn't the fucking Royal Family we're talking about here.

Yes yes.  He was a leader by legal right.  But just because you're called the boss, doesn't mean you're a leader.
Title: Re: President Joe Biden
Post by: AATW on March 08, 2024, 09:45:03 AM
I think "led" is giving him too much credit. It implies he bravely led them into battle.
Actually what he did was whip them up, said he'd "be right there with them" and then left a load of his most idiotic cult members to run riot on their own while he "bravely" watched on from afar.

But it's certainly true that they wouldn't have been there but for him, so in that sense the whole thing was his doing.

When I said he's not malicious - I don't think he's trying to take America down. But he's a narcissist who has grown up getting everything he wanted. He couldn't handle the fact that he lost so he stamped his feet and insisted he'd won, like a child. The difference is the parents of a young child who does that just laugh at them or tell them off, Trump's cult members believed him.

He won't be a good President if he gets in again, I was reminded recently of the utter bullshit he used to spout on a daily basis - he's not been so prominent over here since he stopped being President so I'd kind of forgotten. But I don't think he'll blow up the whole system, he's not capable of doing that. And at least it's the last time he'll be President so we won't have all that bullshit again in 2028.

I genuinely am not sure who I'd vote for now. I think the whole world is looking on with a sense of "Really? Is that the best two options you could come up with?"