[Dr Van Nostrand]

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://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/

[Roundy]

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.

[Snupes]

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"

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Tumeni]

... 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.

[Rama Set]

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.

[AATW]

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.

[Snupes]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Snupes]

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)

[AATW]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Rama Set]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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." 

[Roundy]

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...

[Snupes]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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

That's literally what many of us have been saying.

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

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.

[Roundy]

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

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. 

[AATW]

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.

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.

[Shifter]

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.