The Flat Earth Society

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

Title: President Joe Biden
Post by: junker 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: junker 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: junker 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: junker 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: Снупс 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: Снупс 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: Снупс 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: Снупс 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: Снупс 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: junker 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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_Yuppie 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: Снупс 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: Снупс 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: junker 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 in 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_Yuppie 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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_Yuppie 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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_Yuppie 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_Yuppie 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: junker 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: junker 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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_Yuppie 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: junker 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: junker 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: junker 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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: AllAroundTheWorld 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?