While I like free money (got my $600 yesterday) I hate the dems using reconceliation to push this through.
While I like free money (got my $600 yesterday) I hate the dems using reconceliation to push this through.
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.
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.
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.
Reconciliation it is, then.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
Pleased you are finally admitting corporations do not need to employ people.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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 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?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.
Australian news on dementia joe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nhm6VAIc90&ab_channel=SkyNewsAustralia
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.
What does his essay have to do with the fact that Joe Biden is a dementia-ridden embarrassment?
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.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.
What does his essay have to do with the fact that Joe Biden is a dementia-ridden embarrassment?
They got rid of a man who could at least deliver a rousing speech
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.
why does literally every thread have to be about trump
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
They got rid of a man who could at least deliver a rousing speech
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.
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 HouseWhat 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?
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 HouseWhat 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.Trump is gone.
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 HouseWhat 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.
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.
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.
Its not even close. Trump's gonna walk the election, despite what the Liberal media in the US tell you.
Trump is gone.
This thread is about Biden.
America chose Biden and all I see is apologists for Biden.
Trump got nothing done, his every path blocked.
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.
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.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.
So grabbing by the pussy is harmful? And you like Trump doing it to women? Sheesh...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.
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.
He grabbed China by the pussy.
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.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. ::)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.
America is an absolute laughing stock now.
They got rid of a man who could at least deliver a rousing speech and ... replaced him ...
We've got 4 years of him ... sticking his foot in his mouth every time he opens it to come.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
You're right, actually. I've been to Beijing and while it comes and goes a bit, at times it's pretty horrible there.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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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?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.
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?
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?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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Your examples say that countries should be responsible for themselves.I never said the US is responsible for China.
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.
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.
The President of the United States can’t even pull 435 viewers on the official White House YouTube channel.
IMG
I just think it's refreshing having a president that isn't obsessed with his own celebrity.
In that same event Biden .... stumbled for his name, came up empty and said:
By arguing "but Trump" you are telling us that you believe that Biden is as embarrassing like you believe Trump wasNo. Because I don’t believe that someone stumbling over words is in itself embarrassing.
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.
By arguing "but Trump" you are telling us that you believe that Biden is as embarrassing like you believe Trump was.
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.
Are you going next going justify your pedophile prince with the same tactic?Without a conviction, that's just libel.
The subject of this thread is not Trump. The subject of this thread is Joe Biden.
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?
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.
I just think it's refreshing having a president that isn't obsessed with his own celebrity.Since when?
Biden is an embarrassment, regardless of what Tom states.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.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.
The mental degenerate cannot even hold a news conference.
Biden is an embarrassment, regardless of what Tom states. The mental degenerate cannot even hold a news conference.
Biden is an embarrassment, regardless of what Tom states. The mental degenerate cannot even hold a news conference.
I just think it's refreshing having a president that isn't obsessed with his own celebrity.Since when?
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.
Crown Prince of Whataboutism
... need to try to hide that fact by accusing someone else of something.
It is almost as if you are conceding that Joe Biden is an embarrassment
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.
Several people have said his speech gaffes aren't an embarrassment
Are you doing this deliberately? You're turning into a Life of Brian sketchSeveral 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
You guys didn't even argue that your opponents were mistaken about what Biden did.
That's literally what many of us have been saying.
That they aren't embarrassing. Nobody is conceding that.
You guys didn't even argue that your opponents were mistaken about what Biden did.Quote from: СнупсThat's literally what many of us have been saying.
Where was it argued that I was mistaken about what Biden did?
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.
You guys didn't even argue that your opponents were mistaken about what Biden did.Quote from: СнупсThat's literally what many of us have been saying.
Where was it argued that I was mistaken about what Biden did?QuoteThat 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.
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?
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."
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.
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.QuoteI 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."
Actions speak louder than words.
If you have to argue "But Trump" you are conceding that your opponent's accusations have merit.
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.
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 BadNo. Once more for the hard of thinking:
You: You are a hypocrite because 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.Liar
By arguing "but Trump" you are telling us that you believe that Biden is as embarrassing like you believe Trump wasNo. Because I don’t believe that someone stumbling over words is in itself embarrassing..
Me: Biden BadNo. Once more for the hard of thinking:
You: You are a hypocrite because something about Trump Bad.
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.
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.
Whenever you justify a bad or embarrassing behavior you are conceding that it is bad or embarrassing.
Actually, there were no threats. Fake news diet can be bad for your reputation.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.
This video clip seems greenscreened, clearly demonstrating such at one prominent point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ml7lhL3yw0
Crazy the PTB would allow such a thing to be aired, don't you think.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.
What did you look into?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?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.
He didn't recreate this parade. He simply showed the original.
The image presented is clearly green screened.
I cannot watch the video you linked.What did you look into?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.
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 green screen news conference aired by the MSM.
Whether you want to admit or not is of no consequence.
Truth is truth.
Nice try.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&tQuoteYou 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.QuoteWhether 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?QuoteTruth is truth.
Brings a tear to the eye.
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?
VID
Your President is a complete and utter tool.
VID
Your President is a complete and utter tool.
I refuse to take this seriously.
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.
"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
Trump could walk up the steps to Air Force One just fine: https://mobile.twitter.com/DanScavino/status/1372964618495213571
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.
Trump could walk up the steps to Air Force One just fine: https://mobile.twitter.com/DanScavino/status/1372964618495213571
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 apparently one of the few idiots who can manage to fall UP the stairs. ::)
Wrong.
Wrong. Biden's stumbles and clumsiness is being reported all over by the MSM as news:Of course.
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!
Mr Biden's latest medical report showed no signs of any degenerative disease.
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.
Wrong. Biden's stumbles and clumsiness is being reported all over by the MSM as news
Wrong. Biden's stumbles and clumsiness is being reported all over by the MSM as news:But what am I wrong about, exactly?
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?
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?
Did you just reply to yourself to add on to your own joke? Why?
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'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.
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.
The MSM are proven liars.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.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. ???
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.
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.
Of course it is the simplest explanation.
There is no conspiracy here.
The same motive as they always have.The MSM are proven liars.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. ???
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?
Too late for that.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.
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.
Too late for that.
You are cool with all of it.
You have got what you wanted all along.
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.
QuoteAnd their movtive for this one is? Why greenscreen it?The same motive as they always have.
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 isn't even spacing the children and immigrants six feet apart when he makes them sleep on the floor in thermal blankets.
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Biden made drastic changes to immigration. This problem is all on him.
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”
You are cool with it.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The reporters were standing in front of him and their mics were in front of him also.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.
You are cool with it.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.
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.
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.
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.
The reporters were standing in front of him and their mics were in front of him also.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.
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.
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!"
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?
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.
You essentially wrote, "USA TERRIBLE," and are now trying to back out of it.You are cool with it.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.
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.
QuoteMillions 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 millionsQuote300,000 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.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.QuoteYou 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.
You essentially wrote, "USA TERRIBLE," and are now trying to back out of it.
As usual.
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.
Introducing the word "unnecessarily," when it was obviously necessary to do so doesn't help your argument.
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.
The reporters were standing in front of him and their mics were in front of him also.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.
In detail? What kind of detail?The reporters were standing in front of him and their mics were in front of him also.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.
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.
No people like me would want to stay in Canada with our higher standard of living, good education and overall happier people, thanks.Yeah, keep preaching your BS.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.
No people like me would want to stay in Canada with our higher standard of living, good education and overall happier people, thanks.Yeah, keep preaching your BS.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.
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.
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.
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.
Like I wrote.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.QuoteNo conspiracy.
Definition of conspiracy.QuoteJust the MSM continuing the lie.
Which lie? Is Biden not real?QuoteAmazing, 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.
In detail? What kind of detail?The reporters were standing in front of him and their mics were in front of him also.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.
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.
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.
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.
Like I wrote.
A proven liar supporting other proven liars.
"Tell a lie often enough and they will eventually believe it."
Still waiting for the "us" liberals to reply to this.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.
You're so dumb.
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
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.
Holy shit, are we going to have 4 years of this BDS?
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
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" ...
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.
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?
So Biden is doing what is not appropriate? That is much worse.
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....?
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.
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.
nb4 kamala vetoes https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/03/schumer-senate-marijuana-legalization-478963
nb4 kamala vetoes
nb4 kamala vetoes
Didn't she sponsor a bill supporting legalization not that long ago?
Politicians and narcissism is pretty iconic.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 !!!
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
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/10/995518597/americans-will-lose-unemployment-benefits-if-they-turn-down-jobs-biden-saysWhen a couple can make twice the median income by not working, why work?
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!"
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/10/995518597/americans-will-lose-unemployment-benefits-if-they-turn-down-jobs-biden-saysWhen a couple can make twice the median income by not working, why work?
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!"
Labor shortage is not an accurate descriptor.
Everyone wants to be pampered is more accurate.https://www.npr.org/2021/05/10/995518597/americans-will-lose-unemployment-benefits-if-they-turn-down-jobs-biden-saysWhen a couple can make twice the median income by not working, why work?
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!"
Labor shortage is not an accurate descriptor.
How about :Shit pay keeps all but illegals from wanting to work?
EveryoneFTFYwants to be pamperedthinks they deserve a living wage is more accurate.
EveryoneFTFYwants to be pamperedthinks they deserve a living wage is more accurate.
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.EveryoneFTFYwants to be pamperedthinks they deserve a living wage is more accurate.
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
>capitalism works because everyone is greedyIt is possible to be extremely greedy and extremely lazy all that same time.
>also social welfare is bad because everyone is lazy
i fucking hate this country
False. Most people want to work. Why do you think most retired people find hobbies or community service? Boredom is a thing.They wouldn't.EveryoneFTFYwants to be pamperedthinks they deserve a living wage is more accurate.
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 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.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?
If the government is paying me enough to live, then work be damned.Don't project your own desires on humanity, dude.
People are fucking lazy whether you like the fact or not.
It is true that boredom is a thing. I never claimed it was not a thing.False. Most people want to work. Why do you think most retired people find hobbies or community service? Boredom is a thing.They wouldn't.EveryoneFTFYwants to be pamperedthinks they deserve a living wage is more accurate.
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 would rather be pampered and taken care of by somebody else.
If you want those things, you should put in the work required to get those things.QuoteAs 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?
Not my desires at all.QuoteIf the government is paying me enough to live, then work be damned.Don't project your own desires on humanity, dude.
People are fucking lazy whether you like the fact or not.
If the government is paying me enough to live, then work be damned.
I think you are totally missing the point.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.
Exactly. A government should pay people enough to live. A company should pay employees enough to have a life.Who wants a minimum wage job?
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.
I think you are totally missing the point.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 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.
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?
Hobbies and community service is not viewed as work by people who perform such things.My hobbies include computer stuff.
Playing the guitar =/= work for me.
I am not good enough to get paid doing it though.
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?
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.If you want those things, you should put in the work required to get those things.QuoteAs 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?
You cannot blame some other entity for not doing the work required to get those things.
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)Not my desires at all.QuoteIf the government is paying me enough to live, then work be damned.Don't project your own desires on humanity, dude.
People are fucking lazy whether you like the fact or not.
I know damn well the government is not inclined to take care of me.
People like you they will take care of.
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.I think you are totally missing the point.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 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? ???See, I don't view the things I have as important and that is the difference.
That's just weird. Again I don't think most people feel the same way.
Because "Unemployed people want to work" remember what you just wrote?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?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?
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.
And if they are capable of living as I am currently (even better, in most instances), then yeah, they are not going to work.
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?
If you need a real reason to dislike Joe Biden then look no further at his fecklessness regarding the current situation in Israel.
(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.
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.
People who aren't friends with Israel have a pretty bad track record so I'm glad we are allied with them.
People who aren't friends with Israel have a pretty bad track record so I'm glad we are allied with them.
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/
NOT MY PRES..his party cheated..LOSERShahahaha sucked in! 8)
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
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
Biden seems brain dead. Is he really going to play hard ball with Putin?
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.
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.
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.
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?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".
Or is this based on the average American, who (just fyi) does not have the best medical care or even very good medical care.
So a reanimated corpse was better than Donald Trump?Does your numbers take into account that, as president, he has the best healthcare money can buy?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".
Or is this based on the average American, who (just fyi) does not have the best medical care or even very good medical care.
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 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?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 concerned neighbor. (Canada)
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.
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?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 concerned neighbor. (Canada)
Sincerely,
Your unconcerned neighbor (The US)
I understand anyone shouting out "terrorism," is most likely a terrorist.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?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 concerned neighbor. (Canada)
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.
No need to quote my post to talk about how smart you are.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.
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.
No need to quote my post to talk about how smart you are.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.
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.
With you acting as a willing agent those same people you supposedly decry?No need to quote my post to talk about how smart you are.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.
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.
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?
No need to quote my post to talk about how smart you are.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.
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.
How many weapons and soliders does China and Russia have in the US?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?
Alot less than the number who stormed the capital on January 6.
assembled press who a) knew they would be there and b) felt in absolutely no mortal danger whatsoever?
How many weapons and soliders does China and Russia have in the US?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?
Alot less than the number who stormed the capital on January 6.
(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.
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.
Did "The Big Guy" get his 10% again ?
So brain dead he ate a booger on live tv.
He's the best you got?.
Not my Pres., my clown.....
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.
So brain dead he ate a booger on live tv.
He's the best you got?.
Not my Pres., my clown.....
Its so weird to watch conservatives jump and attack liberals with arguments that fit Trump.
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.
Benghazi on steroids coming. Lotsa dead Americans. Thanks Joe you retard, couldn't run a lemonade stand with free lemons.
Resign NOW !!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
QuoteAlso, 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.QuoteAn 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?
QuoteTracking 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.QuoteI 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?QuoteI 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.QuoteAnd 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.
QuoteAlso, 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.QuoteAn 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
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
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
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.
I see that Joe Biden has survived the Taliban insurgency to become the leader America needs.
https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1431754382383763456
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.
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.
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.
It is common for one to look away, look down, while listening to another person.
It is common for one to look away, look down, while listening to another person.
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.
an apologist for everything Trump did.
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.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.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
Tell me ... what was the terrible thing Trump did?
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?
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?
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?
Tell me ... what was the terrible thing Trump did?
You mean aside from all the sexual assault allegations?
Well, there was that time we had a terrible pandemicWhat 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.
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.
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.
What terrible pandemic? How many billions died?
Where are all the dead otherwise healthy people?
It wasn't.
It was made into a big deal, but the virus itself wasn't a big deal, no.
Pretty much what has happened. Vaccines are getting the credit for the work done by natural immunity at this point.
On the advice of Dr Fauchy. Is Trump supposed to contradict the chief medical officer? You'd have screamed bloody murder if he had.
Hundreds and thousands of Americans die every year. They die prematurely because they are as fat as fuck and never exercise.
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.
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.
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.
The never-ending CNN lie about insurrection. Give it up. It's a non-story. ::)QuoteDid he try to enforce law and order? Yes.Except when he encouraged his followers to violence. Then he encouraged that.
That would be sexual assault. Not rape. Why do you always exaggerate?QuoteI 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.
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.
Job growth went down 90% from 2016 to 2019 while over 1,800 factories closed. What in the actual fuck are you on?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.
The never-ending CNN lie about insurrection. Give it up. It's a non-story. ::)QuoteDid he try to enforce law and order? Yes.Except when he encouraged his followers to violence. Then he encouraged that.
That would be sexual assault. Not rape. Why do you always exaggerate?QuoteI 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.
President Joe Biden called a black man "boy".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rchgYSS2OjU&ab_channel=BidenGaffes
Not my Pres....
1. You are not American.Not my Pres....
Here are the ways Joe B. is not your Pres:
What an absolute disgrace.
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....
What an absolute disgrace.
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.
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?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.
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
It is claimed by multiple people that he checked his watch multiple times.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
I understand why you guys want to talk about someone else's possible bad actions when confronted with Joe Biden's abhorent behaviorPeople are actually talking about your hypocrisy. Keep up.
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?
I understand why you guys want to talk about someone else's possible bad actions when confronted with Joe Biden's abhorent behaviorPeople are actually talking about your hypocrisy. Keep up.
Remember the green screen presser outside? They are now just building sets. Joe Biden is not running the country.
So, according to you, Joe demanded the set to be built for the photo op.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.
Remember the green screen presser outside? They are now just building sets.Literally no idea what point you think you're making here.
Did they show the area to be a set on TV when broadcasting the "booster shot?"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.
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?The question is simple.
OK, dude...
Why wouldn't he get the booster in the White House?You think the people who do boosters go door to door?
Holy shit.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.
Jesus, the fact you think setting up fake scenery is somehow encouraging people to get this shot
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.
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.
Jesus, this thread is about Joe Biden.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.
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.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.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.
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.
Note, they do not even market the flu vaccine as a vaccine anymore, it is marketed as a shot)
What part of honest messaging escapes you?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.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.
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.QuoteThat 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”.
In your world, Geico is lying about insurance because Gecko’s can’t really talk. Lol
President Harris!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59352170
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’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.
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)
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.
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.
There is a virtually 0% chance that Trump wins ever again.
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.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 miss Paul Ryan.LOL! Define integrity please, as I don't think you actually know what the word means.
At least he had integrity.
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.I miss Paul Ryan.LOL! Define integrity please, as I don't think you actually know what the word means.
At least he had integrity.
I think Ted Cruz would be a better choice for Republicans.
Oh yes, Paul Ryan, the anti-fear mongering guy who pushed for our continued war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.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.I miss Paul Ryan.LOL! Define integrity please, as I don't think you actually know what the word means.
At least he had integrity.
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, 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.
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.
Too many voters will just focus on how bad things are now and forget how much worse they were under Trump.
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?
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.
https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1471635387550519298?s=20
Good question.
That's not the question to ask.Right.
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?
That's not the question to ask.Right.
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?
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.
silly tweet
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Obviously fully vaxxed is preferable.,
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
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
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)
Since you cannot provide a firm definition, all of your post is irrelevant.
Obviously fully vaxxed is preferable.,
Since you cannot provide a firm definition, all of your post is irrelevant.
Obviously fully vaxxed is preferable.,
I have been reading. You have not.Since you cannot provide a firm definition, all of your post is irrelevant.
Obviously fully vaxxed is preferable.,
Firm definition(s) are in the article. Read before posting.
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.
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.
FTFYThe 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.
Wait, aren't you one of the voices crying out: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: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.
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.
This is what confuses me. He seems to arguing that medicine is a waste of time, which seems particularly stupid.
I see no reason at this particular point to expect anything more than total senseless rhetoric or just plain feigned ignorance from you.Wait, aren't you one of the voices crying out: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.
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.
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. :(
So he didn’t say vaccination alone will end the pandemic. That’s what I thought.
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
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.
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.
Actually Biden has repeatedly said that the masses getting vaccinated will end covid.
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."
40% of Joe Biden's own party thinks that he should be impeached.
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
Incorrect. Biden's unpopularity and wanting Biden impeached does have something to do with each other.
Incorrect. Biden's unpopularity and wanting Biden impeached does have something to do with each other.
When the GOP takes the house next year and appoints mtg as the speaker
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.
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.
So, it appears you're stating no people in the US support impeachment of Biden.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.QuoteYour 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.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.QuoteYour 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.
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 saying you don’t have evidence that people currently wish to impeach Biden.EQUAL THIS:
Sorry, unless you're hinging the idea on the act of typing and not speaking, it appears your hypocrisy is rather evident.
I’m not saying that...
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...
So, it appears you're stating no people in the US support impeachment of Biden.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.QuoteYour 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.
Shirley, you can't be serious. - Striker
I live in the US and I currently want Joe Biden impeached.
There is your evidence.
The idea you could ever simply type what you mean to type is obviously in the dumpster.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.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?
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.
Not until this very post did you actually state what you were asking for.The idea you could ever simply type what you mean to type is obviously in the dumpster.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?
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.
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.
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)
How does it feel to have voted for an utter imbecile?Ha.
How does it feel to have voted for an utter imbecile?
How does it feel to have voted for an utter imbecile?Ha.
Imagine voting for Trump. Twice.
And then saying this.
I admit Joe is suffering from Alzheimers and has no clue.
It would have been decent to say, "Yeah. Whatever." Or, his good old, "C'mon man!?!?" That would have indicated a functioning brain.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.
Yeah. Whatever.It would have been decent to say, "Yeah. Whatever." Or, his good old, "C'mon man!?!?" That would have indicated a functioning brain.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.
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.
He ignored itImagine thinking that:
He ignored itImagine thinking that:
Repeating the line: "Let’s go Brandon!"
AND
Subsequently stating: "I agree!"
= Ignoring it.
LMMFAO!!!
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?He ignored itImagine 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.
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.
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.
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.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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Especially considering he seems to have intimate knowledge of her sex life.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.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.
Sorry, I didn't catch that photoshopped porn flick. If you know where I can get a copy, fill me in, okay?Especially considering he seems to have intimate knowledge of her sex life.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.
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....
LET'S GO BRANDON!
And now I am being attacked for utilizing my freedom of speech
Quote from: Jared SchmeckAnd 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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
That kid is already a millionaire from all of the defamation settlements
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/
Looks like Biden surrendered to the Coronavirus.
(https://i.imgur.com/vus7j9I.jpg)
That’s pretty shite leadership if he’s saying that, even if efforts at the federal level have been hampered by state politicians.
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.
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?
Alas, stupid voters are why [insert name of any democratic nation] is in decline.
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.To very differing extents. Surely you're not going to act as if the US was your average democracy?
Alas, stupid voters are why [insert name of any democratic nation] is in decline.
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)
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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/
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
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.
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.
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.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.
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://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
Yes, I'm sure that the openly conservative Rasmussen Reports conducted a perfectly fair and unbiased
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.
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?
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. ::)
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.
I know Rasmussen tends to be pretty reliable
The Hill is widely regarded as generally centrist
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.
"Sites like Rasmussen or Conservapedia are not discredited by merely being conservative."
But liberal sites like CNN, snopes, TheHill, and wikipedia are discredited, yeah?
"Sites like Rasmussen or Conservapedia are not discredited by merely being conservative."It doesn’t matter what the source is.
But liberal sites like CNN, snopes, TheHill, and wikipedia are discredited, yeah?
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.
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.
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.
Not all wikis are created equally. Like I said, I’d never heard of this one until today. But it is rich with bias.
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.
Stack already did a fine job pointing out the inherent bias present in the wiki.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
Astronomers have a bias against astrology.No, they don’t.
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.
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 watchlist for accessing that cursed website anyway, let's all enjoy the Biden junta (https://www.conservapedia.com/Biden_junta) article.
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.
QuoteBias 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.
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 comparisonsDo 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:
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)]
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".
Actually, it is.Oh whoopsie doodle! You accidently didn't quote this part:
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/biased
adjective - "favoring one person or side over another"
While biased can just mean having a preference for one thing over another, it also is synonymous with "prejudiced,"
"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."
Actually, it is.Oh whoopsie doodle! You accidently didn't quote this part:
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/biased
adjective - "favoring one person or side over another"QuoteWhile 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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
Biased can just mean having a preference for one thing than another.Literally no-one understands it that way.
Also, prejudiced doesn't equal wrong either.
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?
Biased can just mean having a preference for one thing than another.Literally no-one understands it that way.
QuoteAlso, prejudiced doesn't equal wrong either.
It doesn't equal wrong, but it makes being wrong more likely.
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?
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.
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?
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.
I'm not saying that a position being argued on Conservapedia automatically means that the opposite is true
You’ve really got to be joking.
Quote from: stackI 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.
Quote from: stackI 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.
Quote from: stackI 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
Quote from: stackI 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. :(
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.
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.
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.
For most things the state doesn't even think that people remain guilty after completing their time and rehabilitation.
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.
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
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.
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.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.
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.
At this point, I'm less interested in the argument itselfWell, 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 productiveDing 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
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)]
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_biasDespite 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.
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.
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."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.
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:
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.
When you use drugs like methamphetamine or crack cocaine, the last thing to be concerned about is hygiene.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.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.
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.
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-drugsQuoteWASHINGTON (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.
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?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.
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.
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?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.
LOL, you fucking hypocrite. Keep trolling. A president lying never mattered to you when his name was Trump.
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.
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.
No comment on the fact that the Biden Administration lied about it and that it is illegal to distribute drug paraphernalia?
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.
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)
apparently, pipes are not in the kits. Seems like a made up issue.
Who is arguing whether crack pipes are illegal drug paraphernalia or not? Why do you keep bringing this up?
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, 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: stackWho 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: stackSearching 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. ::)
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?
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.
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.
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"
No Tom, people just tired of your hypocrisy is all. You’re making a mountain out of a mole hill in your tired campaign to own the libs. All of your indignation vanishes when it’s someone you prefer because you have no values. I certainly don’t think it’s good for Biden to lie about something so trivial. It’s also trivial and surely there are better things to worry about? Like how this program is helping people with dangerous drug habits?Helping them how?