Biden for President?

[Bob001]

I haven't read the original article... paywall... but I have read other versions of the story, such as: https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/8/21170714/twitter-manipulated-media-biden-video-retweeted-trump
....

More recently:

WASHINGTON — A manipulated video featuring Joseph R. Biden Jr. and spread by President Trump over the weekend has ratcheted up an online war that has put Twitter and Facebook in the middle of a debate over political speech.
.....
The video came from a stump speech by Mr. Biden on Saturday in Kansas City, Mo., where he appeared to struggle through a sentence and with halting words said, “We can only re-elect Donald Trump.”

But the rest of Mr. Biden’s sentence was selectively edited out. In full, Mr. Biden was stressing the need for Democrats to unite against Mr. Trump.

“We can only re-elect Donald Trump if in fact we get engaged in this circular firing squad here. It’s got to be a positive campaign,” he said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/09/technology/manipulated-biden-video-trump.html

 

[Sideroxylon]

Fine. You don't want to answer the question. Got it.

We got there finally.

 

[Distracted1]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, can we just calm down for a moment and try to be fair to both sides? Get out of your own headspace and try to see the world through the eyes of others. Democrats are (likely) going to choose Biden simply because they think he has a better chance in a general election, and Republicans are going to back Trump because they're evil.

Whoa there!
Logical fallacy alert!
Not all Republicans are evil- only the ones who support Trump are.
It's your classic "all A's are B's" not meaning that "all B's are A's".
Glad I could help.

 

[Belz...]

I did address it.

Posting fiction in response to an actual argument about elections is not "addressing" it, no.

 

[Belz...]

I never missed dudalb's point

In that case by all means: what was dudalb's point?

I simply responded with a point of my own

Since your point was completely unrelated to his, and you didn't miss his point, why did you choose to answer with this specific point?

 

[Belz...]

Horse hockey.

I would definitely watch that.

Just need to overlook him being a lying scumbag flake but yeah vague promises of “modest reforms.” What a presidential candidate! What a platform!

An America that offers a fair deal for working Americans must be relegated to the too hard basket because the establishment says no. Bend over and like it.

This is not an answer to the post you quoted. It's just a rant that fails to address the points completely.

We get it: Biden isn't your cup of tea and is far from ideal. That's not the point. The point is that he could get things done were he to try. Sanders would be hard pressed to find any support in Congress. Then what happens to your glorious reforms?

 

[Belz...]

Just a warning I will report posts that personalise arguments. Don’t make this about me.

You understand that we're allowed to discuss personal feelings and information, right?

We got there finally.

The time it took is entirely because the first post I quoted here didn't read "I'd rather not answer that question", but was rather a passive-aggressive bait. You did that deliberately, and then implied that Stacy's the one at fault.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I would definitely watch that.



This is not an answer to the post you quoted. It's just a rant that fails to address the points completely.

We get it: Biden isn't your cup of tea and is far from ideal. That's not the point. The point is that he could get things done were he to try. Sanders would be hard pressed to find any support in Congress. Then what happens to your glorious reforms?

Yeah liars and plagiarists are not my cup of tea.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

More recently:



https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/09/technology/manipulated-biden-video-trump.html

Attacks on Sanders: the Republicans will do worse to him!

Attacks on Biden: guise, don't circular firing squad!

Same issue as every time I hear advocates for social and economic justice get told they are engaging in class warfare.

We were already at war, what you didn't like is us fighting back.

So I'll grant you he didn't flub the line as badly as purported. But it was overall an awful delivery. Yes that is relevant because as Biden supporters themselves like to point out, electability is a factor.

At the same time, I give Joe less than zero credibility on the "we have to be nice to each other or Trump will win!" issue. Because that, in and of itself, is an embedded attack line.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I would definitely watch that.



This is not an answer to the post you quoted. It's just a rant that fails to address the points completely.

We get it: Biden isn't your cup of tea and is far from ideal. That's not the point. The point is that he could get things done were he to try. Sanders would be hard pressed to find any support in Congress. Then what happens to your glorious reforms?

What on earth makes you think Biden "could get things done"? Do you think the Senate's going to flip? Or that Biden can succeed in getting Republicans to play nicely? Have you forgotten how they acted for both of Obama's terms? Have you forgotten how they've stopped everything coming out of the House today?

Biden won't get anything more done than Sanders will.

Eta: my point is that it's irrelevant how many Democrats support the next president, so the functional difference between Sanders and Biden is zero.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah liars and plagiarists are not my cup of tea.

Yeah, I already said that. How about you address the point? This is the second time that you evade it.

 

[Belz...]

What on earth makes you think Biden "could get things done"?

For pete's sake, man. That's already been addressed. Didn't you follow the conversation?

Do you think the Senate's going to flip?

I have no idea, but I do hope it will.

Or that Biden can succeed in getting Republicans to play nicely?

No way.

Biden won't get anything more done than Sanders will.

If Democrats control Congress, of course he will. Sanders is an outsider; Biden would have more chances of getting the party to play ball.

I don't know why it's so hard for some to understand.

 

[TragicMonkey]

For pete's sake, man. That's already been addressed. Didn't you follow the conversation?



I have no idea, but I do hope it will.



No way.



If Democrats control Congress, of course he will. Sanders is an outsider; Biden would have more chances of getting the party to play ball.

I don't know why it's so hard for some to understand.

I don't think you're qualified to lecture others on American politics if you don't know that Congress is composed of two houses and legislation has to pass both. A hostile Senate renders a friendly House moot.

 

[Suddenly]

Hyperbole for sure. But how much of a pass Does Biden get as the establishment pick? What does the 1988 campaign tell us of his character?

1988 can go fly a kite. The whole thing seems quaint at this point. We used to be really worried about Dan Quayle too.

I don't think it is hyberbole at all. You hit an extremely good point that Democrats in general should stop and think about. We see Trump voters as morons because they would support Trump regardless of how awful he is as a person.

It isn't so much that Democrats are doing the same and that is wrong blah blah blah. It is more about being realistic about why people vote for Trump and that just pointing out how bad a person he is will not have much of an effect.

How bad would a Democrat have to be before I'd not vote for them is a question that makes me feel queasy because honestly I don't know where that bottom is.

 

[Belz...]

I don't think you're qualified to lecture others on American politics if you don't know that Congress is composed of two houses and legislation has to pass both.

Yes, I'm sure such a hypothetical person would need to be told that. Don't know why you bring it up, since I specifically told you that I hope one of the two houses of Congress, specifically the Senate, will flip.

A hostile Senate renders a friendly House moot.

Which is why I posted what I posted:

"If Democrats control Congress, of course he will."

The first word is kind of important.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Yes, I'm sure such a hypothetical person would need to be told that. Don't know why you bring it up, since I specifically told you that I hope one of the two houses of Congress, specifically the Senate, will flip.



Which is why I posted what I posted:

"If Democrats control Congress, of course he will."

The first word is kind of important.

Then you agree that if the Senate doesn't flip, a President Biden will be no more able to accomplish anything than a President Sanders?

 

[Distracted1]

Then you agree that if the Senate doesn't flip, a President Biden will be no more able to accomplish anything than a President Sanders?

Not necessarily.

Sanders seems particularly disinclined to compromise in general. He may insist (for instance) that a healthcare bill come to his desk that eliminates private insurance- or it will face a veto.

Biden seems more willing to sign anything the Democrats can get through that moves the situation forward, even if it is less than what would be optimum.
Biden getting something done, where Sanders would not.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Not necessarily.

Sanders seems particularly disinclined to compromise in general. He may insist (for instance) that a healthcare bill come to his desk that eliminates private insurance- or it will face a veto.

Biden seems more willing to sign anything the Democrats can get through that moves the situation forward, even if it is less than what would be optimum.
Biden getting something done, where Sanders would not.

Sanders voted for the ACA while in the senate, despite it being a giant giveaway to the private insurance markets. I have no reason to believe that Sanders would torpedo a pretty-good bill in order to make a childish statement.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Not necessarily.

Sanders seems particularly disinclined to compromise in general. He may insist (for instance) that a healthcare bill come to his desk that eliminates private insurance- or it will face a veto.

Biden seems more willing to sign anything the Democrats can get through that moves the situation forward, even if it is less than what would be optimum.
Biden getting something done, where Sanders would not.

I don't see any bill reaching a Democratic president's desk in the first place so whether they'd sign or not is irrelevant. The Senate shows no sign of flipping, and the Republicans are no less obstructionist than before.

 

[Belz...]

Then you agree that if the Senate doesn't flip, a President Biden will be no more able to accomplish anything than a President Sanders?

First of all, I agree that it's very, very likely that this is correct, which is why I wrote "if". Second, the implication of an "IF" doesn't work both ways, so your "so" there doesn't follow even though you turned out to be correct.

I will note, however, that having all of Congress is not the only way a president can get things done with support from his party.