Delvo
Дэлво Δε&#
Now would be a good time to show how my comment, in context of the previous several posts that weren't about left & right, had anything to do with left & right.
Biden for President?
- Thread starter Bob001
- Start date
- Status
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,548
Desperate for what? I said a long time ago, I'd vote for any Democrat over Trump and probably 99 percent of the Republican party. I will vote for Bernie if he turns things around and secures the nomination.
Delvo
Дэлво Δε&#
Any excuse to pretend that there's nothing wrong with Biden's brain.
Denying all the perfectly clear signs of it right in front of all our faces is one thing, but this "well he had one okay day with one round of non-ineptly reading a teleprompter, and that means he's doing not just okay but even better than the vast majority of humans" grasping goes another couple of steps well beyond that. Yall can't seriously tell me you really honestly think brain problems always show their symptoms equally and the people who have them never ever just seem better at some times than at other times.
And even if we were to just accept or ignore that, there's that second step beyond even that: claiming one episode of no major screw-ups not only brings him up to normal overall but shows what a very stable genius he is, intellectually soaring above us mere normals at nearly unimaginable heights. Taking one's defense against a claim so far that one ends up claiming the original's reversal instead of merely its falsification is almost never a good sign.
Have you never seen a kid responding to insults against something or somebody the kid likes by concocting some wild fantasy about how that thing/person/animal/place/whatever (possibly himself/herself) is not just not bad in the stated way, but really the bestest one around? (For example, "No, I'm not bad at baseball; in fact, on my other team you've never seen or heard of, I'm the star of the team!"... or "No, that show/band I like isn't stupid; it's the best show/band ever and yours are stupid!"... or, closer to this situation, "No, my dog isn't stupid; he's the smartest dog ever! He knows all kinds of tricks that I'm not going to show you!") Come on now. Yall know how pitiful that sounds. It doesn't even matter how true or untrue the original accusation was; at that point, you make it all about how sad your fantasizing is instead.
xjx388
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 11,392
Ok...I’m just sayin’: let’s see how telling off the deplorables right in their faces works in the general.
Which words would you use?
Myself? I don’t care; I do indeed think that mental health professionals should stay out. However, if they do decide to chime in, I’m very interested in how their opinions are taken by those who have argued that we should take them seriously in re: Trump.
Although, I don’t think we will hear anything so negative from them when it comes to Biden. I’d bet that their opinions about Trump were mostly political in nature and that they won’t speak out about how “dangerous” it might be to have a candidate who directly threatens voters. Time will tell.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Very close in ND (abt. 500 votes) and WA (abt. 2,000).
angrysoba
Philosophile
If Sanders had the ghost of a chance he would have cleaned those ones up.
As it is, he's toast.
I mean, as someone who enjoys the drama, I look forward to the debate, but anyone who thinks Sanders still has a chance is a dreamer.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Won't matter. Those who think the Dems are out to take their guns away wouldn't vote Dem anyway.
Depends on whom we're talking about. Gun owners who want stricter laws on background checks, support a national registry, banning high-capacity magazines and .50-caliber ammunition, and banning assault style rifles or.....
those who don't. I call the former 'responsible gun owners' and the latter 'idiot gun nuts'.
Nope. You said :
You've moved it from "it does make me wonder what Dr. Lee et. al. have to say" to "how their opinions are taken "by those who have argued that we should take them seriously".
Biden didn't seriously threaten anyone, much less "voterS".
Yep, going outside with someone is a really serious threat. I bet the guy was shaking in his boots.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Once we become convinced of something, everything we see...or think we see... after that is interpreted according to what we already believe. We look for whatever we think confirms our bias. You've become convinced that Biden has dementia so any gaffe, any screw up, any fumbling over a word, anything less than perfect is seen as confirmation that you're right.
If it's so obvious, as you say, that Biden is losing it, then would you care to explain why millions of people don't see it the way you do?
If you're referring to Suddenly's post, I think he was being tongue in cheek.
Shadowdweller
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,509
Evidently you need to learn how statistical sampling works. Or more specifically when and why it's unreliable. What happened in Michigan this year that might make exit polling, say from the NEP, inconclusive Boys and Girls?
Last edited:
Delvo
Дэлво Δε&#
By not having paid attention yet. That's always the biggest category in American election campaigns.
But Biden also has two other categories of supporters: those who know it and deny it, and those who know it and admit it. Both vote for him for some other reason, not because they really think he's all there. The main one they themselves give is "electability".
Presuming they manage to get him the nomination, watching them come up with the excuses when he loses the general election will be fascinating.
Last edited:
Delvo
Дэлво Δε&#
It's not settled yet, but that does look more likely. (People acting as if it were already absolute remind me of a thread from before November 2016 in which people were calling Hillary & Trump "candidates" and somebody posted, paraphrased, "Shouldn't we be calling her President-Elect now?", to which I responded at the time "Of course, because nothing ever goes wrong predicting the future".) Biden is ahead in the score, and Bernie's campaign has stuck to some tactical/strategic decisions that weren't very effective and doesn't show any signs of changing, and even if they did change their campaign methods now, it might be too late. The main way for it to change now would be for enough people to be affected by what they see in the next debate, which will be the first one that's 1:1. The DNC is still worried Bernie might win. If they weren't, they wouldn't be manipulating the debate rules to try to help Biden survive.
Last edited:
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,117
Thank you.
The above extract is what freaks me out. People are utterly incapable of spotting a biased press. It's depressing.
Given it's so tight Imagine the landslide Bernie would have had in a fair contest.
Shadowdweller
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,509
What debate rules have they been manipulating precisely? The more appropriate conclusion when your favored candidate loses is not that some entity has been cheating through shadowy means...
Last edited:
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
With a guy who's repeatedly accusing Biden of "tryna take ma gunz!" based on a viral video, and in today's political climate? Unfortunately, probably not- sometimes, and with some people, you just have to use the only language that they will understand.
Do I wish it were otherwise? Oh, you bet. I doubt that there was ever really a time in American politics when "I disagree with my distinguished opponent" was the reigning paradigm for it- it's probably no rougher now than it was when Jefferson was accused of being an atheist, or Grover Cleveland's illegitimate child was a campaign tool to be used against him (to use the two examples that come most readily to mind). It's certainly more immediate, but not, on a basic level, really any dirtier. But here's the thing- the righties spent many years doing everything they could to blacken Clinton, Obama, and then the other Clinton, by foul means as much as, if not more than, fair ones. (And, yes, it worked the other way around too, with lefties getting in the gutter against the Bushes). And they've spent the last three years toadying to the petty, mean-spirited moron currently in the White House, a guy who can't go a day without spewing insults against everyone and anyone who* he thinks is crossing him. So, even though I wish people could be less shrill about politics, it is what it is- the righties don't now get to clutch their beads and purse their mouths in faux dismay because a candidate whose views they oppose defended himself by telling one of them, in language he could grasp, exactly what he thought. (Not saying you're one of those righties- I don't actually have any idea of your political views, and it's not relevant anyway)
*Or "whom"- I've always had trouble knowing which was proper.
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,117
Change the question to an answer. If the answer is 'Him', it's whom. If the answer is 'He', it's who.
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
Ah. Ok. I get it. I think. I'll try that next time I have to use the construction- ah, hell. No, I'll still get it wrong- whom am I kidding?
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,117
I don't know that it works all the time. Someone who actually understands it will come along and tell me instances in which I'm wrong soon, I'm sure.
Apologies for the derail.
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
They've changed the ordinary 1 on 1 debate to a seated, audience Q&A format. It will be much more difficult for the candidates to spar directly or for moderators to ask pointed questions.
Some have interpreted this as a rule change that favors Biden. I think any amount of extended camera time for Biden is probably detrimental to his chances, but at this point it may be too late.
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
Surely the question isn't whether the guy thought the threat to be real and that Biden would win in a fight, but whether it's a good thing for a potential presidential candidate to be offering to fight anybody?
I know that the bar has been lowered considerably in the last few years, but is it really okay for the president to be the kind of person who responds to someone saying something that they don't like with threats of physical violence? This is one of the things Trump is criticised for (although he only does it from a distance, never actually in someone's face). Should people stop criticising Trump for it because it's actually okay after all?
- Status