Biden for President?

[theprestige]

I am also worried that a Trump victory will lead to even more death and destruction than he has caused during his previous four years as President.

Hmmm...

We all know about the death and destruction Bush caused. We all know about Obama's deadly and destructive policies with regard to Libya, Egypt, and Syria (among other places). We know about Obama's drone strike policies. We even know that Trump's policies in these areas are on par with Obama's, minus the instigations and initiations that occurred under Obama's administration. (I.e., Trump has inherited wars he did not start, but is continuing them in much the same vein Obama did).

The only real difference is the C19 casualties. I think these would have been about the same under, say, president Clinton. Besides...

I'm from Sweden

... you've got your own pandemic killmongers much closer to home. Stop worrying so much about America. Hysterics aside, we're doing fine.

 

[wareyin]

Hmmm...

We all know about the death and destruction Bush caused. We all know about Obama's deadly and destructive policies with regard to Libya, Egypt, and Syria (among other places). We know about Obama's drone strike policies. We even know that Trump's policies in these areas are on par with Obama's, minus the instigations and initiations that occurred under Obama's administration. (I.e., Trump has inherited wars he did not start, but is continuing them in much the same vein Obama did).

No, we don't. Trump stopped any reporting on drone strikes, so we have no clue how "on par" he is. We do know that he is far less transparent about killing, however.

The only real difference is the C19 casualties. I think these would have been about the same under, say, president Clinton.

No. Clinton would not have disbanded the pandemic team and ignored the early warnings like Trump did. Don't forget, we also have the huge number of American citizens dying from hurricanes while Trump tosses paper towels at them.

Stop worrying so much about America. Hysterics aside, we're doing fine.

Other than massive numbers of dead and incredible unemployment, we're doing fine? I'd hate to see how bad it would have to get before you admitted Trump was ******** the bed.

 

[wareyin]

I'm not "fighting against Biden". Having a criticism does not equal "fighting against" unless you are a cultist who demands total loyalty in all thought towards the cult leader. Perhaps in your tribalism that's the case, but I'm not a member of your tribe. I'm an American and I think and say whatever I wish. That's the point of the place.

If Biden is so weak a candidate that he can't survive some random person marking snarky comments on an internet message board then he doesn't deserve to win.

You're the one who claimed he was being told not to fight back against Trump's opponent. If you don't like that language, I suggest you not use it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You're the one who claimed he was being told not to fight back against Trump's opponent. If you don't like that language, I suggest you not use it.

You told me I was fighting against Biden.

The next President will be Trump, or he will be Biden. Have you considered why you are fighting against Biden so much, and what do you wish to accomplish by fighting against Biden? Spoiler alert: if you succeed in your fight, you get Trump.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Being someone under the age of 50, it's fun to delve back into Biden's career and review all the old, bizarre lies he's told.

Here's a fun fact. Biden lied about how his wife and child died in the fatal car accident. He falsely claimed that the other driver, a semi-truck driver named Mr. Dunn, was drunk and caused the accident. On numerous public occasions, Biden claimed that Mr. Dunn was a drunk and negligent driver, and this narrative became widely accepted as true when repeated by journalists through the years.

There is no indication that the driver was drunk. In fact, accident investigations reveal that Mr. Dunn had the right of way and was not at fault for the accident. Mrs. Biden was at fault for the accident when she failed to yield to a tractor-trailer that had the right of way, causing a nasty T-bone accident that unfortunately ended two lives. Mr. Dunn attempted to provide first aid after the accident.

There was never any indication from accident investigators at the time that Mr. Dunn did anything to cause the wreck or was drunk at the time. Biden made this up out of whole cloth.

Biden lied about this for decades, slandering the man until after he had died. He later apologized to the man's daughter for slandering her father as the drunk-driver killer of a Senator's family.

Cool guy.

https://www.newarkpostonline.com/news/local/daughter-of-man-in-72-biden-crash-seeks-apology-from-widowed-senator/article_6c9a477e-63be-561b-b771-1330b4cda02d.html

Doesn't really change the "lesser of two evils" thing, but let's not pretend Biden isn't a turd.

I tried to find a clip of Biden saying it was a drunk driver.

The news media reports he said in 2007, the truck driver "allegedly drank his lunch". The rest I found was the media running with the drinking story.

All very bad on Biden mind you, for not saying the rumors weren't true. This is going to be a big issue. I foresee Biden saying he did not push the story and had apologized to the family.

Stupid Democrats. We could have had someone besides Biden or Sanders. Instead we are stuck with the lesser (but not as lesser than it could have been) of two evils.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Biden slandered Mr. Dunn for over a decade. He told the story multiple times over the years. The alcohol allegation came solely from Biden, the police never suspected any recklessness on the part of Mr. Dunn at any time. He made it up.

It goes on the pile with all the other bizarre, self-serving lies. Like getting locked up in S. Africa. Or not supporting the Iraq War. Or fabricating how he personally pinned a Silver star on a war hero in a dramatic story of valor. Or being an advocate in the Civil Rights Movement.

Biden is a routine liar.

I did not find evidence Biden was responsible for the story or repeated it multiple times.

I did not find evidence Biden stopped the false story.

His falsehoods will no doubt be part of the alt-right campaign. He better be prepared.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You don't have to pretend anything. You are being asked to just stop giving ammunition to Trumpists until such a time as Trump is defeated. Keeping still and lying are two different concepts.

...

TBF, he's not giving the ammo, the right-wing blogosphere is full of these stories. I appreciate hearing about them now so they don't come as an Oct surprise.

But I agree, the hate being spewed about Biden is more palpable than is helpful.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's what defenders of the Democrats' crappy worthless candidates keep saying every single time. Exactly when will this perpetual stream of "just this one time right now" emergencies end? How will we know when this new age has dawned?

...because if that time will actually not come (and it hasn't yet after all the times we've heard this before), then it isn't really about this particular time, or any other particular time, at all... and if it isn't a matter of timing, then this endless mantra is just an excuse to keep the better side of the party suppressed forever.

You can't be serious.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Hate to break it to you, but Trumpists have google too.

All the horrible things about Biden are there. It's been reported on throughout the many years of Biden's career, just waiting to be picked up. And they will, whether or not your resident forum doom-sayer points them out or holds his tongue.

Seems him and his boss did pretty well their two election cycles despite those "horrible things."

 

[wareyin]

You told me I was fighting against Biden.

In the post you quoted, I quoted you talking about fighting against Biden. Go back, reread it, I'll wait.

eta: Here, I'll even provide it for you with the phrase you're complaining about hilited:

"Just go along, don't say anything, don't fight it" isn't perhaps the best approach to gather support for a candidate who sails close to the wind on creepy behavior.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Seems him and his boss did pretty well their two election cycles despite those "horrible things."

And yet now, for some reason, it's important to close ranks and not say anything bad about Biden. If Trump is so uniquely dreadful then wouldn't this election be one where anything bad said about Biden would matter less than in previous elections?

 

[TragicMonkey]

In the post you quoted, I quoted you talking about fighting against Biden. Go back, reread it, I'll wait.

eta: Here, I'll even provide it for you with the phrase you're complaining about hilited:

I don't even know what you want at this point. You're mad because I criticize Biden. Is that "fighting" him or not? My use of "don't fight it" was a reference to the metaphor of sexual assault. I'm not much interested in semantics. I'm just pointing out that 1) there are valid criticisms of Biden, and 2) telling people to keep silent about them is not a good look for Biden's loyalists. It may well harm him more than airing those criticisms does.

 

[theprestige]

Seems him and his boss did pretty well their two election cycles despite those "horrible things."

Why the scare quotes? Are you saying that the things Biden has done aren't horrible?

Are you saying he hasn't done them?

Also, American politicians do quite often reach and hold high office in spite of (sometimes because of) the horrible things they've done. The knowledge that Biden has done horrible things, but still gets to be a Senator and a Vice President (and now a presidential candidate), and that this kind of thing goes on all the time in American politics, is one of the contributing factors to voter depression and frustration.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I did not find evidence Biden was responsible for the story or repeated it multiple times.

I did not find evidence Biden stopped the false story.

His falsehoods will no doubt be part of the alt-right campaign. He better be prepared.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/driver-in-biden-crash-wanted-name-cleared/

It's hard to count exact times, because Biden made these remarks during speeches.

I can't see any reference to the drunk driving smear earlier than 2001, nearly 30 years after the accident in 1972. Biden repeated the lie as recently as 2007.

This fits pretty well into Biden's history of playing fast and loose with the past.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It's hard to count exact times, because Biden made these remarks during speeches.

Ah, then, mystery solved! It didn't happen to Biden, but to whomever he plagiarized those speeches from.

 

[wareyin]

I don't even know what you want at this point. You're mad because I criticize Biden. Is that "fighting" him or not? My use of "don't fight it" was a reference to the metaphor of sexual assault. I'm not much interested in semantics. I'm just pointing out that 1) there are valid criticisms of Biden, and 2) telling people to keep silent about them is not a good look for Biden's loyalists. It may well harm him more than airing those criticisms does.

I'll try to keep it simple. If you choose to use the words "fighting it" while describing your constant criticisms of Biden, you can't complain when others do as well. Hopefully that clears it up for you.

Now, I am going to use another phrase that may also be confusing for you so I'll give a basic explanation. Catch 22 is defined as "a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions." Claiming that you must be able to say whatever you want, true or otherwise, to make a candidate look bad otherwise that's a bad look for the candidate is a catch 22. Either you get to make him look bad or you get to claim he looks bad because you weren't permitted to make him look bad.

Finally: I repeat that the next President will be Trump or it will be Biden. You are fighting against Biden (in your own words). What do you expect to accomplish by this? It's not a difficult question, yet you seem to refuse to answer.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/driver-in-biden-crash-wanted-name-cleared/

It's hard to count exact times, because Biden made these remarks during speeches.

I can't see any reference to the drunk driving smear earlier than 2001, nearly 30 years after the accident in 1972. Biden repeated the lie as recently as 2007.

This fits pretty well into Biden's history of playing fast and loose with the past.

That's one of the articles I saw. Glass half-full/half-empty reading of the same article?

At least twice, Biden himself has made public references to alcohol being involved in the crash. In 2007 Biden said the truck driver "allegedly ... drank his lunch." And multiple news outlets, including CBS News, have reported that Dunn was drunk.

So I said one time, they say two, neither of which are sourced. And it says the news media ran with the story more than Biden repeated the claim.

I agree Biden should have dispelled the news accounts.

Still, I can't find a clip (I'm sure the alt-right will dig one up). And I don't see that Biden repeated it multiple times.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Why the scare quotes? Are you saying that the things Biden has done aren't horrible?

Are you saying he hasn't done them?

Also, American politicians do quite often reach and hold high office in spite of (sometimes because of) the horrible things they've done. The knowledge that Biden has done horrible things, but still gets to be a Senator and a Vice President (and now a presidential candidate), and that this kind of thing goes on all the time in American politics, is one of the contributing factors to voter depression and frustration.

I placed quotes around the two words referenced in the larger passage as a way to ensure they were not seen as mine. I could just as easily stopped at: "Seems him and his boss did pretty well their two election cycles," but added the two words for emphasis.

As an aside, my referenced post should've read: "Seems he [not "him"] and his boss..." I blame Obama.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'll try to keep it simple. If you choose to use the words "fighting it" while describing your constant criticisms of Biden, you can't complain when others do as well. Hopefully that clears it up for you.

Okay. I guess posting in one thread on one message board equals "constant criticisms", making me a fearsome warrior bringing down the delicate Biden apparatus. If I make a face when voting for him will he feel a stab of pain in his soul?

Now, I am going to use another phrase that may also be confusing for you so I'll give a basic explanation. Catch 22 is defined as "a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions." Claiming that you must be able to say whatever you want, true or otherwise, to make a candidate look bad otherwise that's a bad look for the candidate is a catch 22. Either you get to make him look bad or you get to claim he looks bad because you weren't permitted to make him look bad.

He looks bad because of his faults, whether I say anything or not. You just want to blame the messenger for it. If you believe a given criticism is invalid you are free to ignore it, and the person who aired it. If you believe it's valid but the person mentioning it should shut up for the good of the "side" then tough cheese. Some people think that sort of thing is dishonest, un-American, and ethically corrosive.

Finally: I repeat that the next President will be Trump or it will be Biden. You are fighting against Biden (in your own words). What do you expect to accomplish by this? It's not a difficult question, yet you seem to refuse to answer.

I don't expect to accomplish anything. Why should I? I didn't know we were only permitted to speak if we expected to accomplish something. That must be a part of the new speech codes, after the bit about stifling dissent.

 

[theprestige]

I placed quotes around the two words referenced in the larger passage as a way to ensure they were not seen as mine. I could just as easily stopped at: "Seems him and his boss did pretty well their two election cycles," but added the two words for emphasis.

Okay, so they're not your words. Does that mean you wouldn't describe those things as "horrible things"? Do you not agree with that description? What words would you use in their place?