Biden for President?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Polling out about Biden.

Tracks with my read of the room, so to speak.

Biden seen highly unfavorable, but people still prefer him to Trump.

Biden Unfavorable:Favorable - 56:34 (10% unsure)

Vote for Biden vs Trump - 47:44

So Biden sucks, but he's the best option.

He should probably work on sucking less if he wants to beef those numbers up.

https://civiqs.com/documents/Civiqs_DailyKos_monthly_banner_book_2020_05_r8c32an.pdf
 
@Delvo. Maybe I wasn't clear this was addressed to you. Your thoughts?
Crickets. I'm left to assume the reason you wont clarify "they" is because the clarification would lead straight to the CT realm, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
 
That is still a second-hand account. Worse still, a second hand account of idle chit-chat at an accident scene.

A full investigation cleared him.

But whatever. This guy's memory being tarnished will go on the altar with the rest of the offerings.

No slander is too low in the face of the party's indomitable will.

I seriously doubt that at an accident scene where a young wife of a sitting US senator and her infant daughter had just been horribly killed and with two little boys being taken off in an ambulance with life-threatening injuries was much conducive to "idle chit-chat".
Since all records, including those of the police and the investigation have been lost, all we have is the statement of someone who was actually there and heard what the police said. You have anything better?

This started out with accusations being made by SuburbanTurkey that were shown to be false.

1. "On numerous public occasions, Biden claimed that Mr. Dunn was a drunk..."

Truth: Biden said so publicly (once using the word "allegedly") TWICE 6 years apart.

2."Biden made this up out of whole cloth."

Truth: Biden did not make up the "drunk" rumor. As the first responder who was there said, the rumors started with the comments made by the police at the scene which were repeated and "spread like wildfire" among the other fire house services. This was repeated to Biden through the years as true.

3. "Biden lied about this for decades..."

Truth: Biden did not lie as he believed it to be true. He was mistaken.

4. "He later apologized to the man's daughter for slandering her father as the drunk-driver killer of a Senator's family."

Truth: Biden did not apologize for "slandering her father"; he apologized for any pain he had caused her family and acknowledged he was mistaken.

5. "Mrs. Biden failed to stop at a stop sign and got hit by a semi truck."

Truth: The lone witness said Mrs. Biden did stop at the stop sign but then proceeded into the intersection.

6. " Biden decided he could punch up his story of personal tragedy by saying Dunn was a drunk-driver."

Truth: Speculation based on belief that Biden made up the drunk rumors himself...which is untrue.

7. "Biden repeated the false rumor in 2007, 6 years after being confronted by Dunn's family."

Truth: Biden was confronted by Hamill in 2008 after his 2007 remark, not "6 years later".

8. "The family wrote him in 2001 and took his kind words as a sign that Biden would stop spreading this salacious and untrue rumor, only to suffer hearing it again in 2007."

Truth: The 2001 contact did not include any mention of the drunk driving rumor. Hamill stated she had no knowledge of Biden saying this until she saw the 2007 comment in a First Edition episode in 2008.

9: "Hamill wrote in 2001. There seems to have been a misunderstanding, and she understood Biden's "no animosity" statement to mean he'd stop blaming her deceased father."

Truth: Speculation based on the false belief that Hamill's 2001 contact included mention of Dunn being drunk. Hamill stated it was in 2008 that Biden's statements were "revealed" to her.

All of ST's claims above have been proved incorrect (with evidence and citations) or pure speculation based on erroneous beliefs.


If anyone is slandering here, it's those who claim that Biden was lying and doing so with a self-serving motive.
 
The Democrats' model can't really be said to be "wrong" anymore. Now it's just false... To still be clinging to the most most ineffective campaigns they can come up with for the most unelectable candidates they can find (no how many times they call them "ELECTABLE!!!!"), only to end up perpetually rolling over for the Republicans if they still somehow end up in office anyway, can only be because losing has become their goal. They do, after all, personally profit from the same system in the same way as the Republicans.

"They" That's one of the biggest problems with your presentation.

Who is they? And by what means do these amorphous entities pull off the shenanigans you accuse them of?

@Delvo. Maybe I wasn't clear this was addressed to you. Your thoughts?

Crickets. I'm left to assume the reason you wont clarify "they" is because the clarification would lead straight to the CT realm, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

I originally figured that the "question" must be not really a question but just a way to set up an excuse/angle from which to attack over nothing. You have now proven that correct. (The second one also got buried in that avalanche of posts arguing over irrelevant claims about an irrelevant vehicular accident which I just skipped, but... whatever.)
 
No need. That one pretty much sells itself.

Anyway, there's a remarkable consistency in spinning to absolve Joe Biden just as hard as you spin to condemn Donald Trump.

That's true...if your definition of 'spinning' is to present facts supported by cited evidence. If you can disprove any of the evidence I've presented, please do so. Or you can just continue with the usual nonsense.
 
That's true...if your definition of 'spinning' is to present facts supported by cited evidence. If you can disprove any of the evidence I've presented, please do so. Or you can just continue with the usual nonsense.

Just curious, what's your thoughts on Joe lying about being arrested in S. Africa trying to meet Mandela?

I mean, that's an obvious self-aggrandizing lie, right?
 
I dunno. Stacy's post paints a compelling picture of a man who's careless about the truth, callous about other people's pain, and credulous about apocryphal accounts.

Add in his obvious senility, and I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks Bush did 9/11.

(◔ ◡ ◔)



 
Just curious, what's your thoughts on Joe lying about being arrested in S. Africa trying to meet Mandela?

I mean, that's an obvious self-aggrandizing lie, right?

I tell ya what, you acknowledge that your claims I listed above are false and we'll discuss the Mandela case.

ETA: Honestly, bro, you need to get over Sanders losing the nom.
 
Last edited:
This election campaign is really going to explode when the news breaks that Melania is sleeping with Biden.
 
I tell ya what, you acknowledge that your claims I listed above are false and we'll discuss the Mandela case.

Forget Mandela, let's get to Corn Pop! I don't care what the truth is there, I'm just enchanted with the notion of this character existing in any form.
 

Heh.

Let's see...

Biden ignored the official findings in favor of apocryphal speculation. You'd think that at some point over those six years he'd actually try to get some certainty about what happened, instead of just running with the easier assumption. That's pretty careless.

Biden used those apocryphal accounts to publicly disparage someone, causing pain to him and his family. That's pretty callous, wouldn't you say? Even if he did sincerely believe it was true, why say so publicly? Why drag the man's family through that? There's no justice there. That's pretty callous.

And if you're right that he wasn't lying, that he sincerely believed those apocryphal accounts... What's the deal with that? He wasn't blinded by grief for going on six years, was he? Shouldn't "trust, but verify" have kicked in at some point before he went public with his allegations? Well, it didn't. That's pretty credulous.

Contra Skeptic Ginger, it is exactly my reading of your post that prompted the content of my reply. Maybe she didn't read your post?
 
Last edited:
I tell ya what, you acknowledge that your claims I listed above are false and we'll discuss the Mandela case.

ETA: Honestly, bro, you need to get over Sanders losing the nom.

The claim that rumors of the drunk-driving may not have come from Biden, but from others, is not one I was previously familiar with, and I suppose that reduces Biden's culpability in spreading them quite a bit.

I think it's a character flaw, though a lesser one, to spread such a slanderous rumor without some serious substantiation. It speaks poorly to him that never publicly apologized, though he has stopped telling that story.

I stand by my claim that Biden appears to be less mentally acute now than he was even 10 years ago. Whether that is ordinary aging, or some form of serious senility, I can't say.

hey, did Joe lie about getting locked up in an apartheid jail? Cause it sure sounds like he did.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom