Who's embarrassed by Joe Biden?

[pantsorama]

It's not a war crime to kill innocent civilians outside of a declared war zone, repeatedly???

Of course you don't think so, which is why the entire notion of a 'war crime' is a farce.

Using drones is a deescalation of the war. Would you rather we commit a bunch of troops to the region? Or are you against that war in general? If so have the intellectual decency to say that.

 

[WildCat]

You could always read the link I posted.

Your link claims there are US-declared "war zones", but offers no evidence of this claim. Perhaps you can provide this evidence? I doubt you can, because I'm pretty sure your propaganda site just made that up.

But hey, feel free to prove me wrong if you can!

 

[Upchurch]

Discussing what the media treatment of Biden would look like if he had horns and a tail (i.e. was Republican) is certainly on topic, as is discussing media treatment of other Republicans who have made similarly egregious gaffes. I'm not sure that discussing how bad other Republicans have been, without the media context, is on topic, though. It's either off topic, or a tu quoque.

On the other hand, media treatment of a previous Vice President (i.e. Cheney) might have been harsher not because he was a Republican, but because of things he actually did. Wouldn't that be relevant to the discussion?

Moreover, George W. Bush actually did the same thing Biden did, in terms of creepy touching, and the press gave it the same passing level of attention and it was soon forgotten. Wouldn't that be relevant to the discussion?

How are these off-topic?

 

[sunmaster14]

Thank you for clarification. I will withdraw from the thread as I see no value in further participation.

Just for the record, I don't believe that my opinion about the thread topic carries any additional weight because I started it. The OP speaks for itself. It's up to participants and the mods to determine what it's really about. Speaking for myself only, I do not mind off-topic posting at all, as long as it is not done to intentionally derail a fruitful discussion.

 

[sunmaster14]

On the other hand, media treatment of a previous Vice President (i.e. Cheney) might have been harsher not because he was a Republican, but because of things he actually did. Wouldn't that be relevant to the discussion?

Moreover, George W. Bush actually did the same thing Biden did, in terms of creepy touching, and the press gave it the same passing level of attention and it was soon forgotten. Wouldn't that be relevant to the discussion?

How are these off-topic?

It's not. I just thought that arguments of the kind "the kids' gloves treatment of Joe Biden is appropriate because past vice presidents have been much worse" are tu quoque. And if they're not meant to be tu quoque, then they're off topic. I mean Hitler and Stalin were pretty bad too, but I don't see what that has to do with Joe Biden's behavior, or the media's treatment of it.

 

[Crossbow]

It's not. I just thought that arguments of the kind "the kids' gloves treatment of Joe Biden is appropriate because past vice presidents have been much worse" are tu quoque. And if they're not meant to be tu quoque, then they're off topic. I mean Hitler and Stalin were pretty bad too, but I don't see what that has to do with Joe Biden's behavior, or the media's treatment of it.

Well, I know that I should not be posting this, but here goes anyway ...

I have been at several of the top secret media meetings and it was decided that Kim Kardashian should be made popular in order to distract the public from the times that Joe Biden gets a bit 'too touchy/feely'.

Shhh! Now do not tell anyone else that I told you this, or otherwise I will have to buy the coffee and doughnuts at the next top secret media meeting.

 

[Upchurch]

I just thought that arguments of the kind "the kids' gloves treatment of Joe Biden is appropriate because past vice presidents have been much worse" are tu quoque.

I do not know who was making that argument. Or, really, how that is a tu quoque argument. That doesn't discredit that the argument that Joe Biden has acted inappropriately. It does discredit the idea that Biden was treated better merely because he is a Democrat as, clearly, there are other factors involved.

And if they're not meant to be tu quoque, then they're off topic.

That's a false dichotomy.

I mean Hitler and Stalin were pretty bad too, but I don't see what that has to do with Joe Biden's behavior, or the media's treatment of it.

Well, let me explain: Hitler and Stalin were pretty bad and the modern press, when discussing Hitler and Stalin, present them as pretty bad. Biden's behavior is comparatively much better than Hitler or Stalin and so they don't as being at the same level of awful as Hitler and Stalin.

Are you suggesting that the media should treat Biden with the same level of animosity they would show Hitler or Stalin?

 

[sunmaster14]

I do not know who was making that argument. Or, really, how that is a tu quoque argument. That doesn't discredit that the argument that Joe Biden has acted inappropriately. It does discredit the idea that Biden was treated better merely because he is a Democrat as, clearly, there are other factors involved.

That's a false dichotomy.

It's not a false dichotomy. Immediately posting that Dick Cheney was evil is either a tu quoque or it is off-topic. My claim is that it has to be one or the other. If instead you argued that Dick Cheney was worse than Joe Biden, and that he got the same or better media treatment (which is not what was argued), then that would be both on topic and logical.

Well, let me explain: Hitler and Stalin were pretty bad and the modern press, when discussing Hitler and Stalin, present them as pretty bad. Biden's behavior is comparatively much better than Hitler or Stalin and so they don't as being at the same level of awful as Hitler and Stalin.

Are you suggesting that the media should treat Biden with the same level of animosity they would show Hitler or Stalin?

I am suggesting that Biden is not getting harsh enough media treatment given his clownish and, frankly, obnoxious behavior. Given that the media's treatment of Hitler and Stalin (well, not counting the NY Times's contemporary whitewashes of both) was far worse, and that Hitler's and Stalin's behavior was far worse, the comparison is irrelevant.

 

[Upchurch]

It's not a false dichotomy. Immediately posting that Dick Cheney was evil is either a tu quoque or it is off-topic. My claim is that it has to be one or the other. If instead you argued that Dick Cheney was worse than Joe Biden, and that he got the same or better media treatment (which is not what was argued), then that would be both on topic and logical.

Not at all. Cheney is being used as one of two examples that disproves the central thesis of your OP. Your OP makes two basic assumptions:

1. The media treats Democrats and Republicans differently because they are Democrats and Republicans.
2. The media reacts to an action differently if a Democrat is involved than if a Republican is involved.

The Cheney example discredits the first. Cheney, as VP, was treated differently from Biden, as VP, not because he is a Republican, but because of his actions. The George W. Bush example discredits the second. Bush was involved in a similar event as Biden and was treated much the same.

I am suggesting that Biden is not getting harsh enough media treatment given his clownish and, frankly, obnoxious behavior.

Harsh enough compared to who?

Given that the media's treatment of Hitler and Stalin (well, not counting the NY Times's contemporary whitewashes of both) was far worse, and that Hitler's and Stalin's behavior was far worse, the comparison is irrelevant.

Well, it wasn't my choice of comparison, but it speaks to the first assumption above (if Hitler and Stalin were members of US political parties). Their depiction in the media is largely due to their actions, not their affiliations.


(Although, to be fair, the US press does treat neo-nazis pretty harshly, but I suspect that it is because of historical understanding of the creed neo-nazis ascribe to, rather than to any irrational bias.)

 

[Tony Stark]

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18381961/ns/meet_the_press/t/mtp-transcript-april/#.VO24QS4YEo0


To blame the Bush administration for everything related to inteligence on WMDs is disingenuous at best.

The Bush Administration made the decision to invade despite weapons inspectors saying that Saddam was cooperating and that there was no evidence of WMDs. For that, they, and only they deserve the blame.

Note that inspections resumed in Nov. 2002, while the vote for the war authorization took place in Oct 2002.

 

[sunmaster14]

Not at all. Cheney is being used as one of two examples that disproves the central thesis of your OP. Your OP makes two basic assumptions:

1. The media treats Democrats and Republicans differently because they are Democrats and Republicans.
2. The media reacts to an action differently if a Democrat is involved than if a Republican is involved.

The Cheney example discredits the first. Cheney, as VP, was treated differently from Biden, as VP, not because he is a Republican, but because of his actions. The George W. Bush example discredits the second. Bush was involved in a similar event as Biden and was treated much the same.

Well, I've already agreed that a discussion of media treatment vis a vis other political figures is generally on topic. However, it is not particularly helpful to say that the media treatment of Cheney was harsher but he deserved it because his actions were worse, when nobody in support of the OP's thesis was using Cheney as an example. I mean if somebody is given a light slap on the wrist for aggravated assault, pointing out that murderers get harsher sentences does nothing to justify the former. If I had offered Cheney as an example of somebody who was vilified by the press but didn't deserve it relative to Biden, then Cheney would be a fair topic. I do not offer Cheney as such an example, because his behavior was very different. I do offer Dan Quayle for comparison, however.

 

[12AX7]

By my count, you made three errors in this thread due to poor reading comprehension and it's not even two pages long. Your knee-jerk attempts to "Gotcha!" the other guy has set you up as the very thing you've complained to the mods about this forum.

My way to cut down the trolling is to (1) call you on it and (2) get you to slow down and use critical thinking when posting. Despite the common belief, it is possible in Politics.

As an avid reader of this thread, I agree.

As to the OP; there's creepy and then there's war criminal creepy.

 

[Upchurch]

However, it is not particularly helpful to say that the media treatment of Cheney was harsher but he deserved it because his actions were worse, when nobody in support of the OP's thesis was using Cheney as an example.

But your assertion is that Republicans are treated harsher by the media, correct? Cheney is the most recent Republican to be in the position Biden is currently in, so it is natural to look to Cheney as someone to compare the media's treatment of a Democratic VP and a Republican VP.

If you go further back in time to the next previous Republican VP, you have to go over a generation ago to an entirely different kind of press/media, void of the effects of social media or other influences of the internet. Comparing that media's actions to our current media's actions is comparing apples to oranges.

As far as relevant comparisons of media reactions go, it pretty much has to be Cheney.

 

[Upchurch]

Does anyone believe that the media's treatment of Bush's creepy touch was harsher than it's treatment of Biden's creepy touch?

 

[sunmaster14]

Does anyone believe that the media's treatment of Bush's creepy touch was harsher than it's treatment of Biden's creepy touch?

I don't remember what the US media's reaction was. I do remember Bush being called a clown or worse in the European media. Bush's thing was a one-off, though, not a pattern of behavior. In addition, none of us are privy to Merkel's and Bush's relationship. They obviously had worked together on many previous occasions, and although Merkel's reaction indicated that Bush's intimacy was unwelcome, her reaction could just as easily have been due to surprise. For all we know, he had given her consensual shoulder massages before.

 

[sunmaster14]

But your assertion is that Republicans are treated harsher by the media, correct? Cheney is the most recent Republican to be in the position Biden is currently in, so it is natural to look to Cheney as someone to compare the media's treatment of a Democratic VP and a Republican VP.

If you go further back in time to the next previous Republican VP, you have to go over a generation ago to an entirely different kind of press/media, void of the effects of social media or other influences of the internet. Comparing that media's actions to our current media's actions is comparing apples to oranges.

As far as relevant comparisons of media reactions go, it pretty much has to be Cheney.

It doesn't have to be Cheney. There are other politicians besides Vice Presidents. Bush is one. Sure, you can compare the one-off Merkel massage to Biden's pattern of behavior with women (including young girls), but it wouldn't be a terribly good one. A better comparison would be between the treatment of Bush's verbal gaffes and Biden's. Or between any Republican's verbal gaffes and Biden's.

 

[Upchurch]

I don't remember what the US media's reaction was. I do remember Bush being called a clown or worse in the European media. Bush's thing was a one-off, though, not a pattern of behavior. In addition, none of us are privy to Merkel's and Bush's relationship. They obviously had worked together on many previous occasions, and although Merkel's reaction indicated that Bush's intimacy was unwelcome, her reaction could just as easily have been due to surprise. For all we know, he had given her consensual shoulder massages before.

This may be the funniest comment of the thread.

Just to be clear, you're concerned about the media having a double standard when portraying actions of people from one party more harshly than those same actions from members of the other party, right? Do you detect any irony here?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Politics is Biden and Cheney, creepy-touching each other, forever.

 

[Upchurch]

It doesn't have to be Cheney. There are other politicians besides Vice Presidents.

Sure, but Cheney is the nearest corollary. Other politicians (except two in the last decade and a half or so) have less political stature and less individually important positions in the government. The media might treat a local state rep with less importance than the VP of the US based on their sheer difference in national relevance. The more differences you introduce between the people you are comparing, the less likely you can pin the difference on a single attribute, like political party.

 

[Crossbow]

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18381961/ns/meet_the_press/t/mtp-transcript-april/#.VO24QS4YEo0


To blame the Bush administration for everything related to inteligence on WMDs is disingenuous at best.

I suggest that you read the whole thing as opposed to just the bit that suits your immediate purpose.

Biden did agree to the Iraq War based on the data that was largely provided by the Bush Administration, and at the time of the vote, the Bush Administration had a great deal of credibility in regards to foreign policy. But later, it turned out that the Bush Administration was nothing but a load of lairs and war criminals.

In any event, Biden went on to say in the very same interview that you cite:

The thing that I regret, and I’ll say it again, and I said it way before ‘07 and going to Iowa, is that I regret having had the—believed that this administration had any competence.

It is the most incompetent administration I’ve ever—if I’d known they were going to misuse the authority we gave them the way they did, if I’d known that they were going to, once they used it, be so incompetent in the using of it, I would have never ever, ever given them the authority.

If I were president, would I have asked for the authority? I would have asked for the authority in order to demonstrate to the world that they better not be lifting sanctions, they better not be putting pressure on having no-fly zones, and they better join with us in putting the screws onto Saddam by screwing down the sanctions on Saddam as opposed to lifting the sanctions.

That’s what the debate was about at the time.