The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Crunch on February 26, 2020, 08:00:11 AM

Title: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on February 26, 2020, 08:00:11 AM
Just the last couple of days, Joe’s talked about how he’s running for the senate, his efforts with China’s leader that had been dead for well over a decade, the 150 million Americans killed by assault weapons since 2007, that time he was arrested in South Africa while trying to visit Nelson Mandela, it just goes on and on.

There’s been a couple of times where there’s clearly some confusion on his expression.  He’s always been prone to gaffes but, if you see when he talks about these things, it’s pretty clear there’s some ...let’s say, detachment, from reality. 77 years old, it’s not unusual to be missing a step, getting easily confused.

He’s losing the primary, but could win the nomination. Might be time to shuffle him off.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on February 26, 2020, 12:07:02 PM
I've been following this.

Quote
To make the point that government gun policies have "caused carnage on our streets," he said, "One hundred and fifty million people have been killed since 2007, when Bernie voted to exempt the gun manufacturers from liability. More than all the wars, including Vietnam, from that point on."

It was a crazy statement. One hundred and fifty million people would be nearly half the population of the U.S., all killed by guns. Someone would have noticed. The real number for the period from 2007-2020 was in the hundreds of thousands, not millions. Biden's gaffe drew ridicule on Twitter, but not a single one of his opponents corrected him onstage.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on February 26, 2020, 12:21:37 PM
Being killed by a gun fired by someone other than yourself isn't a top cause of deaths in the US.  I think the total for homicides roughly averages about 10k per year, and unless you're in some very specific population groups living in some very specific areas it's extremely unlikely that you're going to die that way.

Suicides by gun make up a much bigger portion of gun deaths, which lets the left craft misleading headlines about gun deaths being a leading cause of death (implying murders) - I was literally looking at NYTimes article that led with guns being a leading cause of death, talked about stopping "gun violence" and then also noted that suicides by themselves were actually what was a leading cause of death.

So more guns in the country than people, 99.99+% of which are not going to be involved in murdering anyone in a given year.   

But on the real topic at hand, seems pretty clear that Biden is either already senile or going to quickly go that route.  He should not be a major party candidate.  Given he's on the left, I would expect that his administration and the compliant media would cover up for him if he was elected President (rather than write article after article about using the Constitution to remove him from office as they did with Trump), and we'd get an absent President we never see with his powers being exercised by party insiders/cabinet members by committee.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on February 26, 2020, 12:29:11 PM
But on the real topic at hand, seems pretty clear that Biden is either already senile or going to quickly go that route.  He should not be a major party candidate.  Given he's on the left, I would expect that his administration and the compliant media would cover up for him if he was elected President (rather than write article after article about using the Constitution to remove him from office as they did with Trump), and we'd get an absent President we never see with his powers being exercised by party insiders/cabinet members by committee.

You mean like GWB and the shadow presidency of Dick Cheney?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on February 26, 2020, 01:13:07 PM
Quick, look over there!
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on February 26, 2020, 01:17:58 PM
I'm not a Biden supporter or a Biden apologist. I think he's a disaster. I wouldn't vote for Trump against him, but I would vote third party or leave it blank.

That doesn't stop us from discussing the degree to which Bush was a figurehead president.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on February 26, 2020, 01:46:10 PM
Then start a thread on it.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on February 26, 2020, 03:16:24 PM
You mean like GWB and the shadow presidency of Dick Cheney?

I think that's an interesting and oft repeated delusion (maybe the precursor to TDS)?

I was more thinking of how Reagan was purported to have such issues at the end of his second term. 
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on February 26, 2020, 04:51:21 PM
Bush Derangment Syndrome was a thing. It’s where TDS as a identifiable neurosis came from. It also spawned the assassination chic thing where openly fantasizing about killing him was considered cool.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Wayward Son on February 26, 2020, 05:32:05 PM
While Uncle Joe doesn't seem as sharp as he used to be, he still strikes me as head-and-shoulders above the current occupant of the White House.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on February 26, 2020, 06:09:08 PM
Trump at least knows what decade he’s in and what office he’s running for.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Wayward Son on February 26, 2020, 06:39:46 PM
Are you sure?  ;)

At least Biden doesn't talk to you like you're a fourth-grader. :)

Now the only question is whether he thinks you're only as smart as a fourth-grader or if he is only as smart as a fourth-grader? ;)
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on February 26, 2020, 06:46:45 PM
TDS makes you bitter. It’s not a good look, you know?

You know what Biden does with 4th graders, right? Very handsy, loves to sniff’em. Also not a good look.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on February 27, 2020, 12:48:28 PM
You mean like GWB and the shadow presidency of Dick Cheney?

I think that's an interesting and oft repeated delusion (maybe the precursor to TDS)?

I was more thinking of how Reagan was purported to have such issues at the end of his second term.

Bush 43 was most well-known out of Texas for being bipartisan and putting Democrats within his decision-making groups. Until his strong popularity after 9-11, he had actually brought about many of the Left's long-standing party planks, like the Education bills crafted by Ted Kennedy. The Dems saw their singular issues being stolen from them, so they unilaterally pulled themselves out of his working groups and tried to sabotage the economy and blame it on him. All that was Bush 43, not his VP. ...No shadow Presidency.

The closest would be Hillary under Bill.

Truly, Reagan did have ongoing dementia after he was out of office, but since he had a photographic memory (little reported on), he had a head start on almost everyone he met with. The reason he didn't use notes is because he didn't need them. I understand Ted Cruz has a similar ability with the spoken word. Audiographic memory? Bush 43 also had a near-photographic memory, which is why no one ever bet against him on baseball stats, and why he could coast through school without the effort others had to put in. Read Lannie Davis' warnings about his abilities to other Dems who wanted to take him for granted. Lannie attended the same school as Bush 43 and knew whence he spoke.

TDS is about the Never-Trumpers, not about him. I never heard that Trump has a superior memory, but he may have - the way he sets up his opposition and then crushes them when they say stupid things lends some credence. Biden is definitely a non-rememberer, and Sanders is just a cliché machine.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Wayward Son on February 27, 2020, 12:59:57 PM
Quote
TDS makes you bitter.

I told you before, Crunch, I don't like to be called insane. Stop it.

Quote
You know what Biden does with 4th graders, right? Very handsy, loves to sniff’em. Also not a good look.

And how does the way Biden interacts with fourth-graders have do with the fact that Trump speaks at a fourth-grade level when extemporaneously speaking?  If you are so concerned with the possibility of deterioration of Biden's mental capacities, shouldn't you also be concerned with the current Commander-in-Chief's mental capacities?  Isn't it more of a concern that the person currently with his finger on the button talks like a fourth-grader, sometimes speaks incoherently, slurs words, and often makes illogical jumps in his speeches?

If this is an important issue, shouldn't we consider all candidates, not just a few of the Democratic ones?  Or is mental deterioration only something that happens to Democrats? ;)
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: rightleft22 on February 27, 2020, 04:11:47 PM
Quote
TDS is about the Never-Trumpers,

TDS is also applied to the Trump can do no wrong Trumpers
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on February 27, 2020, 06:04:37 PM
Quote
TDS makes you bitter.

I told you before, Crunch, I don't like to be called insane. Stop it.
I told you before, I'm not calling you insane. Nobody is. It's just something you're making up.


And how does the way Biden interacts with fourth-graders have do with the fact that Trump speaks at a fourth-grade level when extemporaneously speaking?  If you are so concerned with the possibility of deterioration of Biden's mental capacities, shouldn't you also be concerned with the current Commander-in-Chief's mental capacities?  Isn't it more of a concern that the person currently with his finger on the button talks like a fourth-grader, sometimes speaks incoherently, slurs words, and often makes illogical jumps in his speeches?

If this is an important issue, shouldn't we consider all candidates, not just a few of the Democratic ones?  Or is mental deterioration only something that happens to Democrats? ;)

So let's walk through it. Trump speaking at a 4th-grade level is, in your mind, the ultimate proof that Trump is stupid or mentally unfit to be president. That's it, full stop. No further critical though applied because "Orange Man Bad". Right. No idea why Trump would talk like that except to confirm your belief that Orange Man Bad.

Did you know, "When speaking to or writing for a broad audience, it’s a best practice to speak at an eighth-grade reading level"? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/05/03/donald-trump-speaks-like-a-sixth-grader-all-politicians-should/) No, you didn't. But, this is so well known that most media outlets target the intermediate literacy level (https://www.adamsherk.com/publishing/news-sites-google-reading-level/) meaning 6th - 8th-grade level. In fact, about a quarter of media outlet production is targeted at the basic level - 4th or 5th grade. The vast majority of politicians realize this and target the intermediate level in their communications. (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/most-presidential-candidates-speak-at-grade-6-8-level-300237139.html)

I know, you're probably gobsmacked. But it gets better ...

You see, 52% of all Americans have basic or below-basic reading skills. (https://www.wyliecomm.com/2019/03/us-literacy-rate/) Quite literally, over half of Americans have literacy rates below that of a 5th grader. Further, "even highly educated people prefer to read below their formal education level."

So put all that together with a desire to reach as many Americans as possible with your message. What grade level should you be targeting when trying to communicate? The 4th grade. By targeting a 4th-grade level, you effectively reach 96% of the US population (4% are completely illiterate) with your message.

Or, he could go your route and use a bunch of $5 words that make him sound so, so, smart but only provides an effective communication channel to less than half his target audience (i.e. the American people).

Which of those 2 options is the smart choice? Which of those messaging strategies is most likely to get Trump heard and understood?  Obviously, if you want to reach the broadest possible audience, you should be targeting a 4th-grade audience.

Now, the question is, since this is all such a well researched and documented topic, is Trump communicating this way just a happy coincidence? This guy is a graduate of the Wharton School, hardly an institution known for turning out illiterates, you know? And the one grade level that hits precisely the one that maximizes his audience reach is just miraculously what he's hitting? No, it's not a coincidence. Trump knows exactly what he's doing: (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/10/us/politics/trump-voters-supporters-policies.html)
Quote
“President Trump touched something inside me,’’ Ms. Hope said. “He speaks like me and he talks like me.

This style is also particularly effective on social media where his message is read instead of delivered verbally.

So when I talk about TDS, I'm talking about the complete lack of intellectual curiosity beyond "Orange Man Bad" and how many of you take only the most superficial of analyses and embrace them as truth based solely on it fitting your desired ideological position. I would guess that more than a few of you had some knowledge of these literacy rates and the guidelines for communication but you completely discarded them and actively refused to connect even one dot. That's TDS.

Trump talking like a 4th grader is not evidence of mental deficiency as you make out, it's evidence he's a genius at effective communication.

Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on February 27, 2020, 06:41:19 PM
Crunch,

Trump can use a fourth grade vocabulary without talking like a fourth grader. You get that, right?

There's grammar, mispronunciation, misuse, name calling, and verbal tics like "Duh!".

You really went all out to construct a defense of Trump's non-existent speaking skills though, I'll give you that.

Now you can make the argument that Trump is targeting a fourth grade mentality, and I probably couldn't argue with you there.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on February 28, 2020, 12:24:26 AM
You really went all out to construct a defense of Trump's non-existent speaking skills...

Do you really believe he has no speaking skills? Did you watch the last SOTU?

If you're going to entirely hand wave away crunch's references to lower vocabulary levels being effective with the masses as some kind of unintentional bonus side effect of Trump being plain stupid, I don’t know what to tell you. It’s like a fighter's trainer telling him his opponent is a chump in between the rounds he's taking a beat-down.

I think in this case you may be confusing eloquence with skill but regardless, I sure wouldn’t want you advising me on how to beat Trump.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on February 28, 2020, 07:25:04 AM
Crunch,

Trump can use a fourth grade vocabulary without talking like a fourth grader. You get that, right?

There's grammar, mispronunciation, misuse, name calling, and verbal tics like "Duh!".

You really went all out to construct a defense of Trump's non-existent speaking skills though, I'll give you that.

Now you can make the argument that Trump is targeting a fourth grade mentality, and I probably couldn't argue with you there.

And yet
Quote
President Trump touched something inside me,’’ Ms. Hope said. “He speaks like me and he talks like me.

Your response is exactly the point I made. You refuse to understand or even remotely engage in a critical thought then finish with the very typical “Look at me, I’m the smartest guy in the room!” shot.

You actually just completely proved my point.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on February 28, 2020, 08:38:28 AM
The whole thing about vocabulary was a non sequitur. I did make crunches point better than him. The trump base loves that he talks like an uneducated child, because they've probably been ridiculed for doing the same thing. They mistrust those people who are well spoken, because those are probably reminiscent of authority figures, or people who have been more successful in life. That trump is a master at catering to the lowest common denominator isn't in question. His low base comes for the Theatre and the simplistic message. The high base comes for the policy and ignores the Theatre, or admires it as great manipulation. The only cost is demeaning the office and diminishing global standing.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on February 28, 2020, 10:14:14 AM
Much more reasonable take. As far as diminishing global standing, I think it depends on what you mean. If you mean there have been more instances where global leaders whisper in corners about the uncouth brute (eg Trudeau) you're probably right. If you mean the US itself via policies I don't see evidence of that.

If anything, I see more cautious respect because we have a leader who unashamedly speaks of his policy motives being in the interest of the US first and foremost. That's unsettling for leftists/globalists but probably a topic for a separate thread.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: yossarian22c on February 28, 2020, 10:25:38 AM
If you mean the US itself via policies I don't see evidence of that.

Turkey in Syria. The people fighting with us got screwed. Our isolation on China trade. Wawei 5g in Europe. I haven't seen a lot of great global cooperation with US goals. Trump isn't TR - he talks loudly and sometimes wields a big tariff stick.

But maybe your happy with Trump bullying some latin america countries on potentially reducing immigrants/refugees. The impact of that has been limited so far though.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on February 28, 2020, 10:34:18 AM

Turkey in Syria. The people fighting with us got screwed. Our isolation on China trade. Wawei 5g in Europe. I haven't seen a lot of great global cooperation with US goals. Trump isn't TR - he talks loudly and sometimes wields a big tariff stick.

But maybe your happy with Trump bullying some latin america countries on potentially reducing immigrants/refugees. The impact of that has been limited so far though.

Regardless of the merits of the Turkey/Syria decision, the US has a long history of making military decisions that "screw" people who at one point helped us - that's far from a Trumpism. I'm not sure being the first president to so directly battle China on deficit, finance and trade issues translates to isolation, but ok. I don't know enough about Wawei in Europe to have an opinion.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: yossarian22c on February 28, 2020, 11:30:35 AM
I'm not sure being the first president to so directly battle China on deficit, finance and trade issues translates to isolation, but ok.

I've been supportive of his trade war with China - but I haven't seen Canada, Mexico, the EU jumping in to add pressure to China. The case was made the world was more on board with American policies/goals. I'm just wondering what those issues were and listing out places where I saw it lacking.

Iran and pulling out of the nuclear deal - EU, Russia, and China weren't on board with that either.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on February 28, 2020, 11:38:55 AM
Fair enough on other countries not necessarily aligning on all US interests. My overarching point was I don't think that necessarily translates into "diminished global standing".
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: rightleft22 on February 28, 2020, 12:32:45 PM
Quote
TDS makes you bitter.

I told you before, Crunch, I don't like to be called insane. Stop it.
I told you before, I'm not calling you insane. Nobody is. It's just something you're making up.

Kind of gas lighting distinction? Deranged but not insane
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Grant on February 28, 2020, 12:44:56 PM

Regardless of the merits of the Turkey/Syria decision, the US has a long history of making military decisions that "screw" people who at one point helped us - that's far from a Trumpism.

This is true.  We screwed over the South Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians too.  Great moments for America.  Something we should definitely look into doing more often. 
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on February 28, 2020, 12:46:52 PM
Fair enough on other countries not necessarily aligning on all US interests. My overarching point was I don't think that necessarily translates into "diminished global standing".

Bear in mind that when I talk about standing, I don't mean having worse outcomes than other countries, I mean the respect that used to allow us to pull together coalitions for global action and agreement.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on February 28, 2020, 01:06:44 PM
Fair enough on other countries not necessarily aligning on all US interests. My overarching point was I don't think that necessarily translates into "diminished global standing".

Bear in mind that when I talk about standing, I don't mean having worse outcomes than other countries, I mean the respect that used to allow us to pull together coalitions for global action and agreement.

To be frank I think this has more to do with "what's in it for them" than any kind of abstract goodwill. They will 'assist' the U.S. when there is sufficient incentive, and won't when they don't like what's happening. The extent to which the U.S. could get beneficial arrangements purely out of other countries 'liking the personality of the U.S.'  seems to me not that relevant.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Grant on February 28, 2020, 01:08:32 PM
Fair enough on other countries not necessarily aligning on all US interests. My overarching point was I don't think that necessarily translates into "diminished global standing".

I would think that convincing other countries that their interests align with our interests and that our interests align with their interests is the number one measure of "global standing".  Otherwise, what is it for? 

There is plenty of research out there that shows that general perception of the United States has fallen since 2016.  There is good reason to consider, however, that this perception is colored by the politics of the respondents, but the general consensus is that the United States does not have the best relations even with close allies anymore.  Even W, who had unfavorable #s with Europeans, had good relationships with other NATO leaders and Asian leaders.  I think we all can guess why Don the Builder has sour relations with most allies.  Whether this is a good thing since those lazy Europeans and Asians are cheating the United States is subject to debate. 
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Grant on February 28, 2020, 01:13:20 PM

To be frank I think this has more to do with "what's in it for them" than any kind of abstract goodwill. They will 'assist' the U.S. when there is sufficient incentive, and won't when they don't like what's happening. The extent to which the U.S. could get beneficial arrangements purely out of other countries 'liking the personality of the U.S.'  seems to me not that relevant.

This would generally be based on the idea that the majority of the people in the world, including world leaders, and other countries domestic and foreign policies, are centered on "what is in it for them". 

The opposite view is that many people around the world today and throughout history have done things that were not necessarily in their best personal interest. 
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on February 28, 2020, 01:51:56 PM
This would generally be based on the idea that the majority of the people in the world, including world leaders, and other countries domestic and foreign policies, are centered on "what is in it for them".

They would be negligent otherwise, no?

Quote
The opposite view is that many people around the world today and throughout history have done things that were not necessarily in their best personal interest.

This isn't an opposite view; the opposite would be something like doing something based on "what's in it for others". Doing something not in your own interest may even happen when you believe you're doing something selfish; in fact that is frequently the result. If you meant deliberately doing something not in your self-interest, that depends on which interest you mean. It can be something detrimental economically but gainful in, let's say, humanitarian concerns. I doubt that any country would voluntarily embark on a course that is detrimental with nothing gainful in any category. "Let's self-destruct!"
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on February 28, 2020, 03:19:08 PM
I would think that convincing other countries that their interests align with our interests and that our interests align with their interests is the number one measure of "global standing".  Otherwise, what is it for? 

There is plenty of research out there that shows that general perception of the United States has fallen since 2016.

I am sure there is, of course if you're careful with your searches and time limit the results you could say the same for just about any year at least back to the Carter administration. 

But I have a real question, what exactly do you mean?  I suspect that "global standing" is a proxy for nothing more than "Trump is uncouth and that must have had some effect."

So what exactly did it do?  What policy of the US did this cost us?  What impact has this had on our ability to get deals done.  To be honest, it looks like Trump has been more effective, not less, than most of his predecessors.  The rise of China, NK becoming out of control, the entire mess in the middle east, al queda, the fall of Venezuala, US nation building - all before Trump, most of which was in spite of this great US influence (some of it was even the direct results of our ideas - the rise of China).  The EU has spent decades building up massive barriers to trade and protectionistic policies that all the American influence in the world hasn't been able to slow in the least, all the while the US bears their defense costs and most of the costs of advancing medical technology.

Presumably you think Obama had this cache, yet you'd be hard pressed to show any policy he got the EU to support other than in their direct interest or pursuant to a bribe.  Heck, you can directly track most of the current chaos in the Middle East resulting from Iran's funding of insurgencies across the region directly to Obama's negotiations and backing and the money he released to them.

Back on the topic, apparently Biden's story about being arrested trying to see Mandela, has now been boiled down to being separated from his travel companions at the airport in S. Africa (They were requested to split their party for the white's only/all others entrances), but not remotely arrested.   I mean that's a good story in and of itself, no real need to embellish, yet to stretch that to what he said?  Definitely a cause for concern.

If you are so concerned with the possibility of deterioration of Biden's mental capacities, shouldn't you also be concerned with the current Commander-in-Chief's mental capacities?  Isn't it more of a concern that the person currently with his finger on the button talks like a fourth-grader, sometimes speaks incoherently, slurs words, and often makes illogical jumps in his speeches?

Seem to recall that Trump passed his mental acuity test, and remind me how did you react?  Oh yeah, pretty sure you tried to question the credentials of the doctor.  There's nothing out there  that reasonably would make one question Trump at this point, or honestly, anyone else on the Dem's stage, but it's pretty clear Biden shouldn't be running for office.

Quote
If this is an important issue, shouldn't we consider all candidates, not just a few of the Democratic ones?  Or is mental deterioration only something that happens to Democrats? ;)

Yes we should test them all.  But it's only Biden that has obvious evidence of mental deterioration. 
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on February 28, 2020, 03:28:54 PM
Biden was just talking about how he looked forward to being president and appointing an African American women to the US senate.

It’s constant. His brain is made of porridge at this point. And what’s not porridge, is pudding. This is essentially elder abuse and his family needs to step in and protect him.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Wayward Son on February 28, 2020, 04:44:58 PM
Quote
TDS makes you bitter.

I told you before, Crunch, I don't like to be called insane. Stop it.
I told you before, I'm not calling you insane. Nobody is. It's just something you're making up.

Really?  I explained this to you before.  Which didn't you say?

Quote
But dude, the symptoms of TDS is getting tiresome.
Quote
TDS makes you bitter.

Or, in the Live It Off the Wall thread:

Quote
Trump Derangement Syndrome is a form of insanity.

By elementary logic, that means that you consider anyone with TDS to have a form of insanity, i.e. the person is insane.

So the only question is, are you as dumb as a rock and can't follow simple logic that any fourth-grader could (if A=B and B=C, then A=C, the commutative property) or are you a bold-faced liar who thinks he can just deny what he has said and thinks we're all too stupid to realize it?

So which is it?  Are you stupid?  Or just dishonest?

Whichever, just stop it.  Now.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: DonaldD on February 28, 2020, 04:48:23 PM
I'm not sure all 4th grade-level presidents actually can follow that simple logic...
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on February 28, 2020, 05:00:12 PM
Quote
...If this is an important issue, shouldn't we consider all candidates, not just a few of the Democratic ones?  Or is mental deterioration only something that happens to Democrats?

There are no "Democratic" candidates. They are Democrats and Socialists. Democracy is not part of their mix.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Grant on February 28, 2020, 05:02:21 PM

I am sure there is, of course if you're careful with your searches and time limit the results you could say the same for just about any year at least back to the Carter administration. 

The data from Pew only goes back to 2002.  I'd love to find some more data from Pew or Gallup, but I can't seem to get any.  The major idea is that public opinion plummeted between 2003-2008, and after 2016. 

I suppose you could argue that the numbers don't mean much, since Bush was able to actually put together globalist coalitions due to his connections with the shareholders of Chase Manhattan.

Quote
But I have a real question, what exactly do you mean?  I suspect that "global standing" is a proxy for nothing more than "Trump is uncouth and that must have had some effect."


I think what I believed the end of global standing gives a good enough definition of what I mean.  "convincing other countries that their interests align with our interests and that our interests align with their interests is the number one measure of "global standing"".  To put it more clearly, I believe "global standing" is the ability of the United States to persuade other friendly countries, and even unfriendly countries, to take courses of actions that benefit the United States, themselves, and other allies.  It's basically soft diplomacy power. 

As to being "uncouth", you will have to define what you mean by that for me to have an opinion on whether it has had any effect with our relationships with allies or enemies. 

Quote
So what exactly did it do?  What policy of the US did this cost us?  What impact has this had on our ability to get deals done.

If we're looking at policies we would have to look at the level of cooperation we have been able to get from allies and enemies. 

The first example might be pullout from the Iran deal and further sanctioning of Iran.  The opinion of many the United States was that the Iran deal was a bad deal.  It was even seen as a bad deal by certain local allies.  But notable allies in Europe did not follow suit.  Convincing them to go along when they were not thrilled about it would have been an effect of global standing. 

Another example might be the Paris accords. Same situation.  The current administration believes it was a bad idea.  But several other countries remain in the agreement. 

Further examples would be concessions made by the EU on trade negotiations or NATO negotiations. 

Another example would be further support from allies on additional actions taken on Iran, including the hit on Solemani. 

Maybe additional NATO support for the Baltic States that did not include trading the Kurds for Turkish support. 

I mean, you can take the position that all of our allies are wrong or stupid.  It certainly seems that the current administration has taken an adversarial stance towards NATO and the EU over several issues.  But taking our ball and going home seems to be the rule of the day rather than any sort of diplomatic attempts. 

If The Great Negotiator has had better results in persuading allies and enemies, then I'd like some examples of why this is. 

I'm completely unsure if Don the Builder has curtailed the growth or threat of China.  I don't see where he has done anything positive in North Korea.  Syria and Yemen and Iraq and Afghanistan are getting worse, not better.  Trade barriers in the EU have not changed.  The agreement among NATO countries to apply 2% GDP on defense per country was made in 2014 and is not supposed to be reached until 2024, on top of the general idea that NATO countries not paying their fair share for defense is erroneous.  I suppose it's good for Trumpers to scream about how our allies in Europe are bad friends, but there certainly hasn't been any improvement, only alienation. 

As for Obama, which is a red-herring here, I've always believed that he squandered whatever influence or global standing he may have had with allies and enemies and missed several opportunities.  The Obama administration made several bad foreign policy calls and I think had a lousy State Department and National Security Council in my opinion.  But if he had the right ideas I believe he could have made some real inroads if he tried.  That's all hypothetical what-ifs.  The point is that global standing, if it was to be had between 2009 and 2016, was squandered. 


Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on February 28, 2020, 06:40:00 PM

I am sure there is, of course if you're careful with your searches and time limit the results you could say the same for just about any year at least back to the Carter administration. 

The data from Pew only goes back to 2002.  I'd love to find some more data from Pew or Gallup, but I can't seem to get any.  The major idea is that public opinion plummeted between 2003-2008, and after 2016.

Academics write academic materials, and they have a decided ideological slant.  You can certainly find opinion pieces on this topic (decline is US influence) every year.  That's not of course, empirical data, but there really isn't empirical data that would accurately measure something this squishy.  Instead it would be measuring something as a proxy, and the selection of the proxy reveals the bias.
 
Quote
Quote
But I have a real question, what exactly do you mean?  I suspect that "global standing" is a proxy for nothing more than "Trump is uncouth and that must have had some effect."


I think what I believed the end of global standing gives a good enough definition of what I mean.  "convincing other countries that their interests align with our interests and that our interests align with their interests is the number one measure of "global standing"".  To put it more clearly, I believe "global standing" is the ability of the United States to persuade other friendly countries, and even unfriendly countries, to take courses of actions that benefit the United States, themselves, and other allies.  It's basically soft diplomacy power.

That really makes me think that global standing is especially "squishy."  That concept is certainly contradicted by most of the examples you provide.

Fundamentally, ask yourself why we have to "persuade" other countries to do what is in their best interest?  Shouldn't they do that anyway?  I think the reality is that very little globally is actually in someone's "best" interest, or frankly even relevant to them. I mean look at the battle over whaling.  What is actually in anyone's "best" interests?  The Japanese want to eat whales most western people want to save them.  But ther's almost nothing in that debate that's really in anyone's "best" interest.  Japan has bribed other countries into supporting them - I don't think anyone really believes their support is ethical or moral rather than economic, and they are able to do that because getting paid is more in a most country's "best" interests than not getting paid.  In the west supporting japan costs the politicians votes therefore it's not in their personal interests.  Lots of power, soft and hard, playing in that game despite a lack of real interest.

Quote
As to being "uncouth", you will have to define what you mean by that for me to have an opinion on whether it has had any effect with our relationships with allies or enemies.

They find him personally repugnant. 

Quote
Quote
So what exactly did it do?  What policy of the US did this cost us?  What impact has this had on our ability to get deals done.

If we're looking at policies we would have to look at the level of cooperation we have been able to get from allies and enemies.

No, not if your definition is true. We'd have to look at whether the policy is in their interest and we have to splain it to them to get them to go along.

If you're measuring whether they go along with us, you could simply be measuring quite a large number of things other than our global standing.  You could be measuring whether  polices actually do align with their interests.  You could be measuring the extent to which we are or are not "bribing" them either directly like Japan (or say cash pallets being shipped to Iran) or indirectly, like say dumping billions into the EU's defense to get them to give us cover in third world fights where they have no real dog in the fight.

Quote
The first example might be pullout from the Iran deal and further sanctioning of Iran.  The opinion of many the United States was that the Iran deal was a bad deal.  It was even seen as a bad deal by certain local allies.  But notable allies in Europe did not follow suit.  Convincing them to go along when they were not thrilled about it would have been an effect of global standing.

Was it?  The Europeans view Iran's hatred of America as more about America than about Europe.  Lifting the economic sanctions on Iran opened up cheap Iranian oil and new business deals for the EU (and they know they'll have an advantage over the US).  Normalizing Iran is 100% more in their interest than it is in ours.  By all reasonable account Iran has been using the economic freedom and free cash to fund regional terror campaigns, but hey those aren't Europeans dying, so that's not actually very much in their interest to stop.  Europeans do care about Nukes, they are even more anti-Nuke than the US (and closer).  So a deal that slows Nukes, opens markets and lets Iran kill it's neighbors is morally acceptable to them, in their interests and provided Iran plays by the rules and doesn't develop nukes completely okay.

So why would it take any "standing" to get them to enter that deal?  Trump could get them to support him on re-executing it tomorrow.  Their support is 100% based  on their direct benefit and ability to offload the downside to people in the middle east.

The only decision that changes their analysis is whether the US will make it costly to them to keep the deal in place.  If we sanction their banks then they drop Iran like a hot potato, cause it's not about principal.

Quote
Another example might be the Paris accords. Same situation.  The current administration believes it was a bad idea.  But several other countries remain in the agreement.

But again, how is that an example?    To get the worst polluters to sign, it was agreed that they would sign up to non-binding commitments to increase pollution by slower rates somewhere in the future, and get bribed by the West.  The "trade" was that the US would agree to deliberately sabotage it's economy and pay for almost all the pollution reductions.  So wow, they agreed to a deal where the US pays twice and they reap the benefits.   The only "global standing" that demonstrates is that we're chumps with principals willing to try and actually save the environment.

Quote
Further examples would be concessions made by the EU on trade negotiations or NATO negotiations.

They would, if they weren't coupled (and then some) with EU anti-competetive practices that range all across the spectrum.  We don't have trade imbalances with virtually everyone in the EU because they are outcompeting us.  WE have them because for decades we've let them run a trade war against us without response.

Quote
Another example would be further support from allies on additional actions taken on Iran, including the hit on Solemani.

Didn't hear a lot of condemnation from them, but again, they couldn't care less about what Iran does to the locals.  Keep it out of the news to much, don't use WMDs and to Europe it's all okay.  Or can you name the major EU interventions  without US that weren't in direct support of their colonial regimes?   

Quote
Maybe additional NATO support for the Baltic States that did not include trading the Kurds for Turkish support.

Again, this seem to fail your test.  The winner or loser there is almost not in anyone's best interest to decide.  I'd guess the Europeans would be perfectly happy to let the Turks rule the Kurds for the foreseeable future.  What you are really asking is that we bribe the Europeans with concessions on something else (our normal pattern) so they'll agree tod send soldiers to make ours look like they're not alone.  We know for a fact they won't stay without us.  If you ask them to, they'll have the UN declare a peacekeeping mission, with Western generals and third world soldiers for hire.

Quote
I mean, you can take the position that all of our allies are wrong or stupid.

That's literally your position when you define global standing as you did.  You basically define their role as to be too stupid to know their own interests without us telling them and then bribing them.  Instead what you actually thought was our global standing was them acting in their own selfish interests most of the time, including by going along with our bribes when they didn't care that much one way or the other.

I can only think of a handful of times when anyone (and it was really only the UK and Canada) took a decision that wasn't in their own interests just to help us out.

Quote
It certainly seems that the current administration has taken an adversarial stance towards NATO and the EU over several issues.  But taking our ball and going home seems to be the rule of the day rather than any sort of diplomatic attempts.

Yes.  Rather than bribing them he's actually telling them to act in their own interests.  That's exactly why he demanded they pay up in NATO.  Effectively, they were still getting a bribe that they are no longer delivering on.  They've been acting in their own interest (to the detriment of ours) for decades, that's not why we entered into any of those arrangements.

Or to put it another way, does the rich kid at school still have bunches of friends when he stops buying them gifts all the time and paying for everything?  I think we all know that when you buy friends they don't stick around, and your almost certainly in a worse place than if you'd  just been honest in the first place rather than trying to buy them.  But you're kidding yourself if you measure how good his skills are at making friends without considering the bribes he was paying.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on February 28, 2020, 08:08:59 PM
Quote from: Seriati
... does the rich kid at school still have bunches of friends when he stops buying them gifts all the time and paying for everything?  I think we all know that when you buy friends they don't stick around, and you're almost certainly in a worse place than if you'd  just been honest in the first place rather than trying to buy them.  But you're kidding yourself if you measure how good his skills are at making friends without considering the bribes he was paying.

Very true.  When you extend your hand in friendship, you get a different result from chicanery and bribes. Obama went on his apology tour and poisoned the respect even friendly nations had for us. Compounding that, he gave billions to Iran as a supposed gesture? It is the hundreds of missionary programs and support projects that our friends need the most. Give money to their leaders and it just buys shoes for their wives, neh?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on February 28, 2020, 08:36:56 PM

Regardless of the merits of the Turkey/Syria decision, the US has a long history of making military decisions that "screw" people who at one point helped us - that's far from a Trumpism.

This is true.  We screwed over the South Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians too.  Great moments for America.  Something we should definitely look into doing more often.

The South Vietnam situation is... complicated to say the least. In that particular case, it is probably more correct to say we facilitated their ability to screw themselves before ultimately deciding we'd had enough.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on February 28, 2020, 09:01:09 PM

Regardless of the merits of the Turkey/Syria decision, the US has a long history of making military decisions that "screw" people who at one point helped us - that's far from a Trumpism.

This is true.  We screwed over the South Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians too.  Great moments for America.  Something we should definitely look into doing more often.

The South Vietnam situation is... complicated to say the least. In that particular case, it is probably more correct to say we facilitated their ability to screw themselves before ultimately deciding we'd had enough.

Better to say that we are so disparate and politically opportunistic that we prey on ourselves.

Think back to that '68 Tet Offensive, wherein General Giap, Commander of NVA forces wrote in his autobiography clearly indicated that NVA troops were without sufficient supplies, and had been continually defeated time and again. By 1968, NVA morale was at it's lowest point ever. The plans for "Tet" '68 was their last desperate attempt to achieve a success, in an effort to boost the NVA morale. When it was over, General Giap and the NVA viewed the Tet '68 offensive as a failure, they were on their knees and had prepared to negotiate a surrender. At that time, there were fewer than 10,000 U.S. casualties, the Vietnam War was about to end, as the NVA was prepared to accept their defeat. Then, they heard Walter Cronkite (former CBS News anchor and correspondent) on TV proclaiming the success of the Tet '68 offensive by the communist NVA. They were completely and totally amazed at hearing that the US Embassy had been overrun. In reality, The NVA had not gained access to the Embassy--there were some VC who had been killed on the grassy lawn, but they hadn't gained access. Further reports indicated the riots and protesting on the streets of America. According to Giap, these distorted reports were inspirational to the NVA. They changed their plans from a negotiated surrender and decided instead, they only needed to persevere for one more hour, day, week, month, eventually the protesters in American would help them to achieve a victory they knew they could not win on the battlefield. Thanks to Cronkite, we eventually lost a war that was no longer aimed at military victory, but invented the guerilla warfare aimed at the media.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Grant on February 29, 2020, 08:52:54 AM
Quote
Academics write academic materials, and they have a decided ideological slant.  You can certainly find opinion pieces on this topic (decline is US influence) every year.  That's not of course, empirical data, but there really isn't empirical data that would accurately measure something this squishy. 

I'm not talking about academics writing academic material, Serati.  I'm talking about polling done by Pew Research on foreign opinion of the United States by foreign nationals.  That seems pretty empirical to me. 

Quote
Fundamentally, ask yourself why we have to "persuade" other countries to do what is in their best interest?

It sounds like you are challenging the very idea that persuasion exists or should exist.  Have you never had to convince a child to eat their vegetables?  Convince a spouse to buy a mini-van instead of a Camero?  Convince Roosevelt to invade Sicily and Italy in 1943 instead of France?  Convince the UK to not use Huawei?  Persuade allies to commit troops to Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan?  Persuade allies to pay for the First Gulf War?   

The way it usually works, is that an individual, or individuals, have a vision of what is in their best interest.  Persuasion is made by replacing that vision with a different vision where their best interests are often a shared interest. 

Quote
They find him personally repugnant.

Other world leaders?  I don't know.  But if other world leaders and allies found The Perfect Caller to be personally repugnant, or untrustworthy, would it hurt the chances of convincing allies to follow the lead of the United States? 

Quote
No, not if your definition is true. We'd have to look at whether the policy is in their interest and we have to splain it to them to get them to go along.

Let's see how persuading allies that certain policies are in their best interests can lead to cooperation and help the United States and allies.  The current administration believed that the Iran deal is a bad deal, and that it should be abandoned and sanctions placed on Iran due to it's bad behavior.  The EU did not agree, though major allies in the ME agreed.  What if we could persuade members of the EU that the Iran deal was also against their best interests and that sanctioning Iran was in their best interests? 

You seem to intimate that all diplomacy is about bribes or strong-arm negotiations.  I disagree. 

Quote
Lifting the economic sanctions on Iran opened up cheap Iranian oil and new business deals for the EU (and they know they'll have an advantage over the US).  Normalizing Iran is 100% more in their interest than it is in ours.  By all reasonable account Iran has been using the economic freedom and free cash to fund regional terror campaigns, but hey those aren't Europeans dying, so that's not actually very much in their interest to stop.

I think this can be presented as a very short-sighted view of what is in Europe's best interests.  Iran uses it's money to finance terrorism and destabilize the region.  The creates humanitarian and refugee problems stemming from Syria and Yemen that can become Europe's problem, costing them $ in terms of humanitarian aid and immigration into Europe.  Destabilizing Saudi Arabia and Iraq will cause the price of oil to rise, erasing any benefit of cheap oil from Iran.  See, all these things and more arguments can be presented to these leaders as reasons why the Iran Plan wasn't in their best interests, and sanctions were. But you need to have trust and good relationships with these leaders, and you can't have that if you are constantly going on about how Europe is cheating the United States on TV and on Twitter. 

Quote
They would, if they weren't coupled (and then some) with EU anti-competetive practices that range all across the spectrum.

And isn't free trade and removal of tariffs in their best interest? 

Quote
The winner or loser there is almost not in anyone's best interest to decide.  I'd guess the Europeans would be perfectly happy to let the Turks rule the Kurds for the foreseeable future.  What you are really asking is that we bribe the Europeans with concessions on something else (our normal pattern) so they'll agree tod send soldiers to make ours look like they're not alone.

Pretty ridiculous.  Of course it's in lots of countries interests what happens to the Baltic states or what happens to the Kurds or who wins in Syria.  And what I'm asking is that we not bribe Turkey, but convince them that supporting NATO operations in Lithuania is in their interests, without having to sacrifice the Kurds. 

Quote
Didn't hear a lot of condemnation from them, but again, they couldn't care less about what Iran does to the locals.

Shouldn't they? 

Quote
That's literally your position when you define global standing as you did.  You basically define their role as to be too stupid to know their own interests without us telling them and then bribing them.

I think you missed my point.  Dismissing allies as stupid is what you do when you arn't trying to persuade them.  Bribing isn't persuasion.  Let's talk about sales.  A salesperson's job is to convince individuals that their interests can be furthered by an exchange.  Everyone gets something.  If you are selling the end, you don't need to bribe. 

You seem to have a very jaded view on human relationships and interaction, viewing all human motivation as being in self-interest.  It's just not the case. 

Quote
Yes.  Rather than bribing them he's actually telling them to act in their own interests.  That's exactly why he demanded they pay up in NATO.

Well there you go.  The Great Negotiator has something he wants. How is he doing at convincing them?  Is taking the ball and going home working out?  Is denigrating allies on TV and Twitter helping things?  Good relationships with allied leaders?  A lot of trust built up? 

Quote
Or to put it another way, does the rich kid at school still have bunches of friends when he stops buying them gifts all the time and paying for everything?

That's a very unique view of NATO.  Twisted and warped, really.  I could get into how our allies in Europe pull their fair share but I suppose we need to go back to talking about how Biden is senile. 
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Grant on February 29, 2020, 09:01:35 AM
The South Vietnam situation is... complicated to say the least. In that particular case, it is probably more correct to say we facilitated their ability to screw themselves before ultimately deciding we'd had enough.

What's complicated?  We got South Vietnam to agree to sign a peace treaty by promising them aid if the North attacked again.  When they did attack, we didn't help.  300,000 people were imprisoned, tortured, or executed. 
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: OrneryMod on February 29, 2020, 02:17:27 PM
We're coming into the election seasons and tensions are starting to get high.  I'd like to remind everyone to please treat each other with kindness and respect.  Many of you are starting to approach or cross the appropriate line. Please stay far away from the line. If I have to temporarily ban a member during the election season, I may decide to have the ban last until November 5th.  I do not want to have to police every word you say. Please, be more kind and more respectful to one another.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on February 29, 2020, 05:03:22 PM
Listening to President Trump at CPAC is hilarious. Please don't say he is not a great communicator, because every word strikes home and skewers his opponents with humor and incredible insight. He talked about "Crazy Bernie", "Sleepy Joe", "Pocahontas", "Alfred E.Newman", "Mini-Mike", and even Beto, who claimed he was born to run. The easy comeback by the Left is that he is divisive, however, he is pro-American and is responding to what his opponents have said. He said that many of Blumberg's higher-up advisors are taking him for a ride, talking him into putting out millions of dollars in a lost cause and taking their ten percent off the top for the ad buys. He comes out with fact after fact that is unreported in the Main Stream Media, just daring them to look the other way and not comment.

The crowd hangs on his every word, and listens to what he says. The media might nor report it correctly, but it is all out there like an elephant in the room. One can pretend not to see, but if so, gets stamped on. One story he talked about was the wall, and how the MSM created a meme that the wind blew his wall over. He just walked us through what happened: how the winds of 60+ MPH did blow over one section as it was being put in place, but that the construction crew just lifted it up and held it in place until the cement hardened. He then explained how little things like that become national news because "they have nothing else" they want to report on.

I suppose those who cannot bring themselves to give him any credit will continue to avoid doing so, but the more they do so, the more they create "white spots." (White spots are what we call what happens when a document is faked up with the original copy being erased, and forged disinformation printed over the new blank spot.) You can't tell it was changed, except for the white spot that tells the whole story.

He once again branded his opponents with a great performance using humor and fact in an entertaining way.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on February 29, 2020, 06:56:05 PM
I’ll go back to my boxing trainer analogy. The absolute worst thing you can do is diminish your opponent's talents and abilities, especially if they actually KO'd your fighter in the last fight. If it feels good to shout that they’re a no-talent bum, have at it. But it’s a horrible strategy for the rematch and indicates that your filter and situational awareness will not serve you well when the bell rings.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on March 01, 2020, 12:42:48 PM
After a lengthy interview with Chris Wallace, Wallace thanks Biden for the time. Biden responds with, “Alright, thanks Chuck”.

Look, Biden often doesn’t know where he is and, obviously, struggles to know who he’s even talking to at times.

It’s at the point we should start calling it elder abuse.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 01, 2020, 01:20:20 PM
The election season is heating up, which means that for some people (here and elsewhere, but definitely here) it's crunch time, so it's best not to try to tell them things they don't already know.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: DJQuag on March 01, 2020, 05:58:45 PM
Just saying, the US didn't have issues with mass shootings until Reagan gutted mental care authority/funding.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on March 01, 2020, 07:35:15 PM
That could be a big part of it. We also weren't handing out Ritalin and Aderall like tic tacs to any kid who required a bit more effort to manage.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Grant on March 01, 2020, 07:48:25 PM
Just saying, the US didn't have issues with mass shootings until Reagan gutted mental care authority/funding.

I'm unsure what data supports this. 
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: DJQuag on March 01, 2020, 09:55:04 PM
Just saying, the US didn't have issues with mass shootings until Reagan gutted mental care authority/funding.

I'm unsure what data supports this.

Reagan put through a big program to make it harder to put mentally ill people in hospitals in the 80's.

US started having mass shootings on the regular in the 90's.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: DJQuag on March 01, 2020, 10:09:02 PM
And ya'll should know by now I'm the local liberal. However, I'm a believer in the "if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns," theory. Guns were part of America from it's very inception and it wasn't an issue. It was only when they cut social funding and authority for mental health that we ended up with young men shooting up places before putting a bullet in their own heads.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 01, 2020, 11:26:32 PM
There is little evidence that the suburban kids who have shot up their schools had anything to do with Reagans policies. Most of them had access to mental health services,and would not have been institutional candidates.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Grant on March 02, 2020, 09:35:37 AM

Reagan put through a big program to make it harder to put mentally ill people in hospitals in the 80's.

US started having mass shootings on the regular in the 90's.

I'm looking at the data on the wiki page, which by the way I believe was compiled by Mother Jones of all sources.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
I'm unsure how good the data is, but it's what is readily available. 

The data doesn't seem to support that there was a huge increase in the 80s.  The total number of shootings has been rising since the 1960s.  Total # of shootings and percentage change by decade:

50s        1
60s        6        600%
70s        14      233%
80s       21       150%
90s       30       143%
00s       37       123%
10s       123     332%

If I had to look at the growth of mass shootings in America, I wouldn't look for Reagan policies, but problems that occurred in the 60s, 70s, and 10s. 
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on March 02, 2020, 09:49:37 AM
I mean, off the top of my head, those are all time periods featuring ridiculous and unpopular wars, and especially ones where Americans were in a state of internal conflict over their relationship with their own government. Maybe that's merely a correlation and not a causation, but assuming that 60's/70's and 10's are vaguely related (50's-60's is harder to say because of margin for error in small volume of data points), it would appear that within a few years of a very contention military adventure there are social problems in the country. Whether or not this guess of mine is in fact related to the issue, it seems to me fairly obvious that this would in fact result from people losing faith in government and in their fellow American.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on March 02, 2020, 10:25:57 AM
SSRI induced violence is a real thing and didn't widely exist until the 90's.

"According to a review of the FDA’s database, 484 drugs were identified as triggers to serious adverse events significant enough to warrant a case study during the five-year period from 2004 through 2009. Of these 484 medications, 31 were identified to have a “disproportionate” association with violence. These 31 drugs make up 78.8 percent of all cases of violence toward others..."

The list includes five SSRI antidepressants:

Fluoxetine: Prozac increased aggressive behavior 10.9 times
Paroxetine: Paxil increased violent behavior 10.3 times
Fluvoxamine: Luvox increased violent behavior 8.4 times
Venlafaxine: Effexor increased violent behavior 8.3 times
Desvenlafaxine: Pristiq increased violent behavior 7.9 times

By 2010, 11% of all US citizens over the age of 12 had been prescribed an anti-depressant drug.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mad-in-america/201101/psychiatric-drugs-and-violence-review-fda-data-finds-link

Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on March 02, 2020, 04:46:22 PM
Quote
I'm looking at the data on the wiki page, which by the way I believe was compiled by Mother Jones of all sources.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
I'm unsure how good the data is, but it's what is readily available. 

Really? Mother Jones, I’m pretty damn sure how good the data is.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on March 02, 2020, 09:52:28 PM
If anyone wants to look at the increases in mass shootings, we should look at the instigation of gun-free zones.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on March 03, 2020, 07:26:38 AM
I think we should look at the ever expanding definition of “mass shooting”. Under current definitions favored by gun grabbers it seems we have a mass shooting a couple of times a day. Of course, there’s a pretty significant filter applied to which ones get reported - have to promote that narrative!
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 03, 2020, 07:39:03 AM
Quote
A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence.

What's so hard to understand?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 03, 2020, 07:53:13 AM
Quote
A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence.

What's so hard to understand?

Too late to edit, but if you want to see how badly the bad bad liberal press is distorting numbers on mass shootings, you only have to go to the uber-liberal FOX News for the lowdown (https://www.foxnews.com/us/us-mass-killing-hit-new-high-2019):

Quote
A database compiled by The Associated Press, USA Today and Northeastern University shows that there were more mass killings in 2019 than any year dating back to at least the 1970s, punctuated by a chilling succession of deadly rampages during the summer.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on March 03, 2020, 05:18:55 PM
If anyone wants to look at the increases in mass shootings, we should look at the instigation of gun-free zones.

Actually, much like terrorism, the rise in mass shootings (depending on definition) is a media driven phenomena.  If we're talking Columbine or Vegas style attacks this is certainly true, without 24 hour news coverage and blanket social media news those kind of events never become regular.

If you're talking about the bizarre over inclusive, more than 3 persons test, it' more likely just a change in reporting.  Fact is that is that most gun deaths are suicides.  FBI's stats usually show 8-12 k murders with guns.  Rifles, like assault rifles, that get so much coverage and that "no one needs to own" usually come in at a couple hundred of those murders (total).  Knifes usually kill 4-5 times more people than rifles (even fists usually kill more). 

Gun murders are highly clustered in certain locations and demographics and the vast majority are with handguns.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on March 03, 2020, 08:23:43 PM
Getting back to Uncle Joe... Limbaugh apologized today for assuring everyone that the Democrats would never nominate Joe, because he couldn't win. He explained that he missed the point that there are doppelgangers in the Dems who correspond to the Never-Trumpers in the GOP. He realized that these Never-Bernies would rather lose the election than let someone head their party who is outside their personal power base. Rush pointed out that the GOP has realigned under Trump, more unified than ever before, with the Never-Trump elitists virtually excluded from any power at all.

Bill Kristol, Mona Charen, Rick Wilson, Mindy Finn, Amanda Carpenter, Tara Setmayer, Tim Miller, David Frum, and Tom Nichols are self-acknowledged Never-Trumpers who were shocked to find that they were not welcomed into the anti-Trump Democrat power base. (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/03/never-trump-maybe-bernie-118981) Now looking like homeless drifters, the Left elitists don't want to become them. They seem to be deathly afraid of what Bernie Sanders would do to their party. Accepted wisdom said any winner is better than another four years of Trump, but now, it looks as if losing to Trump again would be better than being unimportant within a party that nominates Bernie.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on March 04, 2020, 07:46:28 AM
Forcing Buttigieg and Klobuchar to drop right before Super Tuesday worked:

Quote
According to exit polls, voters who made up their mind on whom to vote for within the last few days broke heavily for Biden. And even in states like North Carolina, Biden did merely OK among early voters but cleaned up among Election Day voters.

People just aren’t going to vote a socialist into the White House and the DNC knew it. They had to put the fix in again in 2020 to avoid certain disaster. It’s amazing to see the Democrats literally have an elite group that decides who you get to vote for; anybody can run for the nomination  but it’s an illusion of choice. The nominee is decided in back room deals before the primaries even start.

There’s a theory out there he picks Hillary as a running mate and, if he wins, when it’s impossible to cover up his dementia any more that he quits and makes Hillary President. Sounds kooky but if they’ll fix the primaries like this anything is possible.

It’ll likely be a brokered convention so Warren may leverage her delegates to get the VP slot and can bring some Bernie Bros back to the party.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on March 04, 2020, 07:55:32 AM
Quote
A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence.

What's so hard to understand?

Too late to edit, but if you want to see how badly the bad bad liberal press is distorting numbers on mass shootings, you only have to go to the uber-liberal FOX News for the lowdown (https://www.foxnews.com/us/us-mass-killing-hit-new-high-2019):

Quote
A database compiled by The Associated Press, USA Today and Northeastern University shows that there were more mass killings in 2019 than any year dating back to at least the 1970s, punctuated by a chilling succession of deadly rampages during the summer.

You’ve mixed mass shootings with mass killings. Very first line is about a guy using an axe. And this is precisely my point, gun grabbers try to confuse things to inflate the numbers.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 04, 2020, 08:15:35 AM
Quote
You’ve mixed mass shootings with mass killings. Very first line is about a guy using an axe. And this is precisely my point, gun grabbers try to confuse things to inflate the numbers.

I'm not mixing anything up.  If you have a problem with liberals overstating facts, it is with the liberal FOX News, not me.  Do you feel somehow reassured that 33 mass killings with 210 innocent victim deaths using guns somehow indicts liberals who point out that there are lots of mass killings?  FOX News says this was the highest total going back to the '70s.  Is FOX News broadcasting fake news?

Quote
In all, there were 41 mass killings, defined as when four or more people are killed excluding the perpetrator. Of those, 33 were mass shootings. More than 210 people were killed.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Wayward Son on March 04, 2020, 12:13:26 PM
Quote
Now looking like homeless drifters, the Left elitists don't want to become them. They seem to be deathly afraid of what Bernie Sanders would do to their party.

Quote
It’s amazing to see the Democrats literally have an elite group that decides who you get to vote for; anybody can run for the nomination  but it’s an illusion of choice. The nominee is decided in back room deals before the primaries even start.

You guys seem to be under the impression that there is a group that controls the Democratic Party and "pulls the strings."

Care to tell me who they might be?

Sure, there are those who run the party.  But their influence is limited, and they don't seem to be very smart with the little they have.  I mean, if they're so afraid of Bernie, why did they allow him, an Independent, run as a Democrat in the first place back in 2016?  Why let him run again?

And while I agree that there was probably some deals reached with Pete and Amy to get them to leave before Super Tuesday, I'm sure it is far less nefarious than you make it sound.  Probably some offer of a cabinet position or such if Biden wins.  Who's to complain that they accepted the offer?  They almost certainly were not going to win the nomination.  It makes the field smaller so that a clear winner can be chosen.  And if you consider the offers to be even somewhat nefarious, why would you want them contending to run the country in the first place? What does it say about their character that they accepted such an offer?  After all, they might win! ;)

Although I am not comfortable with the choices we have left, I was never entirely comfortable with any of the choices.  But now the Democrats can see for themselves how much support comes from the left wing of the party and the moderate wing, which will help them balance the ticket for the all-important November election.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on March 04, 2020, 01:08:02 PM
Quote
You’ve mixed mass shootings with mass killings. Very first line is about a guy using an axe. And this is precisely my point, gun grabbers try to confuse things to inflate the numbers.

I'm not mixing anything up.  If you have a problem with liberals overstating facts, it is with the liberal FOX News, not me.  Do you feel somehow reassured that 33 mass killings with 210 innocent victim deaths using guns somehow indicts liberals who point out that there are lots of mass killings?  FOX News says this was the highest total going back to the '70s.  Is FOX News broadcasting fake news?

Quote
In all, there were 41 mass killings, defined as when four or more people are killed excluding the perpetrator. Of those, 33 were mass shootings. More than 210 people were killed.

Yeah you are. Mass shooting or mass killings, what are you worried about? You started with mass shooting, now it’s generic.  Want to push for common sense axe control?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: yossarian22c on March 04, 2020, 01:13:21 PM
Yeah you are. Mass shooting or mass killings, what are you worried about? You started with mass shooting, now it’s generic.  Want to push for common sense axe control?

Not really. Based on my gender, age, and fitness level. My odds of surviving a mass axe attack are pretty darn high. My odd of surviving a mass shooting are much lower.

But honestly both are such rare events legislating around them is a little ridiculous. I do support more aggressive gun laws, and some bans on items that are only useful for mass shootings (100 drum magazines, bump stocks, ...), but actual gun control measures should be targeted at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and reducing domestic violence homicides.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on March 04, 2020, 01:29:40 PM
Quote
Now looking like homeless drifters, the Left elitists don't want to become them. They seem to be deathly afraid of what Bernie Sanders would do to their party.

Quote
It’s amazing to see the Democrats literally have an elite group that decides who you get to vote for; anybody can run for the nomination  but it’s an illusion of choice. The nominee is decided in back room deals before the primaries even start.

You guys seem to be under the impression that there is a group that controls the Democratic Party and "pulls the strings."

Care to tell me who they might be?

Sure, there are those who run the party.  But their influence is limited, and they don't seem to be very smart with the little they have.  I mean, if they're so afraid of Bernie, why did they allow him, an Independent, run as a Democrat in the first place back in 2016?  Why let him run again?

And while I agree that there was probably some deals reached with Pete and Amy to get them to leave before Super Tuesday, I'm sure it is far less nefarious than you make it sound.  Probably some offer of a cabinet position or such if Biden wins.  Who's to complain that they accepted the offer?  They almost certainly were not going to win the nomination.  It makes the field smaller so that a clear winner can be chosen.  And if you consider the offers to be even somewhat nefarious, why would you want them contending to run the country in the first place? What does it say about their character that they accepted such an offer?  After all, they might win! ;)

Although I am not comfortable with the choices we have left, I was never entirely comfortable with any of the choices.  But now the Democrats can see for themselves how much support comes from the left wing of the party and the moderate wing, which will help them balance the ticket for the all-important November election.

This is a great post.

There are no deal makers in the party! I means sure, there’s some deals made by a few people that run things and then there’s the people that so conveniently cut deals to exit right before Super Tuesday but that’s it! Other than that, totally open and honest!   ;D
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on March 04, 2020, 01:34:47 PM
Personally, I would have loved Bernie and done the Capitalism vs socialism smackdown but creepy uncle joe is as good

 Trump is going to eat him whole. Trump will put Hunter’s baby momma and illegitimate child in the front row of the debate and tee it up. Then he’ll go down the Biden crime family deals, cut over to Uncle Joe constantly sniffing and fondling 11 year old girls, groping grown women, and finish with Joe not even knowing what city he’s in or the office he’s running for or even the day of the week.

It’s going to be brutal. Trump bringing up Clinton’s history of raping women will seem quaint.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 04, 2020, 02:41:40 PM
Quote
You’ve mixed mass shootings with mass killings. Very first line is about a guy using an axe. And this is precisely my point, gun grabbers try to confuse things to inflate the numbers.

I'm not mixing anything up.  If you have a problem with liberals overstating facts, it is with the liberal FOX News, not me.  Do you feel somehow reassured that 33 mass killings with 210 innocent victim deaths using guns somehow indicts liberals who point out that there are lots of mass killings?  FOX News says this was the highest total going back to the '70s.  Is FOX News broadcasting fake news?

Quote
In all, there were 41 mass killings, defined as when four or more people are killed excluding the perpetrator. Of those, 33 were mass shootings. More than 210 people were killed.

Yeah you are. Mass shooting or mass killings, what are you worried about? You started with mass shooting, now it’s generic.  Want to push for common sense axe control?

You made me think of the Woody Allen movie where he hands the teller a note that says "I have a gub. Give me all your cash."  There must be a lot of mass shootings in your world where nobody gets killed.  Sorry, I meant "mars shootings", so ignore everything I said.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Wayward Son on March 04, 2020, 04:05:04 PM
Quote
This is a great post.

There are no deal makers in the party! I means sure, there’s some deals made by a few people that run things and then there’s the people that so conveniently cut deals to exit right before Super Tuesday but that’s it! Other than that, totally open and honest!   ;D

I suppose you only vote for a party that is "totally open and honest?"  One where the President or the Senate Majority Leader never lies to the American people?  Where the party always makes sure their members have a choice in the primary elections and never cancels them because Trump is going to win anyway, so why bother? ;)

Deals are made.  Amy, Pete, Tom and now Mike probably wouldn't have won anyway, not because a few people stopped them but because they weren't popular enough among all Democratic voters.  Campaigns are expensive, so throwing good money after bad isn't a good idea.  This way they can salvage something out of their run.

Amy, Pete, Tom and Mike losing wasn't because of some puppet masters.  They were losing anyway because of the Democratic voters.  Any deals just hastened their almost-inevitable departure.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Wayward Son on March 04, 2020, 04:20:02 PM
Quote
Trump is going to eat him whole. Trump will put Hunter’s baby momma and illegitimate child in the front row of the debate and tee it up. Then he’ll go down the Biden crime family deals, cut over to Uncle Joe constantly sniffing and fondling 11 year old girls, groping grown women, and finish with Joe not even knowing what city he’s in or the office he’s running for or even the day of the week.

It’s going to be brutal. Trump bringing up Clinton’s history of raping women will seem quaint.

So the family that currently makes millions in overseas deals (https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-10/trumps-adult-children-do-business-overseas-as-president-slams-biden) is going to criticize Biden for his son taking thousands from Ukraine?  So the p***y-grabber and porn-star buggerer is going to call Biden a groper?  So the man who only speaks at a fourth-grade level is going to show how much smarter he is than Biden? :)

Perhaps the Fox viewers will fall for it, but not everyone watches only Fox News.

Remember, Crunch, that Trump only won by 200,000 more votes in four states.  It won't take much to tip that scale.  And accusing your opponent of stuff you're even more guilty of may not work out as well as you think.  ;D
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 04, 2020, 04:32:51 PM
Speaking of deals...

Quote
The biggest decision facing Elizabeth Warren is not whether to end her campaign, but rather whether to endorse Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders or neither.

“That’s the only real choice facing her now,” a Warren adviser tells CNN.

Warren is closer to Sanders — policy speaking — but those ties are strained. Some advisers believe her best path is to be considered as a vice president to Biden.

The question is, how many times is she willing to be groped by Biden at the convention when he mistakes her for his wife?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on March 04, 2020, 04:35:45 PM
Quote
You’ve mixed mass shootings with mass killings. Very first line is about a guy using an axe. And this is precisely my point, gun grabbers try to confuse things to inflate the numbers.

I'm not mixing anything up.  If you have a problem with liberals overstating facts, it is with the liberal FOX News, not me.  Do you feel somehow reassured that 33 mass killings with 210 innocent victim deaths using guns somehow indicts liberals who point out that there are lots of mass killings?  FOX News says this was the highest total going back to the '70s.  Is FOX News broadcasting fake news?

Quote
In all, there were 41 mass killings, defined as when four or more people are killed excluding the perpetrator. Of those, 33 were mass shootings. More than 210 people were killed.

Yeah you are. Mass shooting or mass killings, what are you worried about? You started with mass shooting, now it’s generic.  Want to push for common sense axe control?

You made me think of the Woody Allen movie where he hands the teller a note that says "I have a gub. Give me all your cash."  There must be a lot of mass shootings in your world where nobody gets killed.  Sorry, I meant "mars shootings", so ignore everything I said.

Probably the best advice ...
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on March 04, 2020, 04:38:13 PM
Quote
This is a great post.

There are no deal makers in the party! I means sure, there’s some deals made by a few people that run things and then there’s the people that so conveniently cut deals to exit right before Super Tuesday but that’s it! Other than that, totally open and honest!   ;D

I suppose you only vote for a party that is "totally open and honest?"  One where the President or the Senate Majority Leader never lies to the American people?  Where the party always makes sure their members have a choice in the primary elections and never cancels them because Trump is going to win anyway, so why bother? ;)

Deals are made.  Amy, Pete, Tom and now Mike probably wouldn't have won anyway, not because a few people stopped them but because they weren't popular enough among all Democratic voters.  Campaigns are expensive, so throwing good money after bad isn't a good idea.  This way they can salvage something out of their run.

Amy, Pete, Tom and Mike losing wasn't because of some puppet masters.  They were losing anyway because of the Democratic voters.  Any deals just hastened their almost-inevitable departure.

I vote for one of the two choices I’m allowed under the current system. At least the republicans had a fair primary that allowed a complete outsider to grab the nomination and ultimately the White House. You can’t even remotely say the same thing for Democrats.

Believe what you’re told, by all means. I’m happy to see it continue.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 04, 2020, 04:43:38 PM
Establishment Democrats are terrified by progressives because:

A. Their standing would be weakened.
B. Incumbents could face more primary challenges.
C. They will lose a majority in both houses as Republicans appeal better to centrists.
D. Socialists will change the system and start taxing their fortunes.
E. All of the above.

By establishment democrats, I mean everything from politicians to donors to superdelegates to pundits.

It's not a shadowy cabal with some central control.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on March 04, 2020, 04:48:25 PM
It's not a shadowy cabal with some central control.

Why does everyone assume behind the scenes money interests need to be a shadowy cabal? I wonder sometimes that the X-Files actually harmed peoples' ability to picture how things work. The usual toss-up now seems to be between "these are just good folks trying to do their jobs" and "the cigarette smoking man in the leather armchair." It's no wonder partisan politics works so well...people can't understand any kind of detail other than lawful good vs chaotic evil.

FWIW this may not actually apply to you, TheDrake, but it's what I generally perceive anyhow. It's gotta be a lizard-man conspiracy, or nothing.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 04, 2020, 06:19:46 PM
It's not a shadowy cabal with some central control.

Why does everyone assume behind the scenes money interests need to be a shadowy cabal? I wonder sometimes that the X-Files actually harmed peoples' ability to picture how things work. The usual toss-up now seems to be between "these are just good folks trying to do their jobs" and "the cigarette smoking man in the leather armchair." It's no wonder partisan politics works so well...people can't understand any kind of detail other than lawful good vs chaotic evil.

FWIW this may not actually apply to you, TheDrake, but it's what I generally perceive anyhow. It's gotta be a lizard-man conspiracy, or nothing.

That's fair, let me clarify what I was responding to, which was Crunch's post:

Quote
People just aren’t going to vote a socialist into the White House and the DNC knew it. They had to put the fix in again in 2020 to avoid certain disaster. It’s amazing to see the Democrats literally have an elite group that decides who you get to vote for; anybody can run for the nomination  but it’s an illusion of choice. The nominee is decided in back room deals before the primaries even start.

To me, it is fair to characterize that as a description of a shadowy cabal. I certainly don't deny that there's something more going on with the DNC than good people doing their jobs, but it seems more unilateral. There's also no question that a bunch of people got together and funded the anti-Bernie SuperPAC Big Tent Project. The name of it could be their sole motivation - they don't think he can win moderates and so they want to stop him getting the nomination. Or they could use that as the shiniest face for one of the other reasons.

Bloomberg proved, however, that you can't just slam money in (among other things) and predetermine the nominee. The PAC ads against Bernie play on widely held fears in Democratic politics - including the rank and file.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on March 04, 2020, 07:08:56 PM
It's no wonder partisan politics works so well...people can't understand any kind of detail other than lawful good vs chaotic evil.

I'm split between lawful neutral and chaotic neutral myself. :)
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on March 04, 2020, 10:20:34 PM
It's no wonder partisan politics works so well...people can't understand any kind of detail other than lawful good vs chaotic evil.

Politicians are more representative of Lawful Evil versus Lawful Neutral.  Trump is a disruptor because he's representing Chaotic (Evil/Good) depending on your perspective.

All swamp creatures range from LE to LN, laws either exist to benefit them and can be ignored or manipulated when they don't (which is why this type never faces charges), or laws exist as absolutes without tolerance for difference (which is why they sometimes seem to have no compassion).

I think most of the populace favors NG (don't care how it gets done so long as its good in their mind) and NE (Which is really just absolute self interest). You get some, like Antifa that are C G/E (depending on your perspective).  You get more that are LG, who tend to support the politicians because they think order is inherently good.

Not many true Neutral, or Chaotic Neutral.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on March 04, 2020, 10:45:29 PM
To me, it is fair to characterize that as a description of a shadowy cabal. I certainly don't deny that there's something more going on with the DNC than good people doing their jobs, but it seems more unilateral. There's also no question that a bunch of people got together and funded the anti-Bernie SuperPAC Big Tent Project. The name of it could be their sole motivation - they don't think he can win moderates and so they want to stop him getting the nomination. Or they could use that as the shiniest face for one of the other reasons.

IMO if what we're talking about it "they honestly didn't believe Bernie could win" then I would actually happily class that under "good folks just doing their jobs" notwithstanding the fact that it's obviously self-interested. What I am referring to is more like "whether or not this might benefit America as a whole it will disfavor us, and we are the ones making campaign contributions." Both fiscal policy and other policies will create a flow of wealth, or shall we say trends in the flow of wealth, and obviously any powerful group wants it to flow their way. And I am 100% certain that if the money flowing the other way by some margin were to improve overall American earnings per capita, they would fight against it tooth and nail. It doesn't matter how well the country is doing; they just want maximal absolute income. This is more the sort of thing I mean. It doesn't require thinking of a "cabal" to understand this, is mostly what my point was. It's more like "duh" when you think about it, knowing even a moderate amount about human nature. The average person will not intentionally agree to lose anything even if it benefits some faceless others more than they are losing.

Quote
Bloomberg proved, however, that you can't just slam money in (among other things) and predetermine the nominee. The PAC ads against Bernie play on widely held fears in Democratic politics - including the rank and file.

Maybe, however that was not a purely 'scientific' experiment if we're going to take it as an interesting result. What I mean is that his campaign wasn't just about throwing money at the problem, but also doing so with an irregular timing and without the sort of momentum we usually expect from pundits and the media. I suppose eventually we'll learn numerically how plastic the public's perceptions are based on what they hear on CNN, FOX, and talk shows. How much BS can you throw at people and they'll believe it, vs actually aggravating them because they know you're messing with them? I don't know the answer to that, other than I know a great many people IRL who believe absolutely stupid things because "it's what they're saying on the news."
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on March 04, 2020, 10:51:29 PM
Politicians are more representative of Lawful Evil versus Lawful Neutral.  Trump is a disruptor because he's representing Chaotic (Evil/Good) depending on your perspective.

All swamp creatures range from LE to LN, laws either exist to benefit them and can be ignored or manipulated when they don't (which is why this type never faces charges), or laws exist as absolutes without tolerance for difference (which is why they sometimes seem to have no compassion).

I think most of the populace favors NG (don't care how it gets done so long as its good in their mind) and NE (Which is really just absolute self interest). You get some, like Antifa that are C G/E (depending on your perspective).  You get more that are LG, who tend to support the politicians because they think order is inherently good.

Not many true Neutral, or Chaotic Neutral.

I always like your post replies when I invoke D&D :)

That being said I think you underestimate in this assessment how much of the population is innately (and I mean probably genetically) geared towards being either LN or CN; meaning that an enormous amount of satisfaction comes from seeing the law enacted in and of itself on the one hand (currently understood to be a conservative mindset) versus satisfaction from breaking up the status quo and undoing structure (currently understood to be a fundamentally progressive or perhaps 'leftist' mindset). The gist of studies that look at this seem to suggest that this may at any rate by partially genetic, that as Gilbert and Sullivan put it, "every boy and every gal that's born into the world alive, is either a little liberal or else a little conservative." If so, this would mean that the desire for law - in the sense of innately disliking it when people break the rules or go unpunished - in those people comes prior to any moral consideration, and likewise for the disorder people. Not that they all end up necessarily morally neutral, however I think a surprising amount of people will go on the instinct of order/chaos as a first priority and *call that good*, whereas in fact it's a preference for a type of structure or anti-structure. Based on what I see in everyday life, I think there are a lot of LN and CN people out there, for whom "but is this decent or right?" is not nearly as important as "what do the rules say" or "the system has to change."

One interesting thing about the moral-neutral position is that it's the simplest position to adopt in order to avoid thinking. The moment you want to be in the LG/NG/CG camp an actual moral evaluation is required of you to make sure you or others are following a moral code. More often than not I suspect that "follow the rules" for example is interpreted as being moral, but I (and I suppose Kierkegaard) disagree with that. 'Just do what you're told' and the equivalent on the other side, 'buck authority', are both positions that are amoral and IMO almost incapable of being moral. They're also the easiest positions to take and still feel self-righteous without having to do much mental labor.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on March 05, 2020, 10:31:45 AM
It's no wonder partisan politics works so well...people can't understand any kind of detail other than lawful good vs chaotic evil.

Politicians are more representative of Lawful Evil versus Lawful Neutral.  Trump is a disruptor because he's representing Chaotic (Evil/Good) depending on your perspective.

All swamp creatures range from LE to LN, laws either exist to benefit them and can be ignored or manipulated when they don't (which is why this type never faces charges), or laws exist as absolutes without tolerance for difference (which is why they sometimes seem to have no compassion).

I think most of the populace favors NG (don't care how it gets done so long as its good in their mind) and NE (Which is really just absolute self interest). You get some, like Antifa that are C G/E (depending on your perspective).  You get more that are LG, who tend to support the politicians because they think order is inherently good.

Not many true Neutral, or Chaotic Neutral.

In the D&D context, which is where I went with it, there is too much of a tendency towards Zealotry with regards to "Good" aligned characters, in particular the lawful good types. So in that regard much easier to just jump in with the neutral types and stick to a path closer to the middle. Although hewing closer to the "good" side rather than the evil end.

But on the lawful end, as I hold that most laws exist to serve man (or God), I don't hold to the law itself being the final arbiter by which to base decisions. Obviously in reality, the law has to be considered, but "it's illegal" does not in and of itself make something moral or immoral. While many and possibly even most laws reflect the morality of the people in a region, not all laws do.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on March 05, 2020, 10:48:34 AM
I always like your post replies when I invoke D&D :)

That being said I think you underestimate in this assessment how much of the population is innately (and I mean probably genetically) geared towards being either LN or CN; meaning that an enormous amount of satisfaction comes from seeing the law enacted in and of itself on the one hand (currently understood to be a conservative mindset) versus satisfaction from breaking up the status quo and undoing structure (currently understood to be a fundamentally progressive or perhaps 'leftist' mindset).

The D&D alignment system is certainly open to multiple interpretations, but I think your reading of what is going on is on the wrong pole (Law-Chaos).  Most of the people you categorize as LN are either LG or LE.  The LE's want the law to punish others (but not themselves), and the LG's, like I said above, tend to think that law is inherently good.

You also get NG's mixed up in there because the NG's will praise the law if it serves the greater good (which, honestly in western society is better than a 50/50 proposition), and will undermine it or ignore it if it doesn't.  The populaces position on say tolerance for "illegal" immigration is inherently NG (or NE if it's for political gain, rather than the benefit of the illegals or the populace), its position on non-enforcement of drug laws and allowing pot is also NG.  An LN populace would not tolerate either of those, an LG populace would insist on changing the laws to be better, and an LE populace would use the status of the "illegals" for its own personal gain (like say, abusing their immigrant workers because they can't go to the police, or threatening to have them deported).  And that's before you consider the Chaotics.

In this case though, the joy you are seeing isn't because the law was enforced, it was because the unworthy were punished and therefore the proper pole is (good-evil).

I know you really want to pigeon hole liberals and conservatives on the law/chaos line, but it doesn't fit.  Both sets are on the Lawful end of the spectrum, with individuals varying on the G-E line with how much they think the law should serve themselves and their allies versus how much it should serve all.

Quote
The gist of studies that look at this seem to suggest that this may at any rate by partially genetic, that as Gilbert and Sullivan put it, "every boy and every gal that's born into the world alive, is either a little liberal or else a little conservative." If so, this would mean that the desire for law - in the sense of innately disliking it when people break the rules or go unpunished - in those people comes prior to any moral consideration, and likewise for the disorder people.

But the problem with assigning it in this manner is that it ignores that Progressives actually impose and favor the strictest laws.  They are not out there advocating for a reduction in law, they are advocating to impose laws on EVERY decision an individual makes.  Even in the informal world, it's trivially easy to violate a progressive "law" with a poor choice of words (say like referring to Xe as She) and become excommunicated unless you serve a penance (and maybe even still).  There is absolute joy in forcing others to bend to the often arbitrary rules imposed. 

Quote
Not that they all end up necessarily morally neutral, however I think a surprising amount of people will go on the instinct of order/chaos as a first priority and *call that good*, whereas in fact it's a preference for a type of structure or anti-structure.

Or, its exactly what they say.  A preference for good.

You're overthinking it.  People can be wrong about what they want being good (and often are), but are rarely wrong about communicating that they think something is good (other than politicians who play on social mores to try and be convincing).

Quote
Based on what I see in everyday life, I think there are a lot of LN and CN people out there, for whom "but is this decent or right?" is not nearly as important as "what do the rules say" or "the system has to change."

The "system has to change" is neither Law or Chaos, it's seeking either good (for other's benefit) or evil (for my own benefit).  The "system has to go (and not be replaced)" is chaos.

What do the rules say isn't actually anything.  it's an expression that disobedience has consequences.  Now if it's applied where no one can see it and no one would ever know you may have a point.

Quote
One interesting thing about the moral-neutral position is that it's the simplest position to adopt in order to avoid thinking. The moment you want to be in the LG/NG/CG camp an actual moral evaluation is required of you to make sure you or others are following a moral code.

Actually no.  The simplest system is to seek "good" but to define good as equivalent to what you already believe without examination.  Under that system, literally everyone that disagrees with you is inherently evil and can be ignored (sound familiar)?  There's no nuance.

Moral-neutral is actually really tough to parse out.  Unless all you mean is moral-indifferent, and you just don't care.

Quote
More often than not I suspect that "follow the rules" for example is interpreted as being moral, but I (and I suppose Kierkegaard) disagree with that. 'Just do what you're told' and the equivalent on the other side, 'buck authority', are both positions that are amoral and IMO almost incapable of being moral. They're also the easiest positions to take and still feel self-righteous without having to do much mental labor.

Any rigid interpretation is easy to take if you shut your brain down.  Being a rebel without a clue is easy, being a clone trooper is easy. 

Trying to decide what to do if a law is wrong is for an LG very hard (but not a consideration the rigid thinker has to debate), easy for LN, LE, NG, N, NE, CG, CN and CE.  Trying to decide if you should support a rigid law that serves and important good where the lack causes a harm that can't resolve is hard for the CG, and not for any other alignment.

LN, NG, NE and CN have no moral ambiguity, the answer in all situations is clear (unless you play CN as effectively random, in which case the randomness is clear).
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on March 05, 2020, 10:53:21 AM
In the D&D context, which is where I went with it, there is too much of a tendency towards Zealotry with regards to "Good" aligned characters, in particular the lawful good types. So in that regard much easier to just jump in with the neutral types and stick to a path closer to the middle. Although hewing closer to the "good" side rather than the evil end.

Zealotry is - in my book - a misplay of LG.  Zealots would more often be NG.  They have no moral ambiguity, and in fact - as played - they often ignore the law, manipulate the law or even act in manners that are close to objectively evil, which kind of proves that point.  There are no LG terrorists or inquisitors.

Quote
But on the lawful end, as I hold that most laws exist to serve man (or God), I don't hold to the law itself being the final arbiter by which to base decisions. Obviously in reality, the law has to be considered, but "it's illegal" does not in and of itself make something moral or immoral. While many and possibly even most laws reflect the morality of the people in a region, not all laws do.

I think that's the fundamental disagreement, for some the law is intended to reflect the moral answer for the situation.  And I mean that free from the overlay of laws seeking to govern morality.  Murder is immoral and not just because it violates someone's religion.  Laws for example seeking to require polluters to bear the costs of pollution are there in part because that's a moral result (it's also an economically efficient result).  That means in many, if not most cases, violating the will mean violating morality.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on March 05, 2020, 10:55:27 AM
That being said I think you underestimate in this assessment how much of the population is innately (and I mean probably genetically) geared towards being either LN or CN; meaning that an enormous amount of satisfaction comes from seeing the law enacted in and of itself on the one hand (currently understood to be a conservative mindset) versus satisfaction from breaking up the status quo and undoing structure (currently understood to be a fundamentally progressive or perhaps 'leftist' mindset).

Uh, have you heard of the Tea Party? They're often identified as being arch-conservative, and "Lawful" in the D&D Context did not apply to them. If anything, many of them lean towards neutral or even choatic(for the ones trending strongly Libertarian).

In the American Political Spectrum, it is now the Democrats who want to pull out the "Lawful" attribute to define morality, mostly because they believe that they should be given control over the legal system(which needs to be made even more complicated) so that they can make the laws resemble how they feel the world should be.

Meanwhile Conservatives (not to be confused with their Social/Religious counterparts who want to do some social engineering of their own by way of legal action as well) are wanting to remove laws and regulations, as well as simplify the legal code.

On the D&D Spectrum, anyone who is moving to remove laws and regulations is Chaotic almost by definition. Anyone advocating more laws and "structure" through them is appealing strongly to the Lawful side of the Spectrum. Which would make Bernie a Lawful Good(/Evil depending on Point of View) archetype. While Rand Paul in contrast would likely have to try to self-describe as Chaotic Good due to his more Libertarian views on non-social issues.

Quote
The gist of studies that look at this seem to suggest that this may at any rate by partially genetic, that as Gilbert and Sullivan put it, "every boy and every gal that's born into the world alive, is either a little liberal or else a little conservative." If so, this would mean that the desire for law - in the sense of innately disliking it when people break the rules or go unpunished - in those people comes prior to any moral consideration, and likewise for the disorder people. Not that they all end up necessarily morally neutral, however I think a surprising amount of people will go on the instinct of order/chaos as a first priority and *call that good*, whereas in fact it's a preference for a type of structure or anti-structure. Based on what I see in everyday life, I think there are a lot of LN and CN people out there, for whom "but is this decent or right?" is not nearly as important as "what do the rules say" or "the system has to change."

I understand some of the underlying research has since been debunked to some degree, but I'd more generally hold that the Conservatives more generally view the world as "a dangerous place," and those dangers can include your own government as well. While Liberal thinking doesn't view the world as dangerous in anything close to resembling the same way, and in particular don't generally feel threatened by their own government. At least until Trump became PotUS.  ;)

But going back to the D&D definition of Lawful Good. Many Left-Wing Activists fit that archetype just as well as the Religious Conservatives do on the Right. They're both Zealots for their cause which they view to be good. The laws of the land where they're at just don't happen to fully agree with them at this time, so they're working strenuously to change the laws accordingly.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on March 05, 2020, 11:14:29 AM
In the D&D context, which is where I went with it, there is too much of a tendency towards Zealotry with regards to "Good" aligned characters, in particular the lawful good types. So in that regard much easier to just jump in with the neutral types and stick to a path closer to the middle. Although hewing closer to the "good" side rather than the evil end.

Zealotry is - in my book - a misplay of LG.  Zealots would more often be NG.  They have no moral ambiguity, and in fact - as played - they often ignore the law, manipulate the law or even act in manners that are close to objectively evil, which kind of proves that point.  There are no LG terrorists or inquisitors.

It's a little of both. The issue with LG in D&D is those characters are often already operating in their legal utopia, so they don't have to deal with juxtaposition of being a "Lawful Good" character in another "good"/neutral aligned area where those laws are in conflict with their own morality. The D&D answer to the question of a Lawful Good character being in conflict with a law in a particular area is that the government present for those lands is under the leadership of some strain of Evil, which then allows the "Good" aspect to counter the "Lawful" part.

At least my memory of the Forgotten Realms, indicated that a disjointed moral pantheon wasn't much of an issue in the setting. For that matter, laws themselves rarely came up as a matter of contention, unless we're talking about the Undercity, or some other den of inequity and evil.

Quote
Quote
But on the lawful end, as I hold that most laws exist to serve man (or God), I don't hold to the law itself being the final arbiter by which to base decisions. Obviously in reality, the law has to be considered, but "it's illegal" does not in and of itself make something moral or immoral. While many and possibly even most laws reflect the morality of the people in a region, not all laws do.

I think that's the fundamental disagreement, for some the law is intended to reflect the moral answer for the situation.  And I mean that free from the overlay of laws seeking to govern morality.  Murder is immoral and not just because it violates someone's religion.  Laws for example seeking to require polluters to bear the costs of pollution are there in part because that's a moral result (it's also an economically efficient result).  That means in many, if not most cases, violating the will mean violating morality.

I'm speaking more generally to the idea of things like Harriet Tubman serving as a conductor on the Underground Railroad, the French Resistance in WW2, or the Nazi SS for that matter.

Just because it was illegal for Harriet Tubman to aid escaped slaves(while being one herself, no less) doesn't make what she did immoral, even if many would say she was engaged in property theft. Working with the French Resistance in Nazi occupied France wasn't immoral, even if the Nazi's made it illegal. Working for the Nazi SS wasn't moral, even if their existence and mission was legal within the borders of Germany.

But again, that's a one-sided reading of the D&D system. A "Lawful Good" Character could help escaped slaves because they view slavery as evil. Ditto for LG helping the French Resistance, and nobody(today) is going to begrudge them on those points. Likewise, there is going to be a strong case that a German LG "Character" in 1940 Germany would act in opposition to the SS because the SS is Evil. So the Lawful/Chaotic split in D&D isn't that clear cut.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on March 05, 2020, 12:34:09 PM
Haha, I should have figured this would open a tinderbox. But maybe it's a good vehicle for discussing these things, because as rough (and even arbitrary) as it is the alignment system is a decent enough way for us to categorize what - psychologically - people may think they're doing, versus what they ARE doing, when they espouse a belief.

Most of the people you categorize as LN are either LG or LE.  The LE's want the law to punish others (but not themselves), and the LG's, like I said above, tend to think that law is inherently good.

Maybe we're speaking past each other, but isn't the bolded part a bit inconsistent? The law cannot inherently be good unless it's a good law, according to LG. That may sound like a truism but it's really important. As I think you've even mentioned before, a LG will gleefully break the law in the LE society if it's an evil law. We could get into nomenclature at this point, like "well they wouldn't really call that a Law, just a human-made bad rule", if we're to define Law as "that which is alignment with the Good." But at that point the alignment system is reduced to just GvE. At least in D&D terms, LE is definitely a set of laws, but not ones worth following to a LG. So LG don't believe in the law in and of itself; they believe in adherence to the correct set of laws, even if those are not the laws of the land they live in. A LG in an evil society would most likely end up in jail as a criminal, which is what Thoreau pointed out. LN is the alignment that champions following the law of the land because it is the law of the land.

Quote
In this case though, the joy you are seeing isn't because the law was enforced, it was because the unworthy were punished and therefore the proper pole is (good-evil).

Again I'll say this for clarity in case we're speaking past each other, but my point actually is that the way punitive people think (I am suggesting) is that the law exists to guarantee that wrong-doers get punished. It's not some abstract appreciation of law, like philosophers of law or something, that I'm suggesting is behind the LN; it's the fact that the system will crack down on people who step out of line as a systemic principle. It's the dislike of people who do things they're not supposed to (which is different from 'people who do bad things') that IMO is behind the psychology of the LN in ordinary life. I called that classically 'conservative' but this title isn't really so important; I only named it like that as a reference, but you could drop that aspect of it to examine my point if you don't like the title. I understand your reasons for rejecting it.

Quote
The "system has to change" is neither Law or Chaos, it's seeking either good (for other's benefit) or evil (for my own benefit).  The "system has to go (and not be replaced)" is chaos.

I think this is fundamentally where we're not agreeing, so let me explain my view of it a bit more. I do not think that almost anyone is "chaotic" in the way you describe; fair enough, I suppose your position would be that very few people are of this alignment then. But I think this mischaracterizes a bit what Chaotic is even in D&D (or at least some of the time). Now the cartoony chaotic characters are of course nutty and make very little sense (like, how did they ever accomplish anything with that behavior). But let's take the Forgotten Realms world, with Limbo, home of the Gith. This is a CN plane where the rules of existence bend with thought. However the Gith themselves make their homes there using the strictest of order, where even the slightest deviation in precision means destruction for them all (I'm going off the depiction in PS: Torment here for argument's sake). And yet they are the sort of essence of a CN people, despite their extreme rigidity. The reason their are CN and not LN isn't to do with whether they want laws or not, but rather it's based on the worldview behind their desires. They know that there is no real (or perhaps formally 'correct') structure out there, and they have to create it completely for themselves. It's basically a nominalist (anti-realist) world, and where the justification for any rule the Gith follow is that it's theirs, rather than because it's based in a greater truth. THIS is chaotic alignment as far as humans go; that the rules are going to suit whatever they feel they need at a given time, but that there should be rules. There is another sort of CN, which is the fey CN, which is the satyr-like or capricious insanity of no rules and no purpose other than delight or fancy. But the only people who are like this to any extent are people who cannot function in society, so for the most part I'll ignore this manner of expressing CN when referring to 'regular people.'

Does that clarify a bit why I consider the more 'leftist' mindset to be chaotic-alignment? It's not because I think they want no rules, but because they believe that rules are by definition fluid, changing things, and that there is no "right" position for them to end in. If they did think there was a correct endpoint for rules, they would cease to be progressives at the precise moment where the rules were how they liked them to be, and would become orthodox conservatives; however if Chesterton is right then the sort of mindset actually cannot be satisfied with an end-point because change is its own purpose. That is chaotic alignment, to me. There are, even in D&D, many chaotic characters who have their own version of a code they adhere to; it just isn't the code of the society, and may not be rooted in a "greater law." The 'Robin Hood' type of CG is a decent example of this, but I don't think the RH story purports to suggest that he desires chaos for its own sake, nor does it suggest that he's a closet LG in a bad society, because that would make stealing from the rich a moral imperative, which the story also wouldn't want to say.

Quote
Actually no.  The simplest system is to seek "good" but to define good as equivalent to what you already believe without examination.  Under that system, literally everyone that disagrees with you is inherently evil and can be ignored (sound familiar)?  There's no nuance.

I mean, in colloquial terms, sure this could make sense to say. But in D&D terms Good is an absolute set of (quasi-Judeo-Christian) values, not just thinking you're the best no matter what. It isn't possible for a LG in D&D to think of a CG person (doesn't respect law, but does respect good) as evil; they would just think of them as being a pain in the butt and possibly destructive despite their good intentions. The view that whatever you do is essentially the definition of good is a fundamentally CN or CE position, as the axis of measuring the worth of your action becomes only your own desires rather than comparison to a greater law or greater good.

Quote
Moral-neutral is actually really tough to parse out.  Unless all you mean is moral-indifferent, and you just don't care.

I'm not sure there's an important class of people who truly don't care, but I think that there are plenty of people for whom deeper moral concerns are just not that much a part of their everyday life. Mostly it's pay the bills, get the stuff you want, and try not to dwell on the troubles in the world that you're not devoting time to helping to solve. This is actually part of why I think there's so much online zealotry right now; because people are vaguely aware that they're armchair moralists (i.e. that they say stuff about it but do nothing) so to make themselves feel good they launch into invective with faceless strangers. But strangely enough I think this could still fall under neutral-morality, insofar as they are not themselves going to feel subjected to an outside opinion that what they think is wrong. Don't forget, D&D morality isn't relativist, so any actual moral relativist living in a D&D world would at best be moral-neutral (i.e. not subscribing to an exterior higher definition of Good outside their own opinion), or perhaps they might end up as Good if by chance their personal views aligned with the 'correctly good' views, sort of like the broken clock occasionally accurate.

Quote
Trying to decide what to do if a law is wrong is for an LG very hard.

This much I agree with completely, which is why I think very few people are LG in our society. It's too difficult, and for the most part cognitive dissonance will change the view rather than change a person's behavior. When faced between "I am not living my life correctly in accordance with my views" compared with "no my behavior is fine because I'm comfortable with it or don't want to change" the views will come into alignment with the already established habits. Very rarely will people break away from their own lifestyle out of the knowledge that they're betraying their values. It happens, but not a lot, because it's very difficult. It could mean giving up a career, a self-image, or other advantages and comforts. It might mean living in jail Thoreau-style. As Nietzsche pointed out, not only will this be unlikely but even memory of the breach of your principles will be washed out; "“Memory says, 'I did that.' Pride replies, 'I could not have done that.' Eventually, memory yields.”"
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on March 05, 2020, 12:46:11 PM
Uh, have you heard of the Tea Party? They're often identified as being arch-conservative, and "Lawful" in the D&D Context did not apply to them. If anything, many of them lean towards neutral or even choatic(for the ones trending strongly Libertarian).

I know what you mean, which is really the issue of how "conservative" people (i.e. those wanting to conserve past precedent) could want to radically alter the status quo from how it is now. This is a not-uncommon conundrum in the U.S., where conservatives wanting to repeal progressive laws still see themselves as trying to re-establish classical values in some sense, even though obviously they are actively trying to instigate change. I think part of what I would say about this is that there is a definite end-point to their desires, where if achieved they would 'stop' (see my response to Seriati just above for context on this point) and be content; in contrast I don't think progressive-mindsets would ever be content with the status quo no matter what. This is neither good nor bad per se; it's just the person's tendencies. The other thing I would say about this is that libertarianism is a funny animal when discussing D&D terms, because I think most libertarians actually do believe in a LG society, but believe that the lawful part comes from self-governance rather than hierarchical governance; but that does not mean that it excludes a higher definition of Good. So for instance it is entirely consistent to be both a libertarian and an orthodox Catholic; your view would be that Good is not open to debate, but that each person should have room to adhere or not adhere to it as their will dictates. To the extent that libertarians or Tea Party people may be for deregulation - I think this is tricky because they don't actually want a state of no laws, but rather they want a structure of law that minimizes central government as an agent of control. But for instance a Chomskian anarcho-syndicalist society would probably have a great amount of rules mutually generated by the guilds that would have consequences for disobeying; they just wouldn't be mandated by a central government. So I'm not sure that I feel the Tea Party needs to be classed as chaotic-axis as a rule. In terms of the 'conservative' mindset I refer to, they may well not fit into it very well since libertarianism is in any case only recently a politically conservative position.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on March 05, 2020, 07:00:25 PM

That's fair, let me clarify what I was responding to, which was Crunch's post:

Quote
People just aren’t going to vote a socialist into the White House and the DNC knew it. They had to put the fix in again in 2020 to avoid certain disaster. It’s amazing to see the Democrats literally have an elite group that decides who you get to vote for; anybody can run for the nomination  but it’s an illusion of choice. The nominee is decided in back room deals before the primaries even start.

To me, it is fair to characterize that as a description of a shadowy cabal. I certainly don't deny that there's something more going on with the DNC than good people doing their jobs, but it seems more unilateral. There's also no question that a bunch of people got together and funded the anti-Bernie SuperPAC Big Tent Project. The name of it could be their sole motivation - they don't think he can win moderates and so they want to stop him getting the nomination. Or they could use that as the shiniest face for one of the other reasons.

Bloomberg proved, however, that you can't just slam money in (among other things) and predetermine the nominee. The PAC ads against Bernie play on widely held fears in Democratic politics - including the rank and file.

"Back room deals" is a euphemism. I doubt there's a cabal with a secret handshake, meeting up around a bonfire in the woods to drink boar's blood and plot their next move. Nothing quite that dramatic.

But, it was clear in 2016 that the primary was rigged. Hillary got all kinds of things handed to her to help (e.g. debate questions) and the super delegates were locked up in her favor before the primaries even started. It wasn't a lock but might as well have been:
Quote
At the polls Bernie Sanders won New Hampshire’s pledged delegates by a landslide 22 percent. Bernie Sanders received 60.4 percent of the poll vote, just about 150,000 votes. Clinton received 38 percent of the poll vote, tallying just about 95,000 votes. Yet, all six Democratic New Hampshire superdelegates gave their support to Hillary Clinton, effectively erasing Sanders win, leading both candidates to leave the state with the same 15 delegates.

But to look at the aftermath of the vote count we truly have to critically evaluate the start. Hillary Clinton entered Super Tuesday in March in a virtual tie in pledged delegates with both candidates holding just about 50 pledged delegates, yet she held the support of nearly 400 super delegates. /quote]

Hillary was pre-selected in 2016. Bernie never had a chance - nor did the current VP Biden. Biden, running for president for decades, it's been his goal at least since the 80's and he inexplicably steps aside for Hillary at the moment he's got the best odds of achieving it by being Obama II. Right. Nothing suspect about that!

And in 2020, Bernie never had a chance, neither did anyone else.

Buttigieg was coming off his biggest fundraising quarter ever, leading right into Super Tuesday. The biggest chance he has to gain some delegates and, a day or so before, he suddenly decides he's out. Klobuchar is still in it and, suddenly, bails the day before. Right when she had a chance to gain delegates and increase her bargaining power in the convention. Then, another miracle, Bloomberg's ad buys drop dramatically and, after spending $600 million he bails. Since he's the last "establishment candidate" in the race, this guarantees Biden locks up everyone but the most liberal Democrats and leave Bloomberg with nothing to show for it other than a raft of anti-Trump ads.

Every single one endorses Biden on the way out.

Then there's Warren. Always a distant 3rd or 4th, never a contender. Unlike Buttigieg and Klobuchar, she hangs on through Super Tuesday where she can do Bernie the most damage. She siphoned off enough votes to really cost him, flipped a few states for Biden even. Then, suddenly, she's out as well but no endorsements from her. I suppose that would have been too on the nose to endorse Biden right now.

This all came at a time when Biden was failing miserably. He needed everyone to do exactly what they did in order to make it work for him. And damned if they didn't. It's a miracle!  It was a perfect chain of coincidences, every one of them benefiting Biden and they all happened within just a few days right around Super Tuesday, a perfect pattern of events.

All against the backdrop of a sudden cacophony of anti-Bernie media coverage.

If you wrote a script to save Biden, this is what you would have written - and everyone would dismiss it as a comedy since the timing of it all is so improbable.

It was a script developed in 2015 and it's playing out right in front of us.

Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on March 06, 2020, 12:02:59 AM
"Back room deals" is a euphemism. I doubt there's a cabal with a secret handshake, meeting up around a bonfire in the woods to drink boar's blood and plot their next move. Nothing quite that dramatic.

Except for the fact that there is a society or two of power players who literally do gather in the woods around a bonfire speaking arcane rituals. This was 'parodied' in House of Cards but it's a real thing. Not that they are necessarily Satanists or anything like that; it's a social club where the ritual game is chanting with masks before the whiskey comes out. You could call it a 'level two' of the elite Bonesman-type bonding rituals for people of a certain social standing.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 06, 2020, 06:49:44 AM
I'm surprised that there's been so much surprise and disappointment about how little support Sanders has gotten from the DNC and Democratic Party leadership and regulars since 2016.  People want to forget that he's not a Democrat, has never been a Democrat, and has never been a great supporter of other Democrats. In return, they don't feel much kinship with him.  But, now he insists that the Party should embrace him and his ideas and finds (again) that it doesn't want to do that.  In other words, he has no natural base of support among Democrats, like Hillary did then and Joe does now.  The superdelegates are selected by the Party, so it's no surprise that they will have generally similar preferences to each other and to the Party's self-determined direction. 

His appeal so far has been to younger and more idealistic voters who want to see major changes in how government works.  Older voters who are more pragmatic question whether he can achieve many of his policy objectives, even with Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress. 

Denigrating the Democratic Party for defining its borders somehow offends Republicans and anti-liberals.  Well, that's because all non-Republicans and non-conservatives look alike to them, and since he's not one of us, he must be one of them.  So they think the Democrats should welcome and support Bernie, even though they detest everything about him and would protest loudly (and possibly do more) against every one of his proposals that found its way into legislation. 

OTOH, Republicans believe that somehow their Party is the one with the Big Tent.  They tout that they have the interests of poor people, people's health and welfare, and especially all non-white people in their hearts and souls.  You can see where this is going, so I won't bother.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 06, 2020, 08:43:49 AM
An oopsy to correct in what I wrote:

Quote
Denigrating the Democratic Party for defining its borders somehow offends Republicans and anti-liberals.  Well, that's because all non-Republicans and non-conservatives look alike to them, and since he's not one of us, he must be one of them.  So they think the Democrats should welcome and support Bernie, even though they detest everything about him and would protest loudly (and possibly do more) against every one of his proposals that found its way into legislation.

Is better written as:

Quote
All non-Republicans and non-conservatives look alike to them, and since Bernie's not one of us, he must be one of them.  So they think the Democrats should welcome and support Bernie, even though they detest everything about him and would protest loudly (and possibly do more) against every one of his proposals that found its way into legislation.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on March 06, 2020, 08:11:19 PM
...Republicans believe that somehow their Party is the one with the Big Tent.  They tout that they have the interests of poor people, people's health and welfare, and especially all non-white people in their hearts and souls.  You can see where this is going, so I won't bother.

Metrics prove facts, don't they? Historically, the GOP has always been the party that defends minorities. The Dems fought against Civil Rights, yet pretend history was 180° wrong. Contemporaneously, Trump's figures are unchallengable: Lowest unemployment for Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Women, and all minorities. Raising incomes and opportunities for these families. Legal betterment for inmates. So much better in so many areas, yet the Left ignores it all.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on March 06, 2020, 08:29:50 PM
...Republicans believe that somehow their Party is the one with the Big Tent.  They tout that they have the interests of poor people, people's health and welfare, and especially all non-white people in their hearts and souls.  You can see where this is going, so I won't bother.

Metrics prove facts, don't they? Historically, the GOP has always been the party that defends minorities. The Dems fought against Civil Rights, yet pretend history was 180° wrong. Contemporaneously, Trump's figures are unchallengable: Lowest unemployment for Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Women, and all minorities. Raising incomes and opportunities for these families. Legal betterment for inmates. So much better in so many areas, yet the Left ignores it all.

The depends on how you define "Civil Rights" though. Republicans have been unerringly consistent on the matter since the 1850's. Democrats have been all over the map in the interim, and created a new category of law in the 1960's, which they call "Civil rights" which give the appearance of pursuing the same goal, and on that front, the Republicans have been fighting against that since it was done.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 07, 2020, 05:55:37 AM
You're both just trying to talk yourself into believing something that facts easily contradict.  If Republicans are the party that supports minorities, how come 85% of African-Americans (https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/464680-poll-overwhelming-majority-of-black-voters-choose-any-given-2020-democrat-over) in a recent poll support ANY Democratic candidate over Trump?  How come he has the support of only about 30% of Hispanics?  How come there is only one black Republican in Congress and 3 times as many Hispanic Democrats as Republicans?

Do you think that it's because Republicans just haven't succeeded in getting their message out?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on March 07, 2020, 11:13:56 AM
how come 85% of African-Americans in a recent poll support ANY Democratic candidate over Trump?
Because historically they tend to vote democrat as a block? Kanye has some theories.
  How come he has the support of only about 30% of Hispanics?
Open borders?
  How come there is only one black Republican in Congress and 3 times as many Hispanic Democrats as Republicans?
Hard to say. Might be related to the same reason why all the black, Hispanic, and female democratic nominees have been summarily rejected by their party.
Do you think that it's because Republicans just haven't succeeded in getting their message out?
I think decades of propagating a victim/dependency mindset takes time to overcome.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on March 07, 2020, 06:03:05 PM
You're both just trying to talk yourself into believing something that facts easily contradict.  If Republicans are the party that supports minorities, how come 85% of African-Americans (https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/464680-poll-overwhelming-majority-of-black-voters-choose-any-given-2020-democrat-over) in a recent poll support ANY Democratic candidate over Trump?  How come he has the support of only about 30% of Hispanics?  How come there is only one black Republican in Congress and 3 times as many Hispanic Democrats as Republicans?

Do you think that it's because Republicans just haven't succeeded in getting their message out?

No, it's because you're conflating things, and the Republican message seems tepid or even weak in comparison to "all the things the Democrats are going to help" which don't actually help much, even harm in many cases. A lot of the Democratic "minority empowerment" efforts are the proverbial proof to the idea that 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions." What they claim to do is a very different thing from what they're actually doing.

It takes a lot of time and effort to get people off the proverbial cool-aid and to realize that life is a bit more counter-intuitive than we'd like to believe it to be. That and humans are lazy, they'll almost always favor the easiest option presented to them, the Democrats offer minorities the easy way, the Republicans offer the harder path, so their preference for the Democratic placebos is hardly shocking.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 07, 2020, 08:11:29 PM
You realize that you dodged the question.  I simplify it for you:

How come Republicans don't actually have the support of any of those groups?  Whose fault is that?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on March 07, 2020, 09:23:07 PM
They don't talk about giving away "Free stuff" like the Democrats do. Like I said, people like to take the easy way.

Likewise, "You're going to have to work through this" doesn't resonate as nicely as "It's not your fault, it's theirs, and we're going to give you advantages over everyone else to help you."

Yes, Republicans do end up taking positions where they also end up awkwardly supporting the ability of people to actually be the cause of several of the problems minorities face, as it does indeed happen. Which also results in optics problems for the Republicans that the Democrats gleefully exploit.

If you want a society where freedom of association and freedom of choice exists, you have to allow some level of discrimination to exist. Something many "left-wits" have lost the plot on as they start trying to make micro-aggression and micro-discrimination the next great crusade for stamping out. Tribal behavior is human nature, it's never going away completely.

What you can do on legal basis is limit the scope of how far those discriminatory practices can reach. Which goes back to the optics problems that Conservatives and Republicans have vs the Democrats on that front. The Republicans draw the line on government intervention a LOT a more quickly, and favor true equal rights over "special rights" for certain groups.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 08, 2020, 05:07:35 AM
Quote
They don't talk about giving away "Free stuff" like the Democrats do. Like I said, people like to take the easy way.

That is so 2012 :).  I suppose the Republican position would be "taking away stuff".  People who don't have enough should suffer.

Quote
If you want a society where freedom of association and freedom of choice exists, you have to allow some level of discrimination to exist. Something many "left-wits" have lost the plot on as they start trying to make micro-aggression and micro-discrimination the next great crusade for stamping out.

Perhaps you hit on something, even if somewhat inadvertently.  Republicans can't be accused of "micro-aggression" since they openly denounce everything they don't like.  That's why they are held in such low esteem by the groups I mentioned.  I'd counter your "left-wits" epithet with something as pithy, but "wit" is not a conservative strength.  How about "right-nuts" instead?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on March 08, 2020, 06:43:31 AM
Perhaps you hit on something, even if somewhat inadvertently.  Republicans can't be accused of "micro-aggression" since they openly denounce everything they don't like.  That's why they are held in such low esteem by the groups I mentioned.  I'd counter your "left-wits" epithet with something as pithy, but "wit" is not a conservative strength.  How about "right-nuts" instead?

Left-wit isn't mine, it's Pete's. I agree with the definition he gave for it. As for the extreme right-wingers? I'd call them wing-nuts myself, and in all reality, it can applied in a bi-partisan manner for that matter.

Leftwits are the sanctimonious hooligans that run through with baseball bats.

I don't think anyone on this board meets the criteria for that, but there are plenty of activists and other idiots out there that are certainly trying to feed that dragon.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on March 08, 2020, 07:07:20 AM
Ah here's the Pete post I actually wanted:

To answer Kasandras question and distinguish leftists from left-wits, a leftist at this point should be able to state what they hope Trump will do in response, whereas a left-wit would feel compelled to wait to see what Trump does before saying he should have done differently.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 08, 2020, 08:40:55 AM
It's interesting to see your statement about "left-wits" and then your clarification.

Quote
If you want a society where freedom of association and freedom of choice exists, you have to allow some level of discrimination to exist. Something many "left-wits" have lost the plot on as they start trying to make micro-aggression and micro-discrimination the next great crusade for stamping out.

This sounds like a somewhat general condemnation of so-called lefties who practice cultural derogations of others.  But your clarification (from Pete) says,

Quote
Leftwits are the sanctimonious hooligans that run through with baseball bats.

Surely that refers to the tiny percentage of extremists (who may or may not even exist) who use violence to denounce people they don't like.  Am I right?  That would correspond to conservatives who threaten women at abortion clinics or who protest at mosques or kill blacks openly admitting they are hoping to start a race war.  Then you further clarify what Pete meant,

Quote
To answer Kasandras question and distinguish leftists from left-wits, a leftist at this point should be able to state what they hope Trump will do in response, whereas a left-wit would feel compelled to wait to see what Trump does before saying he should have done differently.

That means that a left-wit is someone who criticizes actions that Trump has taken.  Really?  There's something wrong with criticizing Trump for doing something stupid after he does it?  The same applies to him for lying, attacking those who challenge or even just disagree with him with deeply personal attacks.

If that's what you mean by a "left-wit", why call it by such an insulting name?  To me that sort of person is judging Trump using common sense and simple common decency.  Since you use it as a pejorative, that may be something mainstream Republicans and conservatives simply lack and are proud of.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 08, 2020, 09:11:03 AM
Quote
The depends on how you define "Civil Rights" though. Republicans have been unerringly consistent on the matter since the 1850's.

That approach can neatly be summed up as "sink or swim....and don't ask for a life preserver".
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on March 08, 2020, 09:38:30 AM
Quote
To answer Kasandras question and distinguish leftists from left-wits, a leftist at this point should be able to state what they hope Trump will do in response, whereas a left-wit would feel compelled to wait to see what Trump does before saying he should have done differently.

That means that a left-wit is someone who criticizes actions that Trump has taken.  Really?  There's something wrong with criticizing Trump for doing something stupid after he does it?

Reading comprehension: failure.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 08, 2020, 12:41:03 PM
Somebody help me out.  Did I capture the essence of what Pete said?  If not, what did he mean?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: DonaldD on March 08, 2020, 01:30:15 PM
The challenge is that there is no way, short of being the person in question, to know whether that person falls under category one or two - categories which overlap significantly, BTW.

One may certainly be able to state what they would prefer the president do without actually having to broadcast their position on every single extant issue; and it is impossible to know what the president will do before he does it, so we are all compelled "to wait to see what Trump does" before being able to evaluate his action.

Those definitions seem neither helpful nor accurate.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 08, 2020, 01:38:51 PM
For truth.

Quote
Those definitions seem neither helpful nor accurate.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on March 08, 2020, 01:59:28 PM
For truth.

Quote
Those definitions seem neither helpful nor accurate.

Whether they are helpful or accurate is unrelated to reading them clearly. And no Kasandra, you didn't get it right. Pete's definition that you misread (and Pete could correct me if I'm off-base) seems to be saying that left-wits will wait until after Trump acts not because they reserve judgement until they see the result, but because they will formulate their objection as anti-[whatever action Trump does]. That blank can't be filled until they see what he does, but all they know is they're against it, whatever it is. In other words, it's dishonest (other than being consistent about being against anything Trump does by definition). The clue is in the title "left-wit"; Pete clearly meant it to be a malign term. That you chose to interpret it in a way that sounds complimentary to anti-Trumpers is sort of telling.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 08, 2020, 02:19:04 PM
You apparently see your interpretation of what Pete said as something more than opinion, but as a statement of fact.  I assume that's why you characterize my interpretation as a comprehension failure rather than an opinion you don't happen to agree with.

Note that your response serves more to clarify how you read what others write than making the effort to understand what they might be trying to say.  In this case you're applying your spin to what Pete said (which may or may not be what he intended) just as you have repeatedly applied your own spin to what I have said, and have been unwilling to go the extra (whole) 9 yards to actually understand me.  I can say that with some authority, since I am the person who has said what I said and I can and have repeatedly told you that you don't get what I'm saying.  Nevertheless, you persist.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on March 08, 2020, 02:25:23 PM
You apparently see your interpretation of what Pete said as something more than opinion, but as a statement of fact.  I assume that's why you characterize my interpretation as a comprehension failure rather than an opinion you don't happen to agree with.

If Pete sees this he'll be free to chime in, since as you say I can only offer an interpretation of his intent but not a factual statement about that. That said I think his intent was pretty obvious. What you are suggesting sounds to me like deconstructive ontology; like whatever you read you can take it apart and say that it has no "content" and is just you experiencing in the way your interpretation reveals. I personally believe that things have more content than merely the perception of each reader, and that they have to find it out - not decide it. From this standpoint while perspective cannot be eliminated, there is also a "right" and a "wrong" answer to certain issues. The "your read on it is an opinion, just like mine" is highly deconstructive and serves mainly IMO to prevent meaningful discussion.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on March 08, 2020, 02:29:07 PM
Joe’s rather obvious dementia is starting to get more general notice. Clips from his speech yesterday are circulating and it’s bad, real bad. We’re at the point where the media can still refuse to cover it so it’s whitewashed but once we get into the general and debates it’s not going to be possible to cover for him any more. It’s actually pretty damn sad to watch.

Another thing we gotta get into is his fondling of children and women. The era of me too makes it harder to ignore this. I’m sure the media will try but things like his penchant for exposing himself to female secret service agents will come out as will more things like this:

Quote
A former Secret Service agent assigned to the Vice President Joe Biden residence claims that the Service often had to protect female agents from him.

Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the agent asserted that,  “We had to cancel the VP Christmas get together at the Vice President’s house because Biden would grope all of our wives and girlfriend’s asses.” The annual party was for agents and Navy personnel who were tasked with protecting the Biden family.

“He would mess with every single woman or teen. It was horrible,” the agent said.

According to the source, a Secret Service agent once got suspended for a week in 2009 for shoving Biden after he cupped his girlfriend’s breast while the couple was taking a photo with him. The situation got so heated, the source told Cassandra Fairbanks, that others had to step in to prevent the agent from hitting the then-Vice President.

Additionally, the agent claims that Biden would walk around the VP residence naked at night. “I mean, Stark naked… Weinstein level stuff,” he added.

Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 08, 2020, 02:38:16 PM
You apparently see your interpretation of what Pete said as something more than opinion, but as a statement of fact.  I assume that's why you characterize my interpretation as a comprehension failure rather than an opinion you don't happen to agree with.

If Pete sees this he'll be free to chime in, since as you say I can only offer an interpretation of his intent but not a factual statement about that. That said I think his intent was pretty obvious. What you are suggesting sounds to me like deconstructive ontology; like whatever you read you can take it apart and say that it has no "content" and is just you experiencing in the way your interpretation reveals. I personally believe that things have more content than merely the perception of each reader, and that they have to find it out - not decide it. From this standpoint while perspective cannot be eliminated, there is also a "right" and a "wrong" answer to certain issues. The "your read on it is an opinion, just like mine" is highly deconstructive and serves mainly IMO to prevent meaningful discussion.

Based on the portion of your response that I'm able to understand, then I don't see how you can claim that my interpretation be a comprehension failure.  I say that reminding you that you pretend to be so darned sophisticated about this stuff, but my interpretation of your big words is that you don't actually know much about those things. But if you want to go mano-a-mano on Jacques Derrida, let's step out into the alley and pursue it. (FWIW, I studied phenomenology extensively in college.  I don't say that to make it seem like I'm sort of expert, just that I actually know when to use the term "deconstructive ontology", and this ain't it.)

Or, tell me what this means:  "I'm going to the store for a pack of cigarettes."
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 08, 2020, 02:40:10 PM
Quote
We had to cancel the VP Christmas get together at the Vice President’s house because Biden would grope all of our wives and girlfriend’s asses.

I can't wait to see that on Snopes.  It goes in the monkey bin along with Hillary Clinton on the verge of death in 2016 and Nancy Pelosi being soused at every news conference.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on March 08, 2020, 05:12:45 PM
It's interesting to see your statement about "left-wits" and then your clarification.

Quote
If you want a society where freedom of association and freedom of choice exists, you have to allow some level of discrimination to exist. Something many "left-wits" have lost the plot on as they start trying to make micro-aggression and micro-discrimination the next great crusade for stamping out.

This sounds like a somewhat general condemnation of so-called lefties who practice cultural derogations of others.  But your clarification (from Pete) says,

Quote
Leftwits are the sanctimonious hooligans that run through with baseball bats.

Surely that refers to the tiny percentage of extremists (who may or may not even exist) who use violence to denounce people they don't like.  Am I right?  That would correspond to conservatives who threaten women at abortion clinics or who protest at mosques or kill blacks openly admitting they are hoping to start a race war.  Then you further clarify what Pete meant,

I think the definition is a bit more broad, which is why I dug around for the later post for a broader usage. I find the first use to be consistent with the second, even if the second may not entirely in line with the first. You can pick up anecdotal support for this by going through the forum and seeing it used, vs the very rare occasion where an attempt to define it happened(I only found the two, well three if you include my own post from Feb 2017 but I'm not Pete).

Leftwits are the sanctimonious hooligans that run through with baseball bats.

I don't think anyone on this board meets the criteria for that, but there are plenty of activists and other idiots out there that are certainly trying to feed that dragon.

The more clear usage, that I suspect Pete would agree with, is the Leftwits aren't just the ones literally holding the baseball bat, but the ones knowingly prodding those baseball bat wielders along by distorting facts and information to make it as inflammatory as possible.

As demonstrated here:
I disagree often with Fenring, LR, RightLeft, and others here without giving them “insulting names.” And when I point out that Crunch repeatedly uses Leftwit obfuscation and demonization tactics in defense of Deplorabilly icons and Rightwad memes, I haven’t called him a leftwit or a Deplorabilly. He didn’t come up with the tactic or the idea. He just replicated it from elsewhere, which is all I’ve seen you do. Why take it personally when I’ve insulted the originator of what you merely parroted?

Quote
To answer Kasandras question and distinguish leftists from left-wits, a leftist at this point should be able to state what they hope Trump will do in response, whereas a left-wit would feel compelled to wait to see what Trump does before saying he should have done differently.

That means that a left-wit is someone who criticizes actions that Trump has taken.  Really?  There's something wrong with criticizing Trump for doing something stupid after he does it?  The same applies to him for lying, attacking those who challenge or even just disagree with him with deeply personal attacks.

No it does not. He was very clear on that, and I do not know how someone could be more clear on that matter. A genuine leftist would already have a preferred solution even if they know it is one Trump will never carry out, they can tell you how they would approach the issue and why/how.

A leftwit in contrast doesn't have any kind of solution they can or will elucidate. Instead they will wait for Trump to act first, so they can then go about dismantling what Trump did without needing to worry about defending any potential common ground they may actually have.

Quote
If that's what you mean by a "left-wit", why call it by such an insulting name?  To me that sort of person is judging Trump using common sense and simple common decency.  Since you use it as a pejorative, that may be something mainstream Republicans and conservatives simply lack and are proud of.

A person judging Trump using common sense and common decency isn't a leftwit. For that matter, someone who is simply anti-Trump isn't by definition a leftwit.

A leftwit is someone who actively pursues a leftist agenda(Socialist/Communist, not the more generic Liberal one) and will use every tool at their disposal to generate rhetoric to do so. The said, more generally, I think he would also agree that leftwit and halfwit have a lot in common in each other. While some some leftwits are quite intelligent and exceedingly clever. Most of them are functionally behaving like they are half-wits, they simply parrot and spew forth whatever talking points their leftist luminaries have disseminated, and don't bother to actively process what it is they're sharing, or check for either logical consistency or coherency.

The right-wing has its own cadre of idiots in its ranks, particularly among the religious side, but the leftwits take it to an entirely different level.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on March 08, 2020, 05:19:51 PM
For truth.

Quote
Those definitions seem neither helpful nor accurate.

Whether they are helpful or accurate is unrelated to reading them clearly. And no Kasandra, you didn't get it right. Pete's definition that you misread (and Pete could correct me if I'm off-base) seems to be saying that left-wits will wait until after Trump acts not because they reserve judgement until they see the result, but because they will formulate their objection as anti-[whatever action Trump does]. That blank can't be filled until they see what he does, but all they know is they're against it, whatever it is. In other words, it's dishonest (other than being consistent about being against anything Trump does by definition). The clue is in the title "left-wit"; Pete clearly meant it to be a malign term. That you chose to interpret it in a way that sounds complimentary to anti-Trumpers is sort of telling.

That was my take on Pete's statement. The leftist is unafraid of staking out a position in advance of Trump acting. The leftwit will never stake out a position in advance of Trump doing something, because if he does something that agrees with the position they staked out, they'll have a reduced ability to attack it.

For someone who is not the leftist, it is hard to tell after the fact which of the two they may be, but it isn't impossible, particularly if you've been interacting with them long enough to be able to tell if the person is being consistent on their positions beyond simple opposition to Trump or other _insert Republican here_ types.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 08, 2020, 10:31:08 PM
You're not a leftist, nor certainly a left-wit, so I imagine you can opine on any activity of Trump's before he acts that you choose to, and after as well.  That's what someone of your ilk would think it reasonable to do.  I also opine on lots of things I expect him to act on, and afterwards comment on what he did.  That somehow means that I *am* a left-wit, even though you and I do pretty much the same thing.  The only thing that might separate us is that you are almost unfailingly in agreement with everything he's about to do and has done, whereas I'm more critical.  To be honest, he almost never fails to disappoint me.  That's how you tell the difference between normal people like you and sanctimonious hooligans that run through with baseball bats like me.  QED.

Just be careful you don't find yourself disagreeing with things he's done, or your friends may find that you have become a left-wit.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on March 08, 2020, 10:59:37 PM
If you are trying to say that this ailment affects both sides then you are surely correct.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on March 09, 2020, 05:14:39 AM
The only thing that might separate us is that you are almost unfailingly in agreement with everything he's about to do and has done, whereas I'm more critical.  To be honest, he almost never fails to disappoint me.  That's how you tell the difference between normal people like you and sanctimonious hooligans that run through with baseball bats like me.  QED.

Just be careful you don't find yourself disagreeing with things he's done, or your friends may find that you have become a left-wit.

I don't agree with how he goes about a lot of things. I might agree with the objective, or significant portions thereof, but that is a far cry from being in unfailing agreement with Trump. Or have you missed the numerous occasions I've called the guy a dumpster fire, or even complained about being put in the position of needing to defend him in some cases?

I don't like the guy, but it doesn't make everything he does wrong by default.

Of course, your other side of the coin, is I've also made commentary on historical Presidencies that are often comparable to Trump in a number of various ways. Sure they're not "modern presidencies" but they were American Presidents too. The country survived those clowns, I'm pretty sure it'll be able to survive Trump.

Now as to the underlying issues that brought Trump to power, that might present an entirely different matter with regards to the Two Major Political Parties surviving all of the turmoil currently underway. But again, that's not without precedent, the first 60 years of the Constitutional government saw a few parties rise to power and fall apart before the Republican Party ultimately took its place. The DNC is the only party that dates back to the Jefferson and Adams presidencies. There have been people predicting one of the two parties was going to fly apart "soon" since shortly after Obama took office, of course, in 2009/2010 most thought it would be the Republicans when the Tea Party went after the GOP. Currently, it looks like the Democrats are having their turn in the crosshairs of their political base, only unlike the Tea Party activists with the Republicans, the Socialist leaning activists probably aren't going to be quite so accomodating when it comes to dealing with the more moderate arm of the DNC.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 09, 2020, 07:18:20 AM
If you are trying to say that this ailment affects both sides then you are surely correct.

Why call it "sides"?  I'm not on the anti-Trump side, the fundamental religious side, the white supremacist side, the anti-abortion side, the anti-immigrant side, the anti-Muslim side, the anti-Obama side, the anti-Hillary side, the coal industry side, the financial business side, the real estate investment side, the Republican Party side or the America First side.  I'm not on the Democratic Party side, either.  If I'm on any side, it's one that has no name and no cause other than basic morals and common sense.  It's not my fault that Trump manages to fall on the wrong side of that so freakishly often.  Don't blame me for pointing some of those failings when they have important consequences.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 09, 2020, 08:30:15 AM
Quote
A leftwit in contrast doesn't have any kind of solution they can or will elucidate. Instead they will wait for Trump to act first, so they can then go about dismantling what Trump did without needing to worry about defending any potential common ground they may actually have.

Good to know I'm not a leftwit after all. I like to think of myself as a good wit.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: rightleft22 on March 09, 2020, 11:13:04 AM
Quote
I'm on any side, it's one that has no name and no cause other than basic morals and common sense.

I wonder if this perspective will become a growing movement as I'm coming across more and more people who no longer identify with the right or left.   
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on March 09, 2020, 12:05:23 PM
I think more people are identifying as independents but humans are tribal by default and rife with bias. Every reasonably intelligent person likes to believe they consider topics in isolation but it's not possible. The Stoics got it right.

That said, attempting to do so is still the best way to operate.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Wayward Son on March 09, 2020, 01:38:25 PM
Quote
Good to know I'm not a leftwit after all. I like to think of myself as a good wit.

I personally like to consider myself to be simply a wit. :)

Unfortunately, people tell me I'm only half-right about that. ;)
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 09, 2020, 03:53:55 PM
<groan> Not your better half, apparently.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on March 09, 2020, 09:59:20 PM
...If I'm on any side, it's one that has no name and no cause other than basic morals and common sense.  It's not my fault that Trump manages to fall on the wrong side of that so freakishly often.  Don't blame me for pointing some of those failings when they have important consequences.

No, we CAN blame you for not seeing what is right before your eyes, yet you miss it. Trump is a good man, even though the brain-washed deny that without cause. Disinformation and straw-man arguments are not valid reasons to support your bias. I don't care if the MSM pundits say that Trump is evil incarnate. Those still alive after journalism died in 2007 know better. They actually interview those people who know Trump and say he is a good man. Who you prefer to believe defines you more than anything Trump has said or done in reaction to attacks, that themselves, lack value. The one thing he won't do, that the Left demands, is for him to quietly accept their attacks without answer. Since the MSM will never publicize his answers and vet the attackers fairly, anything that makes the public forum will be slanted.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 09, 2020, 10:31:36 PM
I think it's best for all if I no longer engage with you in this forum.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on March 09, 2020, 11:10:05 PM
I think it's best for all if I no longer engage with you in this forum.
It is so frustrating to see and read unsupported bias and disinformation and then be placed into a category wherein no debate is allowed, because your feelings get hurt even though you are wrong and are too fragile to respond on point. Yes, definitely, do not respond. I wouldn't want to bother you. However; if I see disinformation, I will respond to it, even if it is yours. You don't need to respond. I understand. How will I learn anything from someone who has more knowledge in an area than I do, if it is nor presented? I will be respectful, but I do not intend to let disinformation stand unchallenged.

People who know Trump all say he is a good man. Just what do you think is a valid counterpoint?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Wayward Son on March 10, 2020, 12:22:41 PM
Really?  Do ALL the people who know and work with Trump say he is a good man?  Aren't there a few who disagree? ;)
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: yossarian22c on March 10, 2020, 12:29:18 PM
Really?  Do ALL the people who know and work with Trump say he is a good man?  Aren't there a few who disagree? ;)

Well the only ones who disagree are all the people who left the administration and wrote books.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 10, 2020, 12:58:34 PM
What about these people (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/14/donald-trump-former-employee-interviews-ego-diversity)?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 10, 2020, 02:27:44 PM
Biden just melted down again. His aides were desperately trying to pull him out before he mentioned taking away someone's AR-14. But that was only after telling a man he was "full of sh_".
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 10, 2020, 02:33:45 PM
I watched a video and read a description of the event. I think he rose up to confront a man who insistently challenged him with lies that have been dispelled repeatedly in the past.  Seemed to me like a good encounter.  He should follow up by asking the guy over for a beer to spend an hour talking about the issue.  Won't happen, but could be good for both if it did.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: rightleft22 on March 10, 2020, 02:56:27 PM
Quote
But that was only after telling a man he was "full of sh_".

The new political correctness, People in general prefer the crass.
Biden seems to be getting more popular the less sense he makes when putting words together. Right out of the Trumpism play book. The new normal.

I suspect Biden is being advised to practice pushing back and being "strong" in prep for any debate with Trump.
Its just not him and Trump is gong to mop the floor with him. Still going to be a entertaining debate with both of them talking all over themselves.
 
 
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on March 10, 2020, 03:31:04 PM
I don't think it will be as entertaining as much as it is sad, re: Biden. For all the mush-mouth stuff Trump can meander into, he typically knows where he is, that he's not running for senate, etc.

The Biden gaffes at first were pretty typical for anyone who's constantly speaking around the country, you're gonna screw up. But over the past few months, he genuinely looks to be in real cognitive decline. The kind of stuff where if it was your parent or grandparent, you might not demand they see someone right away, but it's obvious to everyone in the room that something is not entirely right anymore.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on March 10, 2020, 03:46:56 PM
I watched a video and read a description of the event. I think he rose up to confront a man who insistently challenged him with lies that have been dispelled repeatedly in the past.  Seemed to me like a good encounter.  He should follow up by asking the guy over for a beer to spend an hour talking about the issue.  Won't happen, but could be good for both if it did.

He called a union worker "full of s$$t", referred to a firearm that doesn't exist, and asked said union worker if he wanted to "take it outside" (as in, fight? WTF).

If that's a good encounter, I'd suggest you might be happier advocating for Trump because he has plenty of cringy moments you could label as good.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Wayward Son on March 10, 2020, 04:14:15 PM
Quote
But over the past few months, he genuinely looks to be in real cognitive decline. The kind of stuff where if it was your parent or grandparent, you might not demand they see someone right away, but it's obvious to everyone in the room that something is not entirely right anymore.

Well, I haven't seen it yet.  Of course, I've been listening to Trump for the last three years. :)

Seriously, have you listened to Donald when he's talking off the cuff, like at that news conference for the Corona virus?  As an experiment, try turning off the sound on your TV and reading his words out loud.  It's painful.

Then compare it to his interviews from the 1980s or 1990s.  He has definitely declined significantly over that period.  He's not entirely right anymore, either. :(
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 10, 2020, 04:32:19 PM
It's curious that for some people every gaffe of Biden's counts more than 1000 Trump self-serving statements, gratuitous lies and dumb remarks made out of pure stupidity.

I think Democrats can run an effective campaign if every day they run a 30 second commercial that is taken from straight-up statements that Trump has made calling other people stupid, ugly or traitors.  If they run out they can balance them with self-praising remarks.  Then on each Sunday they run a partial compendium of all the fields he claims to know more about than anybody else in the world.  All of that would lead up to the day before the election when they run a half-hour of his self-congratulatory remarks about every failed strategy he proposed or carried out.  Well, maybe that should be an hour.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: rightleft22 on March 10, 2020, 04:43:56 PM
I don't think it will be as entertaining as much as it is sad, re: Biden. For all the mush-mouth stuff Trump can meander into, he typically knows where he is, that he's not running for senate, etc.

The Biden gaffes at first were pretty typical for anyone who's constantly speaking around the country, you're gonna screw up. But over the past few months, he genuinely looks to be in real cognitive decline. The kind of stuff where if it was your parent or grandparent, you might not demand they see someone right away, but it's obvious to everyone in the room that something is not entirely right anymore.

I have to agree with you.  'entertaining' was sarcastic.

Quote
It's curious that for some people every gaffe of Biden's counts more than 1000 Trump self-serving statements
I agree that Trump does gets the undeserved pass on his gaffs but as per ScottF comments if my parents stated behaving like Biden I'd be worried.
Where as if they behaved like Trump I'd be embarrassed
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on March 10, 2020, 04:51:01 PM
... have you listened to Donald when he's talking off the cuff, like at that news conference for the Corona virus?  As an experiment, try turning off the sound on your TV and reading his words out loud.  It's painful.

Then compare it to his interviews from the 1980s or 1990s.  He has definitely declined significantly over that period.  He's not entirely right anymore, either. :(

Unlike those who only follow Trump through anti-Trumpian media sources, I have seen Trump, and he can communicate on a level far above Biden or Sanders. When Biden apologists say he speaks "in a homey fashion that resonates with the public", they are usually deflecting attention from gaffes and rudeness. Trump really does use the vernacular of the people, purposefully for effect. I find it funny that many assign moral value to Biden's profanity, when for years, Democrats have peppered statements with unprintable language into something they did not want publicized. Here, in Michigan, we had Coleman Young, who was a master at profane speech to render his statements unprintable. To broadcast anything he said, editors needed to cut his words apart, which afforded them to present him in a more positive aspect. It was not just his profanity they left on the cutting-room floor - it was anything that was pejorative to the editors' POV.

As for Trump declining in his presentation skills, one must be on another planet to think that. He can turn a phrase that makes the expensive rhetoric the Democrats create through focus groups and think tanks look pale. Jed Bush was utterly destroyed by being called "low-energy." For the past few decades, clichés and talking points have been genned-up by Democrat advisors and have materialized instantly with total horizontal and vertical saturation. Every talking head on Sunday morning talk shows say the exact same words on every channel and every time-slot. It is impossible not to hear them. What is revelatory, is how such things vanish just as instantly, when the researchers realize they don't have the desired effect. (i.e. - like when "gravitas" appeared everywhere, but disappeared the next day when the public realized the opponent had more gravitas than the Dems' golden child.)
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Wayward Son on March 10, 2020, 04:59:33 PM
Quote
As for Trump declining in his presentation skills, one must be on another planet to think that. He can turn a phrase that makes the expensive rhetoric the Democrats create through focus groups and think tanks look pale.

Could you link an interview that demonstrates that?  Because all the ones that I've heard, he sounds disjointed, unfocused, and not on top of things.

And the main reason his words vanish instantly is because they are replaced by another set of words that must be analyzed and explained.

And please, especially, provide some examples of Trump's "gravitas." :)
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 10, 2020, 05:01:34 PM
Quote
Where as if they behaved like Trump I'd be embarrassed

At first, then afraid, then very afraid.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Wayward Son on March 10, 2020, 05:02:54 PM
Perhaps you were thinking of this as an example of Trump's "gravitas?" (https://www.politico.com/video/2017/01/donald-trump-mocks-disabled-reporter-061897)  ;)  ;D
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: rightleft22 on March 10, 2020, 05:06:27 PM
Quote
Unlike those who only follow Trump through anti-Trumpian media sources, I have seen Trump, and he can communicate on a level far above Biden or Sanders. When Biden apologists say he speaks "in a homey fashion that resonates with the public", they are usually deflecting attention from gaffes and rudeness. Trump really does use the vernacular of the people, purposefully for effect.

I find that statement hypocritical. Which sources of media are you viewing Biden and Sanders on? 
Using the same sources for both Trump and Biden I find both their communication problematic

Biden apologist's says his communication style is folksy.
Trumps apologist's say his communications it that of the common man 
No difference IMO both speaking in ways that belittle and undermine intelligence. Of course intelligence, grimmer, consideration... is for the elite not's us regular real folk

Don't you worry your pretty little head I know what I'm saying even if it doesn't sound like it. Tell me I don't and your just a elitist snob
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on March 10, 2020, 06:35:48 PM
...Could you link an interview that demonstrates that?  Because all the ones that I've heard, he sounds disjointed, unfocused, and not on top of things.

Exactly. If all that you've heard is as you say, then your sources ARE questionable. Trump speaks very coherently, but he uses ellipses to flesh out thoughts - not to ramble, but to nail down the content of what he speaks, so there is little doubt of the point being made. I have seen the same instances on Fox, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and each one looks "perfect" but only the Fox one showed all the clip. I see that because I've been in the editing suites and see the telltales. I saw it during Clinton, Bush 43, through Obama, and now during Trump. It is an unmistakable standard.

When Tom Leykis was a premier Democrat radio host, he bragged how he controlled his own control board so he could pot up callers who he wanted to sound smart, and potted down callers he didn't like who then had to shout to be heard. Of course the shouters sounded irate and uncivil, while the gently-speaking callers sounded like the penultimate example of sanity. It's like that all over the place. Only Limbaugh broke that habit. He's won awards year after year for being the most polite on-air host. Not only does he listen to what his callers say before he answers them, but he takes the time to restate their words to fully understand their intent and asks them if that is what they mean to say. All without rigging the system to make them sound funny. The production suites are hotbeds of progressives - and when Limbaugh had his short-lived TV show, his studio staff went out of their way to make him look and sound bad. I still hear about him showing a picture of a dog when talking about Chelsea Clinton. Total set-up. It's no wonder he quit that aspect of production.

IOW; what you often hear is not consistent with reality. With Trump, if you see him on an anti-Trump network, you will only see something pejorative, If they can't skew the real clip, they just won't show anything, and then paraphrase something else completely diametrically opposed to what he meant or said. But you will remember it because that is how and why it was done in the first place. You want a clip? Look at any of them, but you probably lack the production knowledge to see what you are really seeing.

Do you remember when Trump first used EO's to block immigration from places that weren't vetted? The MSM said it was anti-Muslim. It wasn't, and still isn't, but even the candidates in Democrat debates see nothing wrong with repeating the lie as if everyone knows it is the truth. (Laughter by Intimidation. (See Appeals to Prejudice) Representing the advocate as being out of step with "right-thinking people" to the point where everyone laughs at your ridiculous viewpoint. No rebuttal is offered - just ridicule the messenger.)

...And please, especially, provide some examples of Trump's "gravitas." :)

Why? That example was well before Trump arrived on the scene. Carville and Begala were the primary brains behind much of the goings-on back then. If you don't recall that whole "gravitas" episode you were not very observant back then. I have never met anyone who doesn't know that example.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Wayward Son on March 10, 2020, 06:41:42 PM
Quote
With Trump, if you see him on an anti-Trump network, you will only see something pejorative, If they can't skew the real clip, they just won't show anything, and then paraphrase something else completely diametrically opposed to what he meant or said.

Fine.  Show me something from a non-anti-Trump network.  Show me some extemporaneous speech where he is coherent and shows "gravitas." Show me an example where he "turn(s) a phrase that makes the expensive rhetoric the Democrats create through focus groups and think tanks look pale."

Show me.

Because I'm from Missouri.  I'd like to see it for myself.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on March 10, 2020, 07:37:33 PM
...Show me something from a non-anti-Trump network.  Show me some extemporaneous speech where he is coherent and shows "gravitas." Show me an example where he "turn(s) a phrase that makes the expensive rhetoric the Democrats create through focus groups and think tanks look pale."

Show me.

Because I'm from Missouri.  I'd like to see it for myself.

I already gave you examples. Do you deny that the whole anti-Muslim claim was a lie? Do you deny that Obama took the same countries and singled them out for similar treatment and was not condemned for it? Just what are you asking for? I do not think you are so limited that you need me or anyone else to hold your hand and lead you through the intricacies of research. In my years of participating in different forums, I've found that you can lead a horse to water, but not make it drink. The best cure for a person to recognize his/her own acceptance of disinformation is for that person to find and use legitimate acceptable sources to uncover it for oneself. The drawback is that person limiting research only to sources of circular argument. Do that and no one or nothing will dissuade you from believing the unbelievable.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Wayward Son on March 11, 2020, 01:25:59 PM
You gave vague, hand-waving examples of Trump's presentation skills and "gravitas."  Nothing specific.  No particular speech that would demonstrate those skills.

I've seen his presentation skills, unedited.  I've watched a couple of live news conferences, for as long as I could stand it.  I went to one of his rallies during the presidential race back in 2015.  He's a lousy speaker.  He rambles.  He goes off on weird tangents half-way through sentences.  He often doesn't complete his thoughts.  He is crude, mocking, a bully.

None of this indicates "gravitas."  None of this shows any great presentation skills.

Now compare that to some of his interviews from back in the 80's or 90's.  Here, Donald Trump explaining to Larry King why he didn't want to be President from 1987. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8wJc7vHcTs)  Or this unaired Rona Barret interview from 1980 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAgJAxkALyc).  Or  any of these interviews from the 1980s. (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/the-decade-when-donald-trump-became-a-celebrity/422838/[/url)  Show me a current extemporaneous speech or interview that is as coherent, focused and mature as any of these.  Provide a link so I can see it myself.

If he is such a great presenter and has such "gravitas," it should only take you a couple of minutes to find one that demonstrates your contention.  It's not like you'd have to sift through ten, twelve or twenty speeches and interviews to find one, since you are already familiar with his speeches and he is such a good presenter. :)

That is why I suggested to silence the TV and read out loud his words.  I did that when he spoke to the press after the Charlottesville rally and it's aftermath.  It was painful in my own voice.  To paraphrase Harrison Ford, you can hear his speech, but you sure can't read it!  ::)

So until you can provide a specific example of how Trump is still pretty much on top of his game as far as public speaking goes, don't feed me any line about his great presentation and  his "gravitas."  I haven't seen it.  And if you can't show me an example, I see no reason to believe it is true.

And if you can't, then we can move on to discussing how badly he has degenerated since his heyday. ;)
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on March 11, 2020, 02:17:48 PM
...I've seen his presentation skills, unedited.  I've watched a couple of live news conferences, for as long as I could stand it.  I went to one of his rallies during the presidential race back in 2015.  He's a lousy speaker.  He rambles.  He goes off on weird tangents half-way through sentences.  He often doesn't complete his thoughts.  He is crude, mocking, a bully.

You hold yourself superior to others who have seen and heard the same things but come away with a different judgement. I've known people with incorrect preconceived notions who are so resentful at being on the wrong side that they will not accept anything that confronts their disinformed beliefs. Since Trump overfills huge stadiums with supporters and well-wishers, it is unlikely that your opinion is all that sound. Perhaps you've never held conversations with native New Yorkers? Remember, when Trump says anything about some person, it is normally reaction to that person's attack. As in most sports, the retaliater usually gets flagged by the ref, but the culprit is the villain.

...None of this indicates "gravitas."  None of this shows any great presentation skills.

Funny, no one here claimed gravitas for Trump - but he certainly does show more leadership capacity than any other dozen people you might put forward.

...Now compare that to some of his interviews from back in the 80's or 90's. ...Show me a current extemporaneous speech or interview that is as coherent, focused and mature as any of these.

...So until you can provide a specific example of how Trump is still pretty much on top of his game as far as public speaking goes, don't feed me any line about his great presentation and  his "gravitas."  I haven't seen it.  And if you can't show me an example, I see no reason to believe it is true.

And if you can't, then we can move on to discussing how badly he has degenerated since his heyday. ;)

No. Not going to fall into that trap. You know darn well that he has given great speeches and been roundly praised for them. If you want an example - go look at this year's State of the Union Address which Pelosi tore up on camera. Great speech.

What is more important, is not just the delivery, but the content.

When Biden was taped bragging about his quid pro quo with the Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who was investigating Hunter and Burisma, he was smarmy and ego-stroking himself, knowing his audience was soaking up his alleged gravitas, neh? No one seemed to mind the import of his criminal action. Now he is limited to short speeches with no audience to avoid gaffes, and you complain about Trump?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 11, 2020, 02:26:34 PM
Quote
No. Not going to fall into that trap. You know darn well that he has given great speeches and been roundly praised for them. If you want an example - go look at this year's State of the Union Address which Pelosi tore up on camera. Great speech.

Master orator for sure. Right up there with the Gettysburg address.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on March 11, 2020, 02:40:41 PM
Quote
No. Not going to fall into that trap. You know darn well that he has given great speeches and been roundly praised for them. If you want an example - go look at this year's State of the Union Address which Pelosi tore up on camera. Great speech.

Master orator for sure. Right up there with the Gettysburg address.

Maybe your wires are getting crossed on the terms here. I don't think anyone's arguing that Trump can speak text like Patrick Stewart. I think the idea being put forward is that Trump is effective in his peculiar way of speaking, even though it isn't a traditional style of rhetoric. I mean, one thing in the defense of the side of Trump is that you can't exactly be a TV celebrity unless the power of your speaking somehow carries across to the audience. You could look at actors with peculiar speaking tendencies - Jimmy Stewart, Marlon Brando, Christopher Walken, John Malkovitch - and despite the umpteen times they're made fun of for how they speak text yet we must acknowledge it clearly works. In acting this isn't hard to grok since a person's unique manner of expression is partially what we're buying. In politics I guess it still seems weird that a bizarre style could be functionally sound despite sounding bad from a cleanliness standpoint. The great old thespians like Gilgud no doubt thought that some of the great American actors were horrible with speech...and yet they weren't. It was just a different stylistic approach.

I'm no so much mounting a defense as imagining what wmLambert's argument might be if expanded.

I think the arguments against Trump's style are pretty clear, so they don't require any elucidation by me.

ETA - by "your wires" above I meant everyone in the discussion, not you in particular.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on March 11, 2020, 02:47:29 PM
Quote
No. Not going to fall into that trap. You know darn well that he has given great speeches and been roundly praised for them. If you want an example - go look at this year's State of the Union Address which Pelosi tore up on camera. Great speech.

Master orator for sure. Right up there with the Gettysburg address.

Funny, I have actually heard real live historians give such praise. You evidently avoid anything that is positive about Trump. This says more about you, than it does about Trump.

Many of his speeches are well received. https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/president-trump-returns-u-n-mountain-evidence-peace-strength/
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Wayward Son on March 11, 2020, 03:37:15 PM
Quote
You hold yourself superior to others who have seen and heard the same things but come away with a different judgement.

No, I don't hold myself superior.  But I won't be told something that I've seen with my own eyes isn't true just on someone else's word.  That's called gaslighting, and you're no Charles Boyer. :)

You say you've seen something different that I haven't because I watch different media?  Fine.  Show me what you've seen.  Then I can judge for myself.  That's all I ask.

But don't say I'm holding myself superior because you've come away with a different judgement.  :P

Quote
Funny, no one here claimed gravitas for Trump - but he certainly does show more leadership capacity than any other dozen people you might put forward.

My apologies.  When you said:

Quote
What is revelatory, is how such things vanish just as instantly, when the researchers realize they don't have the desired effect. (i.e. - like when "gravitas" appeared everywhere, but disappeared the next day when the public realized the opponent had more gravitas than the Dems' golden child.)

I assumed you were referring to Donald Trump as "the opponent."  My mistake.

Quote
No. Not going to fall into that trap. You know darn well that he has given great speeches and been roundly praised for them. If you want an example - go look at this year's State of the Union Address which Pelosi tore up on camera. Great speech.

All that shows is that he's still competent enough to read what's on a piece of paper. :)  That's why I specified extemporaneous speeches and interviews.  Unscripted speeches reveal his cognitive abilities better than words that someone else doubtlessly has reviewed and polished.  That's why I linked interviews.

Which is ultimately what this thread is about, isn't it?  Not policies, not politics, not what they believe, but the cognitive ability of our Presidential contenders.  Crunch is trying to scare us into believing that Biden has lost much of his.  I'm pointing out that, by the same standard, Trump may have lost much of his.  Look at his old interviews.  Look at his latest interviews.  Is he as sharp as he used to be?  If we're worried about Biden's mental capacity, shouldn't we be just as concerned about Trump's?  Or are there different scales for Democrats and Republicans?

When November comes, we will be voting for either one (assuming Biden gets the nomination) or the other.  So it behooves us, if we are concerned about the mental acuity of our candidates, to examine and compare them to each other.  Because barring any acts of God, it'll be one or the other.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 11, 2020, 04:10:52 PM
Quote
No. Not going to fall into that trap. You know darn well that he has given great speeches and been roundly praised for them. If you want an example - go look at this year's State of the Union Address which Pelosi tore up on camera. Great speech.

Master orator for sure. Right up there with the Gettysburg address.

Funny, I have actually heard real live historians give such praise. You evidently avoid anything that is positive about Trump. This says more about you, than it does about Trump.

Many of his speeches are well received. https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/president-trump-returns-u-n-mountain-evidence-peace-strength/

So you're citing the white house to demonstrate that Trump's speeches are well received.

Wasn't that UN speech the same one where world leaders laughed out loud at his boasts?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 11, 2020, 04:17:25 PM
Quote
Wasn't that UN speech the same one where world leaders laughed out loud at his boasts?

No, what actually happened was that in English what he said was incoherent, but in 113 other languages it started with "A Muslim, an ISIS fighter and I walk into a bar...."  That's a good one!
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on March 11, 2020, 06:50:23 PM
...Wasn't that UN speech the same one where world leaders laughed out loud at his boasts?

Yes.  "..and the German envoy nervously laughing like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar at this:" (followed by a link to a deleted examination of the speech that several people said was greater than Reagan's 1988 speech.) Why denigrate a great speech?

Okay, so look at the SOTU Address. Why not comment on the Democrats not standing to cheer a 100-year-old Tuskegee Airman being given an increase in rank and acknowledgement of his service? ...Or any of the other great aspects that demanded bipartisan cheers and support, that the Dems decided not to give? The speech WAS great. The Democrat reception of it was the only problem. Why try so hard to make a national positive into a personal negative?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on March 11, 2020, 07:04:52 PM
Speaking of great speeches, this is about Joe Biden. Remember 1988 when he plagiarized a speech that British Labour Party Neil Kinnock delivered just four months prior?

How many here remembered one of his first speeches when running for office, when he stole the speech from another UK politician who spoke about his family virtues and a father who worked in the coal mines? Anyone willing to stoop so low as to steal the heroic details of someone else's life and then pretend it is your own is damaged goods and not to be trusted. No one in Biden's family ever worked in a mine.

Remember when he told everyone that women should fire a shotgun into the air to scare off home invaders - then went on to be an anti-gun advocate? Trump is not the one whose speeches need to be commented upon. ...Especially in this thread. Let's discuss Joe's blond leg hairs that "kids like to stroke?"

He may make it to nomination from the DNC with their newly minted rules, but can you imagine him one on one on the debate stage against Trump?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 11, 2020, 07:04:59 PM
What defines a great speech? To me, it is one that inspires. One that is self-deprecating. One that unites. One that contains timeless turns of phrase:

"Ask not what your country can do for you"
"will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"
"never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty — never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense."

Not one that is self-aggrandizing. Not one that denigrates. Not one that seeks to sow more division.

The Democrats response to the speech is immaterial to whether it was great, I'm not sure why you brought it up.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on March 11, 2020, 07:15:50 PM
...The Democrats response to the speech is immaterial to whether it was great, I'm not sure why you brought it up.

Still talking about Biden: KEN BODE: While at Syracuse law school Biden was involved in a plagiarism incident. He quoted five pages of someone else’s work, without proper citation. He was given an F, but appealed to the faculty and allowed to repeat the course, he got a B.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 11, 2020, 07:17:21 PM
Biden sucks. I've already stipulated that in a dozen different ways earlier on. He has always sucked, and he always will suck. You can easily come up with another 30 good arguments about the exact ways in which he sucks.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on March 11, 2020, 07:36:27 PM
...The Democrats response to the speech is immaterial to whether it was great, I'm not sure why you brought it up.

Perhaps because the response to a speech is often observed as a metric of how effective any given speech is? In this case, the Democrats used their disapproval of Trump to pretend they disagreed with what he was saying - when in fact, they largely agreed with the content of his speech, but just wanted to denigrate the person giving it.

I'm not sure why you would pretend not to realize that self-evident fact, but I do agree with your view of Biden's acceptability.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 11, 2020, 09:13:07 PM
Biden sucks. I've already stipulated that in a dozen different ways earlier on. He has always sucked, and he always will suck. You can easily come up with another 30 good arguments about the exact ways in which he sucks.

You guys want to beat up Biden so bad that you forget how utterly disgusting Trump is almost every time he opens his mouth. This is ankle biting at its finest.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 12, 2020, 08:46:01 AM
Biden and trump are largely indistinguishable. It's not ankle biting, it's integrity.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 12, 2020, 09:50:09 AM
Biden and trump are largely indistinguishable. It's not ankle biting, it's integrity.

So you're saying neither one should be President?  We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump is unfit for office.
 Is Biden also unfit?  What's the practical alternative to Biden.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 12, 2020, 10:18:38 AM
Doesn't matter to me. If you keep choosing the lesser of two evils, you keep getting evils to choose from. Biden was actively racist, Trump just dog whistles to racists. Biden has as much or more appearance of corruption than Trump. Both seem mentally challenged. Both shout at people who attend their events and disagree with them. Both seem to have problems with boundaries. I won't give him a vote any more than I voted for Hillary. I'll pick a third party or none of the above, because my vote is my voice. It says "I support you", not "I hate the other guy more". Seriously, the guy can't tell his wife from his sister, and you want to say he is FIT for office?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 12, 2020, 10:41:42 AM
Wow, that is truly sour.  Vote for whoever you like, and since you think they are both equally bad and your candidate won't win, why bother voting at all?  Nobody will care.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Wayward Son on March 12, 2020, 10:45:18 AM
Sorry, Drake.  Mathematics says you're wrong.  If you choose the lesser of two evils, you eventually get better Presidents, assuming the candidates are not equal.

If you choose randomly, you will not change the average.

And if you choose the greater, you will get worse Presidents.

Do the math.

Not choosing is similar to a random choice.  So you gotta ask yourself a question: do you want better Presidents (even if it is a slow rise), the same kind of Presidents, or worse Presidents?

And as I say to those who won't vote for Biden if Bernie loses:  which President do you prefer to work with the next four years?  Once that is sympathetic to your goals, or one who is dismissive or actively trying to crush your goals? ;)
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on March 12, 2020, 11:35:11 AM
WS, this argument cannot possibly hold water since the quality of American presidents has clearly been on the decline since...I dunno, Kennedy. We could argue about whether Reagan or Clinton rose above that, but there have been some serious duds since then. I don't know how you could back up this idea that insisting on voting for only establishment candidates somehow makes the country better. If you want your voice to be heard, make it heard. If you'll eat whatever you're fed then don't complain about the results.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on March 12, 2020, 11:40:34 AM
Doesn't matter to me. If you keep choosing the lesser of two evils, you keep getting evils to choose from. Biden was actively racist, Trump just dog whistles to racists. Biden has as much or more appearance of corruption than Trump. Both seem mentally challenged. Both shout at people who attend their events and disagree with them. Both seem to have problems with boundaries. I won't give him a vote any more than I voted for Hillary. I'll pick a third party or none of the above, because my vote is my voice. It says "I support you", not "I hate the other guy more". Seriously, the guy can't tell his wife from his sister, and you want to say he is FIT for office?

So much disinformation in one paragraph. Trump does not "dog whistle" to racists. The media does misstate events to make the appearance of racist support which doesn't exist. Like when an honorable group at a protest was confronted by leftist agitators and a third white supremecist  group entered the fray. When Trump remarked about the first group being innocent, the media pretended it was the third group he was talking about. If Trump was Nick Sandmann he could have sued. But tha's the way it is.

Trump doesn't "shout" at people at the events. That's Biden who calls them "dog-faced pony soldiers" or that they're "full of Sh*t!" Trump just speaks at whatever level reaches the back of the auditorium. (...And his audience is always huge.) Biden mumbles so no one knows what gaffe he is currently presenting.

Boundaries is all about Biden touching women and kids, making everyone in the room uncomfortable. Trump is a good man and always polite. ...And he never talks about kids wanting to stroke his blond leg hairs. Artificial boundaries are the media refusing to treat Melania with due respect.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: NobleHunter on March 12, 2020, 11:43:29 AM
... Trump is a good man and always polite. ...

Except when indulging in locker room talk.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: yossarian22c on March 12, 2020, 11:59:23 AM
...Trump is a good man and always polite.

Except when he's cheating on his wife with porn stars. Or mocking his political opponents. Or lots of other times where he mocked or belittled people. He's not a good man - he's definitely not always polite.

You can make serious arguments for some of his policies and abilities as president but when you repeatedly state that Trump is a good man and everyone who has ever met him says so, its just nonsense.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on March 12, 2020, 12:02:02 PM
...Except when indulging in locker room talk.

Of course. When talking to Billy Bush on the Access Hollywood leak, he repeated the Matt Lauer comment. Didn't make him a bad man, just a celebrity who talked about groupies in action. Ha Ha - I'm sure you never indulged in locker room talk. Look. I'm a UofM grad who doesn't really believe OSU people are as bad as we poke them as being; as they do to us. Like when the OSU coach died and went to Heaven and complained that the Michigan coach's house was all festooned with flags and bunting and his wasn't. The angel told him, that's not the coach's house, that's God's!

When Martin Luther King, Jr. said to judge a man not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character, perhaps that could have included "not by the color commentary of the MSM."

...Certainly not nonsense.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Wayward Son on March 12, 2020, 12:26:18 PM
WS, this argument cannot possibly hold water since the quality of American presidents has clearly been on the decline since...I dunno, Kennedy. We could argue about whether Reagan or Clinton rose above that, but there have been some serious duds since then. I don't know how you could back up this idea that insisting on voting for only establishment candidates somehow makes the country better. If you want your voice to be heard, make it heard. If you'll eat whatever you're fed then don't complain about the results.

That is probably because there is no universally agreed value for each candidate.  One man's +4 is another man's -7.

It also requires a certain amount of feedback to create actual progress with the candidates.  If your vote has no effect on the system, then the candidates you get will be random.

But, of course, your vote does have an effect, albeit a tiny one.

Nevertheless, for any one person's individual determination of the worth of Presidential candidates, it is mathematically true that voting for the lesser of two evils helps improve the candidates over the long run, and helps prevent worse candidates over the short run.

Also, you're working from a very small data set if you're only counting Presidents since Clinton. ;)
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on March 12, 2020, 12:37:22 PM
WS,

You seem to be assuming that Presidential candidates emerge in some sort of evolutionary or natural system, where votes towards the lesser of evils creates a sort of convergence towards better candidates over time. This would presumably be because the incumbent is up against various people who get weeded out if they're 'worse' or voted in if they're better, and so there emerges a trend towards improvement. Something like that?

Except for one thing: it's not a natural system, and the candidates do not emerge at random from the gene pool or whatever. They are often or even usually groomed for the role and propped up by powerful parties. Sometimes the parties might be ok with one a short list of possibilities, and sometimes they are deadset on one person, as was the case with Hillary in 2016. Because the system does not randomly generate candidates, therefore your schema fails; they are produced with certain criteria in mind to the extent that they're groomed and supported, which may include electibility, but will also include bolstering and perpetuating the current power structures. It's an exercise in improvement - for them. Unless you're on a board of directors or have lots of stock in their companies, the so-called improvement isn't for you.

Also, you're working from a very small data set if you're only counting Presidents since Clinton. ;)

Then good thing I wasn't?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Wayward Son on March 12, 2020, 01:32:53 PM
Quote
Except for one thing: it's not a natural system, and the candidates do not emerge at random from the gene pool or whatever. They are often or even usually groomed for the role and propped up by powerful parties. Sometimes the parties might be ok with one a short list of possibilities, and sometimes they are deadset on one person, as was the case with Hillary in 2016. Because the system does not randomly generate candidates, therefore your schema fails; they are produced with certain criteria in mind to the extent that they're groomed and supported, which may include electibility, but will also include bolstering and perpetuating the current power structures. It's an exercise in improvement - for them. Unless you're on a board of directors or have lots of stock in their companies, the so-called improvement isn't for you.

Why don't you state outright that there are some mysterious people that selects, grooms and supports the candidates?  Because you might have to name names of who these people are? ;)

There were--what?--20 candidates for the Democratic nomination this round.  Were they all groomed by these people?  If not, then why didn't voters get input on who was the best candidate?

Besides, you are assuming that voters have no influence on who these mysterious people pick.  You forget that, other than perpetuation the current power structure, they have other criteria.

1.  Getting their person elected.  If their selected candidates always lose, it don't do them a bit a good.  They need their person in power to wield that power in their favor.  For that, they need the help of voters.

2.  Keeping the party popular.  Do you believe these people select the Green Party candidates?  The Peace and Freedom Party candidates?  It would be a waste of time and resources to do so, since such candidates never come close to winning.  Similarly, if they select candidates that alienate members of the Democratic or Republican parties, then those parties will become the next Green or Peace and Freedom party, and their back to square one.  So it behooves them to keep their selections popular, at least within the party.

There are doubtlessly other criteria, all based on the fact that we, the people, get to vote for who we want.  Ultimately any candidate they select has to get the OK from the voters.  Which means that we, the voters, do have a say.  We have influence whether these people like it or not.

That's not to say that I, as an individual voter, have a huge say in the initial selection of candidates.  I'm only one voice.  There are millions of other voices, with different values, priorities and criteria.  And those with money have a greater voice than those without (since, as the Supreme Court said, money is speech  ::) ).  So my voice is almost infinitesimal in the overall scheme of things.

But that does not make it insignificant.  As long as I vote, and as long as I vote for the candidate that is the best (or even just better) among those who are running, I do have an influence.  Me, and everyone who thinks like me.  Such a group has influence.

Just look at how much Bernie has changed the Democratic party.  Look at the party platform from 2016.  You can pick out the lines that Bernie's running for the Presidency added to the platform--lines that those "perpetuating the current power structures" doubtlessly didn't like, and didn't appear in the Republican party platform.  Bernie has pushed the Democratic party to the left.  So even though Bernie did not win in 2016, and probably won't in 2020, he definitely influenced Hillary and the Democratic candidate this year.  And if the Bernie voters keep up the pressure, they will keep those lines in the 2024 platform, the 2028 platform and the 2032 platform, if not adding even more lines.

But for the ones that didn't vote for Hillary, what influence did they have for the past four years?  If they don't vote for the Democratic candidate this year, what influence will they have, even if that candidate wins?  The Democrats will realize that, since they won't get those Bernie voters even if they add those lines to the platform, they really don't need them.  It won't help them get into power.  So they don't count.

Why do you think Bernie's ideas and values don't appear in the Republican platform? ;)

So, yeah, votes do count.  And so, voting for the lesser evil pushes it toward lesser evil, even if it is only a small push.  But it is a push nevertheless.  And over time, with a lot of small pushes from a lot of people, it will influence the parties, who they nominate, and what they stand for.  But only if the party sees that it will.  Not voting for the party means it doesn't matter whether they listen to you or not.  They don't get any closer to what they want (to win power).  So they might as well just ignore you anyway.

Voting for the lesser evil moves a party in the direction you want.  Maybe only infinitesimally, but movement nevertheless.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on March 12, 2020, 02:07:58 PM
Why don't you state outright that there are some mysterious people that selects, grooms and supports the candidates?  Because you might have to name names of who these people are? ;)

They are not mysterious, they are people with a lot of money. This can be filed under "duh". But to be fair I can't name them outright because I haven't yet made a practice of getting to know the individuals in the high-stakes game. It might be interesting to do that but I don't have time.

Quote
There were--what?--20 candidates for the Democratic nomination this round.  Were they all groomed by these people?  If not, then why didn't voters get input on who was the best candidate?

The party will, predictably, look at the possible candidates and prefer some over others, and push those through media, coverage, tone, etc. Whether they 'handpicked' some of them can be hard to tell. Biden was obviously a party-favorite coming in, and it should be clear that behind-the-scenes decision making happens around this because you might yourself why Biden didn't run in 2016, since that was the obvious year to do so. The reason is because an agreement was evidently made that it was Hillary's turn.

Quote
1.  Getting their person elected.  If their selected candidates always lose, it don't do them a bit a good.  They need their person in power to wield that power in their favor.  For that, they need the help of voters.

This is a criterion, yes, although recently it seems to have become the case that it isn't the *top* priority. I am pretty confident that in terms of the Democratic party's preferences right now for President it goes something like:

Biden > Bloomberg > Trump > Sanders

So yes, I think they would rather throw to election to Trump rather than get 'their' person elected, because Bernie isn't their person in their eyes.

Quote
2.  Keeping the party popular.

I am not sure this is required in order for them to secure victory. What they do need is to edge out other options so that you vote in a way favorable to their goals. So let's take Hillary vs Bernie 2016 in the primaries: what was required in this case was for voters to feel at minimum 51% in favor of Hillary over Bernie, to vote for her in the primary. There's no need to push her popularity over the top so that someone already for her will go from 60% to 70% in favor of her; that gains them nothing, as the one vote is still one vote. Maybe it increases voter turnout, I suppose, but I don't know that better PR would achieve that on its own; maybe someone knows better about this detail. But what they do need to achieve is to tip the scale just over the edge so she gets the vote. And likewise for other voting situations: 50%+1 is the goal, not 80% with triumphant fanfare. While I don't doubt they would enjoy total triumph, that is not necessary for success, and I suspect they focus on the danger zone quite a bit.

Quote
That's not to say that I, as an individual voter, have a huge say in the initial selection of candidates.  I'm only one voice.  There are millions of other voices, with different values, priorities and criteria.  And those with money have a greater voice than those without (since, as the Supreme Court said, money is speech  ::) ).  So my voice is almost infinitesimal in the overall scheme of things.

I agree with this, and yet from it I would draw exactly the opposite conclusion you do: because your voice is politically small, it's all the less reason to sell it cheaply. If you, single-handedly, had to pick the next President, that would be a huge pressure to not make a mistake, and I could see how making a safe vote might be appealing. But as the opposite is the case, why not speak your real feeling and the numbers be damned? If everyone did that the world would be a different place, I think. It's this idea of "oh what's the point anyhow, I just want to keep Trump out" that increases civic unrest and disconnection from the political process, I think.

Quote
Just look at how much Bernie has changed the Democratic party.  Look at the party platform from 2016.  You can pick out the lines that Bernie's running for the Presidency added to the platform--lines that those "perpetuating the current power structures" doubtlessly didn't like, and didn't appear in the Republican party platform.  Bernie has pushed the Democratic party to the left.

This is a good point, but seems to me to be a sidestep from the issue of whether political candidates improve over time by definition. If they do on account of people like Bernie, then surely not supporting people like Bernie is, if anything, going to counteract the ability for people like him to influence the party's platform. It would be voting for him whether or not he'll win that might make the Hillary-type candidate have to do something about it. If literally everyone voted for Hillary on the grounds that Bernie can't win anyhow, not only would she have won but she wouldn't have bothered pretending to care about his issues either.

Quote
But for the ones that didn't vote for Hillary, what influence did they have for the past four years?  If they don't vote for the Democratic candidate this year, what influence will they have, even if that candidate wins?  The Democrats will realize that, since they won't get those Bernie voters even if they add those lines to the platform, they really don't need them.  It won't help them get into power.  So they don't count.

I think this is an extremely cynical view of the democratic process, if I'm reading you correctly. Being part of the winning team cannot possibly be the only definition of whether your vote counted or not. In fact I'm not even certain that a democratic republic could function at all if this was the prevailing view.

Quote
Why do you think Bernie's ideas and values don't appear in the Republican platform? ;)

Because part of their stated platform is to oppose the types of things Bernie believes in? It's not even a question of declining to court voters who 'don't count.' They are outright opposed to his ideas and values.

Quote
Not voting for the party means it doesn't matter whether they listen to you or not.  They don't get any closer to what they want (to win power).  So they might as well just ignore you anyway.

This makes a kind of sense, if at any rate seeing it from their point of view. But in my opinion all this does is scream out that there is a clear oligarchic system in place. 'Vote for the establishment or else you will have no value to them' sounds like a nightmare to me. I would rather live in a shack in the woods than have anything to do with that.

Quote
Voting for the lesser evil moves a party in the direction you want.  Maybe only infinitesimally, but movement nevertheless.

Even granting fully that this were true, there are other forces in play (as clearly many things go in in a society at once) that might well be pushing in the opposite direction. So even if the natural process you describe is accurate, and pushes things "1 degree" in the good direction with each step, there might also be forces pushing it 2 or more degrees in the other direction, so that without 'assistance' this natural process still loses out in the long-term. I know - the answer will come back that there are no other relevant forces and that we are inextricably moving in a positive direction by definition. Actually I agree - hah! But not for the same reasons. I do think we are moving forward no matter what, but I believe these reasons involve technology and knowledge; politically speaking I think America is going as closely as it can directly backwards.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on March 12, 2020, 02:24:53 PM
...there are some mysterious people that selects, grooms and supports the candidates?

You mean like AOC responding to a Left-wing activist group casting call? https://youtu.be/1h5iv6sECGU (Note: This link actually shows AOC admitting that her brother signed her up for the casting call, and she obediently follows those who put her into the office.)

...as long as I vote for the candidate that is the best (or even just better) among those who are running, I do have an influence.  Me, and everyone who thinks like me.  Such a group has influence.

...even though Bernie did not win in 2016, and probably won't in 2020, he definitely influenced Hillary and the Democratic candidate this year.  And if the Bernie voters keep up the pressure, they will keep those lines in the 2024 platform, the 2028 platform and the 2032 platform, if not adding even more lines.

So, yeah, votes do count.  And so, voting for the lesser evil pushes it toward lesser evil, even if it is only a small push.  But it is a push nevertheless.

Yes, the silent majority did make itself known as the decades-long Democrat power bloc fought to maintain its monopoly, at least on Presidential elections. When Newt Gingrich won the House, it was on issues. The Contract For America was all about bringing up issues which the Democrats never allowed to get to the floor. It was amazing that most of those issues not only came to the floor, but were addressed and became law. That Democrat power base fought against the change in majority by calling it the "Contract ON America."

But not everything is unilateral single party power politics. At least some of it. When Bush 43 was governor of Texas, he was so bipartisan that many Democrat Texas grassroots candidates supported him. When he won the Presidency, he made bipartisan working groups, some run by Democrats, like Ted Kennedy, to create law. Many of the long-held Democrat party planks that they could never accomplish were finally made law under Bush 43. (When I typed, "At least some of it," that referred to the fact that the leaders in the DNC realized Bush was stealing their issues, so instead of working to win what they always said they wanted, they pulled all their members out of his committees, and fought against their own policies in order to deny him any more success.)
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on March 12, 2020, 05:13:22 PM
But not everything is unilateral single party power politics. At least some of it. When Bush 43 was governor of Texas, he was so bipartisan that many Democrat Texas grassroots candidates supported him. When he won the Presidency, he made bipartisan working groups, some run by Democrats, like Ted Kennedy, to create law. Many of the long-held Democrat party planks that they could never accomplish were finally made law under Bush 43. (When I typed, "At least some of it," that referred to the fact that the leaders in the DNC realized Bush was stealing their issues, so instead of working to win what they always said they wanted, they pulled all their members out of his committees, and fought against their own policies in order to deny him any more success.)

Slightly rose-tinted glasses on part of that. Bush43 also had significant pushback from the right in regards to immigration reforms as well. In an echo of Trump in 2016, their positions as I recall were: No immigration amnesty before a border wall is completed, amnesty with no wall was tried with Reagan, it didn't solve squat.

Which was the point where the Democrats parted ways because they're very fair winds about border wall construction, they're for it, until they're against it, until they decide to be for it again. That and they wouldn't consider any reform plans without an amnesty package of some kind.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 12, 2020, 05:17:19 PM
Boundaries is all about Biden touching women and kids, making everyone in the room uncomfortable. Trump is a good man and always polite. ...And he never talks about kids wanting to stroke his blond leg hairs. Artificial boundaries are the media refusing to treat Melania with due respect.

OH, yes. So polite while he's trolling the the Miss Teen USA dressing room.

And that's in his own words, and reported by the girls, and confirmed by his daughter.

Quote
The Trump campaign did not offer a response to either story, but in a 2005 appearance on Howard Stern’s show, Trump bragged about doing exactly what the women describe. “I’ll go backstage before a show, and everyone’s getting dressed and ready and everything else,” he said.

His position as the pageant’s owner entitled him to that kind of access, Trump explained, seemingly aware that what he was doing made the women uncomfortable. “You know, no men are anywhere. And I’m allowed to go in because I’m the owner of the pageant. And therefore I’m inspecting it… Is everyone OK? You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible-looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that,” he said.

(Billado told BuzzFeed she mentioned the incident to Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, who shrugged it off, saying, “Yeah, he does that.”)
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on March 12, 2020, 05:36:46 PM
Which puts him on par with the (predominately) male audience who buy (or browse these days) "barely legal" porn rags and websites.

You're disconnecting on another item in play here: "Look, but don't touch." Or at the least get consent first.

Nobody has accused Trump of engaging in illegal behavior(seeing a teenage girl in a state of undress is not criminal in its own right, even if she is under 18) although much of it is dubious for various reasons.

Touching an underage female certainly can be illegal however, plenty of evidence to support Biden doing that, nothing of substance in regards to Trump. For that matter, non-consensual touching of women can also be illegal, again, plenty of evidence to support Biden has done that with great regularity, but nothing of any real substance with regards to Trump. He may be a womanizer and a cheat, but he seems to be very consistent about obtaining consent, locker room talk not withstanding.

It also is a weird Twilight Zone-esque time to live in where the same people who defended Clinton while acknowledging he probably did engage in oral sex with Lewinsky have turned around and keep trying to use Trump banging a porn star as some kind of unforgivable sin.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 13, 2020, 11:47:41 AM
It also is a weird Twilight Zone-esque time to live in where the same people who defended Clinton while acknowledging he probably did engage in oral sex with Lewinsky have turned around and keep trying to use Trump banging a porn star as some kind of unforgivable sin.

It's not a contest with a winner and a loser. They can both be losers. Even if Biden is creepier than Trump, it doesn't mean Trump isn't creepy.

Meanwhile, I wasn't ever a Clinton defender. He had sexual relations with a subordinate. If that had been a lobbyist, that would be slightly better. If it was Marilyn Monroe, then good for him.

As for banging the porn star, I think relatively few people call that an unforgiveable sin, or a sin at all. Lying his ass off about it and paying/pressuring her to keep quiet is different - but still far from unforgiveable.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on March 13, 2020, 02:32:24 PM
I don't think asking someone to abide by the terms of their NDA is "pressuring her to keep quiet". Enforcing a contract is kind of normal stuff.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on March 13, 2020, 02:41:39 PM
I don't think asking someone to abide by the terms of their NDA is "pressuring her to keep quiet". Enforcing a contract is kind of normal stuff.

I'm not even sure that it's something valid to bring up whether or not he was pressuring her. Like, if I had a private relationship with someone I would expect by default for it to remain private, regardless of my job. If they told me they were going to post about it on social media or talk about it on the news, yeah I'd "pressure them" not to, as in, use whatever tactics I could to convince them not to do that. In my case I suppose it would be a question of keeping my private life private, social decency, and so forth. If a signed contract is made to the effect that they will keep it to themselves, that's just another way of saying they've agreed to keep it private, and it's in writing. Now I can see how in a power scenario this can be troubling; like a teacher "asks" his student to keep their illicit affair "private", when in fact there is a power disparity and a fundamental problem. But I don't think this can reasonably apply unless the power is directly over that person, like your employee or student. Being a generally powerful person should not bar you from pursuing relationships, even though on a general level you have 'more power than they do'. This is a sort of tangent and is off-topic from the OP, but I think we need to be careful about throwing around terms like "pressured her" which sounds rapey, when in fact it's what almost every person in his situation would have done, putting aside the fact that it was an extra-marital affair. This does not make his general character look good, but specifically on the issue of 'pressuring her' I think the accusations are off-base or at least being framed in a way that makes the situation look other than what it is.

When comparing these incidents to Biden's comportment (if we choose to do so) I think we need to keep an accurate accounting of what we're really talking about so that it doesn't truly degenerate into whataboutism (i.e. comparing apples to oranges and having a race to the bottom). But comparing apples to applies is, I think, proper, and it shouldn't be out of bounds to compare two potential upcoming candidates for Presidency on the same standards.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 13, 2020, 02:54:50 PM
Quote
But comparing apples to applies is, I think, proper, and it shouldn't be out of bounds to compare two potential upcoming candidates for Presidency on the same standards.

That's fair. How many women has Biden had sign an NDA?
We know Bloomberg had a number of women under NDA.

It is not unusual to have an NDA, but running for President isn't business as usual which is why Bloomberg was under pressure to release those women from NDA. It's why Presidents and candidates routinely disclose their tax forms, another intensely private thing that helps demonstrate transparency.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on March 13, 2020, 03:07:03 PM
Bloomberg was under pressure to release those women from NDA because Warren was getting desperate. NOt because Bloomberg was running for president. Had Warren not been in the race, it's fair odds you would have never heard of those NDA's. And, if you had, it would have been dismissed as a right-wing conspiracy because only FOX News would have covered it.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on March 13, 2020, 04:12:25 PM
It is not unusual to have an NDA, but running for President isn't business as usual which is why Bloomberg was under pressure to release those women from NDA. It's why Presidents and candidates routinely disclose their tax forms, another intensely private thing that helps demonstrate transparency.

Even if "you should have seen it coming" it routine when running for President from a strategic standpoint, I still don't think we have an established norm of transparency in the sense you mean it. Transparency is supposed to mean that in the conducting of their office there are no secrets, or at least the sorts of things they do are disclosed to a reasonable degree. It does not involve their private life; a transparent administration should not mean we have webcams in their bedroom or watching how they sit on the toilet. I guess it could mean that, but it never has before. Likewise, if transparency is even a standard for a candidate who holds no public office - and I don't know that it is, although certainly we sort of do want to know who we're voting for - I would think it should be in areas such as criminality and past positions on their topics. I do not believe it's proper to require a President to tell you personal things about their friends in order to run, to reveal information about their sex life, or to tell you any other detail that is otherwise no one's business. Running for a candidacy does not entitle us to full access to someone's life, nor should we want it to in the sense that it is bad for us to want to know these sorts of things about people. It's tabloid culture in a nutshell, but turned into a political issue.

I would agree that I'd want to know if there are NDA's about business malpractice or fraud; but not really about relationships. While I do care about moral character, I do not believe I have the right to demand or expect private details in order to make that evaluation. Does that make sense?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 13, 2020, 06:02:15 PM
Quote
I would agree that I'd want to know if there are NDA's about business malpractice or fraud; but not really about relationships. While I do care about moral character, I do not believe I have the right to demand or expect private details in order to make that evaluation. Does that make sense?

I can understand that. So then would you favor releasing NDAs covering sexual harassment?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: yossarian22c on March 13, 2020, 06:05:25 PM
Quote
I would agree that I'd want to know if there are NDA's about business malpractice or fraud; but not really about relationships. While I do care about moral character, I do not believe I have the right to demand or expect private details in order to make that evaluation. Does that make sense?

I can understand that. So then would you favor releasing NDAs covering sexual harassment?

Anything that could lead to blackmail.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on March 13, 2020, 06:05:46 PM
Quote
I would agree that I'd want to know if there are NDA's about business malpractice or fraud; but not really about relationships. While I do care about moral character, I do not believe I have the right to demand or expect private details in order to make that evaluation. Does that make sense?

I can understand that. So then would you favor releasing NDAs covering sexual harassment?

To the extent that such NDA's may cover workplace harassment then I do think it's relevant, where or not it was a boss/employee relationship.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on March 13, 2020, 06:07:28 PM
Anything that could lead to blackmail.

That's a really interesting point: but if it was really our goal to vet for potential blackmail - and I mean really vet for it, rather than vaguely vet for it - then we would have to rethink the process of vetting altogether. I would actually be for this, but it would involve far more than just checking to see if you've done stupid things like have affairs. That's sort of trivial in the grand scheme when it comes to blackmail material. The real goods is criminal stuff, but not the sort of stuff likely to be in any police file.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on March 13, 2020, 07:41:34 PM
Quote
But comparing apples to applies is, I think, proper, and it shouldn't be out of bounds to compare two potential upcoming candidates for Presidency on the same standards.

That's fair. How many women has Biden had sign an NDA?

Good question, given that Congress had an office which existed solely for that purpose with regards to our congress critters, and I believe those records are still effectively sealed.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on March 13, 2020, 07:45:37 PM
Quote
I would agree that I'd want to know if there are NDA's about business malpractice or fraud; but not really about relationships. While I do care about moral character, I do not believe I have the right to demand or expect private details in order to make that evaluation. Does that make sense?

I can understand that. So then would you favor releasing NDAs covering sexual harassment?

Anything that could lead to blackmail.

In that case many NDA's regarding "private matters" would need to voided. "Blackmail worthy material" is anything which can cause "a scandal" if it becomes public, and the bar for cause a public scandal is VERY low, and it is also highly subjective as to "cause a scandal from whose point of view?"
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on March 13, 2020, 10:27:42 PM
In that case many NDA's regarding "private matters" would need to voided. "Blackmail worthy material" is anything which can cause "a scandal" if it becomes public, and the bar for cause a public scandal is VERY low, and it is also highly subjective as to "cause a scandal from whose point of view?"

Yes, we would then have to get into what level of potential scandal/blackmail is considered enough to break a NDA. Like, career-ending may not be a high enough bar, whereas "will go to jail if discovered" is probably enough for blackmail to be very effective. Some people might tolerate losing their job if that was the worst-case scenario of a risk-assessment, but there are much worse things that can happen than that.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on March 13, 2020, 11:23:10 PM
In that case many NDA's regarding "private matters" would need to voided. "Blackmail worthy material" is anything which can cause "a scandal" if it becomes public, and the bar for cause a public scandal is VERY low, and it is also highly subjective as to "cause a scandal from whose point of view?"

Yes, we would then have to get into what level of potential scandal/blackmail is considered enough to break a NDA. Like, career-ending may not be a high enough bar, whereas "will go to jail if discovered" is probably enough for blackmail to be very effective. Some people might tolerate losing their job if that was the worst-case scenario of a risk-assessment, but there are much worse things that can happen than that.

I believe that is already bog standard as a matter of law, NDA's which involve criminal activity are non-binding in many/most jurisdictions.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on March 14, 2020, 12:39:50 AM
In that case many NDA's regarding "private matters" would need to voided. "Blackmail worthy material" is anything which can cause "a scandal" if it becomes public, and the bar for cause a public scandal is VERY low, and it is also highly subjective as to "cause a scandal from whose point of view?"

Yes, we would then have to get into what level of potential scandal/blackmail is considered enough to break a NDA. Like, career-ending may not be a high enough bar, whereas "will go to jail if discovered" is probably enough for blackmail to be very effective. Some people might tolerate losing their job if that was the worst-case scenario of a risk-assessment, but there are much worse things that can happen than that.

I believe that is already bog standard as a matter of law, NDA's which involve criminal activity are non-binding in many/most jurisdictions.

I guess I was talking in this instance less about just NDA's in the particular, and more that the people need to know about potential blackmail issues of a criminal nature (following up on yossarian's comment).
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on March 14, 2020, 07:06:11 PM
NDAs are not the end-all and be-all to transparency or personal honor. In the business world, it has long been a corporate decision whether to fight accusations which can have negative effects or payoff suspected liars to get rid of the downside. There are many scammers out there who prey on the rich and powerful - but then, too, there are many rich and powerful who prey on the vulnerable.

I have personal knowledge of "professional" accusers who make waves instead of doing their jobs. Even when they are paid off, they just move to another company to do the same thing, and the former company can't warn the new company, because of NDAs of their own. To my sense of justice, I don't think the "Me, too" movement is worth anything at all. Even if anyone tries to be totally transparent, truth suffers based on the approval or disapproval of the press.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on March 14, 2020, 08:08:37 PM
Back to Biden. He is playing to no audience and still screwing up. On Friday, He forgot the year, when the election would be, and in a streamed video, wandered off camera forcing them to cut away to a logo. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/03/14/nolte-joe-biden-forgets-year-meanders-off-frame-in-disastrous-livestream/

..And not just him, the whole crew was technically inept.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 16, 2020, 12:01:29 PM
I wonder if the virus will keep Joe from manhandling people.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on March 16, 2020, 12:34:19 PM
I seriously doubt it. Sniffer's gotta sniff.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on March 17, 2020, 07:54:25 PM
Biden just earned four Pinnichios because of the disinformational ad he put out: https://freebeacon.com/2020-election/biden-ad-attacking-trump-on-coronavirus-gets-four-pinocchios-from-wapo/

"The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee received "Four Pinocchios" for an ad that deceptively edited video of a Trump campaign rally to make it appear that the president called the coronavirus a hoax. In the ad, Trump can be seen saying "coronavirus," followed immediately by "This is their new hoax."

But as the Post noted, the Biden campaign cut out more than 120 words in between those two statements. In his comments, Trump was calling the Democratic politicization of coronavirus a "hoax," not the virus itself:"

This follows his standard operational procedure.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: yossarian22c on March 18, 2020, 03:16:16 PM
The virus sucked any potential focus and energy the Sanders campaign could have hoped to muster. So now we're pretty set on a Trump vs Biden general. Grumpy old men - presidential election edition. I was hoping it would stretch out longer. I think the democratic voters needed to see Biden tested more by Sanders. He managed to get here by basically name recognition. His numbers dipped after nearly every debate, there just was never enough momentum for any of the other moderates. Yang - too unknown. Pete - too young and inexperienced. Amy - never enough coverage/space. Steyer/Bloomberg - there wasn't room for 2 billionaires. Harris/Booker - never could get that much traction in a crowded field.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on March 18, 2020, 03:39:44 PM
Yang - too unknown. Pete - too young and inexperienced. Amy - never enough coverage/space. Steyer/Bloomberg - there wasn't room for 2 billionaires. Harris/Booker - never could get that much traction in a crowded field.

Bernie - election fraud. Oops! You were naming things that already happened.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on March 18, 2020, 05:31:43 PM
Anyone see that video of him at a lectern? Dude, it was horrible. He meanders through a speech, not too badly. Then, when it's over, just stands there, blanked out. Eventually, Jill approaches and Joe is obviously surprised to see her. She gives him a hug, whispers "good boy" into his ear (picked up by mike) and he kind of thanks her. She walks off and Joe remains standing there, clearly at a loss as to where he is or what he should do next.

It was bad. I mean, it was bad. I thought it was some kind of fake at first it was so bad. Joe may not make it through the primaries, I dunno. Somebody needs to stick up for him.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on March 21, 2020, 07:15:55 PM
... Joe may not make it through the primaries, I dunno. Somebody needs to stick up for him.

He will make it through the primaries with a solid majority, which makes the DNC impotent to intervene if he deteriorates too badly. If he announces his VP before the convention, she will surely be the new Democrat figurehead. The only way for them to bring forward a possible winner would be if he recognizes his decline and voluntarily steps down.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on March 23, 2020, 08:20:24 AM
Bo Erickson, CBS News:
Quote
“In past week, Joe Biden has only had 1 on-camera public address as COVID escalated. (He spoke for ~6 mins on Tuesday from his home.),” Erickson wrote on Twitter.

“He also hosted a tele-town hall w/voters, answered Qs on press call & video chatted w/donors. Everything else has been statements ripping POTUS,” he said.

Joe's campaign reported to CNBC that all of his virtual events were postponed and for future events he would not take live questions.

Might be time to activate a silver alert.

Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 23, 2020, 12:02:18 PM
I generally agree with Biden in decline, however, they might well have cancelled because his campaign is technically inept.

virtual town hall mess (https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/14/21179466/joe-biden-virtual-town-hall-audio-bernie-sanders-illinois-dick-durbin-nightmare)

Quote
The Zoom call was plagued with technical problems from the beginning. First, it began over three hours late. Once Biden did start speaking, his staff had to restart his entire speech because there was no audio, fading his campaign logo in and back out again to signify that they were redoing the address. As he started reading off his prepared remarks again, Biden’s audio was suddenly painful to hear and impossible to understand, at least until they replaced whatever mic he was using with a smartphone.

After his opening address was finished — as unintelligible as it was — staff opened the call up to questions. “Mr. Biden’s speech was garbled the entire time,” the first questioner said before being cut off.

A staffer responded saying, “We appreciate you bearing with our technical difficulties.” Then, they quickly clicked on to the next questioner. It was a few more seconds of dead air and another supporter who seemingly couldn’t unmute themselves before the town hall got its first real question.

It will be interesting to see if Trump does better with virtual campaign events. His style seems to depend on feeding off the energy of the crowd, chants and cheers.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 23, 2020, 12:04:03 PM
Quote
It will be interesting to see if Trump does better with virtual campaign events. His style seems to depend on feeding off the energy of the crowd, chants and cheers.

He's sort of using the daily coronavirus briefings as mini-shows, mugging for the camera and interjecting jokey remarks while others are asking or answering questions.  Ever the celebrity entertainer.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on March 24, 2020, 08:21:25 AM
Quote
Joe Biden’s new foray into regular video updates about coronavirus stumbled out of the gate as the teleprompter malfunctioned and he called the sitting Massachusetts governor by the wrong name.

Biden was speaking behind a podium when he began verbally stumbling around, as if he wasn’t sure what to say, or was buying time.

“Beef up the number of responders dealing with the crush — these crush of cases. And, uh, and in addition to that,” he said, looking down at his notes, before he waved his hand upward under the podium to conceal it.

“And in addition to that we to, um, make sure that we, uh, we are in a position that we are, well, let me go to the second thing. I spoke enough of that,” Biden said, before trying to move on from the blunder.

Biden called the current Massachusetts governor “Charlie Parker,” a jazz saxophonist from the 1950s.

This was Biden’s first of what he said would be many video appearances.

You gotta watch the video, it’s tough to see this happening to him.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: rightleft22 on March 24, 2020, 09:56:51 AM
Quote
This was Biden’s first of what he said would be many video appearances.

You gotta watch the video, it’s tough to see this happening to him.

Sorry going to go  whataboutism
I agree watching Biden  speak is often cringe worthy however you have lost your right to comment on such things.
Your apologist defense of your man's communication speach/style/gaffes makes any such comment pure hypocrisy.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on March 24, 2020, 10:33:44 AM
Trump's style is weird, I've talked about that. But what Biden is doing is not in the same league and you know it.

Defend him however you want, it's sad to watch Biden being taken advantage of like this.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: rightleft22 on March 24, 2020, 11:07:11 AM
Quote
Trump's style is weird, I've talked about that. But what Biden is doing is not in the same league and you know it.

Defend him however you want, it's sad to watch Biden being taken advantage of like this.

That's a difference I'm not defending Biden, its sad watching Biden and Trump IMO - in a basement league arguing about which is the worst is pointless
I'm saying as a apologist you don't get to comment on the topic without being a hypocrite 
Its the new normal in public speech which you have endorsed... welcome to your new normal.

"Be careful what you wish for, history starts now"
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on March 24, 2020, 11:10:45 AM
Whatever you say, if it makes you feel better about it, then lean into it and really embrace it.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: rightleft22 on March 24, 2020, 11:46:02 AM
Quote
Whatever you say, if it makes you feel better about it, then lean into it and really embrace it.

have you ever looked up the topic - shadow projection
From my perspective your the one leaning into it but as you so well put... Like... Whatever :)
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on March 24, 2020, 08:15:38 PM
...as a apologist you don't get to comment on the topic without being a hypocrite 
Its the new normal in public speech which you have endorsed... welcome to your new normal.

The new normal is deriding Trump at every opportunity and condemning polite, low-key speaking as aggressive and out of control. What many in the media complain about is him not allowing aggressive, over the top questioners, and actually calling them out on their rudeness. Why is it that reacting to rudeness is considered rude, but the real rudeness he reacts to is given a pass?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 24, 2020, 11:34:07 PM
What exactly was it about Alexander's line of questioning that was inappropriate or rude?

For transcript, ignore the editorial commentary.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/03/20/politics/peter-alexander-donald-trump-coronavirus/index.html
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 25, 2020, 10:02:44 AM
What exactly was it about Alexander's line of questioning that was inappropriate or rude?

For transcript, ignore the editorial commentary.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/03/20/politics/peter-alexander-donald-trump-coronavirus/index.html

Answering his question would have demonstrated that he has no empathy. In his mind it would be like asking someone working from home using a video conferencing tool to stand up so you can see that they're not wearing pants.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on March 25, 2020, 10:15:51 AM
From Joe Biden, on The View:
Quote
'The good news is the bad news. The bad news is people know me. The good news me is they know me. So it's hard to pin something on me that's not accurate. It's easy to pin things on me that are accurate.'

Huh?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 25, 2020, 10:21:40 AM
I'm willing to make a ((very) small) bet that the Democratic Party will draft Andrew Cuomo to replace Biden.  That can happen if the rest of the primaries are cancelled and Biden doesn't have the necessary number of pledged delegates at convention time.
That will give people like Crunch a whole new realm of complaints and meretricious lines of attack against him and the Democrats for picking him.  I would like to see Gretchen Whitmer (Michigan Gov) as his running mate, which will give people on the right an opportunity to make unkind comparisons with Sarah Palin, because she's no long relevant or needed.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on March 25, 2020, 10:23:35 AM
Bernie is still running. Good luck "drafting" someone else.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on March 25, 2020, 10:30:31 AM
...as a apologist you don't get to comment on the topic without being a hypocrite 
Its the new normal in public speech which you have endorsed... welcome to your new normal.

The new normal is deriding Trump at every opportunity and condemning polite, low-key speaking as aggressive and out of control. What many in the media complain about is him not allowing aggressive, over the top questioners, and actually calling them out on their rudeness. Why is it that reacting to rudeness is considered rude, but the real rudeness he reacts to is given a pass?

I'm actually stunned if you watch Trump's press conferences, and this is not remotely a new obsevation though it has continued during the coronavirus pressers, how apalling poorly behaved members of the US leftist press are.  When an international journalist asks a question, it's substantive and neutral and provokes an answer that is informative and expansive.  When a member of the US press that leans right asks a question, it's polite and leads to an expansive informative response.

When a member of the mainstream US press asks a question?  Not even close, they front load the question with several insults and even lies, like putting in Democratic talking points that they know are false as premises that have to be assumed to answer the question.  I've seen them encode accusations of racism, in the current case accusations that he's killed people or repeats of the Dem lie that he said the virus was a hoax.  Or encoding that his touring of a treatment that is showing promise is somehow dangerous or unscientific.   I have NEVER seen them act this way with anyone else in a press conference with any head of state - that branch of the press was always part of the "news" side that was there to get information and not to spin a story and that's no longer the case.  They're now part of the "commentary" side that's there to push an opinion and not to obtain information.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 25, 2020, 10:35:51 AM
Give it a rest.  Trump doesn't like anybody challenging him or anyone he has chosen as a Deep Trumpist.  Here he is attacking Chris Wallace for asking if the media was "fake" for saying that the news about coronavirus was "bad".

Quote
".@SteveScalise blew the nasty & obnoxious Chris Wallace (will never be his father, Mike!) away on Chris’s lowest rated [sic] (unless I’m on) morning show," Trump tweeted Sunday. "This kind of dumb and unfair interview would never have happened in the @FoxNews past."

Amazingly, he managed to praise himself at the same time he was attacking Chris Wallace, his network and his heritage.  How does that rate on your scale of fairness?

You know (because Trump has said it repeatedly) that if someone hits him he hits them back harder.  He perceives anything he doesn't want to hear as a "hit" and "fake" and hits back with his own peculiar brand of fakery.

If you can't acknowledge that, then you're not a fair observer yourself.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: yossarian22c on March 25, 2020, 10:52:35 AM
I'm willing to make a ((very) small) bet that the Democratic Party will draft Andrew Cuomo to replace Biden.  That can happen if the rest of the primaries are cancelled and Biden doesn't have the necessary number of pledged delegates at convention time.
That will give people like Crunch a whole new realm of complaints and meretricious lines of attack against him and the Democrats for picking him.  I would like to see Gretchen Whitmer (Michigan Gov) as his running mate, which will give people on the right an opportunity to make unkind comparisons with Sarah Palin, because she's no long relevant or needed.

Not an expert on Cuomo but I can't imagine a much worse choice to run than Biden. And Cuomo vs Trump following the covid-19 pandemic would be a very different campaign dynamic.

I still think Amy makes a good VP choice for anyone. Also from the midwest, woman, some national name recognition, experience in the Senate.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on March 25, 2020, 11:02:09 AM
Give it a rest.  Trump doesn't like anybody challenging him or anyone he has chosen as a Deep Trumpist.

Two things can be true at the same time. Your comment above, and the fact that the press expresses their disdain by lacing many of their questions with presuppositions and innuendo.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on March 25, 2020, 11:34:06 AM
What exactly was it about Alexander's line of questioning that was inappropriate or rude?

First of all, here's a link to the full transcript for the press conference.  https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-coronavirus-task-force-march-20-press-conference-transcript-trump-spars-with-reporters-in-fiery-briefing (https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-coronavirus-task-force-march-20-press-conference-transcript-trump-spars-with-reporters-in-fiery-briefing)

This was a second question by Peter Alexander and followed up on a clear response to effectively the same question by the prior reporter, not to mention multiple references in the prepared remarks.

Quote
To Dr. Fauci, if I could? Dr. Fauci, as was explained yesterday, there has been some promise with hydroxychloroquine as potential therapy for people who are infected with coronavirus. Is there any evidence to suggest that, as with malaria, it might be used as a prophylaxis against COVID-19?

To which Fauci, responded:

Quote
No. The answer is no. The evidence that you’re talking about is anecdotal evidence. As the commissioner of FDA and the president mentioned yesterday, we’re trying to strike a balance between making something with a potential of an effect to the American people available at the same time that we do it under the auspices of a protocol that would give us information to determine if it’s truly safe and truly effective. But, the information that you’re referring to specifically is anecdotal. It was not done in a controlled clinical trial, so you really can’t make any definitive statement about it.

Now, by anecdotal, it seems all he means is that anything that is not a double blind clinical trial is anecdotal.  Not sure if you've ever solved a problem in real life, but I'm pretty sure you've been able to figure out solutions without running double blind clinical trials.  If any study of scale shows improvement at the rate of the French results on the combination.

And then Trump clarifies his position on exactly this issue:

Quote
I think, without seeing too much, I’m probably more of a fan of that, maybe, than anybody. I’m a big fan, and we’ll see what happens. We all understand what the doctor said is 100% correct. It’s early, but I’ve seen things that are impressive. We’ll see. We’re going to know soon. We’re going to know soon. Including safety. When you get that safety, this has been prescribed for many years for people to combat malaria, which was a big problem, and it’s very effective. It’s a strong drug.

And there's nothing there that's incorrect.  Trump said that the doctors are right, but that he's hopeful.  I think anyone rational is hopeful based on the "anecdotal" results, and given the proven history of the drug (it's literally been used for decades and the side effects are "well understood"), and the urgency of the health need expediting a trial - even if not double blind makes a lot of sense.

I mean honestly, per the FDA guidelines there "in no approved treatment" for an illness with a high fatality rate, how does that not justify running with the promising yet "anecdotal" results?

Then they continue, Faucci and Trump walking through exactly why it's "anecdotal" (i.e., not done in a clinical trial).

So then Peter gets his first question, which you'll note is already combative:

Quote
About the possible therapies, yesterday, Mr. President, you said that they were for “immediate delivery”. Immediate. We heard from..

To which the President gives a clear response about the orders and concludes with this:  "We’ll see how it works out. I’m not saying it will, but I think that people may be surprised. By the way, that would be a game changer. We’re going to know very soon. We have ordered millions of units. It’s being ordered from Bayer, and there is another couple of companies also that do it"

Then we get this, from Peter:

Quote
For clarity, Dr. Fauci said there is no magic drug for coronavirus right now, which you would agree. I guess on this issue...

Which is a poor characterization of what Fauci said.  All Fauci said is that the results are anecdotal and not the result of a double blind study, ergo he doesn't want to tout them too highly.    He never gave any opinion on whether substantively the cocktail will work.

Peter did this characterization specifically to demean the solution and to force a reponse that either affirms a "magic drug" or that can be used to claim that Trump and Fauci disagree.

Trump handled that pretty well, "I think we only disagree a little bit. *** I disagree. Maybe and maybe not. Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t. We have to see. We’re going to known soon."

So what does Peter do?  Tries again to build in an insult and DNC talking point into the question:

Quote
Is it possible that your impulse to put a positive spin on things may be giving Americans a false sense of hope and misrepresenting our preparedness right now?

That question is NOT AT ALL RESPONSIVE to what Trump actually said, which was in fact measured but hopeful and builds in multiple insults.  Your "impulse" - ie you are impulsive and don't think things through, a common DNC talking point; "positive spin" - in context you're lying or overselling the results - not the case, the results are what they are notwithstanding the lack of an 18 month double blind study; "false sense of hope" - you're lying to Americans (even though he's literally not); "misrepresenting our preparedness" - DNC meme and a lie that America is not prepared - we were in fact rated most prepared country for a crisis of this nature in a recent study, and Trump's been very active in containment and actions (including those that Biden and the DNC claimed were "racist" even though they were the right call). 

So yeah, Peter Alexander's questions were intended to be insults and phrased as insults, and if you watch them live you can pick it up even more from the tone.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 25, 2020, 12:18:04 PM

So then Peter gets his first question, which you'll note is already combative:

Quote
About the possible therapies, yesterday, Mr. President, you said that they were for “immediate delivery”. Immediate. We heard from..

Why is it combative to call him out on saying immediate? That wasn't a paraphrase, that was exactly what he said.

Quote
"We have a couple that we're in really good shape on, and that's for immediate delivery," Trump said.

Clearly nothing is ready for immediate delivery, is it? And it is an opportunity for Trump to clarify. Instead he says, "we'll see". A proper response would defer to FDA, CDC and medical professionals for when it might be deployed. Its his over exuberant optimism that the press is trying to clarify. Frankly, if they don't press on these questions, they aren't doing their job. He could also have said that it "can be immediately delivered when..."

His words imply that its being shipped out and going to be used immediately.
To which the President gives a clear response about the orders and concludes with this:  "We’ll see how it works out. I’m not saying it will, but I think that people may be surprised. By the way, that would be a game changer. We’re going to know very soon. We have ordered millions of units. It’s being ordered from Bayer, and there is another couple of companies also that do it"

Then we get this, from Peter:

Quote
For clarity, Dr. Fauci said there is no magic drug for coronavirus right now, which you would agree. I guess on this issue...

Which is a poor characterization of what Fauci said.  All Fauci said is that the results are anecdotal and not the result of a double blind study, ergo he doesn't want to tout them too highly.    He never gave any opinion on whether substantively the cocktail will work.

Peter did this characterization specifically to demean the solution and to force a reponse that either affirms a "magic drug" or that can be used to claim that Trump and Fauci disagree.

Trump handled that pretty well, "I think we only disagree a little bit. *** I disagree. Maybe and maybe not. Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t. We have to see. We’re going to known soon."

So what does Peter do?  Tries again to build in an insult and DNC talking point into the question:

Quote
Is it possible that your impulse to put a positive spin on things may be giving Americans a false sense of hope and misrepresenting our preparedness right now?

That question is NOT AT ALL RESPONSIVE to what Trump actually said, which was in fact measured but hopeful and builds in multiple insults.  Your "impulse" - ie you are impulsive and don't think things through, a common DNC talking point; "positive spin" - in context you're lying or overselling the results - not the case, the results are what they are notwithstanding the lack of an 18 month double blind study; "false sense of hope" - you're lying to Americans (even though he's literally not); "misrepresenting our preparedness" - DNC meme and a lie that America is not prepared - we were in fact rated most prepared country for a crisis of this nature in a recent study, and Trump's been very active in containment and actions (including those that Biden and the DNC claimed were "racist" even though they were the right call). 

So yeah, Peter Alexander's questions were intended to be insults and phrased as insults, and if you watch them live you can pick it up even more from the tone.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: DonaldD on March 25, 2020, 12:43:11 PM
Quote from: Seriati
Then we get this, from Peter:

Quote
For clarity, Dr. Fauci said there is no magic drug for coronavirus right now, which you would agree. I guess on this issue...

Which is a poor characterization of what Fauci said.  All Fauci said is that the results are anecdotal and not the result of a double blind study, ergo he doesn't want to tout them too highly.

Actually, that is almost verbatim what Fauci said (https://nypost.com/2020/03/20/dr-anthony-fauci-says-theres-no-magic-drug-to-treat-coronavirus/): "...but there's no magic drug out there right now"
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: rightleft22 on March 25, 2020, 01:00:29 PM
Quote
Why is it combative to call Trump out

The rules of Trump-ism state that any questioning of Trump or his administration = combative
her's a riddle for you: In Trump-ism politics how do you tell the difference between a counter punch and a preemptive punch
You don't - Like Bart Simpson just keep swinging your arms.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 25, 2020, 02:00:48 PM
Seriati, was Chris Wallace being nasty?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on March 25, 2020, 04:03:42 PM
Quote
BIDEN: "The president's numbers with the public have gone up in handling this crisis, but they haven't gone up in terms of his presidency."

*awkward silence*

REPORTER: Actually, his job approval is also up.

BIDEN: "Well, I hope that he's so strong that he's up way above that."

Jesus
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on March 25, 2020, 04:15:32 PM
Quote from: Seriati
Then we get this, from Peter:

Quote
For clarity, Dr. Fauci said there is no magic drug for coronavirus right now, which you would agree. I guess on this issue...

Which is a poor characterization of what Fauci said.  All Fauci said is that the results are anecdotal and not the result of a double blind study, ergo he doesn't want to tout them too highly.

Actually, that is almost verbatim what Fauci said (https://nypost.com/2020/03/20/dr-anthony-fauci-says-theres-no-magic-drug-to-treat-coronavirus/): "...but there's no magic drug out there right now"

Lol, yeah or you could listen to the entire CNN interview to put that in context, rather than the edited clips that jump straight to it.

In fact, citing that back just goes to show how easily things are manipulated in this day and age.  Even the CNN interview tried to present things in misleading ways, but they couldn't quite figure out how to interrupt Fauci and he kept giving full explanations.

So to be clear, Fauci, on CNN after several minutes of walking through exactly what I said, that people were going to be using the cocktail because it has encouraging results, but that there hasn't been a double blind study, was asked a follow up question to which the response was effectively, there is No FDA approved treatment or magic drug that cures the virus. 

He didn't say that in the interview with Trump, and it was IN FACT a poor summary of what he did say, both in that interview on CNN and with Trump. 

But hey, once again you've proved that if anyone uses any words the media finds useful to sell a false story, they will pull the clip and play it to sell the fake story and people will repeat it like they've made a point.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on March 25, 2020, 04:17:24 PM
Seriati, was Chris Wallace being nasty?

When?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on March 25, 2020, 04:21:44 PM
Or you could continue with the interview, his very next question, after going out of his way to downplay a possible treatment, to claim that Trump is being too positive and to call him a liar.  Notwithstanding that the science is literally on Trump's side.  The drugs in question have been show to suppress coronavirus in a lab and the method of action on how they do it is understood.

Quote
What do you say to Americans who are scared, though? Nearly 200 dead. 14,000 who are sick. Millions, as you witness, who are scared right now. What do you say to Americans who are watching you right now who are scared?

So, what do you say to the scared people, now that I've called you a liar and said you're overselling hope?

Quote
I say that you’re a terrible reporter. That’s what I say. I think it’s a very nasty question, and I think it’s a very bad signal that you’re putting out to the American people. The American people are looking for answers and they’re looking for hope, and you’re doing sensationalism. The same with NBC and Comcast. I don’t call it Comcast, I called Concast, for who you work.

And I agree, he's a terrible "reporter" who is not there to get information or to report, but literally there to cause panic and  scare people because it doesn't serve his own political agenda for Trump to succeed even where that success is fighting a pandemic.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 25, 2020, 04:29:27 PM
Quote
So to be clear, Fauci, on CNN after several minutes of walking through exactly what I said, that people were going to be using the cocktail because it has encouraging results, but that there hasn't been a double blind study, was asked a follow up question to which the response was effectively, there is No FDA approved treatment or magic drug that cures the virus.

I had no luck finding a transcript, and I'll cut off my own hands before I sit through a whole CNN video. I'd love to evaluate this statement and see exactly what he said about people "using the cocktail". Particularly whether he was recommending it, or just acknowledging that some doctors are just going to skip CDC and FDA advice.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 25, 2020, 04:31:37 PM
Quote
What do you say to Americans who are scared, though? Nearly 200 dead. 14,000 who are sick. Millions, as you witness, who are scared right now. What do you say to Americans who are watching you right now who are scared?

How is that a hard question to answer? It starts with "I would tell them..." and probably with a condescending tone rather than belligerence and defiance.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 25, 2020, 04:41:56 PM
Seriati, was Chris Wallace being nasty?

When?

See my post above where he tweeted an attack on Wallace (http://www.ornery.org/forum/index.php/topic,884.msg38185.html#msg38185).

Quote
So, what do you say to the scared people, now that I've called you a liar and said you're overselling hope?

You answer the damned question, because hundreds of millions of Americans want to know what you would say to them.  What kind of moron is asked such a pertinent and sensitive question and blows up because he feels he's been insulted by other questions???
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 25, 2020, 05:54:44 PM
To the original topic:

Quote
Biden said: “My focus is just dealing with this crisis right now. I haven’t thought about any more debates. I think we’ve had enough debates. I think we should get on with this.

Huh? What exactly is he doing to "deal with this crisis"? He holds no office. He's not fundraising for charity like Sanders. About all he's been doing is releasing critical statements.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 25, 2020, 05:56:45 PM
To the original topic:

Quote
Biden said: “My focus is just dealing with this crisis right now. I haven’t thought about any more debates. I think we’ve had enough debates. I think we should get on with this.

Huh? What exactly is he doing to "deal with this crisis"? He holds no office. He's not fundraising for charity like Sanders. About all he's been doing is releasing critical statements.

That objection applies to everyone who isn't carrying supplies into hospitals, doesn't it?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 25, 2020, 06:06:52 PM
To the original topic:

Quote
Biden said: “My focus is just dealing with this crisis right now. I haven’t thought about any more debates. I think we’ve had enough debates. I think we should get on with this.

Huh? What exactly is he doing to "deal with this crisis"? He holds no office. He's not fundraising for charity like Sanders. About all he's been doing is releasing critical statements.

That objection applies to everyone who isn't carrying supplies into hospitals, doesn't it?

I just barely cited Sanders' efforts to encourage charitable donation. Holding productive discussions and statements to encourage good behavior. While he might criticize parts of legislation, its out of conviction and he makes his own counterproposals. Of course, he actually holds a Senate seat so its not a direct comparison.

Making the charitable contributions is something else many people can do. I'm not carrying supplies into hospitals but I've made several donations as well as gifts to several friends who lost their service industry jobs for at least 4 weeks.

He has also criticized Trump as part of all his activities.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 25, 2020, 06:12:39 PM
The cure is worse than the disease?

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/joe-biden-gaffe-alert-stuns-043232408.html


"He did offer one gem in response to Sara Haines’s question on whether businesses should reopen very soon.

“Are you at all concerned, as Trump said, that we cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself?” Haines asked.

Biden noted in his reply that the COVID-19 cure “will make the problem worse, no matter what.”

No one from The View followed up for a clarification. But social media didn’t let it go, seizing on it like a dog with a meaty bone."
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on March 25, 2020, 06:42:04 PM
Seriati, was Chris Wallace being nasty?

When?

See my post above where he tweeted an attack on Wallace (http://www.ornery.org/forum/index.php/topic,884.msg38185.html#msg38185).

You're going back to an interview between Wallace and Scalise from November about the impeachment?  In which Wallace repeatedly interrupted factual statements to interject with hypotheticals that didn't turn out to be true to try and get Scalise to commit to agreeing to impeach in advance?

I say, he's right about how Wallace was acting on that occasion.

Quote
Quote
So, what do you say to the scared people, now that I've called you a liar and said you're overselling hope?

You answer the damned question, because hundreds of millions of Americans want to know what you would say to them.  What kind of moron is asked such a pertinent and sensitive question and blows up because he feels he's been insulted by other questions???

He did answer the question, repeated and multiple times.  of course you missed that cause you got to caught up in a reporting trying to scare people and getting called out on it.

He also answered that question about fake reporters multiple times, as did Pompeo, who even went so far as to flat out say how frustrating he finds it to answer questions for reporters multiple times, in multiple ways with no question they understand his answer and then to find articles where they completely misrepresent and lie about the position. 

I guess, the answer here is, you'd rather believe lies than take the time to get the truth.  None of the media "misunderstandings" and spin is legit.  The answers are literally in the transcript.  Read it for yourself and quit passing off lies and information as if it's true because some talking head curated it for  you.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 25, 2020, 07:04:48 PM
Sometimes you gotta answer the same question over and over again. How many times did Obama get asked about his birth certificate? I don't remember him flying off the handle.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on March 25, 2020, 07:07:59 PM
Quote

In the interview excerpt, which is posted to Soundcloud, Reade described a graphic 1993 incident where a superior asked her to take a gym bag to Biden "down towards the capital." Then she recalls being called towards the "side area" where Biden greeted her.
"We were alone and it was the strangest thing," she said. "There was no like exchange really. He just had me up against the wall."

Reade went on to say that she was wearing a business skirt with no stockings because it was hot at the time. While up against the wall, Reade says Biden's "hands were on me and underneath my clothes."

"He went down my skirt but then up inside it and he penetrated me with his fingers," Reade emotionally continued.

Reade also said Biden was kissing her and saying multiple things to her. She remembered a couple of the comments.

"I remember him saying first, like as he was doing it, 'Do you want to go somewhere else,'" she said. “And then him saying to me when I pulled away, he got finished doing what he was doing, and I kind of just pulled back and he said, 'Come on man, I heard you liked me"’ And that phrase stayed with me because I kept thinking what I might've said and I cant remember exactly if he said'‘i thought' or 'I heard' but he implied that I had done this."


Well, that’s it for Joe.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 25, 2020, 07:17:41 PM
I hope that does end it for him. I believe the accuser.

I wonder how you'd respond to this if someone were blaming Trump or perhaps any conservative with the same story. I suspect you'd insist it was politically motivated, that it can't be corroborated, and that it is strange that she never came forward earlier, neh?

Is Reade more or less credible than Ford? If so, why?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 25, 2020, 07:29:43 PM
Quote
I hope that does end it for him. I believe the accuser.

Given everything you know that Trump did to all kinds of women for decades for which he has gotten a pass, why does that "end it for him"?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 25, 2020, 08:58:21 PM
Quote
You're going back to an interview between Wallace and Scalise from November about the impeachment?  In which Wallace repeatedly interrupted factual statements to interject with hypotheticals that didn't turn out to be true to try and get Scalise to commit to agreeing to impeach in advance?

I say, he's right about how Wallace was acting on that occasion.

You're leading with your conclusion, not arguing from facts revealed during the investigation.  It's not hypothetical to raise issues that were based on Congressional testimony.  If anyone was twisting facts to make claims not in evidence, it was Scalise.  He kept falling back on the "it didn't happen" defense, that even if Trump tried to extort Zelensky he never completed the act.  Try that in court if you ever are accused of that crime.

Quote
He did answer the question, repeated and multiple times.  of course you missed that cause you got to caught up in a reporting trying to scare people and getting called out on it.

He's not "entitled" to attack a reporter for continuing to dig for answers if he's unsatisfied and claim that the reporter was out of line to pursue the questioning.  "Asked and answered" is not a good defense from the President when he's being asked to show some empathy, especially when it's topped off with personal insults against the reporter.  The reporter may have had an "agenda" given how many promises of false hope Trump had been dishing out from his initial comments about the virus, since they all turned out to be worthless.  That's the reporter's right, since he is speaking for many millions of Americans who feel strongly that that's what Trump had been doing and want the same answers.  Trump may have "answered" questions, but his answers weren't good enough. 

We can have a long (and boring) back and forth on why Trump is the wrong person to "guide" the nation during this crisis.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on March 25, 2020, 09:20:09 PM
Quote
You're going back to an interview between Wallace and Scalise from November about the impeachment?  In which Wallace repeatedly interrupted factual statements to interject with hypotheticals that didn't turn out to be true to try and get Scalise to commit to agreeing to impeach in advance?

I say, he's right about how Wallace was acting on that occasion.

You're leading with your conclusion, not arguing from facts revealed during the investigation.  It's not hypothetical to raise issues that were based on Congressional testimony.

That's a lie.  Wallace expressly speculated about "what if's" from future testimony.  Scalise repeatedly said he wasn't going to answer speculation and hypo's and referred back to what was in evidence.  Did you even read the interview before you criticized Trump for it?

I have zero tolerance for anyone still playing on the impeachment lies as if they were true. 

Quote
Quote
He did answer the question, repeated and multiple times.  of course you missed that cause you got to caught up in a reporting trying to scare people and getting called out on it.

He's not "entitled" to attack a reporter for continuing to dig for answers if he's unsatisfied and claim that the reporter was out of line to pursue the questioning.

That's just a lie.  When a reporter is trying to create the story he's an advocate not a reporter.  The question was answered, and the reporter knew the answer, he didn't like the answer so he was trying to change the story.  Trump was absolutely right to call out an activist pretending to be a reporter.

Quote
"Asked and answered" is not a good defense from the President when he's being asked to show some empathy, especially when it's topped off with personal insults against the reporter.

And?  Trump didn't say asked and answered.  He literally answered the question multiple times.

Did you read the transcript?  If you don't say yes, don't respond again.

Quote
The reporter may have had an "agenda" given how many promises of false hope Trump had been dishing out from his initial comments about the virus, since they all turned out to be worthless.  That's the reporter's right, since he is speaking for many millions of Americans who feel strongly that that's what Trump had been doing and want the same answers.  Trump may have "answered" questions, but his answers weren't good enough.

The reporter is trying to sell a lie, and if you uncritically back him you're aiding the cause of a liar. 

This has ZERO to do with helping the country.  It has ZERO to do with the Corornavirus response.  It has everything to do with Joe Biden being sidelined and revealed as incompetent, the progressives looking mean spirited and petty with their wish list, and Trump's approval going up as these press conferences make him look decisive, effective and Presidential.

That's 100% why the media is trying to reframe everything as a disaster, why they are trying to panic people, and why they even openly call for the networks to stop covering the press conferences, notwithstanding that they are the most effective communication on the ongoing response.

It's 100% politics and 0% about digging for answers or helping the country.

Quote
We can have a long (and boring) back and forth on why Trump is the wrong person to "guide" the nation during this crisis.

Lol.  No we can't. 
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 26, 2020, 06:31:20 AM
Quote
That's a lie.  Wallace expressly speculated about "what if's" from future testimony.  Scalise repeatedly said he wasn't going to answer speculation and hypo's and referred back to what was in evidence.  Did you even read the interview before you criticized Trump for it?

I watched it.  Scalise was dissembling the whole time, referring to every reference Wallace made to testimony as speculation or hypothetical conjecture.  Wallace kept pressing to get him to admit that anything at all Trump did was bad and he stonewalled all the way.  It was the closest to an aggressive investigative interrogation as you'll ever see on FOX.  Kudos to Wallace.

Quote
That's just a lie.  When a reporter is trying to create the story he's an advocate not a reporter.  The question was answered, and the reporter knew the answer, he didn't like the answer so he was trying to change the story.  Trump was absolutely right to call out an activist pretending to be a reporter.

You're getting touchy and even sounding a little like Trump.  You don't like it, so you close your ears and call it a lie.  Reporters are supposed to pursue topics until they get answers that gibe with the truth.  Trump has lied in virtually every public statement he has made about the virus.  People know that, and the reporter was doggedly trying to get him to give an honest answer.  Which for Trump amounts to trying to destroy the person asking the question, which he has done so many times that it's a wonder anybody ever takes what he says at face value.  Let me know if you want to defend any of his top 10 or more false (lies?) statements about the virus; he'd be proud of what you're doing so far.

Quote
Did you read the transcript?  If you don't say yes, don't respond again.

Yes.  The reporter was just doing his job, and Trump was giving half-assed answers.  Imagine that you were asking Trump questions and wanted to know what he really thought. How easily would you give up? Pretty easy, I guess.

You keep using the word "lie" in your answer, as if you're swatting a pesky fly.

Quote
Quote
We can have a long (and boring) back and forth on why Trump is the wrong person to "guide" the nation during this crisis.

Lol.  No we can't.

Whew!  I was worried there for a second ;).
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on March 26, 2020, 10:39:39 AM
I watched it.  Scalise was dissembling the whole time, referring to every reference Wallace made to testimony as speculation or hypothetical conjecture.  Wallace kept pressing to get him to admit that anything at all Trump did was bad and he stonewalled all the way.  It was the closest to an aggressive investigative interrogation as you'll ever see on FOX.  Kudos to Wallace.

There's no way to square what you said with what happened.  Wallace repeatedly asked "what if" questions about testimony that comes up.  Scalise repeatedly stated Trump's defense - that there was no quid pro quo and no improper pressure, cited to the actual statements from the Ukrainian Government and Trump.

Trump was right in his criticism of Wallace.  That said, I have no problem with Wallace asking those questions, he certainly could ask for speculation and responses on hypos.  Scalise was smart to say he wouldn't speculate and to keep referring to the actual evidence.  It's a flat lie to pretend though that Wallace's speculations - and they were literally what if questions about future testimoney - were somehow the reality and Scalise holding to the actual evidence the falsity.

Quote
You're getting touchy and even sounding a little like Trump.  You don't like it, so you close your ears and call it a lie.

It was a lie.  His questions were propaganda designed to undermine confidence.  He literally undermined deliberately Trumps definitively hopeful message then asked what Trump was doing to inspire hope.  Its a words game, and it's deliberately manipulative.

Quote
Reporters are supposed to pursue topics until they get answers that gibe with the truth.

I absolutely agree.  These "reporters" instead pursue narratives because they don't like the true answers.  Ergo they are not reporters - at least not in that moment.

Quote
Trump has lied in virtually every public statement he has made about the virus.

Nonsense.  Trump hasn't lied to you at all.  The media is lying to you, they are deliberately twisting everything they can, to try and turn anything with a shade of grey into a full blown problem - even where the same thing was said correctly 20 times in the press conference, and there isn't a seconds worth of confusion in any of their minds. 

When smart reporters understand what was said and what was meant and they choose to instead write a story that sells a false version of what was conveyed THEY ARE THE PROBLEM.

Quote
People know that, and the reporter was doggedly trying to get him to give an honest answer.

Lie.  He had an honest answer.  He was doggedly trying to establish his own narrative - a false narrative.

Quote
Let me know if you want to defend any of his top 10 or more false (lies?) statements about the virus; he'd be proud of what you're doing so far.

Give me the top 10 false statements - quote and context.

Quote
Quote
Did you read the transcript?  If you don't say yes, don't respond again.

Yes.  The reporter was just doing his job, and Trump was giving half-assed answers.  Imagine that you were asking Trump questions and wanted to know what he really thought. How easily would you give up? Pretty easy, I guess.

The questions he asked were all answered completely in the transcript, with no difficulty discerning what Trump really thought.  Does that mean that you really read it and have no reading comprehension, or that you just said you read it?

Quote
You keep using the word "lie" in your answer, as if you're swatting a pesky fly.

I keep using the word lie, because that's what's going on.  Lies and propaganda for partisan goals.  Lie, lie, lie, lie.  You could stop repeating lies if you don't like it.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on March 26, 2020, 11:08:22 AM
I'm looking forward to that list of ten lies. It's hard to debunk what is never stated.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 26, 2020, 12:07:11 PM
OK, try a few of these. If it's not 10 and you think you've debunked some, I can easily get more.

1.Jan 22: "We have it totally under control."

2. Feb 2: "We pretty much shut it down coming from China.  It's going to be fine."

3. Feb 24: "The coronavirus is very much under control in the USA.  Stock market starting to look good to me!"

4. Feb 25: "I think that's a problem that's going to go away. They know very much.  In fact, we're very close to a vaccine."

5. Feb 26: "The 15 cases within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero."

So there are 5.  Give it your best shot.  Try to do it without using the words "Obama" or "Pelosi".
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 26, 2020, 12:59:26 PM
Terrible predictions aren't exactly lies, and they can't even really be said to be untruthful. I tend to think Trump believed most of those statements. The most problematic is "we're very close to a vaccine" which was clearly incorrect, but also could have been made out of ignorance as an untrue statement.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 26, 2020, 01:10:04 PM
You think statements in the present tense that are demonstrably false are just optimistic predictions?  He can believe what he wants, but it's a stretch to claim there's any truth in any of those statements.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on March 26, 2020, 01:14:30 PM
Terrible predictions aren't exactly lies, and they can't even really be said to be untruthful. I tend to think Trump believed most of those statements. The most problematic is "we're very close to a vaccine" which was clearly incorrect, but also could have been made out of ignorance as an untrue statement.

"We're very close to a vaccine" isn't even necessarily a lie. The problem there is regulatory.

We probably already have a vaccine, we just don't know which ones are effective, and what their side-effects may be, if any. Many of those vaccine candidates are in field trials already. The fly in the ointment is that even though the vaccine probably already exists, the general public is likely to be waiting another 16 to 18 months before they'll be able to get it, at which point it'll be moot for many.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on March 26, 2020, 01:32:07 PM
OK, try a few of these. If it's not 10 and you think you've debunked some, I can easily get more.

1.Jan 22: "We have it totally under control."

2. Feb 2: "We pretty much shut it down coming from China.  It's going to be fine."

Based on how prior containment worked, they had every reason to be saying this at the time. They were even correct about the "coming from China" part. What they, and others, didn't account for was the sheer number of people who circumvented that by way of "third country travel" where since they couldn't get to ___ from China, they instead went to another country which still allowed travel from China, and then traveled to __ from that other country.

To my knowledge, this is the first outbreak situation where it happened in sufficient numbers to become a genuine problem. Part of that problem will need to be addressed by better tracking of recent international travel on the airline side--IE they start blacklisting anyone who recently debarked a flight from a quarantined country. But that has its own Hazard when John Smith decided to bug out from the Contagion zone by way of Country B, which John Thomas Smith was in Country B and trying to get home from Country B, but ticketed himself as John Smith.

Sure, we could make it a question immigration asks as the time of debarkation as well, but at that point, you're then potentially needing to track down every single person that has spent the last 6+ hours on a plane with the guy so you can place them in quarantine too. The other option, of course, is you simply ban all travel from those "third countries" but then you'd need to ban every "fourth country" that didn't ban the third one, and so on and so forth.

Quote
3. Feb 24: "The coronavirus is very much under control in the USA.  Stock market starting to look good to me!"

4. Feb 25: "I think that's a problem that's going to go away. They know very much.  In fact, we're very close to a vaccine."

Already addressed the vaccine aspect, and so much has happened in the past month it's hard to recall what the exact situation was at that point. But fuzzy memory says there still was reason to be cautiously optimistic that we had stopped it on our doorstep.

Quote
5. Feb 26: "The 15 cases within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero."

Again, SARS(IIRC) and Ebola both had cases make it to the United States before it was stopped, so early into the process, seeing even a couple dozen cases make into the country isn't necessarily cause for alarm, and would tend to cause the President's "other roles" to lead him to try to calm down fears and keep things under control by talking up the likelihood of success, rather than all the ways containment efforts could fail.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: NobleHunter on March 26, 2020, 01:46:05 PM
None of this overly optimistic thinking lines up with what the experts were saying at the time. Immediately after Trump made those statements people knew he was talking out of his ass. It's charitable to construe these comments as the result of confidence in the US's containment strategy but that in itself is a fairly harsh condemnation of the President.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on March 26, 2020, 01:56:35 PM
None of this overly optimistic thinking lines up with what the experts were saying at the time. Immediately after Trump made those statements people knew he was talking out of his ass. It's charitable to construe these comments as the result of confidence in the US's containment strategy but that in itself is a fairly harsh condemnation of the President.

And I'd lay odds that if we went back to Bush43 and SARS, you'd see him pushing optimism on the containment strategy even as the health officials were being more cautious. Containment worked, so they left him alone on that.

You'll probably also see Obama pushing optimism, which his adoring press will bill as "guarded optimism" when he had his brushes with Swine Flu and Ebola, even as the health officials were being more cautious and (with H1N1) complaining about "inadequate response efforts." Containment didn't work with H1N1, but it had a vaccine deep into the pipeline by then, so the press just brushed off any criticism of the great Obama.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: DonaldD on March 26, 2020, 02:15:06 PM
So it's OK that Trump did/said this because... it's possible, but you don't know for sure, that Bush and Obama may have done something similar, but not exactly the same, maybe.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on March 26, 2020, 02:27:31 PM
So it's OK that Trump did/said this because... it's possible, but you don't know for sure, that Bush and Obama may have done something similar, but not exactly the same, maybe.

He could have done better, but that's a critique valid for everyone, but especially valid for Trump and his ongoing trash-fire.

He's pushing a boundary limit, but he is performing within lines I'd concede as "acceptable" or even expected of a public elected official in his position in such a circumstance. For now, so long as he sticks to bloviating and letting his experts actually direct things "on the ground" I'm not really seeing a major problem. If he starts trying to implement things against their advice, that's another matter. He hasn't crossed that line, and remains simply the Bloviator and Chief on this matter.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: DonaldD on March 26, 2020, 02:57:57 PM
More than anybody else in the world, the US president's words are actions.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 26, 2020, 04:02:35 PM
Instead of guessing about obama, why don't we check that out?

Timeline (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-pandemic-timeline.html)

4/17: 2 detected US infections existed
4/21: CDC officially reports, vaccine research begun
4/23: 2 more in TX
4/24: genome
4/28: new test developed

Obama gave this presser (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2009/04/30/presidentrsquos-remarks-h1n1) on 4/30, 13 days after first detection.

He never mentions a vaccine, let alone saying it was close. He requested 1.5B in emergency funding. He recommends schools should close if there are confirmed or suspected cases. He tells people to take preventative measures. He recommends social distancing

Quote
The key now I think is to make sure that we are maintaining great vigilance, that everybody responds appropriately when cases do come up.  And individual families start taking very sensible precautions that can make a huge difference.  So wash your hands when you shake hands.  Cover your mouth when you cough.  I know it sounds trivial, but it makes a huge difference.  If you are sick, stay home.  If your child is sick, keep them out of school.  If you are feeling certain flu symptoms, don't get on an airplane.  Don't get on any system of public transportation where you're confined and you could potentially spread the virus.

He already admits containment is over.

Quote

But the most important thing right now that public health officials have indicated is that we treat this the same way that we would treat other flu outbreaks, just understanding that because this is a new strain we don't yet know how it will respond.

He reflects uncertainty and doesn't try to compare it to existing flu.

Quote
So those are the steps that I think we need to take right now.  But understand that because this is a new strain, we have to be cautious.  If this was a strain that we were familiar with, then we might have to -- then I think we wouldn't see the kind of alert levels that we're seeing, for example, with the World Health Organization.


Reiterates caution and respects global health organizations.

full transcript (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/news-conference-president-4292009)

No mention here of containment.

Quote
I've consulted with our public health officials extensively on a day-to-day basis, in some cases, an hour-to-hour basis.  At this point they have not recommended a border closing.  From their perspective it would be akin to closing the barn door after the horses are out, because we already have cases here in the United States.

He gets a question he doesn't like, about hypotheticals, on the topic of Pakistan. Critics of the press today say hypotheticals are bad right, and that its just a trick of the liberal media to make Trump and Republicans look bad. So why did they deploy that against Obama?

Quote
Q    But in a worst-case scenario --
THE PRESIDENT:  I'm not going to engage --
Q    -- military, U.S. military could secure this nuclear --
THE PRESIDENT:  I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals of that sort.  I feel confident that that nuclear arsenal will remain out of militant hands.  Okay?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on March 26, 2020, 08:18:54 PM
...1.Jan 22: "We have it totally under control."
2. Feb 2: "We pretty much shut it down coming from China.  It's going to be fine."\
3. Feb 24: "The coronavirus is very much under control in the USA.  Stock market starting to look good to me!"
4. Feb 25: "I think that's a problem that's going to go away. They know very much.  In fact, we're very close to a vaccine."
5. Feb 26: "The 15 cases within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero."

At the time he was accurate, and he was repeating what his medical advisers had been telling him. Trump has, his entire life, gone to the best experts in any given field to get the best input for the projects he was working on. When Rockefeller was running for office, he was asked how he was so effective, and he answered, "I surround myself with my betters." Trump does that also.

Have you ever noticed that Trump plays off his experts to get the best from them? No one single expert is given unquestioned authroty in his field.

As the situation changed, the medical opinions changed also. Do not lay that on Trump. His job was to relay the medical recommendations of the experts, which he did - but also to provide positive encouragement.

According to your disparaging viewpoint, he should have ignored the best medical minds and ran around like Chicken Little? Dr. Fauci has supported Trump throughout, and even fought against the media saying that he had disagreed with Trump and argued with him. He said that was bogus. You argue with Trump - you argue with Fauci. Do you really want to go there?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 27, 2020, 05:36:05 AM
Quote
At the time he was accurate, and he was repeating what his medical advisers had been telling him. Trump has, his entire life, gone to the best experts in any given field to get the best input for the projects he was working on. When Rockefeller was running for office, he was asked how he was so effective, and he answered, "I surround myself with my betters." Trump does that also.

Nearly every word in that response is so absurd that there is nowhere to start.  No point in raising other lies he's told and misstatements made out of sheer ignorance to a worshipper.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on March 27, 2020, 11:29:25 AM
Okay, Kasandra, my challenge to you was:  "Give me the top 10 false statements - quote and context."

Did you do that?  Nope, no context on any of the statements - and why didn't you include context?  The entire discussion above is literally about how in context the statements make sense and their meaning is clear, and yet the media chooses to strip the context to misrepresent that meaning to fit their narrative.  That's exactly what you did when you stripped context.  Did you not know the context, or was it a deliberate choice?

I also asked for your top ten, and from your casual compilation and willingness to grab more, what I suspect I got instead was a pull from someone else's work product.  Again, you chose not to make a case but to pretend that citing to the work of others out of context is a case.

So let's look at what in fact you did bring us.  First you get an F for research and failure to follow directions since you provided no context or analysis.

Quote
OK, try a few of these. If it's not 10 and you think you've debunked some, I can easily get more.

1.Jan 22: "We have it totally under control."

Yes, on Jan 22, literally ONE DAY after the FIRST confirmed case on US soil.  We did in fact believe we had it under control at that point, we were tracking infected and exposed people and the CDC still believed that mapping and self quarantine would be sufficient to contain the spread.  This is also 2 days after Fauci announced work on a vaccine had begun.

For further context, on Jan 23rd the very next day, the WHO announced that the Wuhan virus does NOT yet constitute a public health emergency of international concern.

Quote
2. Feb 2: "We pretty much shut it down coming from China.  It's going to be fine."

On Jan 31st, Trump announced the shut down of travel from China.  Biden and the media talking heads jumped up and called this racist and reactionary.  Biden going so far as to say that travel bans are the wrong response and unneeded and that he never used them to stop H1N1 (which he didn't stop) or Ebola (which has a completely different trajectory expectation).  Biden and the media keep doubling down on this for weeks, even after most world governments use Trump's approach and institute major international and even intra-national travel restrictions.  Eventually, the media just stops saying it - they NEVER admit they were wrong or that they and Biden were "fighting the last war" while Trump was right (just for context they were still raising these questions at the  press conference from which you pulled your final quote below almost a fully month later).

In any event, the statement is 3 days after the travel ban, almost certainly in response to questions from the media about the "racist travel ban." It isn't a lie and provides a direct explanation for why he put in place a travel ban.  Pull the actual context if you want to make the case.

Quote
3. Feb 24: "The coronavirus is very much under control in the USA.  Stock market starting to look good to me!"

On Feb 24, the CDC still thinks they can track and map cases in the US and stop the spread.  That's just a fact as of that date.  The US confirmed a total of 53 cases as of Feb. 24, meanwhile the US market plunge started as of Feb 22 a day after the US announced 20 cases (more than doubling the previous total to 35 total cases).

So literally, on that day the coronavirus was still believed by the CDC to be under control and capable of being contained by mapping the cases and their contacts (they were wrong), and the market fundamentals were still strong with panic being the primary downward driver.  So yes, it still looked good.

Quote
4. Feb 25: "I think that's a problem that's going to go away. They know very much.  In fact, we're very close to a vaccine."

What's the problem that's "going to go away"?  Context remember?

They may in fact be close to a vaccine.  You can do your own research, but 2 days ago the Guardian reported 35 companies working on a vaccine, with 4 already testing viable candidates in animals and one with human trials about to start.  That's 30 days after "we're very close to a vaccine" which makes that literally true.  That means less that 60 days from when Rauci announced they had begun work on a vaccine there is a product where human testing is imminent.

Did Trump give more context at that time about how long after it would take to get to market?  We don't know, because, wait for it...   you chose to pull a quote out of context so you could pretend it was a lie rather than part of a more complete explanation.

Quote
5. Feb 26: "The 15 cases within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero."

So that's a quote that only makes sense in context.  You seem to think it refers to stopping new cases - which is exactly why it's been pulled out of context.

However, that  is literally pulled out of context from the Feb 26 press briefing.  It refers, as explained repeatedly in that briefing to the condition of the 15 diagnosed cases in the US (as of Feb 26, note the inconsistency with the above tallies - Azar confirmed this number real time, but it excluded a number of repatriated people, which I expect were being discussed and included in the prior numbers) and their health status - recovering.  15 sick people expected to recover.  What a lie.

So why do you include it here - out of context - and seem to think its a lie?  The Meme and ile started 2 days later when the MSM (lead by Rachel Maddow I believe) pulled just that phrase out of context to try and build a meme that it referred to new cases, not the existing cases recovering.  It's literally a lie the way you are referring to it.

Even worse, there were multiple questions and answers on those 15 cases and what it meant, on transmission and on recovery, yet that quote was pulled out of the President's answer to a question about  whether American's needed to cancel their travel plans for the summer, rather than any of the multiple questions that were relevant to the transmission rates or the 15 recovering cases.  So in a callback to 15 cases explained repeatedly in an answer that was effectively talking about whether the country and/or the world might be in recovery by summer and where the President literally said people have to be flexible, because he's hopeful but we may not get there, and people may have to consider local travel rather than international, where the recovery rate by the only cases we treated is pertinent context he made that truthful and accurate statement.

Quote
So there are 5.  Give it your best shot.  Try to do it without using the words "Obama" or "Pelosi".

So, literally even on substance an F.  You didn't find a lie, you exposed that you will bend yourself into a pretzel and/or uncritically accept feeds from talking heads.  Correct me if I'm wrong, weren't you an academic before you retired?  Apply some critical reasoning please.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on March 27, 2020, 11:36:11 AM
You think statements in the present tense that are demonstrably false are just optimistic predictions?  He can believe what he wants, but it's a stretch to claim there's any truth in any of those statements.

So demonstrate them false.  100% clear to me that you didn't find those yourself and have no idea what they actually referred to, and whether they were true or false.  But prove me wrong, defend your claims and "demonstrate them false".

Oh we both know you won't, far easier to just grab five more out of context quotes and claim they are lies.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on March 27, 2020, 11:37:35 AM
None of this overly optimistic thinking lines up with what the experts were saying at the time. Immediately after Trump made those statements people knew he was talking out of his ass. It's charitable to construe these comments as the result of confidence in the US's containment strategy but that in itself is a fairly harsh condemnation of the President.

Is it?  Then you're free to take up my challenge to Kasandra and demonstrate it yourself.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: NobleHunter on March 27, 2020, 11:49:28 AM
You've already decided bull*censored* statements are totally reasonable "in context." I'm pretty sure there's nothing I can do to change that.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: DonaldD on March 27, 2020, 12:03:29 PM
Quote
So literally, on that day the coronavirus was still believed by the CDC to be under control and capable of being contained by mapping the cases and their contacts (they were wrong), and the market fundamentals were still strong with panic being the primary downward driver.  So yes, it still looked good.
Misrepresent much?

Pandemic watch
So you got Fauci warning that the world is on the brink of dealing with a pandemic, there was community spread in the USA...

Stock markets
So, all gains for the year had been lost, yet "the market fundamentals were still strong"; China's growth projection was already lowered, and there is a risk of decreased earnings and decreasing growth worldwide, yet "panic" was "the primary downward driver." 

That's wmLambert level analysis, that is.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 27, 2020, 12:07:11 PM
Quote
Did you do that?  Nope, no context on any of the statements - and why didn't you include context?

What context do you need?  He was either sitting in the WH with his cabinet, standing on the WH lawn making a statement, in a broadcast interview.  Every one of them is a public statement that was recorded.

Quote
So demonstrate them false.  100% clear to me that you didn't find those yourself and have no idea what they actually referred to, and whether they were true or false.  But prove me wrong, defend your claims and "demonstrate them false".

I confess that I wasn't present for any of them (unless "present" now means virtually present by electronic means), but how hard is it to find Trump's own public statements?  Are you denying he said every one of those things?  If you want to claim he didn't, you're in a whole different puddle of *censored*.  It's easy to "demonstrate them false" simply by noting that future events contradicted every one of them.

I'm not going to go chasing you around the table, since you never yield to rebuttals.  But I'll take just one that is indicative of your deflection:

Quote
Quote
1.Jan 22: "We have it totally under control."
Yes, on Jan 22, literally ONE DAY after the FIRST confirmed case on US soil.

Don't forget that on March 18 he said he believed all along that it was going to be a pandemic.  In fact, before that remark in January he was warned a number of times by the CIA and other US Intel agencies that it had the potential to become one.  Only a moron or a liar would insist only one day after the first case reached our shores that he had the situation completely under control. If I had to choose, I would pick that he is both a moron and a liar.  He obviously didn't have it totally under control, as has become blitheringly obvious.  So the question is, how do we know he knew it wasn't true?  Nope, tell me why what he said *was* true.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on March 27, 2020, 12:39:40 PM
Instead of guessing about obama, why don't we check that out?

Timeline (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-pandemic-timeline.html)

4/17: 2 detected US infections existed
4/21: CDC officially reports, vaccine research begun
4/23: 2 more in TX
4/24: genome
4/28: new test developed

Obama gave this presser (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2009/04/30/presidentrsquos-remarks-h1n1) on 4/30, 13 days after first detection.

What's interesting about the CDC link to me is that they are more than a bit self serving.  The CDC link starts the timeline more than a month after H1N1 was active (though in small numbers) both in Mexico and in the US, with the date they tested a sample.  That begs the question of whether they should have been more active sooner.  Fair enough, it's 100% clear that the country has an extensive tracking system for the seasonal flu and a repeated process for how to determine if new flu strains appear, and a "fast track" system for how to develop vaccinces for the flu (which are well understood and produced every year).  What that didn't show to me, is any special measures.

The Obama presser is a cut and paste from his actual press conference (credit to you for putting the full link down below). It's also pretty clear that his 100 days press conference was hardly focused at all on the H1N1 virus, one and only one follow up question.

But note, you seem to think that there was evidence of the press treating Obama the same way they treated Trump in there?  Read it again, multiple fawning questions, repeated questions that state some version of "the Republican party is a mess" would you like to explain in detail why that is?  Nothing that challenged him or questioned him even remotely.  And no discussion about how in this presser, passed along as somehow equivalent, it wasn't close to the focus of the presser?
 
I mean this press conference is the one that included this famous "hard ball":  "Thank you, Mr. President.  During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office, enchanted you the most about serving this in office, humbled you the most and troubled you the most?"

Quote
He never mentions a vaccine, let alone saying it was close. He requested 1.5B in emergency funding. He recommends schools should close if there are confirmed or suspected cases. He tells people to take preventative measures. He recommends social distancing

It's interesting that you flagged his $1.5 billion request, because I had to check it twice.  Why?  Because he said it was a $1.5 million request to deal with a "worse case scenario," when he answered the question and $1.5 billion in his opening remarks.  Did that lead to nasty articles about his lies?  We all know it didn't.

As to why he didn't mention the "vaccine"?  Flu vaccine production is an annual phenomenum with a seasonal cycle, the only thing to mention about a vaccine would be if it was off schedule (H1N1 vaccine ultimately was not ready at the start of flu season, but shortly thereafter).  The risk with flu vaccines is producing them from the wrong strains not that they won't be effective (generally) against the strains covered.   COVID-19 is a novel virus - not a flu - for which vaccine production and development was not a given.

You may also note that by the time of his response he was already saying it was too late to contain this flu virus, which may have been, but was not clearly the case with COVID-19.  Again, this goes directly to fighting the last war on downplaying travel bans.

And what was uncle Joe saying?  He was apparently spreading panic and telling people not to travel on public transit.  Lol, how the times have changed.  https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7470281&page=1 (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7470281&page=1)

Quote
Quote
But the most important thing right now that public health officials have indicated is that we treat this the same way that we would treat other flu outbreaks, just understanding that because this is a new strain we don't yet know how it will respond.

He reflects uncertainty and doesn't try to compare it to existing flu.

He literally says that we should treat this the same way we would treat other flu outbreaks (ie compares it to the existing flu) in the passage you quoted.

I don't think there's anything unusual about the Obama response to a flu strain at this point (other than maybe the border). 

The real scale wasn't yet known, as while there were more than expected fatalities from the flu, there were only about 150 "confirmed" cases worldwide (most in the US).  The backdrop on this question was that we had recorded the first death outside of Mexico the day before.  WHO had raised it's alert to "stage 5" even though there were only 150 reported cases, because, I'm assuming that many countries just had no tests but were reporting heavier than usual deaths.  Mexico was already taking extreme measures, including shutdowns in large parts of the country to contain the spread, which is why the border questions were being asked, since we share that border and our cases were heavily focused in CA and TX at the time.

Quote
He gets a question he doesn't like, about hypotheticals, on the topic of Pakistan. Critics of the press today say hypotheticals are bad right, and that its just a trick of the liberal media to make Trump and Republicans look bad. So why did they deploy that against Obama?

He'd already answered a hypothetical on Pakistan, and the reporter basically undermined him - lightly - by reasking the what if question and he refused to answer.  That's literally the most mild version (by one SINGLE reporter) of what happens to Trump by multiple reporters, with multiple questions.  I'm happy that you can pick out similar fact patterns, even if they are milder versions of them. 

No one objective reads the press questions to Obama and to Trump and thinks the press treats them remotely in the same manner - and no that has nothing to do with Trump's style and everything to do with press corp politics.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on March 27, 2020, 12:44:55 PM
...I would pick that he is both a moron and a liar.  He obviously didn't have it totally under control, as has become blitheringly obvious.  So the question is, how do we know he knew it wasn't true?  Nope, tell me why what he said *was* true.

Evidently, you are not only lacking in context as Seriati pointed, out, but in basic reading skills. Almost everything you just posted was "asked and answered." Do you spend most of your time searching for pejorative spins, instead of basic facts?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on March 27, 2020, 12:47:59 PM
No one objective reads the press questions to Obama and to Trump and thinks the press treats them remotely in the same manner - and no that has nothing to do with Trump's style and everything to do with press corp politics.

I agree it's primarily politics but his style is an accelerant and definitely has contributed to them doubling down on the animosity. That doesn't excuse how they treat him, but his style plays into it.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on March 27, 2020, 12:52:52 PM
You've already decided bull*censored* statements are totally reasonable "in context." I'm pretty sure there's nothing I can do to change that.

No, I've decided that uncharitably calling things that are perfectly understandable in the context professional reporters hear them lies because those reporters choose to report them out of context to maximize the potential for misunderstanding is BS.  Trump talks conversationally - which is not how many politicians speak - he rambles, he goes off script, he says things that are true but that require unstated conditions or axioms, he says things that follow logically from assumptions that you can tell he makes.

It is literally a CHOICE by the media to comb through his statements to find the 15th time he said the same thing but used words that can be read multiple ways to quote that 15th way and to strip the context to imply he said something else.

It's literally the choice to quote the Charlottesville comments such that it appears he says there are fine Nazi's and racists even though he expressly made clear that those people were not who he was talking about in the speach.

Given that we rely on the press to accurately summarize lengthy press conferences to convey meaning, I have zero tolerance for this practice of lying.  And it is lying.  It's knowing spreading a false interpretation of what was said.  It's a lie, and supporting it is supporting liars.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on March 27, 2020, 12:55:26 PM
...I would pick that he is both a moron and a liar.  He obviously didn't have it totally under control, as has become blitheringly obvious.  So the question is, how do we know he knew it wasn't true?  Nope, tell me why what he said *was* true.

Evidently, you are not only lacking in context as Seriati pointed, out, but in basic reading skills. Almost everything you just posted was "asked and answered." Do you spend most of your time searching for pejorative spins, instead of basic facts?

This won't mean anything to you, since you obviously drink from the same KoolAid punchbowl as Seriati, but this is why his answers aren't believable:

Quote
No one objective reads the press questions to Obama and to Trump and thinks the press treats them remotely in the same manner - and no that has nothing to do with Trump's style and everything to do with press corp politics.

It has everything to do with Trump's style and untrustworthiness, and very little to do with press corps politics.  People on the right like you both only think the press and the courts are being fair when they bend over for you.  The "press" for the most part got fair and honest answers from Obama, yet he still said they treated him unfairly.  So did Bush. So did Clinton.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on March 27, 2020, 01:07:07 PM
No, I've decided that uncharitably calling things that are perfectly understandable in the context professional reporters hear them lies because those reporters choose to report them out of context to maximize the potential for misunderstanding is BS.  Trump talks conversationally - which is not how many politicians speak - he rambles, he goes off script, he says things that are true but that require unstated conditions or axioms, he says things that follow logically from assumptions that you can tell he makes.

It is literally a CHOICE by the media to comb through his statements to find the 15th time he said the same thing but used words that can be read multiple ways to quote that 15th way and to strip the context to imply he said something else.

I think the better way to put it is the press is using Police Interrogation tactics against Trump in an effort to get him to make a statement that they can twist to mean anything they want it to mean, or get him to "act out" against the reporters when he gets tired of politely going through their song-and-dance routine as they're blatantly trying to get him to slip up.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on March 27, 2020, 01:10:32 PM
Quote
So literally, on that day the coronavirus was still believed by the CDC to be under control and capable of being contained by mapping the cases and their contacts (they were wrong), and the market fundamentals were still strong with panic being the primary downward driver.  So yes, it still looked good.
Misrepresent much?

No I don't.  CNN reports it wasn't until 2 days after that statement that the CDC confirmed the fist case of community spread (after the CDC repeatedly refused to test the patient in question because they didn't their mapping criteria).  Here's the CNN link.  https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/27/health/us-cases-coronavirus-community-transmission/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/27/health/us-cases-coronavirus-community-transmission/index.html)

To state it expressly, what Trump said on 2/24 was accurate, the CDC didn't confirm a community case until 2/26 and changed it's guidance on who should be tested thereafter.

And remember, at this point tests were extremely limited because Federal rules restricted testing to the CDC and required extensive FDA approvals.  If we didn't have such rigid controls (which have served us well in other contexts), we'd never have been so far behind the testing curve.  I find it fascinating that Dems can't even acknowledge their own contribution on that front (Trump and bureaucratic rules are not exactly synonyms).

Quote
Stock markets
  • Dow drops 1000 basis points
  • All gains for 2020 wiped out - 2020 is now in negative territory for the DOW.  S&P 500 and Nasdaq still slightly positive for the year.
  • Ryan Detrick, LPL Financial: “The [International Monetary Fund] already lowered China’s growth this year, but should the virus continue to spread to other parts of the world, we could see quickly decreasing earnings and growth outlooks."
So, all gains for the year had been lost, yet "the market fundamentals were still strong"; China's growth projection was already lowered, and there is a risk of decreased earnings and decreasing growth worldwide, yet "panic" was "the primary downward driver."

It's not my fault you don't understand what market fundamentals are.  Yes, the fundamentals were and generally are still strong.  That doesn't mean that can't change.  And stock markets are panic sensitive.

Quote
That's wmLambert level analysis, that is.

No, my analysis was measured.  Again though the response is to ignore what's actually going on and substitute your opinions for facts or others opinions and act like you are stating facts.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on March 27, 2020, 01:17:59 PM
Quote
Did you do that?  Nope, no context on any of the statements - and why didn't you include context?

What context do you need?

No, you're confused.  It's the context you need.  You seem to be following a fallicious path whereby you accept the context of the talking head in interpretting quotes rather than the context of the speaker when the quote was made.

It means inherently that you have no real analysis of whether the statement itself is true or false, or even means what you purport it to mean.  Phrases in long responses are not inherently independent arguments, and without understanding the real context you are simply spreading the second speaker's context.  Where the second speaker is trying to manipulate the narrative and you accept it uncritically, you're passing on a lie.

So literally, if you can't make a claim about Trump's lies based on your own analysis you have nothing to add to a grown up conversation and are just a repeater of others thoughts. 
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on March 27, 2020, 01:32:02 PM
...That's wmLambert level analysis, that is.

Your metrics are not all that, are they? I actually read Seriati's documented facts, and understood the logic therein. I'm sorry if you are unable to keep up. Perhaps searching anti-Trump blogs is not enough for you to do more than insult. Also, the "Laughter by Intimidation" debate fallacy is beneath you. I often skip over repeating the obvious because I give credit to posters I respond to, and actually believe they have the ability to research and find info from their own sources that may educate them better. I've found that opinionated posters refuse to believe anything that comes from sources they don't dig up for themselves. I don't have a portal to LexisNexis, so can't come up with actual quotes as quickly as some others, but do regularly archive interesting data before it is deleted or scrubbed by activist IT people who think they are doing their "cause" a service by getting rid of anything that casts doubt on their fundamental and often disinformed beliefs.

I put opposing purposeful disinformation as a main priority, so will respond when obvious mistruths are pushed, regardless of whatever political party it comes from. See my essay on AI-Jane if you want to understand how I don't blame those who believe disinformation - but do understand why they do.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on March 27, 2020, 01:36:33 PM
Quote
That's wmLambert level analysis, that is.

No, my analysis was measured.  Again though the response is to ignore what's actually going on and substitute your opinions for facts or others opinions and act like you are stating facts.

With apologies, I realize retrospectively that I appear to be endorsing that wmLambert's analysis is somehow shoddy or low level.  Not my intent or belief at all.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 30, 2020, 08:57:55 AM
“I hope my colleagues learned from that,” he said. “[Ford] deserves to be treated with dignity. It takes enormous courage for a woman to come forward, under the bright lights of millions of people watching, and relive something that happened to her, assert that something happened to her. And she should be treated with respect,” and that she “should be given the benefit of the doubt and not be, you know, abused again by the system.”

Joe Biden
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on March 31, 2020, 01:25:34 PM
It is kind of fascinating how the Tara Reade accusations aren't getting attention.

I just visited MSNBC, CNN and Foxnews and searched for "Biden" on the front page of all three. Various Biden articles are on the front pages but zero on that story. Zero.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: yossarian22c on March 31, 2020, 01:40:33 PM
It is kind of fascinating how the Tara Reade accusations aren't getting attention.

I just visited MSNBC, CNN and Foxnews and searched for "Biden" on the front page of all three. Various Biden articles are on the front pages but zero on that story. Zero.

I thought Biden and Sanders were in virtual news black holes right now. Coronavirus has taken over the news cycle. Rarely has any story so overwhelmed election year political coverage like this.

I still think the best case scenario for democrats is Biden with a clear majority stepping aside at the convention for a better candidate. Either for health, family, or scandal reasons. I haven't seen an indication he has what it takes to run a presidential campaign, he still has all the gaffs, but without the charisma he used to have. Trump is going to hang Hunter and Ukraine around his neck like a lead balloon. Biden is Hillary 2.0 - weak in all the places Trump can exploit best and weak in all the ways that keep criticism of Trump answerable by whataboutism. Don't worry after Biden is solidified as the candidate, Trump and foxnews will run the story non stop. Why waste this shot at Biden right now? It will be overshadowed by coronavirus and there is still time to for the dems to avoid Biden if the attack really lands and hurts him in the polls.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on March 31, 2020, 01:42:07 PM
It is kind of fascinating how the Tara Reade accusations aren't getting attention.

I just visited MSNBC, CNN and Foxnews and searched for "Biden" on the front page of all three. Various Biden articles are on the front pages but zero on that story. Zero.

I thought Biden and Sanders were in virtual news black holes right now. Coronavirus has taken over the news cycle. Rarely has any story so overwhelmed election year political coverage like this.

I still think the best case scenario for democrats is Biden with a clear majority stepping aside at the convention for a better candidate. Either for health, family, or scandal reasons. I haven't seen an indication he has what it takes to run a presidential campaign, he still has all the gaffs, but without the charisma he used to have. Trump is going to hang Hunter and Ukraine around his neck like a lead balloon. Biden is Hillary 2.0 - weak in all the places Trump can exploit best and weak in all the ways that keep criticism of Trump answerable by whataboutism. Don't worry after Biden is solidified as the candidate, Trump and foxnews will run the story non stop. Why waste this shot at Biden right now? It will be overshadowed by coronavirus and there is still time to for the dems to avoid Biden if the attack really lands and hurts him in the polls.

I would agree if there were simply no stories at all relating to Biden (haven't done a similar search for Sanders) but they're there. Stories about his thoughts around single-payer health care, etc. but nothing on...that other thing.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on March 31, 2020, 01:57:44 PM
Salon has it in a big banner

https://www.salon.com/

Huffington post has an article about how the networks aren't asking him questions about it

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tv-hosts-joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegation_n_5e80bc97c5b6cb9dc1a206d3

Just tidbits - I'm not projecting any conclusions based on these.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on April 02, 2020, 10:10:49 AM
Quote
"I have five grandchildren. Every day we talk or we text,” Joe Biden says. “I’ve got family scattered around, like I suspect everybody does."

Biden has 7 grandchildren. Although, at this point, I suspect he doesn't always recognize them nor able to recall their names. 
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on April 02, 2020, 10:40:42 AM
Quote
"I have five grandchildren. Every day we talk or we text,” Joe Biden says. “I’ve got family scattered around, like I suspect everybody does."

Biden has 7 grandchildren. Although, at this point, I suspect he doesn't always recognize them nor able to recall their names.

Is that a new quote?  My searches don't show that coming up in the last month but rather almost 2 years ago when Biden did in fact have 5 grandchildren.  Since then Hunter's had to acknowledge an illegitimate child and his new wife is pregnant.  Sounds like a correct quote pulled out of context.  Can you provide the context?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on April 02, 2020, 11:23:19 AM
It was in my current news feed this morning, that's all I can say.  So maybe it was out of date, maybe it wasn't.

But it's certainly believable and in step with Biden's recent behavior.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on April 02, 2020, 11:27:59 AM
Crunch, that can't be the standard for passing on a quote.  Context matters on both sides.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on April 02, 2020, 01:02:23 PM
Ok, here's the link (https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1245565635213627393) I could find. It's from a twitter account ... for some reason, not showing up on news outlets ...

You can see the crawl below Biden that it references coronavirus so it's current.

What are the next objections?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on April 02, 2020, 01:30:06 PM
Thanks!
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on April 05, 2020, 09:42:12 PM
What must be commented upon is the media's absolute refusal to report the news on Biden. His gaffes far surpass anything they claimed Dan Quayle ever did. I remember the famous spelling bee, when Quayle was given a card by the Left-leaning school officials to be a celebrity judge which was incorrect. He said as he read it, that he thought the girl got it right, but the card said she didn't. Within minutes, the supposed "gaffe" that denied a poor speller from getting a fair chance, was all over the airwaves, with total horizontal and vertical saturation everywhere. Such coverage is impossible unless it was planned ahead of time.

However; when Biden talks about the "Luhan virus" the media misses it?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on April 05, 2020, 11:24:52 PM
Ok, here's the link (https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1245565635213627393) I could find. It's from a twitter account ... for some reason, not showing up on news outlets ...

You can see the crawl below Biden that it references coronavirus so it's current.

What are the next objections?

The comment not far below the tweet can account for that. Pregnant with a grandchild is not the same as having a grandchild. And he evidently is an ass and doesn't acknowledge the illegitimate child of Hunter's, so that would make 5. Although I'd think that the left-wits would be going after him for refusing to acknowledge grandchild #6 given his son has done so....
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on April 07, 2020, 11:14:28 PM
...The comment not far below the tweet can account for that. Pregnant with a grandchild is not the same as having a grandchild. And he evidently is an ass and doesn't acknowledge the illegitimate child of Hunter's, so that would make 5. Although I'd think that the left-wits would be going after him for refusing to acknowledge grandchild #6 given his son has done so....

Hmmm... Why didn't many in the MSM ever explain away the so-called "gaffes" of Dan Quayle that weren't? It's okay for them now to come to Biden's rescue, but they reveled at snarking Quayle.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 08, 2020, 12:09:35 PM
Bernie's out. It appears that Trump will be running unopposed.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: rightleft22 on April 08, 2020, 12:18:47 PM
Bernie's out. It appears that Trump will be running unopposed.

Its funny because its sad
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on April 08, 2020, 01:44:12 PM
Bernie's out. It appears that Trump will be running unopposed.

That's why this shutdown needs to go at least another few months:

Quote
Dr. Zeke Emanuel, an adviser to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden on the coronavirus, said this week that Americans could be dealing with strict social distancing measures to combat the coronavirus for 18 months ...

The only way to beat Trump at this point is to destroy as much of the US economy as possible, keep it down, and make people as fearful as possible. The Biden team knows, the MSM knows it.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: yossarian22c on April 08, 2020, 03:53:08 PM
Bernie's out. It appears that Trump will be running unopposed.

That's why this shutdown needs to go at least another few months:

Quote
Dr. Zeke Emanuel, an adviser to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden on the coronavirus, said this week that Americans could be dealing with strict social distancing measures to combat the coronavirus for 18 months ...

The only way to beat Trump at this point is to destroy as much of the US economy as possible, keep it down, and make people as fearful as possible. The Biden team knows, the MSM knows it.

You think a million graves is a small price to pay for a Trump second term?

If he can't beat Biden under any conditions he deserves to lose.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on April 08, 2020, 05:39:09 PM
Hey, does anyone think the media is gonna mention Stormy Daniels or any accusations about Trump and other women? LMAO, no way. He’s totally insulated from the biggest thing anti-Trump people go on about. It’s an amazing thing to watch the Democrats do this.

But, isn’t Avenatti still in? Maybe he could be the candidate CNN so loved ....
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on April 08, 2020, 07:31:14 PM
Hey, does anyone think the media is gonna mention Stormy Daniels or any accusations about Trump and other women? LMAO, no way. He’s totally insulated from the biggest thing anti-Trump people go on about. It’s an amazing thing to watch the Democrats do this.

But, isn’t Avenatti still in? Maybe he could be the candidate CNN so loved ....

With the Dems, nothing is ruled out. The think tanks and focus groups are as busy right now, as all the medical researchers looking for Coronavirus cures. One thing is for certain. When they decide the most effective attack to use, it will be launched with all guns blazing. It will appear in all talk shows, and every media shill will pass it along unvetted.

The main thing that stopped this in past actions, has been mistiming. The "gravitas" attack was thwarted when the polls showed that the public thought it was the Dem candidate who lacked it. It got shut down overnight, and no one commented upon it. Many October Surprises have been set off too early, so their efficacy drained away before voting began. With Avenatti in handcuffs, the fanciful bimbo eruption is probably not a good idea.

My fortune-telling is that the economy will start to rebuild as the Viral attack lessens.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on April 10, 2020, 08:14:55 AM
Anyone see Trump’s ad on Biden and China?  Holy crap, it’s easily the most devastating political ad I’ve ever seen.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: yossarian22c on April 10, 2020, 09:45:44 AM
With the Dems, nothing is ruled out. The think tanks and focus groups are as busy right now, as all the medical researchers looking for Coronavirus cures. One thing is for certain. When they decide the most effective attack to use, it will be launched with all guns blazing. It will appear in all talk shows, and every media shill will pass it along unvetted.

Can I pre-conspiracy theory for you?

Clinton operatives secretly infect Joe with corona virus hoping he'll die so she can be drafted at the convention and run against Trump and his failed covid 19 response.

Can I copyright conspiracy theories? When the right wing conspiracy nuts go crazy for it I could make some money on it?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 10, 2020, 10:32:51 AM
That's actually not bad but would probably be a bit more on the nose if Bernie had contracted CV.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on April 10, 2020, 10:50:25 AM
You think a million graves is a small price to pay for a Trump second term?

If he can't beat Biden under any conditions he deserves to lose.

I think, Biden's argument that travel restrictions were racist and the left's over reliance on the administrative state means that we'd have had a million more deaths easily, under Biden (or Clinton for that matter).

So, please answer you own question, is a million more deaths a small price to get rid of Trump?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: yossarian22c on April 10, 2020, 11:05:30 AM
You think a million graves is a small price to pay for a Trump second term?

If he can't beat Biden under any conditions he deserves to lose.

I think, Biden's argument that travel restrictions were racist and the left's over reliance on the administrative state means that we'd have had a million more deaths easily, under Biden (or Clinton for that matter).

So, please answer you own question, is a million more deaths a small price to get rid of Trump?

Are you claiming Trump's response was quick, effective, and limited the spread of the virus in the USA? That he responded better than other countries and better than Biden or Clinton would have? If so, just put forth which of his actions were effective and we can discuss.

Currently the US has about 1/4 of the world's total number of confirmed infections. With that said its a little hard to claim that the China travel ban and the much later European one was a highly effective virus containment strategy. I'm not making the case the travel bans were bad policy, but whatever time they bought us in delaying outbreaks was squandered.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on April 10, 2020, 11:18:09 AM
Are you claiming Trump's response was quick, effective, and limited the spread of the virus in the USA?

Yes.  Travel ban is the single best thing we could have done.  And he fought to get it against overwhelming media and left pressure, so any argument that it should have been bigger (it should have) has to be weighed against the fact the left wouldn't have done it.

Quote
That he responded better than other countries and better than Biden or Clinton would have?

Yes.  Biden literally called the ban racist for weeks and only in the last month had his campaign claim he always supported the travel ban.  He's literally a liar trying to take credit for Trump's effective actions that he opposed and never would have implemented.

Clinton and Biden are fully establishment, they had no ability to override the deep state or willingness to do so, so we'd still be waiting for the FDA to develop a test if they were in charge.  The media would be covering for them and repeating endlessly that the government is doing all it can (or criticizing Republicans for being disloyal for pushing for a different plan), while our death rate would be at least a factor of ten greater and we'd be further from a cure.

Now, you can count on both Biden and Clinton to have acted to seize large portions of the private sector on an "emergency" basis that helps no one and permanently increases the authority of the government.

Quote
Currently the US has about 1/4 of the world's total number of confirmed infections.

Yes.  It's disease the communicability of which no one understood fully, in large part because the Chinese and international authorities lied about person to person transmission through late January.  The US leads the world - now, thanks to the Trump admin steamrolling the FDA/CDC - in testing.

Quote
With that said its a little hard to claim that the China travel ban and the much later European one was a highly effective virus containment strategy. I'm not making the case the travel bans were bad policy, but whatever time they bought us in delaying outbreaks was squandered.

I see.  So the single only effective measure - international social distancing - was not really effective.  That's just a sad claim that if it were anyone other than Trump would never get made.  Given what we knew at the time, it was practically visionary.  The left - based on what they "knew" at the time - couldn't even envision a purpose for it other than racism. 

Again the "squandering" of time was literally using the time to push the FDA and CDC in accord with the existing rules there - established and reinforced heavily over time by Democrats - to develop effective tests and start working on vaccines.  There is absolutely no question that Clinton and Biden would have continued to support the CDC/FDA process (much like a pro football coach making the safe choice to punt it away at the end of the game and "rely on the defense to get the ball back").  It's fool proof from their view, no one can criticize them for "relying on the experts" and any fault can be laid on the agency - who is largely a group of anonymous power brokers who won't personally feel any consequences.

And the media would wrap it all up with a positive bow for them and find someway to blame it on Republicans in government somewhere.

And you dodged the question, is it worth a million deaths to stop Trump being reelected?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on April 10, 2020, 11:21:06 AM
You think a million graves is a small price to pay for a Trump second term?

If he can't beat Biden under any conditions he deserves to lose.

I think, Biden's argument that travel restrictions were racist and the left's over reliance on the administrative state means that we'd have had a million more deaths easily, under Biden (or Clinton for that matter).

So, please answer you own question, is a million more deaths a small price to get rid of Trump?

Are you claiming Trump's response was quick, effective, and limited the spread of the virus in the USA? That he responded better than other countries and better than Biden or Clinton would have? If so, just put forth which of his actions were effective and we can discuss.

Currently the US has about 1/4 of the world's total number of confirmed infections. With that said its a little hard to claim that the China travel ban and the much later European one was a highly effective virus containment strategy. I'm not making the case the travel bans were bad policy, but whatever time they bought us in delaying outbreaks was squandered.

First, let's talk about the results. From 2.2 million projected dead to 60,000. A 97.3% reduction, projected saving of over 2.1 million lives. Deaths per 1M - 52. Compare to Spain, 339. Italy, 302. France, 187. UK, 118. Of the top hardest-hit countries, only Germany does better at 32.  That's pretty damned effective.

Now, was it quick? Trump implemented the travel ban in January - extraordinarily early and it included quarantines. So much so, that Pelosi and democrats wanted a bill to overturn the order. All this during a time China and the WHO were actively engaging in a disinformation campaign to slow the US response. Under the circumstances, it's incredible how fast Trump moved on this.

Limiting the spread. Has the curve flattened? Yes, many of the models are being revised downward by orders of magnitude. It's still gonna spread but we're very far past the "healthcare system will collapse by" date and it looks like we'll never get there.

Was it a perfect response, probably not. But it's pretty damn good. Well, except for the looming Great Depression. That's gonna suck.

Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: yossarian22c on April 10, 2020, 11:35:43 AM
...
Clinton and Biden are fully establishment, they had no ability to override the deep state or willingness to do so, so we'd still be waiting for the FDA to develop a test if they were in charge.  The media would be covering for them and repeating endlessly that the government is doing all it can (or criticizing Republicans for being disloyal for pushing for a different plan), while our death rate would be at least a factor of ten greater and we'd be further from a cure.
...

Let's compare this to Obama under H1N1.

Quote
“He said the test was going to take at least six months to review, but we couldn’t wait that long,” Sharfstein, now a vice dean of public health at Johns Hopkins University, told The Seattle Times.

Within 48 hours, Sharfstein and a team of FDA lawyers found a way to get tests out quickly through an existing FDA process called “Emergency Use Authorization.” The novel use of the “EUA,” a process typically aimed to give the FDA some oversight over unapproved medical devices needed for emergencies, marked the first time it was tapped for a public health diagnostic test.

So the Obama admin literally developed a way to get tests out quickly with EUA's. The Trump admin didn't have to bulldoze bureaucracy, they just needed to get it to work quickly to get the EUA's out to labs who had working tests.

They failed to do this even as the CDC test was having problems.

I'm sure you'll find someone else in the government to blame for this, Trump's the anti-Truman the buck always stops somewhere else.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on April 10, 2020, 11:57:44 AM
Currently the US has about 1/4 of the world's total number of confirmed infections. With that said its a little hard to claim that the China travel ban and the much later European one was a highly effective virus containment strategy. I'm not making the case the travel bans were bad policy, but whatever time they bought us in delaying outbreaks was squandered.

1/4 of the confirmed cases likely has more to do with testing have ramped up in the United States considerably while other parts of the world either can't test effectively at all(Iran, much of the 3rd world), or are having comparable challenges to what the US dealt with early on, but lack the resources the US has for scaling their testing rapidly.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on April 10, 2020, 11:59:56 AM
Quote
Currently the US has about 1/4 of the world's total number of confirmed infections.

Currently, the US has tested more people than the rest of the world combined. That has a bit of an impact on this "statistic".
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on April 10, 2020, 12:03:31 PM
It also ignores the matter that some countries(China) are probably not reporting their own numbers honestly.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on April 10, 2020, 02:45:09 PM
Let's compare this to Obama under H1N1.

Okay, but I can see you're going to leave out a bunch of things that are relevant to such a comparison.  The Seattle Times piece you cited too, has not been reposted 10's of thousands of times.

Quote
Quote
“He said the test was going to take at least six months to review, but we couldn’t wait that long,” Sharfstein, now a vice dean of public health at Johns Hopkins University, told The Seattle Times.

Within 48 hours, Sharfstein and a team of FDA lawyers found a way to get tests out quickly through an existing FDA process called “Emergency Use Authorization.” The novel use of the “EUA,” a process typically aimed to give the FDA some oversight over unapproved medical devices needed for emergencies, marked the first time it was tapped for a public health diagnostic test.

So the Obama admin literally developed a way to get tests out quickly with EUA's.

Actually, not really.  If you look at what actually happened, they expedited getting the H1N1 strain into the existing flu tests.  The flu tests are produced every year (ie no ramp up), and the strains are iterations on a common theme, which means its effectively a question of tuning the existing production runs.

Here's the quote you skipped:

Quote
Just before the 2009 swine flu outbreak, the CDC had developed a “five target assay” to test for various influenza strains, receiving FDA approval to distribute the test kits under conditions that it first train lab workers to use them.

That training already had happened when the CDC submitted an emergency authorization application for swine flu. After the FDA quickly approved it, kits with the swine flu test began shipping on May 1, 2009. By September, more than 1 million tests were deployed to more than 120 local and state public health labs and 250 others worldwide.

“The test was already approved, so it was easy for the CDC to just swap in H1N1 as a strain in that test,” Sharfstein said. “We had surveillance out very quickly and other (commercial) tests soon followed.“

There was literally a massive commercial test kit for the flu.  The model was for the CDC develop the tests - with approvals taking up to a year (but no one cared for things like the flu) and the "emergency" was to incorporate the test for a novel strain of the flu more quickly.

Flu is not a novel virus.

The CDC first, and FDA only approving the CDC first on an emergency basis - despite the fact that testing kits could be designed at hundreds of labs around the world effectively was the "process" that caused this delay.  Even after the CDC screwed up the FDA initially tried to require third parties to pre-submit their emergency authorizations before moving forward on the tests.

Here's a more streamline summary https://www.rochesterfirst.com/news/national/us-slashes-testing-rules-to-speedup-coronavirus-screening/ (https://www.rochesterfirst.com/news/national/us-slashes-testing-rules-to-speedup-coronavirus-screening/), that doesn't bury the info to the extent of the Seattle piece, which nonetheless is still a good read, https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/single-point-of-failure-the-cdcs-past-successes-with-an-fda-process-set-the-table-for-coronavirus-testing-debacle/ (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/single-point-of-failure-the-cdcs-past-successes-with-an-fda-process-set-the-table-for-coronavirus-testing-debacle/).

Quote
The Trump admin didn't have to bulldoze bureaucracy, they just needed to get it to work quickly to get the EUA's out to labs who had working tests.

Again that's a gross mischaracterization of what even the Seattle piece said.  The FDA controlled the process, and had no inclination to encourage a faster alternative until they got bulldozed (does not look like bad faith, just a belief in the goodness of how things have always been done).  After they got bulldozed   they granted approvals well beyond anything that was done before.  The Obama "emergency process" was to let the CDC switch out the strain of flu in an existing testing kit without a year long study (and the FDA imposed restrictions on those tests because of it), the Trump "emergency response" was to force the FDA to authorize state health departments to approve tests directly without an FDA submission, and to force the FDA to allow private actors to develop and implement their own tests and submit to the FDA afterwards, all of which is directly supplanting the CDC develops the test kits and commercial actors follow model.

And you forgot to mention that COVID-19 is a novel virus, which means test kits are built from the ground up, and it's a not a simple matter of switching out a flu strain in an existing kit (not to imply that's necessarily a simple matter - but it seems it was possible to do so almost immediately - which makes you wonder why the "process" requires a year in the ordinary case).  If the Swine Flu had not been able to leverage off kits as a flu virus that response would have looked disastrous.

Quote
They failed to do this even as the CDC test was having problems.

They failed to do what?  Seriously, you are being a hypocrite here.  One of the most common things you criticize about Trump is that he doesn't listen to the experts.  Here literally, the experts were telling him this is how it has to work, and your complaint is that he didn't stop listening to them sooner?

We already know that when it comes to treatment options, you're taking the exact opposite position.  Trump should be relying more on the experts telling him to delay and downplay. 

So which is it?  The FDA, CDC and medical weight is only a slow deliberative process for every step, with maximum governmental oversight and control.  Yet apparently, you think Trump is wrong both when he listens to them and when he forces them to move faster.

Quote
I'm sure you'll find someone else in the government to blame for this, Trump's the anti-Truman the buck always stops somewhere else.

It's not even clear you've articulated a basis to blame Trump.  What exactly did he do here that's got you bothered?   Honestly, project all you want, its the left for whom there is no event that is not Trump's fault no matter how it goes.

So please, tell me how he's at fault here for not overriding the bureaucracy and it's impeachable offenses every time he tries to direct other parts of the bureaucracy.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 10, 2020, 10:46:47 PM
I like the insights into the sausage factory y'all provide. We just see the results but it's hard to know who to really blame without a lot more information and understanding of the whole process.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 11, 2020, 07:26:36 AM
Yes.  Biden literally called the ban racist for weeks

Can you give some citations here, preferably ones across a number of weeks?

Btw, the travel ban was a correct move, but as far as I can tell, it was indeed motivated by Trump's perpetual instinctive racism xenophobia and isolationism; same way that the Democrats' initial (erroneous) opposition to it (which as far as I can tell barely lasted a couple days) was motivated by their instinctive anti-racism, anti-xenophobia and anti-isolationism.

That in the case of a pandemic Trump's instinctive isolationism is the correct response was a happy accident for him -- if it's supposedly just a hoax (as he claimed) or no worse than a normal flu, there'd be no reason for a travel ban, would there now? So he did accidentally the right thing for all the wrong reasons.

Just today, the Trump campaign released an attack ad on Biden, which uses a photo of him with Gary Locke as evidence for Biden's suspicious ties with China. Gary Locke's an American citizen -- the incriminating evidence is that he's racially Asian rather than white, of course. It's hard to argue that this attack ad wasn't racist, when the only point against Gary Locke is his race.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on April 11, 2020, 08:47:38 AM
Quote
Btw, the travel ban was a correct move, but as far as I can tell, it was indeed motivated by Trump's perpetual instinctive racism xenophobia and isolationism; same way that the Democrats' initial (erroneous) opposition to it (which as far as I can tell barely lasted a couple days) was motivated by their instinctive anti-racism, anti-xenophobia and anti-isolationis

TDS on display.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 11, 2020, 09:37:50 AM
TDS on display.

Oh? Should I be charitable about Trump's motivations, when neither he nor you are ever charitable about his opponents' motivations?

The coronavirus hysteria is the latest liberal hoax, remember. Dozens of nations worldwide are in lockdown, their governments all doing this in an effort to harm their own economies, all just to hurt Trump. /s
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on April 11, 2020, 09:42:43 AM
You don’t have to be charitable, but you should try reality
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 11, 2020, 10:18:01 AM
You don’t have to be charitable, but you should try reality

The reality is that Trump gets the racist, xenophobe, and isolationist vote, because he'll always always do the racist/xenophobic/isolationist thing.

Here's another example:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48982172
Quote
He claimed the women "originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe", before suggesting they "go back".

The tweet was directed at a group of four congresswomen of colour; three were born and raised in the US while the fourth moved to the US as a child.

Republican Party representatives kept quiet amid a wave of criticism.

The congresswomen - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley, and Ilhan Omar, who came to the US as a refugee aged 12 - have all called the president racist, and have been backed by members of the Democratic Party.

Ms Ocasio-Cortez was born in the Bronx in New York, approximately 12 miles away from the Queens hospital where Mr Trump was born.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on April 11, 2020, 08:06:57 PM
...Should I be charitable about Trump's motivations, when neither he nor you are ever charitable about his opponents' motivations?

Pure projection. Name an instance where your so-called evil motivations was not simply responding to disinformational attacks.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 11, 2020, 08:40:27 PM
...Should I be charitable about Trump's motivations, when neither he nor you are ever charitable about his opponents' motivations?

Pure projection. Name an instance where your so-called evil motivations was not simply responding to disinformational attacks.

Not exactly sure what you're asking (instance where Trump's motivations are seen, instance where he assigns evil motivations to others?)

Does this qualify?
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-birther/index.html

Among other things, supposedly, according to Trump, Obama had the Hawaii State Health Director murdered in a plane accident, to hide the fact that he was supposedly born in Kenya or something.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on April 11, 2020, 10:15:00 PM
...Does this qualify?
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-birther/index.html

Among other things, supposedly, according to Trump, Obama had the Hawaii State Health Director murdered in a plane accident, to hide the fact that he was supposedly born in Kenya or something.

No, that does not count. The initial birther attacks against Obama came from Hillary's camp. Philip J. Berg filed case 08-cv- 04083 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to stop Obama from being nominated by the DNC as the Presidential candidate. He said, for Hillary, that Democratic Presidential Nominee Obama was not eligible to serve as President of the United States. Hillary, not Trump. Since then, the Hawaiian clerk did say the correct long form was never provided. Forensic evideence noted problems with the copies provide after the fact. Things like the type font not being available when the document was supposedly prepared. What is most important, however; is the simple fact that multiple States require each nominee to submit a stamped and embossed, long-form birth certificate before being placed onto the ballot. Wasn't done, but somehow he got on them. I guess mentioning such questions makes one a conspirator?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on April 11, 2020, 10:24:51 PM
Biden can never be the flag carrier against Trump over China,

Biden stands up for China:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=Nv7yVCwv6NU&feature=emb_title
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 12, 2020, 07:17:02 AM
...Does this qualify?
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-birther/index.html

Among other things, supposedly, according to Trump, Obama had the Hawaii State Health Director murdered in a plane accident, to hide the fact that he was supposedly born in Kenya or something.

No, that does not count. The initial birther attacks against Obama came from Hillary's camp. Philip J. Berg filed case 08-cv- 04083 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to stop Obama from being nominated by the DNC as the Presidential candidate. He said, for Hillary, that Democratic Presidential Nominee Obama was not eligible to serve as President of the United States. Hillary, not Trump. Since then, the Hawaiian clerk did say the correct long form was never provided. Forensic evideence noted problems with the copies provide after the fact. Things like the type font not being available when the document was supposedly prepared. What is most important, however; is the simple fact that multiple States require each nominee to submit a stamped and embossed, long-form birth certificate before being placed onto the ballot. Wasn't done, but somehow he got on them. I guess mentioning such questions makes one a conspirator?

What complete nonsense. And what completely unrelated irrelevant nonsense.

For starters, you try to imply that Philip J. Berg (a conspiracy theorist who was also a 9/11 truther who accused Bush of conspiring to bring down the Twin Towers) was working for the Hillary Clinton campaign, without producing any evidence to that fact. That Hillary began the birther claims is just one of the standard bull*censored* Trump later spewed, without the least bit of interest in what the truth of the matter is, or in backing up his claims. (Trump is a constant bull*censored*ter, he can tell every lie he wants, the truth is utterly irrelevant)

Secondly, even if Philip J. Berg had been working for the Hillary campaign (which he didn't), how does that have anything to do with reducing Trump's share of the guilt in later joining and becoming the chief proponent of that bull*censored*?

Thirdly, you completely ignored the thing I explcitly focused on, about how Trump went one step beyond anyone else, and insinuated that the Obama conspiracy extending to arranging a plane accident to murder a passenger in it. (and yet they couldn't make a properly good forgery it seems, though in other ways they were exceptionally competent as when they flew back in time to place a birth announcement in a Hawaii newspaper)

Fourth, I won't bother rediscussing all the other birther nonsense you speak, I did that enough roughly 10 years ago. I will note however that I significantly doubt your supposed "simple fact that multiple States require each nominee to submit a stamped and embossed, long-form birth certificate before being placed onto the ballot.".

Can you provide a citation for that supposed fact? Then, if you do so (which I doubt), we'll have to discuss why George W. Bush never submitted one either.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on April 12, 2020, 08:12:24 AM
You don’t have to be charitable, but you should try reality

The reality is that Trump gets the racist, xenophobe, and isolationist vote, because he'll always always do the racist/xenophobic/isolationist thing.

Here's another example:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48982172
Quote
He claimed the women "originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe", before suggesting they "go back".

The tweet was directed at a group of four congresswomen of colour; three were born and raised in the US while the fourth moved to the US as a child.

Republican Party representatives kept quiet amid a wave of criticism.

The congresswomen - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley, and Ilhan Omar, who came to the US as a refugee aged 12 - have all called the president racist, and have been backed by members of the Democratic Party.

Ms Ocasio-Cortez was born in the Bronx in New York, approximately 12 miles away from the Queens hospital where Mr Trump was born.

He broke you.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 12, 2020, 08:56:40 AM
He broke you.

Pfft. You mean Trump?

Trump is nothing special, globally speaking, just a dime-a-dozen racist demagogue pandering to the far-right.

He's slightly worse than anyone Americans have had before in the presidency (in living memory at least), but he's nothing I've not seen before and nothing I won't see again. In Serbia there was Milosevic. Currently in Hungary there's Orban, and Bolsonaro in Brazil.

Such guys get into power on the basis of populist rhetoric, hurt their nations, and then they go away again.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on April 12, 2020, 09:30:48 AM
Using this doll, can you point to the place he bad orange man touched you?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 12, 2020, 09:39:48 AM
You're suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome-Syndrome, Crunch.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on April 12, 2020, 10:02:29 AM
Drive-by's are dangerous.  Just perused the past few days of posts in a couple of threads.  I can't believe anyone here is still responding to Crunch.  Most people already ignore him, and those who like what he says are too far gone to convince otherwise. He spreads horse*censored*, cherry picks factoids as bad as Trump, insults anyone he doesn't agree with, attacks anything that goes against his "message" and probably has a quiet celebration after each time he posts.  Has anyone asked if he is ignoring the guidelines, hanging out with friends, going to work every day?  If he isn't a coward who won't live his principles he would.

Meanwhile, have to get back to reality...
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 12, 2020, 11:10:28 AM
I tend to look for anything interesting in any given post, not just what I "like". That applies to crunch, you, whoever. For the record, opinions expressly stated in terms like "Trump's a racist" aren't all that interesting to me and I put them roughly in the same category of birther investigations. I realize you probably consider most of what you've typed as self-evident, but that doesn't mean you're not in the same confirmation-bias loop we all inhabit.

So for now I'll respond to whomever I think makes an interesting point, or where I think it's interesting to challenge. Sometimes I respond simply to poke someone, but I try and limit those. I guess you'll just have to trust all the posters here to have their big-boy pants on and figure out how/who they engage with.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on April 12, 2020, 12:15:39 PM
I agree with ScottF, that I tend to read all posts (even the silly ones) and look to find whether there's any content in them. That includes posts hailing Trump's brilliance, as well as those comparing him to Milosevic. Although between you and me the latter is far more of an extremist opinion than the former.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on April 12, 2020, 02:19:27 PM
You're suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome-Syndrome, Crunch.

You’re assigning motive with no basis in reality to things Trump does despite you agreeing with those actions. It’s pretty unhinged.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 12, 2020, 03:08:46 PM
Quote
I agree with ScottF, that I tend to read all posts (even the silly ones) and look to find whether there's any content in them. That includes posts hailing Trump's brilliance, as well as those comparing him to Milosevic. Although between you and me the latter is far more of an extremist opinion than the former.

I wonder how much you know about Milosevic's rise to power, and the tactics used, to become the popular charismatic face of the ethnic majority in a multiethnic country, and in telling his ethnic majority compatriots that they will never be ignored again, while bashing the media for their lies, and promising to return his country to greatness...

You’re assigning motive with no basis in reality to things Trump does despite you agreeing with those actions. It’s pretty unhinged.

You have it the other way around: If I assigned noble motivations to everyone whose actions I agreed with, or evil motivations to everyone whose actions I disagreed with, *that* would be pretty unhinged.

It's much more reasonable to realize that people can do things you agree with, and that doesn't make them necessarily good people -- or they can do things you disagree with and that doesn't make them necessarily evil people.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on April 12, 2020, 04:45:14 PM
Quote
I agree with ScottF, that I tend to read all posts (even the silly ones) and look to find whether there's any content in them. That includes posts hailing Trump's brilliance, as well as those comparing him to Milosevic. Although between you and me the latter is far more of an extremist opinion than the former.

I wonder how much you know about Milosevic's rise to power, and the tactics used, to become the popular charismatic face of the ethnic majority in a multiethnic country, and in telling his ethnic majority compatriots that they will never be ignored again, while bashing the media for their lies, and promising to return his country to greatness...

Funny thing, someone I served with in the Navy recently discovered #walkaway which caused me to follow up on some of what's been going on over there.

Those Trump Press Conferences? It wasn't Trump's handling of the conference which has been making many of the recent entries to #walkaway, rather it was their now having occasion to witness in real time how the press distorted what Trump said into something else entirely.

Trump may lie and distort things, but the Press is expected to hold a higher standard. Catching the press in perpetrating a lie "breaks the faith" that those people had in the outlets involved. After that, the media has effectively lost its ability to influence those people, as they know those outlets actively lie too.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on April 12, 2020, 08:21:42 PM
...It wasn't Trump's handling of the conference which has been making many of the recent entries to #walkaway, rather it was their now having occasion to witness in real time how the press distorted what Trump said into something else entirely.

Trump may lie and distort things, but the Press is expected to hold a higher standard. Catching the press in perpetrating a lie "breaks the faith" that those people had in the outlets involved. After that, the media has effectively lost its ability to influence those people, as they know those outlets actively lie too.

Every time someone says, "Trump may lie and distort things," makes me think of Hannity's quip that journalism died in 2007. Do these people ever review the so-called Trump lies, and then come back later to apologize when they are subsequently proved true? Funnt they never use that same attitude with Adam Shiff.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on April 12, 2020, 08:26:37 PM
...I won't bother rediscussing all the other birther nonsense you speak, I did that enough roughly 10 years ago.

You lost back then, too. Obama not only never submitted proper documentation for being put on the ballots, but was never transparent with any school documentation. That's on him. Not on Trump. It's also on the media for never pursuing it.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 13, 2020, 02:27:09 AM
You lost back then, too. Obama not only never submitted proper documentation for being put on the ballots, but was never transparent with any school documentation. That's on him. Not on Trump. It's also on the media for never pursuing it.

You've still not given me any citations, as I asked, indicating the laws supposedly demanding this "proper documentation" and whether George W. Bush provided the documentation you demand of Obama. I think you want Obama to jump through hoops that AFAIK no other president ever had to jump through.

Every time someone says, "Trump may lie and distort things," makes me think of Hannity's quip that journalism died in 2007. Do these people ever review the so-called Trump lies, and then come back later to apologize when they are subsequently proved true? Funnt they never use that same attitude with Adam Shiff.

Okay, let's start with a simple example. Trump claimed thousands of Muslims in New Jersey were cheering 9/11. Where's video evidence showing it happen?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump
Quote
Here's the problem: As fact checker Glenn Kessler noted in August, whereas Clinton lies as much as the average politician, President Donald Trump's lying is "off the charts". No prominent politician in memory bests Trump for spouting spectacular, egregious, easily disproved lies. The birther claim. The vote fraud claim. The attendance at the inauguration claim. And on and on and on. Every fact checker—Kessler, Factcheck.org, Snopes.com, PolitiFact—finds a level of mendacity unequaled by any politician ever scrutinized. For instance, 70 percent of his campaign statements checked by PolitiFact were mostly false, totally false, or "pants on fire" false.[69]

Trump blatantly lies constantly, and he doesn't even care how easily disproven his lies are.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on April 13, 2020, 05:27:41 AM
Quote
I agree with ScottF, that I tend to read all posts (even the silly ones) and look to find whether there's any content in them. That includes posts hailing Trump's brilliance, as well as those comparing him to Milosevic. Although between you and me the latter is far more of an extremist opinion than the former.

I wonder how much you know about Milosevic's rise to power, and the tactics used, to become the popular charismatic face of the ethnic majority in a multiethnic country, and in telling his ethnic majority compatriots that they will never be ignored again, while bashing the media for their lies, and promising to return his country to greatness...

1) I don't suppose you're trying to say that anyone who doesn't like the media, and who appeals to the majority (i.e. the basic definition of modern politics)...is on a trajectory towards being a fascist dictator? By that logic you should be looking only to elect people who do not try to appeal to the majority, and who are not popular or charismatic. The "return to greatness" thing is roughly speaking standard now, as we're seen that precise type of campaign from both Obama and Trump now, and to whatever extent a candidate is running on "we can change things" they are going to use some variation of that; a status-quo company man will not. I hope you can see the downward spiral your logic takes here.

2) I also don't suppose you realize that two people can say similar words without actually being the same in all respects? And that's granting you fully that they said similar words, which I won't research to find out.

3) You are talking about a President in the U.S. This type of comment (and I've heard it many, many times now) seems to suppose that all it takes is a certain type of man and they can turn the U.S. into a totalitarian regime lickity split. I've read numerous social media comments literally suggesting that Trump will make himself dictator for life. I hope you (all of you) are aware of what sorts of differences there are in the USA versus historical countries sporting dictators such as you describe. I hope you don't think that Trump can dissolve the [Imperial] senate, announce "I AM THE SENATE", and then become emperor. I'll put that in the likelihood column along with him taking down three jedi masters with his lightsaber.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on April 13, 2020, 08:17:56 AM
Quote
I agree with ScottF, that I tend to read all posts (even the silly ones) and look to find whether there's any content in them. That includes posts hailing Trump's brilliance, as well as those comparing him to Milosevic. Although between you and me the latter is far more of an extremist opinion than the former.

I wonder how much you know about Milosevic's rise to power, and the tactics used, to become the popular charismatic face of the ethnic majority in a multiethnic country, and in telling his ethnic majority compatriots that they will never be ignored again, while bashing the media for their lies, and promising to return his country to greatness...

You’re assigning motive with no basis in reality to things Trump does despite you agreeing with those actions. It’s pretty unhinged.

You have it the other way around: If I assigned noble motivations to everyone whose actions I agreed with, or evil motivations to everyone whose actions I disagreed with, *that* would be pretty unhinged.

It's much more reasonable to realize that people can do things you agree with, and that doesn't make them necessarily good people -- or they can do things you disagree with and that doesn't make them necessarily evil people.

He broke you.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on April 13, 2020, 10:43:09 AM
Well, Scott Adams is predicting with the caveat of "if nothing major changes between now and November, which it will," that Trump's going to dominate the Dems this election cycle. Reagan level numbers, if not better.

Meanwhile, James Carville(DNC talking head on CNN) is predicting the Republicans would be destroyed if the election was held in the near future.

Interesting to see such completely diametric takes on what's currently going on.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 13, 2020, 11:34:45 AM
If the media is able to continue to bury the Tara Reade allegations (ie basically the opposite of what they did with Kavanaugh/Blasey Ford) then Biden might get some traction. That said, with his struggles to remember things like dates or where he is, Biden will be eviscerated in the debates.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on April 13, 2020, 12:01:55 PM
Well, Scott Adams is predicting with the caveat of "if nothing major changes between now and November, which it will," that Trump's going to dominate the Dems this election cycle. Reagan level numbers, if not better.

Meanwhile, James Carville(DNC talking head on CNN) is predicting the Republicans would be destroyed if the election was held in the near future.

Interesting to see such completely diametric takes on what's currently going on.

At this point, things are too chaotic to make any predictions. If China unleashes another bio-attack, anything can happen.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: yossarian22c on April 13, 2020, 12:05:24 PM
Well, Scott Adams is predicting with the caveat of "if nothing major changes between now and November, which it will," that Trump's going to dominate the Dems this election cycle. Reagan level numbers, if not better.

Meanwhile, James Carville(DNC talking head on CNN) is predicting the Republicans would be destroyed if the election was held in the near future.

Interesting to see such completely diametric takes on what's currently going on.

At this point, things are too chaotic to make any predictions. If China unleashes another bio-attack, anything can happen.

Can you make up your mind? Is covid 19 a bio-weapon from China designed to destroy the west or is it nothing worse than the regular flu and we should all resume normal activities?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: LetterRip on April 13, 2020, 12:10:38 PM
If the media is able to continue to bury the Tara Reade allegations (ie basically the opposite of what they did with Kavanaugh/Blasey Ford) then Biden might get some traction. That said, with his struggles to remember things like dates or where he is, Biden will be eviscerated in the debates.

The problem is that there isn't any collaborating evidence.  With Blasey-Ford, there was extensive collaborating evidence.  She had talked with a large number of people about it prior to Kavanaugh being nominated, including her psychiatrist, her husband, and a variety of friends and acquaintances.

https://www.fff.org/2018/10/09/christine-fords-corroborating-evidence/

With Tara Reade - there is only one claimed potential source for collaborating evidence - her freind Sarah - and she won't go on the record, nor apparently won't even talk with a number of media.  All other potential collaborating sources - a claimed complaint to the Senate personnel, telling various Senate staff have failed to produce any collaboration. Without any collaborating evidence it is irresponsible for news to report it.  Also she was a Biden supporter till 2017, then she began praising Putin in 2018, then she became a Sanders supporter, and then made the allegation once Sanders began losing.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on April 13, 2020, 12:16:58 PM
If the media is able to continue to bury the Tara Reade allegations (ie basically the opposite of what they did with Kavanaugh/Blasey Ford) then Biden might get some traction. That said, with his struggles to remember things like dates or where he is, Biden will be eviscerated in the debates.

The problem is that there isn't any collaborating evidence.  With Blasey-Ford, there was extensive collaborating evidence.  She had talked with a large number of people about it prior to Kavanaugh being nominated, including her psychiatrist, her husband, and a variety of friends and acquaintances.

OMG, what a lie.  There is in fact contemporaneous evidence that Reade told people, and multiple people she's told it to sense.  There is in fact absolutely no equivalent with Blasey-Ford, and we know for a fact when Blasey-Ford first told people years after the event, her version of the story then was less precise and inconsistent with her story she told later.  In fact, it's very characteristic of a developed account rather than a memory.

I have no idea if there is more to the Reade accusations - they haven't been remotely vetted at this point - and I'm consistent in my belief that the accused are entitled to defend themselves, but what you wrote is the single most self serving (politically) and disappointing thing I've seen you write.

You can not back track on this and be anything other than a partisan hack.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 13, 2020, 12:21:18 PM
1) I don't suppose you're trying to say that anyone who doesn't like the media, and who appeals to the majority (i.e. the basic definition of modern politics)...is on a trajectory towards being a fascist dictator?

Milosevic was never a dictator. He was elected into power, and he was removed from power via elections.

What I said was "Trump is nothing special, globally speaking, just a dime-a-dozen racist demagogue pandering to the far-right. He's slightly worse than anyone Americans have had before in the presidency (in living memory at least), but he's nothing I've not seen before and nothing I won't see again. In Serbia there was Milosevic. Currently in Hungary there's Orban, and Bolsonaro in Brazil. Such guys get into power on the basis of populist rhetoric, hurt their nations, and then they go away again."

Out of the three examples I mentioned (Milosevic, Bolsonaro, and Orban), Orban is actually the closest of the three to a fascist dictator.

Quote
By that logic you should be looking only to elect people who do not try to appeal to the majority, and who are not popular or charismatic.

There's a difference when the sort of "majority" you try to appeal to is the *ethnic majority* as opposed to those icky minorities who should supposedly "go back home" (even the people who were actually born in America, they should also "go back home" supposedly, as in the example I previously quoted and which nobody cared to respond to), and that's how you propose you will return to greatness...

Trump, like Milosevic, rode into power on the basis of exploiting and deepening racial/ethnic divisions. His chief rhetoric move was building a wall to keep the Mexicans out. He has kept up the fanning of ethnic and racial hatred since, all alongside making noises about how it's actually bad. Much like exactly what Milosevic did, and yet every measure Trump proposes, every reinterpretation of existing law is about nationalism, racism, isolationism, and exclusiveness.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-i-will-terminate-birthright-citizenship-for-babies-of-non-citizens
"We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States... with all of those benefits... It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end"

Quote
The "return to greatness" thing is roughly speaking standard now, as we're seen that precise type of campaign from both Obama and Trump now, and to whatever extent a candidate is running on "we can change things" they are going to use some variation of that; a status-quo company man will not. I hope you can see the downward spiral your logic takes here.

The past sucked. Speaking about a *return* to greatness, is standard reactionary rhetoric, it whitewashes the sins of the past. Which era's America was supposedly "great" that you should return to that greatness? Any time before the very recent present, gay people didn't have full marriage rights, for example.

Quote
I also don't suppose you realize that two people can say similar words without actually being the same in all respects

Yes, I didn't say that all the scumbags are identical in all the same respects. I compared their dime-a-dozen nationalist/racist demagoguery that panders to the far-right.

Quote
You are talking about a President in the U.S. This type of comment (and I've heard it many, many times now) seems to suppose that all it takes is a certain type of man and they can turn the U.S. into a totalitarian regime lickity split. I've read numerous social media comments literally suggesting that Trump will make himself dictator for life.

Since I said "Such guys get into power on the basis of populist rhetoric, hurt their nations, and then they go away again", no I certainly do NOT think Trump will turn the US into a totalitarian regime or become a dictator for life. He'll get his two terms (most likely) then he'll go away, after harming his nation.

That the U.S.A. has the two-term limit well established in your constitution and your custom too, is one of the reasons that Trump is ultimately bad but nothing special or very important. I worry more about Orban in Hungary than about Trump.

My only actual fear of Trump has actually been how his love of Russia and hatred of NATO might enable Russia's expansionism in Eastern Europe -- (as evidenced by how Trump tried to sabotage Montenegro's membership into NATO -- and he failed at that because of the near-unanimous opposition by the Congress).

He broke you.

It's the second time you repeat the same three words. If you want to indicate yourself a non-sapient Trump-bot, I'll be ignoring you from now on.

Can you make up your mind? Is covid 19 a bio-weapon from China designed to destroy the west or is it nothing worse than the regular flu and we should all resume normal activities?

Doublethink is crucial to people like Crunch, they can simultaneously think contradictory thoughts, abandoning them and reembracing them at will as convenient for whatever the rhetoric point of the moment requires.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: LetterRip on April 13, 2020, 12:37:30 PM
OMG, what a lie.

I linked to the collaborating evidence.  It isn't a lie.

Quote
There is in fact contemporaneous evidence that Reade told people, and multiple people she's told it to sense.

Not that I'm aware of.  The only evidence we have of her telling people is during the campaign.  Prior to the campaign we don't have anyone willing to collaborate that she told anyone.

Quote
There is in fact absolutely no equivalent with Blasey-Ford, and we know for a fact when Blasey-Ford first told people years after the event, her version of the story then was less precise and inconsistent with her story she told later.  In fact, it's very characteristic of a developed account rather than a memory.

She told people many many years before Kavanaugh becoming politically relevant, even if it was 'years after the event'.  The collaborating evidence is for her belief that the event occurred, not that she accurately remembers the event (Ie she could be mistaken that it was Kavanaugh, but there is strong evidence she believed that Kavanaugh attempted to rape her long before he was involved in politics).

Quote
I have no idea if there is more to the Reade accusations - they haven't been remotely vetted at this point - and I'm consistent in my belief that the accused are entitled to defend themselves, but what you wrote is the single most self serving (politically) and disappointing thing I've seen you write.

Well you've completely misread what I wrote.  To date, there isn't as far as I'm aware, any collaborating evidence from individuals willing to go on record for Reade, and the claims of a personnel complaint and complaints to staff have been refuted rather than verified.  That was not the case with Blasey-Ford.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on April 13, 2020, 01:07:33 PM
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-i-will-terminate-birthright-citizenship-for-babies-of-non-citizens
"We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States... with all of those benefits... It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end"

So if I agree that it's ridiculous, that means I also hate the 'icky minorities'? Because you not liking his policy promises (which is fair enough) seems to be the only connective tissue linking him to racist demagoguery that I've heard you mention. And by the way, lest you think I'm picking on your particular comments, I've never seen *anyone* post a single thing about him that links him to being a racist other than his policies themselves, such as the "Muslim ban" and wanting a Mexican wall. Now, I wouldn't bet my life savings on him *not* being a racist, because I really don't know him. But purely based on his public record I don't see any compelling evidence that he is one. Being a New Yorker seems to me to make it more rather than less likely that he's fine with minorities. That city has a diversity-friendly mentality such as you practically won't see anywhere else.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 13, 2020, 01:34:20 PM
So if I agree that it's ridiculous, that means I also hate the 'icky minorities'?

I've given already a half-dozen examples of his racial/nationalist/xenophobic rhetoric that all follow the same trend. Don't act as if I've only ever given one example or that I'm only judging from one example.

Quote
Because you not liking his policy promises (which is fair enough) seems to be the only connective tissue linking him to racist demagoguery that I've heard you mention. And by the way, lest you think I'm picking on your particular comments, I've never seen *anyone* post a single thing about him that links him to being a racist other than his policies themselves, such as the "Muslim ban" and wanting a Mexican wall.

"Not liking them"? There's lots of things I don't like, but I don't call them racist or nationalist, unless they are about exploiting racial and nationalist divisions.

And no, it's not just his policies, it's also his rhetoric. As I already mentioned: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1150381394234941448
Quote
So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!

These were about 4 congresswomen, 3 of which were born in America (Ohio, NYC, and Detroit), and one of whom migrated to America from Somalia when she was 12 years old.

The thing the four women have in common, is that they're not white -- they're Hispanic or black or brown. So, tell me is that not racist rhetoric? What countries should they go back home to?

And besides policies and rhetoric (namely the two ways in which he interacts with the world), why should I care about anything else? Perhaps in his private life he's perfectly non-racist, perhaps he's perfectly non-racist in his innermost soul, but why should I care about that? I care about his impact on the rest of human society -- by the power of his position, and by the rhetoric he spews.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on April 13, 2020, 01:48:23 PM
These were about 4 congresswomen, 3 of which were born in America (Ohio, NYC, and Detroit), and one of whom migrated to America from Somalia when she was 12 years old.

The thing the four women have in common, is that they're not white -- they're Hispanic or black or brown. So, tell me is that not racist rhetoric? What countries should they go back home to?

The thing they have in common is they hate America and all it stands for. You want it to be racist, whatever. That's just a made-up response to excuse their hatred and help them further their plans to do everything possible to weaken the country.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: DonaldD on April 13, 2020, 02:22:24 PM
Quote
The thing they have in common is they hate America and all it stands for.
Yes... but that's true of every single Democrat.  Yet he hasn't suggested that Pelosi, Schumer, Romney, Fauci or Mueller be sent back to their home countries.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 13, 2020, 02:30:07 PM
The thing they have in common is they hate America and all it stands for. You want it to be racist, whatever.

Strange coincidence that it's only non-whites that he asks to go home to "their countries", even though most of them were born in USA.

Also it's Trump that hates America and all it stands for. I know what America stands for, because it's in the poem inscribed in the Statue of Liberty
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

America stands for accepting immigrants. That's what it was founded on. Trump hates this and wants to replace it with stopping immigrants, and even sending their descendants back to their home nations.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on April 13, 2020, 03:38:00 PM
I wasn't aware that Emma Lazarus was a founding father of the country.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on April 13, 2020, 04:02:34 PM
I wasn't aware that Emma Lazarus was a founding father of the country.

It is a symbolic representation of policy at the time, and I don't believe there were any objections to it by politicians of the time - although I don't know that and I'm not going to research it.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 13, 2020, 04:09:29 PM
Trump hates this and wants to replace it with stopping immigrants, and even sending their descendants back to their home nations.

Nailed it. It's a proven fact that Trump and most conservatives against illegal immigration also hate all immigration and immigrants in general.

That said, if Trump wants to froth up his base he better start doing more than just making stupid remarks and start cranking up deportations to at least Obama levels, or his immigrant-hatred street cred will be in serious jeopardy.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 13, 2020, 04:28:12 PM
Quote
Nailed it. It's a proven fact that Trump and most conservatives against illegal immigration also hate all immigration and immigrants in general.

So were the four congresswomen he told to go back to their countries all illegal immigrants?

Yes, or no? Were the four women he told to go back to their countries, ILLEGAL immigrants? Or did he try to shame them just because they (or their ancestors) were immigrants at all? And by golly, if you or your parents or your distant ancestors are immigrants, you should back to your country, rather than dare think you can have a say on how the nation is run.

Unless you're white. Then you can stay of course, and then you have an equal right to speak. /s

I wasn't aware that Emma Lazarus was a founding father of the country.

Americans had 150 years to change the inscription, if you thought it misrepresented what your country stood for.

Quote
That said, if Trump wants to froth up his base he better start doing more than just making stupid remarks and start cranking up deportations to at least Obama levels, or his immigrant-hatred street cred will be in serious jeopardy.

It's you who thinks that he (or his 'base') only hates illegal immigration, and that therefore deportations relate to this.

I am the one who think he's a racist who uses racist rhetoric to get the vote of racists. He doesn't need to actually deport people, as long as he has enough racist cred. He can get that from bashing on legal immigrants as he did, or people whose parents were legal immigrants, or anyone non-white, so forth.

Deportations are not enough, because if you run out of actually illegal immigrants to deport, who will you have to blame next?  https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51294/waiting-for-the-barbarians "Now what’s going to happen to us without barbarians? Those people were a kind of solution."
 
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on April 13, 2020, 04:59:42 PM
OMG, what a lie.

I linked to the collaborating evidence.  It isn't a lie.

No.  The problem is that you misunderstand what you link.  You linked to an opinion post that implies there are otherwise inadmissable hearsay statements that could be used to rebut an argument that Blasey-Ford made up her claim about Kavanaugh expressly to derail his SC confirmation.  I never made that charge, and I think most people that listened to her believed her that something had happened to her, they just didn't find it convincing that it was  Kavanaugh.

Her "corroboration" begins nearly 2 decades after the supposed event (to her husband), and doesn't mention Kavanaugh for 30 years after the event - and even then only her husband says he heard it - it's 35 years after the event before you get "corroboration" indirectly, that it was a Federal Judge.

Again, this pattern, of massive delay (and no real time corroboration) that becomes more specific is consistent with creating a memory.  And, you may want to consider if you told your husband in 2012 that you were assaulted by Kavanaugh, and he was pressuring you to come forward after the SC nomination, you'd not be able to backdown without marital consequences even if you were less than 100% sure (or for that matter had made it up - she may have written the letter to satisfy him and asked for anonymity to ensure she didn't have to testify, would certainly explain her "reluctant" position on flying).

As for actual corroboration, she claimed 5 people were at the party, the other four of which (including her friend) deny ever having been at such a party.  The number of people and the description of the party is inconsistent with the description of her earliest recounting of the events to her therapist.  That actually is a big undermining of it's credibility.

In effect, such corroboration would be admissible to prove she didn't recently make up the story, but does nothing to help prove she didn't start making it up in 2002, and didn't add Kavanaugh until, at the earliest, 2012 (which her husband claimed she said in therapy, but apparently is not corroborated by the therapists actual notes).   There's nothing there corroborating that the events occurred in the 80's or who they involved.

For the Biden situation there are accounts she told friends at the time that something had happened, and repeated the same over the course of years.  That's real time corroboration, as opposed to something from over 30 years later - those are the kind of hearsay statements that get admitted as evidence the events occurred (and not just as rebuttal evidence).  You also have a proven record of interaction - which didn't exist in the Blasey-Ford situation.  Now there is no question that Reade's public account has become more detailed and more graphic and it would be interesting to hear why, but your media is already on explain away and bury detail.

Quote
Quote
There is in fact contemporaneous evidence that Reade told people, and multiple people she's told it to sense.

Not that I'm aware of.  The only evidence we have of her telling people is during the campaign.  Prior to the campaign we don't have anyone willing to collaborate that she told anyone.

Heck, even the NY Times cited to the Reade's friend saying she was told at the time (i.e., 1993) and her brother has been told repeatedly over the years.  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/us/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-complaint.html?searchResultPosition=1 (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/us/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-complaint.html?searchResultPosition=1)  This article, by the way, was made "famous" when it got caught with a post publication edit - it originally said they found no evidence of sexual misconduct by Biden, except for history of touching women inappropriately.  They edited it to remove the caveat. 

It's a political white wash intend to clear Biden without an investigation - it's amazing how many things Biden has been "cleared" of without looking into them.

In any event, Reade also says she filed - at the time - a complaint with the senate.  You remember those "ultra top secret" complaints that protect Congress members and pay off assault victims which are among the most iron clad of NDAs on earth.

Quote
She told people many many years before Kavanaugh becoming politically relevant, even if it was 'years after the event'.

Actually that's false.  In 2002 - when she first mentioned her assault, Kavanaugh was already politically active and very involved in the Bush administration, and he was nominated in 2003 to sit on the DC Circuit Court and had what - at the time - was a very partisan appointment battle.

He'd been on the bench almost a decade, on one of the most prominent circuit courts in the country, with a well publicized record as a leading thinker, when she apparently first added him to her story in 2012 where another person could hear it (if you accept her husband's account).   

Quote
The collaborating evidence is for her belief that the event occurred, not that she accurately remembers the event (Ie she could be mistaken that it was Kavanaugh, but there is strong evidence she believed that Kavanaugh attempted to rape her long before he was involved in politics).

Again, the corroboration related to these statements is solely for rebutting an accusation that she made up the event after the SC nomination.  That's not a claim that anyone seriously made.  It does nothing to help whether she became convinced of his involvement in 2012 rather than remembering it all along.  In 2012 he would have been one of the most prominent former members of that class from the school and it would have been easy to decide retroactively that he must fit into a vague or undefined memory.  One only has to look at Deborah Rameriez's claim to understand how that happens, where she needed hours of discussions with lawyers and former classmates to decide her story was about him.

Quote
Well you've completely misread what I wrote.  To date, there isn't as far as I'm aware, any collaborating evidence from individuals willing to go on record for Reade, and the claims of a personnel complaint and complaints to staff have been refuted rather than verified.  That was not the case with Blasey-Ford.

They have not been refuted, they have been denied by the head of Biden's summer program.  Not aware definitely why she would have known.  I'd like to know from the records of the Senate what complaints were recorded against Biden over that summer.

In any event, unlike Blasey-Ford who the State of Maryland informed they would be happy to investigate her claims if she were to file now, notwithstanding the statute of limitations problems, Reade has filed a police report.  The NY Times response?  Was to threaten that filing a false police report is punishable by jail.   Not to even remotely consider that she's willing to go on official record.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on April 13, 2020, 06:26:46 PM
I wasn't aware that Emma Lazarus was a founding father of the country.

It is a symbolic representation of policy at the time, and I don't believe there were any objections to it by politicians of the time - although I don't know that and I'm not going to research it.

This has been discussed before. It described the situation as it stood at that time in the economy and national ethos. We had enormous tracks of untamed wilderness that needed able-bodied men and women to go forth and settle. Now we're actively trying to stop people from doing that.

We had a rapidly expanding industrial economy and and agricultural economy that were both extremely manpower intensive. We needed more people at a rate which reproduction alone simply could not keep up with.

Now we have a mechanized and increasingly automated agricultural sector that directly and indirectly employs a tiny fraction of what it once did.

We have a strongly regulated, mechanized, automated, and technical manufacturing sector that requires specialized skill sets to be viable in which also isn't anywhere nearly as manpower intensive as it once was.

We're dealing with an economy where automation is removing jobs from the workforce more quickly than innovation can find ("reasonably attainable") new work for them.

This is hardly the time of:

Quote
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

As we no longer have anywhere for them to go, we're having enough trouble figuring out what to do with our own "huddled masses" and have a very significant homeless problem of our own without adding to it.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on April 13, 2020, 06:31:41 PM
I am the one who think he's a racist who uses racist rhetoric to get the vote of racists. He doesn't need to actually deport people, as long as he has enough racist cred. He can get that from bashing on legal immigrants as he did, or people whose parents were legal immigrants, or anyone non-white, so forth.

The only "legal immigrants" Trump has targeted to my knowledge are the ones who seem to routinely have little to nothing positive to say about this country. Otherwise, it's the illegals that get his attention.

The legal immigrants who don't hate the US are smart enough to realize this difference and typically agree with him. Too bad you and many others can't seem to understand why.

Quote
Deportations are not enough, because if you run out of actually illegal immigrants to deport, who will you have to blame next?  https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51294/waiting-for-the-barbarians "Now what’s going to happen to us without barbarians? Those people were a kind of solution."

Militant Radical Muslims, and the Chinese Communist Party seem to be rushing to fill that void, although the Hordes of Islamic Radicals seems to be getting held at bay for the time being.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 13, 2020, 07:03:28 PM
The only "legal immigrants" Trump has targeted to my knowledge are the ones who seem to routinely have little to nothing positive to say about this country. Otherwise, it's the illegals that get his attention.

If he only opposes illegal immigrants, why is he cutting down on legal immigration too? (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1403/limit-legal-immigration/)

As for the rest, the mere fact he uses people's ancestry as a way to attack them is fundamentally racist. If he wants to attack them for supposedly not having anything positive to say about the country, then he can attack them the same way he would attack a white person for the same sin. Trump chose the racist attack instead, that focused on their ancestry.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on April 13, 2020, 07:03:59 PM
We fought kind of a big war to be able to say negative things about our country and our leaders. To suggest that people critical of government exile themselves is a bit extreme.

H1B, TPS, family migration, and others have all been targeted for reduction or elimination. Legal immigrants.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on April 13, 2020, 07:47:57 PM
And no, it's not just his policies, it's also his rhetoric. As I already mentioned: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1150381394234941448
Quote
So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!

I'm not going to defend this quote as being nice or upright or anything like that. But the charge is specifically that he is dismissing them because of their race. Except that the actual content of his dismissal of them is that he's dismissing them because of the damage he perceives their ideas would do. What he's saying is that the countries "they come from" employed such ideas, and they are in bad shape because of it. Perhaps in the process he's implying that their taste for those kinds of policies stems from their cultural heritage. I don't really know. But the meat of this tweet is that people who employ ideas that have failed in other countries should just move there is they like them so much. That's only a slightly more extreme version than the version I hear quite often, which is the more general "communism! communism!" argument. I'm obviously not fond of it so interestingly you'll find me most likely on your side in terms of my aesthetic and policy tastes here. But where I'm not on your side is in trying to layer on a charge of racism to what seems more clearly a case of just being rude.

One thing that may be creating the outrage on this is his mistaken claim that they "are from" those countries when they're born and raised Americans. I can see how that would rankle. I reminds me of the microaggression (although this one isn't micro since it's on the national stage) where you ask someone "where are you from" meaning "what is your ethnicity" and they answer, curtly, with "America." The follow-up of "no, I mean where you're originally from" seems to be the clincher that typically places this scenario somewhere between racist and low-grade oppressor. Bottom line, the idea is we don't have a PC way anymore of referring to someone's cultural or family heritage without it being racist or X-ist, and regardless of whether there are good and bad sides to this, it creates a problem when in this case Trump was clearly not referring to their birthplace as being relevant, but rather to the fact that they may have ties to, cultural baggage from, or else at least an understanding of the countries their families came from. That even if their ideas aren't shaped directly by that heritage, that at least they will understand what it means. This *is not* an irrelevant fact when discussing the merits and background of someone's argument, even though in this case Trump of course did his usual bull in a china shop thing. When talking with Jewish person it's totally normal to include their family's background and habits when referring to various beliefs or habits; especially stuff that is 'totally Jewish!' When talking to a younger Asian person you'll frequently hear them refer to some issue with their family, due to the 'old customs' they have to content with and grew up surrounded by. I have a friend born in a former Eastern Bloc country, who says his preference is for strong, semi-authoritarian government, because it's what he grew up with. Is there any doubt that his views will affect those of his children in some way?

So yeah, it's boorish to speak to people that way, but when his point is that their families come from countries with failed economic ideas (in his opinion), they should know better than to try to introduce those ideas in America. I don't agree at all with his position, but let's not try to imply he meant something other than what he did. Sure, you can call it a dog whistle or whatnot, but his point was (IMO) very clear. The fact that it takes this long, or longer, to content one of these claims about his meaning, is why those long list of "Trump lies" that Seriati hates are difficult to even both dealing with. It takes a page of writing to even address some one-liner about which anyone can claim anything. It's just not worth it when the characterizations are so weak.

I will be happy to trash-talk Trump on things he deserves to be taken to task for; but I'll oppose outrageous claims that contribute to the breakdown of communication.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on April 14, 2020, 02:20:59 AM
The only "legal immigrants" Trump has targeted to my knowledge are the ones who seem to routinely have little to nothing positive to say about this country. Otherwise, it's the illegals that get his attention.

If he only opposes illegal immigrants, why is he cutting down on legal immigration too? (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1403/limit-legal-immigration/)
We fought kind of a big war to be able to say negative things about our country and our leaders. To suggest that people critical of government exile themselves is a bit extreme.

H1B, TPS, family migration, and others have all been targeted for reduction or elimination. Legal immigrants.
The H1B System was being abused by many large employers in such a way as to deliberately suppress wages. I worked for 5 years in one of those industries, so I'm not going to shed many tears on hearing he's tightened the screws on that program.

"Family Migration" is a more complex issue, and goes back to his commentary about the "birthright citizenship" that is being granted to babies that arguably shouldn't be granted it. The system needs reform, and it's not going to be an easy, or comfortable, fix. Having people constantly screaming "racist" at the suggestion of anything they don't like certainly doesn't help.

I don't know enough about TPS offhand to bother to comment about it.


As for the rest, the mere fact he uses people's ancestry as a way to attack them is fundamentally racist. If he wants to attack them for supposedly not having anything positive to say about the country, then he can attack them the same way he would attack a white person for the same sin. Trump chose the racist attack instead, that focused on their ancestry.

I'm going to hold to what Fenring posted on this. While the 3 of the 4 congress critters involved were born in the USA, all of them having either having living close family members, or grew up with close family members who meet that criteria, who were hailing from "failed nation-states." And that was likely to be what Trump was pointing to far more than the color of their skin.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 14, 2020, 04:23:51 AM
"Yesterday, (Jan.31.2020) Donald Trump further diminished the United States in the eyes of the world by expanding his travel ban not only on the Chinse people, now placing new restrictions on the residents of six more nations that limit who is allowed to come to the United States. And Trump’s adding more countries to his list of who’s not welcome in America. It’s not who we are — and we’ll prove that when we beat Trump this November and end the ban". ~ Joe Biden

Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on April 14, 2020, 09:22:27 AM
To suggest that people critical of government exile themselves is a bit extreme.

To suggest that the government cannot be critical of people who oppose the country is also a bit extreme.

H1B, TPS, family migration, and others have all been targeted for reduction or elimination. Legal immigrants.

So what? Many have been arguing for H1B reform for a couple of decades now. There have been conversations about managing illegal immigration for literally decades. Your point is utterly irrelevant and only a weak attempt to make a connection that confirms a bias.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 14, 2020, 10:43:33 AM
Subtle difference from the NYT between Blasey-Ford and Reade


https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1250046744005472256/photo/1

https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1250046744005472256/photo/2

Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 14, 2020, 10:57:38 AM
And according to the NYTimes themselves (bolding mine):

"Last year Ms.Reade and seven other women came forward to accuse Mr.Biden of kissing, hugging, or touching them in ways that made them feel uncomfortable."

The NYTimes official response included this gem (bolding mine):

"No other allegations of sexual assault surfaced in our reporting...We found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Biden, beyond hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable."

Whew. Good thing they found no pattern beyond some harmless unwanted kissing, hugging and touching. Definitely not something #metoo should be concerned about.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 14, 2020, 11:35:09 AM
The difference between using a person's race to bash them for, and using the fact that their ancestry is from a Third World (or other failed) nation, is so miniscule that it makes no difference.

(also Pressley is African-American whose ancestors (unless I'm mistaken) have been in America since at least the early 1800s. Not that it makes the attack worse, it just illustrates that it's not just families of relatively recent (as in not just a few generations) immigrants who ought expect such attacks by Trump)

To argue "Oh, he wasn't using their **race** as a vector of his attack, he was just using the fact that they are of African, Puerto Rican, Somalian and Palestinian ancestry" is a distinction without a relevant difference. You people's argument is basically "Oh, well, perhaps an American citizen with a Greek ancestry, would also be attacked by Trump in this manner because of the failures of the current Greek state, even though they're white. Or perhaps a American citizen with a Russian ancestry, would be attacked by Trump for Russia's various failures, or perhaps an American citizen with Italian ancestry, would be attacked by Trump using Italy's failure in containing the coronavirus."

Geez, yeah, well that would be just as bad as racism too, even if you try to argue that it's not racism because Greeks or Russians or Italians aren't a race. How is it hard to understand that a person's ancestry or his family origin isn't a valid vector of attack?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on April 14, 2020, 11:50:33 AM
You have to view this in a full context as well. Maybe one person could make the mistake of saying "go back  where you came from".

But when it comes from a guy who continually strikes this note, you have to assume the worst. I'd list dozens of incidents, but it would tire me to watch as each one of them is explained away as a joke, a mistake, not racially motivated, or a valid but racially neutral observation.

I believe Trump is a bigot, but I don't believe he is deliberately discriminatory.

One example though:

Quote
“Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.”

That was a twofer.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 14, 2020, 12:11:49 PM
Jack was born in Springfield but his family is originally from Shelbyville. Jack talks loudly and often about how Springfield sucks. Homer tells Jack "why don't you move back to Shelbyville, JERK."

Homer is racist.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on April 14, 2020, 12:15:03 PM
TheDrake, that is a bad one indeed. Do you have full context for it?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 14, 2020, 12:16:57 PM
Agreed. If that's a verifiable quote, it's despicable and racist.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on April 14, 2020, 12:29:09 PM
Quote
Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino President John R. O’Donnell, in the 1991 book “Trumped,” claimed that Trump once said that “laziness is a trait in blacks.” Here is the full context for the statement, as described in the book. O’Donnell relates a conversation with Trump about a finance employee, who happens to be black and who O’Donnell believes has shortcomings.
Quote
Instantly, Donald was enthused. “Yeah, I never liked the guy. I don’t think he knows what the f––– he’s doing. My accountants up in New York are always complaining about him. He’s not responsive. And isn’t it funny, I’ve got black accountants at the Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting my money. No one else.”

I couldn’t believe I was hearing this. But Donald went on, “Besides that, I’ve got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not something they can control. … Don’t you agree?”
So this is clearly a secondhand quote, made in a private conversation and written some years after the fact.

Trump has said O’Donnell’s account was fiction. “He made up this quote. I’ve heard the quote before, and it’s nonsense,” Trump said. “I’ve never said anything like it, ever.”

So there's the context - a secondhand quote from a 1991 book describing something that happened a few years before. Bias confirmation lovers will demand it's true.

Related, Trump was given an award about the time the quote is purported to have been made:
Quote
The Ellis Island Medals of Honor embody the spirit of America in their celebration of patriotism, tolerance, brotherhood and diversity. They recognize individuals who have made it their mission to share with those less fortunate their wealth of knowledge, indomitable courage, boundless compassion, unique talents and selfless generosity; all while maintaining the traditions of their ethnic heritage as they uphold the ideals and spirit of America. As always, NECO remains dedicated to the maintenance and restoration of America’s greatest symbol of its immigrant history, Ellis Island.

Trump was awarded the medal at the same time, and appeared with,  Muhammad Ali and Rosa Parks.

Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: rightleft22 on April 14, 2020, 12:32:43 PM
Wish I could remember the authors name who was doing the interview about his book on racism. It was a really good discussion

He argued that most people will define racism and a racist as something and someone that is not them, while the reality is that we all have been racist and anti racist and that that does not define a person.
 
He argued that to determine if something is racist one must look at the power structure involved. does the event or statement perpetuate a power unbalance.

If a joke intention or affect (consciously or unconsciously) maintains a power imbalance then that joke may cross the line into racism.
I find it a good rule of thumb, for myself anyway.

- http://www.aclrc.com/racism-and-power
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: rightleft22 on April 14, 2020, 12:40:30 PM
Quote
Trump has said O’Donnell’s account was fiction. “He made up this quote. I’ve heard the quote before, and it’s nonsense,” Trump said. “I’ve never said anything like it, ever.”

The problem with Trumps communication style is that one, its not difficult to believe he would say such a thing or that his 'sense of humor' enjoys that type of jesting. And Two Trumps counter punch is always to deny, deny, deny. Just as a second hand account has less authority so does a Trump denial. Sadly its proving to be very effective. Trump never says what he say's unless he says it and even then maybe not. Depends on the day.   
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on April 14, 2020, 01:08:40 PM
...The problem with Trumps communication style is that one, its not difficult to believe he would say such a thing or that his 'sense of humor' enjoys that type of jesting.

Sadly, that is a case of believing concocted lies and disinformation, then weighting everything one hears against that incorrectly preconceived notion. Why is it that everyone who knows Trump says he is the opposite of that depiction, but those that cherry-pick from pejorative news sites believe all calumny? The response is usually, "because I heard him say that, or saw him act that way!" - When in effect, the statement was not what actually was said or meant, and anyone with any ability to discern truth from attack should understand. Trump did not receive that Civil Rights Award alongside Rosa Parks because he was racist.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 14, 2020, 01:41:29 PM
One example though:

Quote
“Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.”

That was a twofer.

TheDrake, is that an example? I haven't researched but if crunch is correct and it's a second-hand account from a book 30 years ago it's pretty weak sauce.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on April 14, 2020, 01:43:43 PM
One example though:

Quote
“Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.”

That was a twofer.

TheDrake, is that an example? I haven't researched but if crunch is correct and it's a second-hand account from a book 30 years ago it's pretty weak sauce.

Narrator: "Crunch is correct."
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on April 14, 2020, 01:48:58 PM
The NYTimes official response included this gem (bolding mine):

"No other allegations of sexual assault surfaced in our reporting...We found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Biden, beyond hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable."

You do know ScottF that the times deleted the tweet and editted their article to remove the portion you bolded (without issuing any notes).
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 14, 2020, 01:56:53 PM
Yeah I was aware they deleted that part, must have been a typo, lol.

That NYT comment aside, I'm much more inclined to agree with the approach the media is taking this time around than the one they took with Blasey-Ford. e.g. should we believe something that happened so long ago? what actual evidence is there? the timing seems suspect, etc.

I'd be a complete hypocrite if I didn't think those were completely valid questions to report on.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on April 14, 2020, 02:01:19 PM
One example though:

Quote
“Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.”

That was a twofer.



TheDrake, is that an example? I haven't researched but if crunch is correct and it's a second-hand account from a book 30 years ago it's pretty weak sauce.

If you don't believe me, believe Trump when he admitted it.

Quote
1991: A book by John O’Donnell, former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, quoted Trump’s criticism of a black accountant: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” Trump at first denied the remarks, but later said in a 1997 Playboy interview that “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.”

Like I predicted, any example I can come up with will be explained away somehow.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 14, 2020, 02:07:35 PM
Come on dude, a comment from 30 years ago saying that "stuff" in a book is "probably true" is a weak place to hang your hat when making an extreme claim. I'd say the same thing if the quote from the book had Trump healing the blind. If that's me trying to explain away, ok I guess.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: DonaldD on April 14, 2020, 02:37:34 PM
ScottF, your position is that the wording of the sentence doesn't directly state that the "stuff" quote from the Playboy interview was directly related to the original quote from the book?  Basically, your position was that the second quote was simply a non-sequitur?  I think it more likely that there was no such interview, rather than it was a non sequitur.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: yossarian22c on April 14, 2020, 02:41:03 PM
And according to the NYTimes themselves (bolding mine):

"Last year Ms.Reade and seven other women came forward to accuse Mr.Biden of kissing, hugging, or touching them in ways that made them feel uncomfortable."

The NYTimes official response included this gem (bolding mine):

"No other allegations of sexual assault surfaced in our reporting...We found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Biden, beyond hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable."

Whew. Good thing they found no pattern beyond some harmless unwanted kissing, hugging and touching. Definitely not something #metoo should be concerned about.

I don't understand why the democratic voters in primaries keep nominating the only person Trump could defeat. Hillary was a uniquely weak opponent to Trump in 2016 and Biden is the same in 2020.

Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on April 14, 2020, 02:45:27 PM
Quote
1991: A book by John O’Donnell, former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, quoted Trump’s criticism of a black accountant: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” Trump at first denied the remarks, but later said in a 1997 Playboy interview that “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.”

Like I predicted, any example I can come up with will be explained away somehow.

Going to need context from the Playboy interview on what he was alluding to in that statement. Was he addressing that quote specifically, or the references to him in total across the span of the book? Going that the books title was "Trumped" I'm guessing O'Donnel wrote a LOT of things about Trump in that book. So if Trump is speaking to the book as a whole then "[A lot of] the stuff O'Donnell wrote about me is probably true."

Which is hardly Trump saying that the racist statement itself is one of things which were true.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on April 14, 2020, 02:46:51 PM
I'd like to have the actual question asked by the Playboy interviewer, but even if I bought a vintage copy and spelled it out verbatim - and they specifically mentioned the racial comment in the question, the denial would just shift to "still doesn't prove what stuff meant" or "he said probably, not definitely" or "it was a long time ago" or "he was joking" or "but he's hired black people".
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on April 14, 2020, 02:51:16 PM
Trump has A, B, and C list celebrities among his associations, although many of the A-listers have since distanced themselves, or no longer are A list due to dropping out of that rat race. Many of those associates are minorities, including many blacks. They all uniformly deny allegations of Trump being racist.

Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on April 14, 2020, 02:54:12 PM
I'd like to have the actual question asked by the Playboy interviewer, but even if I bought a vintage copy and spelled it out verbatim - and they specifically mentioned the racial comment in the question, the denial would just shift to "still doesn't prove what stuff meant" or "he said probably, not definitely" or "it was a long time ago" or "he was joking" or "but he's hired black people".

In another respect, you're basically staking your case on a carefully excised quote from a Magazine interview that you haven't bothered to determine the proper context on?

Which then in turn relies upon a second hand quotation made years after the fact?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: rightleft22 on April 14, 2020, 03:08:13 PM
...The problem with Trumps communication style is that one, its not difficult to believe he would say such a thing or that his 'sense of humor' enjoys that type of jesting.

Sadly, that is a case of believing concocted lies and disinformation, then weighting everything one hears against that incorrectly preconceived notion. Why is it that everyone who knows Trump says he is the opposite of that depiction, but those that cherry-pick from pejorative news sites believe all calumny? The response is usually, "because I heard him say that, or saw him act that way!" - When in effect, the statement was not what actually was said or meant, and anyone with any ability to discern truth from attack should understand. Trump did not receive that Civil Rights Award alongside Rosa Parks because he was racist.

No it was because they thought he had money and would donate

Please no one elected the man because of his ethic, morals or character. Those attributes didn't matter then and they don't matter now to and of his apologists
Stop pretending that they matter to you
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on April 14, 2020, 05:06:54 PM
...Please no one elected the man because of his ethic, morals or character. Those attributes didn't matter then and they don't matter now to and of his apologists
Stop pretending that they matter to you

No. The idea that he has bad moral character is the made-up attack. He has always been known as a "good man". It is only since Hillary was fairly beaten because of her own shortcomings, that her supporters needed to conjure up some reason why what happened to her was unfair, and then to heighten that outrage, pitch the idea that the man who beat her is unfit for the office. Four years of untrue disinformation, and targeted pejorative reporting, coupled with a gullible voter base leads us to this point.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on April 14, 2020, 05:46:54 PM
I'd like to have the actual question asked by the Playboy interviewer, but even if I bought a vintage copy and spelled it out verbatim - and they specifically mentioned the racial comment in the question, the denial would just shift to "still doesn't prove what stuff meant" or "he said probably, not definitely" or "it was a long time ago" or "he was joking" or "but he's hired black people".

In another respect, you're basically staking your case on a carefully excised quote from a Magazine interview that you haven't bothered to determine the proper context on?

Which then in turn relies upon a second hand quotation made years after the fact?

I'm just pulling one example. As I stated before, I'm not interested in going case by case by case. It's exhausting and it never leads anywhere.

I also reject the "But look I have black friends!" defense. It probably means you're not a white supremacist, but it doesn't mean you aren't prejudiced. You could call one black individual a hard worker, while also believing that black people are on average lazier.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: NobleHunter on April 14, 2020, 05:52:21 PM
No. The idea that he has bad moral character is the made-up attack. He has always been known as a "good man". It is only since Hillary was fairly beaten because of her own shortcomings, that her supporters needed to conjure up some reason why what happened to her was unfair, and then to heighten that outrage, pitch the idea that the man who beat her is unfit for the office. Four years of untrue disinformation, and targeted pejorative reporting, coupled with a gullible voter base leads us to this point.

Dude, he cheated on his wives. How does that square with him being a "good man"? Any one with sense knew he was unfit for office during the primaries. That's why a bunch of people voted for him.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 14, 2020, 06:56:10 PM
Dude, he cheated on his wives. How does that square with him being a "good man"?
Yes to this - it was morally bad and not what a good man does.

Quote
Any one with sense knew he was unfit for office during the primaries. That's why a bunch of people voted for him.
No to this. Unless the long list of past president adulterers also indicates they were unfit.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on April 14, 2020, 07:48:14 PM
I think its more important that he cheated:

Customers
Business Partners
Golf Buddies
Charities

He also mocked:

People's personal appearance
Menstruation
Physical disabilities

This is what looks like a good person? The only people backing him as a good person are sycophants, people who owe him something, and people who want something from him. There are clearly plenty of those to go around.

I think the list continues, but you get the idea. Now a lot of people chose to overlook it, because they mostly cared about policies. That's their privilege to do so.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: NobleHunter on April 14, 2020, 09:19:53 PM
Any one with sense knew he was unfit for office during the primaries. That's why a bunch of people voted for him.

No to this. Unless the long list of past president adulterers also indicates they were unfit.

The adultery wasn't meant to be connected to his lack of fitness for the office.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on April 15, 2020, 12:49:00 AM
I also reject the "But look I have black friends!" defense. It probably means you're not a white supremacist, but it doesn't mean you aren't prejudiced. You could call one black individual a hard worker, while also believing that black people are on average lazier.

But the discussion is in context not of whether he might have personal prejudices of some kind (especially since the current left-wing assumption is that we all do!) but rather that he is "a racist". But not just any kind of racist, but specifically one who is calling for his white majority base to hate or fear minorities. So the charge (at least the one I answered) was this:

Quote
I wonder how much you know about Milosevic's rise to power, and the tactics used, to become the popular charismatic face of the ethnic majority in a multiethnic country, and in telling his ethnic majority compatriots that they will never be ignored again, while bashing the media for their lies, and promising to return his country to greatness...

You're setting the bar too low in seeking a quote demonstrating that Trump may have had some personal prejudices about black people, if what one is aiming to demonstrate is this quote here. I understand you're not actually arguing this point, but just reminding the forum what point is actually up for debate.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 15, 2020, 02:48:35 AM
Quote
You're setting the bar too low in seeking a quote demonstrating that Trump may have had some personal prejudices about black people, if what one is aiming to demonstrate is this quote here.

Okay, what quotes of Milosevic do you have that are more bigoted/hateful than the quotes of Trump?

This is a genuine question, if I realize that Milosevic's rhetoric was significantly worse than Trump's, I'll admit it.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on April 15, 2020, 08:18:30 AM
The bad orange man is your ultimate bogeyman.  It’s nutty.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on April 15, 2020, 08:25:29 AM
I think you'd find that some of the rhetoric is similar. The only part that's hard to divine is intent. There is little doubt that trumps rhetoric encourages white supremacists, we have it from their own mouths.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on April 15, 2020, 08:32:14 AM
White bed sheets also encourage white supremacists. I’ll take what you say seriously when you call forthem to be removed from store shelves.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on April 15, 2020, 09:57:32 AM
You got me there, crunch. I constantly hear white supremacists praising white bedsheets.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on April 15, 2020, 10:05:47 AM
Think it's a joke? Ask Ralph Northam.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 15, 2020, 12:26:14 PM
The bad orange man is your ultimate bogeyman.  It’s nutty.

Since my point is the exact opposite, that he's a *typical* and ultimately unimportant dime-a-dozen far-right demagogue, you seem to be suffering from a severe problem in reading comprehension here.

https://balkaninsight.com/2019/12/19/bosnian-serb-chief-sends-fan-letter-to-trump/
This Milorad Dodik (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milorad_Dodik), the person praising Trump's defense of 'patriotism' so much, is the same person that named a student dormitory in honor of Karadjic just days before Karadjic was convicted of war crimes in an International Criminal Tribunal.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 15, 2020, 01:28:23 PM
And as a further sidenote, I'd rather you stopped implying I have a problem with his skin color. You'll never see me mocking him as "orange".

Trump can be as orange as he likes, unlike him I don't attack people on the basis of their skin-color.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on April 15, 2020, 01:58:29 PM
Yes.  Biden literally called the ban racist for weeks

Can you give some citations here, preferably ones across a number of weeks?

Not for Biden, you can find him for a couple days, then silence on the point for 2 months, then his campaign claiming he always supported a travel ban.  For the media you can find accusations of racism and lengthy write ups on how its the wrong plan and and overaction for at least a week on heavy rotation, and periodically thereafter pretty easily for two more weeks.

Quote
Btw, the travel ban was a correct move, but as far as I can tell, it was indeed motivated by Trump's perpetual instinctive racism xenophobia and isolationism; same way that the Democrats' initial (erroneous) opposition to it (which as far as I can tell barely lasted a couple days) was motivated by their instinctive anti-racism, anti-xenophobia and anti-isolationism.

By "as far as you can tell" you mean you made it up?  Faucci and others have literally stated that Trump acted on their advice to have a travel ban promptly after they gave it.  So literally, based on science and the correct response.  It's your desire to read more into it to support  an unfounded meme that Trump is a racist that looks like the "happy coincidence."

The Democrats on the other hand, saw it as an opportunity to play their race card once again.  By definition what ever Trump does is wrong and evil, therefore whatever is the most obvious vector of attack is played out.  Ban travel from a country - must be because of racism, not because of the factually evident risk of infection - or security risks in connection with the prior travel bans.

Quote
That in the case of a pandemic Trump's instinctive isolationism...

Trump doesn't have an "instinctive isolationism."  That's a false characterization.  There's no indication that he's anti-immigration, opposing illegal immigration is not a data point on that.  There's no indication he opposes international trade or travel, only that he wants the first to be on fair terms (a position you can find him commenting on for decades).

This is the soft lie of miss-characterization.  Trump's positions on those issues are rational, not the result of your delusional attribution of behind the scenes motives.

Quote
... is the correct response was a happy accident for him -- if it's supposedly just a hoax (as he claimed) or no worse than a normal flu, there'd be no reason for a travel ban, would there now? So he did accidentally the right thing for all the wrong reasons.

Then you repeated a lie.  He didn't the virus was a hoax.  That's just a lie the left repeats over and over to try and make it true.

And it's interesting you attribute "no worse than the flu" to Trump when the main stream media repeated that assertion for weeks after Trump instituted the travel ban to criticize Trump.  And it's interesting how, the MSM could hammer Trump as a racist for weeks on an issue, and now claim he's evil for not acting sooner, and you'll repeat both contradictory claims as if they were true.

Quote
Just today, the Trump campaign released an attack ad on Biden, which uses a photo of him with Gary Locke as evidence for Biden's suspicious ties with China. Gary Locke's an American citizen -- the incriminating evidence is that he's racially Asian rather than white, of course. It's hard to argue that this attack ad wasn't racist, when the only point against Gary Locke is his race.

Lucky for you they included a Chinese American in an ad demonstrating the close Biden-China connections, otherwise you might have to actually consider the main point.  Funny how pointing out Biden-China connections is somehow  "racist" rather than relevant, but pursuing a delusion that Trump was a Russian plant pursued for over 2 years based on lies  is totally different.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 15, 2020, 03:15:34 PM
Yes.  Biden literally called the ban racist for weeks

Can you give some citations here, preferably ones across a number of weeks?

Not for Biden, you can find him for a couple days, then silence on the point for 2 months, then his campaign claiming he always supported a travel ban.

If he changed his mind so quickly, and to the correct direction, that's a point in Biden's favour. You were then mistaken to have said that he 'literally called the ban racist for weeks'.

Quote
For the media you can find accusations of racism and lengthy write ups on how its the wrong plan and and overaction for at least a week on heavy rotation, and periodically thereafter pretty easily for two more weeks.

I agree I could find that for the "media", since they're such a diverse group -- for the 'media' in general, I could find pretty much everything I want, depending on where I choose to look.

Quote
By "as far as you can tell" you mean you made it up?

I mean that I infer it based on how it's the ONLY thing he did to combat the virus, and 'coincidentally' he's always eager to build up walls between the USA and other nations, to cut down ties, and to encourage similars breaking down of ties and closed borders elsewhere.

The pattern is always the same: He supported Brexit, he opposed NATO enlargement, he opposed Puerto Rico statehood, he built a wall with Mexico -- now he institutes travel bans, and stops the funding of WHO. Nobody can accuse Trump of not being an honest isolationist.

Quote
Faucci and others have literally stated that Trump acted on their advice to have a travel ban promptly after they gave it.

Fauci also said (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/12/fauci-trump-rebuffed-social-distancing-advice-coronavirus) that "he and other Trump administration officials recommended the implementation of physical distancing to combat the coronavirus in February, but were rebuffed for almost a month."

So Trump acted on one specific piece of advice (the piece that worked perfectly with Trump's isolationist politics) "promptly", but didn't act on the other pieces of advice about social distancing.

Why did he act only on the piece of advice that matched the rest of his isolationist/xenophobic politics? If not for the fact that he was motivated by his isolationism/xenophobia?

Quote
So literally, based on science and the correct response.  It's your desire to read more into it to support an unfounded meme that Trump is a racist that looks like the "happy coincidence."

Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three and four times is my paranoia finding false positives in patterns, five times I'll be charitable and forgive even though I shouldn't, but >= six times a person confirming the same pattern is proof of their intention.

What you people defending Trump keep missing, is the cumulative value of ALL his behaviour having the same pattern. You excuse each single piece of evidence, and each single excuse can be seen as perhaps plausible, but when you need to repeat the same *censored*ing excuse a hundred different times for a hundred different occassion, well *censored*ing no. Individually no single piece of evidence suffices, cumulatively they're absolutely damning.

Quote
Trump doesn't have an "instinctive isolationism."  That's a false characterization.

In favour of Brexit, against NATO, in favour of tariffs, in favour of a wall with Mexico, against Puerto Rican statehood...

Quote
There's no indication that he's anti-immigration, opposing illegal immigration is not a data point on that.

As mentioned before, he's reducing legal immigration too, and he's using the fact of his political opponents being immigrants (or their parents being immigrants) as an attack vector.

Quote
There's no indication he opposes international trade or travel, only that he wants the first to be on fair terms (a position you can find him commenting on for decades).

I supported tariffs with China too, as long as China violates human rights.

But I don't have the pattern of wanting walls with every other nation in the world, nor of constantly spewing xenophobic rhetoric.

Quote
Then you repeated a lie.  He didn't the virus was a hoax.  That's just a lie the left repeats over and over to try and make it true.

So he called people the 'hype' a hoax? He called the 'hysteria' a hoax? Same difference, point remains is that he and many of his fans kept downplaying the virus and arguing that leftists want an overreaction in order to hurt Trump.

Quote
And it's interesting how, the MSM could hammer Trump as a racist for weeks on an issue, and now claim he's evil for not acting sooner, and you'll repeat both contradictory claims as if they were true.

How are they contradictory? Trump is indeed a racist, and has been a racist since ever, regardless of whether he acted fast or slow in this occassion. Trump ALSO failed to act sooner, in any way that didn't fit in with his innate xenophobia.

Quote
Just today, the Trump campaign released an attack ad on Biden, which uses a photo of him with Gary Locke as evidence for Biden's suspicious ties with China. Gary Locke's an American citizen -- the incriminating evidence is that he's racially Asian rather than white, of course. It's hard to argue that this attack ad wasn't racist, when the only point against Gary Locke is his race.

Quote
Lucky for you they included a Chinese American in an ad demonstrating the close Biden-China connections, otherwise you might have to actually consider the main point.  Funny how pointing out Biden-China connections is somehow  "racist" rather than relevant, but pursuing a delusion that Trump was a Russian plant pursued for over 2 years based on lies  is totally different.

Pointing out Biden-China political connections isn't racist, same way that pointing out Trump's political connections with Russia isn't racist.

Your focus on whether it's "based on lies" or not, is actually irrelevant on whether it's racist or not. (something slanderous needn't be racist, and something racist needn't be slanderous)

Using a photo of an American citizen as a point, just because the guy is racially Asian (or his ancestry is Chinese), would be however similar to someone wanting to build a case for Boris Johnson's connections with Russia and using the fact that his name is "Boris".

If an attack ad used BORIS Johnson's name, I'd call that attack ad racist too. Or atleast 'bigoted' if you're gonna nitpick that Russian isn't a race.

The point remains that "unluckily" for you, Trump and the Trump campaign have already consistently shown that people's ancestry (if they're not white) will be attack vectors. Implication: Politicians shouldn't be associating with Chinese Americans, therefore, since it can be used against them if they're in a photo with them.

If you don't call that racist, then nothing is.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on April 15, 2020, 03:21:55 PM
And as a further sidenote, I'd rather you stopped implying I have a problem with his skin color. You'll never see me mocking him as "orange".

Trump can be as orange as he likes, unlike him I don't attack people on the basis of their skin-color.

Let's not pretend this isn't a common reference to the phenomenon you're demonstrating. It has nothing to do with race. Not everything does, you know.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 15, 2020, 03:28:19 PM
Let's not pretend this isn't a common reference to the phenomenon you're demonstrating. It has nothing to do with race. Not everything does, you know.

It was mostly a joke, but it relates to the more serious point that I don't attack people on the basis of their physical appearance, same way that I don't attack them on the basis of their ancestry.

And "race" is a subcategory of "physical appearance", same way that it's a subcategory of "ancestry".

Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: rightleft22 on April 15, 2020, 03:45:32 PM
And as a further sidenote, I'd rather you stopped implying I have a problem with his skin color. You'll never see me mocking him as "orange".

Trump can be as orange as he likes, unlike him I don't attack people on the basis of their skin-color.

Let's not pretend this isn't a common reference to the phenomenon you're demonstrating. It has nothing to do with race. Not everything does, you know.

Knowing other peoples minds again... I thought you hated that presumption
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on April 15, 2020, 03:57:37 PM
If he changed his mind so quickly, and to the correct direction, that's a point in Biden's favour. You were then mistaken to have said that he 'literally called the ban racist for weeks'.

That's not quick, especially not if the criticism of Trump is that he should have acted faster, the fact that Biden would have acted slower is very material.

It was sloppy drafting on Biden versus the MSM being the ones that decisively went on about it for weeks.  I can prove Biden for 3 or 4 days - in the press - but could've sworn I saw comments from a him a week to week and a half later (real time), can't find them now.  But in any event, calling the travel ban racist, staying silent for 2 months while that attack is still out there, and then claiming to have supported it all along, is total nonsense.

It's Biden trying to pretend that he backed the correct course of action when decisively he did not.

Quote
Quote
For the media you can find accusations of racism and lengthy write ups on how its the wrong plan and and overaction for at least a week on heavy rotation, and periodically thereafter pretty easily for two more weeks.

I agree I could find that for the "media", since they're such a diverse group -- for the 'media' in general, I could find pretty much everything I want, depending on where I choose to look.

That's a pretty dumb trick.  MSM media did it, not just fringe guys, both in print on television.  But please, keep giving us your re-write of history.

Quote
Quote
By "as far as you can tell" you mean you made it up?

I mean that I infer it based on how it's the ONLY thing he did to combat the virus...

Prove that its the "only thing he did".  You can't cause it's a lie.

Quote
...and 'coincidentally' he's always eager to build up walls between the USA and other nations, to cut down ties, and to encourage similars breaking down of ties and closed borders elsewhere.

Again, just a false statement about legitimate positions.  If border control was funding sufficiently that no illegal immigrant had to be release prior to completion of the deportation process I'm 100% sure he wouldn't care about a border wall.  However, that's not the world we live in, where one party deliberately undermines the rule of law it's blatantly absurd to claim the other party or it's leader is the one at fault.

Quote
The pattern is always the same: He supported Brexit, he opposed NATO enlargement, he opposed Puerto Rico statehood, he built a wall with Mexico -- now he institutes travel bans, and stops the funding of WHO. Nobody can accuse Trump of not being an honest isolationist.

Funny what you see as a pattern.  I see nothing but superficialities without any consideration of the motivations.  Every "new state" proposal supported by the left is one that they think increases DNC Senators, they don't support ones like say, splitting CA that would do the opposite.  Even though CA has more Republicans living in it that most other states, they get almost no representation.

Quote
Quote
Faucci and others have literally stated that Trump acted on their advice to have a travel ban promptly after they gave it.

Fauci also said (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/12/fauci-trump-rebuffed-social-distancing-advice-coronavirus) that "he and other Trump administration officials recommended the implementation of physical distancing to combat the coronavirus in February, but were rebuffed for almost a month."

Interesting change of subject.  But still a stupid point.  We have protests related to social distancing NOW, no way Trump could have "ordered" it sooner.  And in fact, Trump CAN'T order it, the states have to implement it, which every knows cause Cuomo recently reaffirmed that Trump also can't order them open.

As to government policy?  The CDC was issuing increasing strict guidance on social distance for all of March back to March 1.  On March 15 they recommended no gatherings of more than 50 (it had issued quarantine orders beginning back in January).  Meanwhile NY was banning gatherings of 500 or more and NYC was saying mass transit and schools would stay open in spite of that order.

Remind me where the worst US infections are again?  Right around NYC?

In any event, the US had gone from about 100 cases on March 1st, to about 6500 by March 15.  It's a pretty steep incline, and the CDC had been issuing guidance the whole time.

What exactly would have happened if Trump imposed martial law and shut down the Country on March 15th?  Nothing short of revolt I'd imagine.  And you'd literally on here claiming another parallel for your imagined connections to other racist dictators.

Keep in mind, we literally have records of the DNC officials around the country telling people that it's okay to congregate, to effectively ignore Trump and the CDC.  But it's Trump's fault somehow for the results in those DNC leader's communities.  It's really hard to parse how "Trump should have known" squares with it's "not the WHO's fault" for facilitating Chinese misinformation, especially when those same DNC leaders had similar information sources and were making their own decisions.

Quote
So Trump acted on one specific piece of advice (the piece that worked perfectly with Trump's isolationist politics) "promptly", but didn't act on the other pieces of advice about social distancing.

Or he literally did, but you don't understand anything about implementation and are ignoring every other decision maker to get to "blame Trump."

Quote
Why did he act only on the piece of advice that matched the rest of his isolationist/xenophobic politics? If not for the fact that he was motivated by his isolationism/xenophobia?

Why did you misrepresent everything that happened to make it fit a pre-existing notion?  Difference between our questions, is mine happened and yours didn't.

Quote
Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three and four times is my paranoia finding false positives in patterns, five times I'll be charitable and forgive even though I shouldn't, but >= six times a person confirming the same pattern is proof of their intention.

Okay, I agree you've proved your intentions are to mislead about Trump.

Quote
What you people defending Trump keep missing, is the cumulative value of ALL his behaviour having the same pattern. You excuse each single piece of evidence, and each single excuse can be seen as perhaps plausible, but when you need to repeat the same *censored*ing excuse a hundred different times for a hundred different occassion, well *censored*ing no. Individually no single piece of evidence suffices, cumulatively they're absolutely damning.

What I'm seeing, is that if you can't find the reasons for any decisions, when everyone of the decisions has reasons it's not me that's creating an excuse log.  Effectively, if you take hundreds of decisions on a cumulative basis, you are ignoring thousands of reasons that Trump had for those positions, not to mention the millions of other Americans have for supporting those positions.

It's a false dichotomy that for every policy there is the DNC approach and the racist approach.  In fact, the approach of the DNC is often the more racist approach.

You spend an awful lot of time ignoring reality to reconstrue everything through a tiny little lense.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on April 15, 2020, 04:00:09 PM
Knowing other peoples minds again... I thought you hated that presumption

It's fair with Aris, his entire position is magical thinking that he knows Trump's mind therefore he can discount all of reality to label the "true" motive of racism on every action.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 15, 2020, 04:14:20 PM
It's fair with Aris, his entire position is magical thinking that he knows Trump's mind therefore he can discount all of reality to label the "true" motive of racism on every action.

Let me be clear on one thing: Even if Trump (and the Trump campaign) had all the best intentions in the world, the "go back to your countries" thing to the Congresswomen, and using Gary Locke's face in that ad --- these things would still be racist by account of their consequence, in how they legitimize racial discrimination, even if (somehow, bizarrely) they hadn't been racist in intent.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on April 15, 2020, 04:21:25 PM
It's racist because it's racist. Certainly can't fault that logic.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 15, 2020, 04:42:47 PM
It's racist because it's racist. Certainly can't fault that logic.

Yes, a slaveowner that owned black slaves, and the slave trader that traded them, were doing a racist thing, even if their motivation was just the profit, and they didn't actually care about the race of their slaves.

I'm a consequentialist, I care about the consequences of things. People's intent matters only to the extent that they help us predict people's actions and the future consequences of those actions.

Trump will keep on being a racist, in the sense that by his actions and words he'll keep promoting racial and other types of bigotry.

Perhaps you're a virtue-ethicist and care only about the innermost content of Trump's soul instead, but as I've already said, I don't give a *censored* about that, I only care about people's impact on the world.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Crunch on April 15, 2020, 04:49:22 PM
Trump never owned slaves, dude.

You seem to only care about saying Trump is a racist regardless of the evidence or the total inability to read his mind.

If that helps you sleep at night, then go for it. Hatred is such a chaotic emotion.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on April 15, 2020, 04:58:38 PM
I didn't see the ad, and without that it's hard to know the context.  And it's tough to see the ad, because the media wants to sell the controversy and bury the point of the ad.  However, you can see the picture, which has Trump and Locke on a stage with both Chinese and American flags (which seems a fitting reason to include it), and to my understanding the ad doesn't make any claim that it's Biden meeting with Chinese officials (which would mean that Locke's "inclusion" would be a mistake), that's an overlay the media adds to sell the "racist assumption" that Locke is a Chinese official.

The campaign?  They say that picture is there because it places Biden on a stage in China during his trip where he took Hunter to China.  That's exactly the kind of dig that I do expect from Trump's campaign.

So did Trump's campaign make a "racist" assumption that a Chinese American was a Chinese official?  (By the way, that's not clearly racist)  Or did they put in a direct dig at Joe Biden that worked with the theme of the ad itself, and it's the media's "racist" assumption that because Locke is Asian American the Trump campaign must have included him for that reason.

What exactly is the "racism" that you proved?

I think go back to your countries has a connotation that the liberal left/academia accepts as provenly racist, and that it slowly making it's way into being disapproved by everyone.  But it's not there yet.   And as a criticism of immigrants coming to the US and trying to institute policies that they fled from it's a fair point.  In the context of the freshman four, it's over the line.  I agree it would not have been said in a lot of contexts.  It wouldn't have been said if they were from Japan either though, largely because Japan doesn't follow the policies they endorse.  He could have just as easily told them to move to Venezuela (from which none of them originate), and if he had that would have been completely okay - yet you'd still assert it was racist. 

In this case though, those four deserve to be criticized on exactly the basis that they advocate failed policies from inferior countries, and Trump did that short hand.  The left loves short hand - Trump is a racist according to the left after all - but can't tolerate it when Trump uses effective short hand against them.

Aris, my problem with the assertions you make is that this is not a debate about whether Trump is a racist - that's a stupid debate that mostly hangs on poor reasoning.  But instead a debate where you try to pretend that the answer to every policy difference is "Trump is a racist," thereby pretending you don't have to make a real case and side tracking every defence into total nonsense or else it's "unrebutted" that racism is the reason.  It's intellectually deficient as an argument.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 15, 2020, 05:21:36 PM
He could have just as easily told them to move to Venezuela (from which none of them originate), and if he had that would have been completely okay - yet you'd still assert it was racist.

Highly unlikely that I would have called it racist, unless he was talking to people with Venezuelan ancestry.

Quote
In this case though, those four deserve to be criticized on exactly the basis that they advocate failed policies from inferior countries, and Trump did that short hand.

Oh *censored*ing bull*censored*. I very much doubt the person who immigrated from Somalia at the age of 12, actually advocated "Let's try this policy from my homeland in Somalia", and I very much doubt the black person who (I don't know but I expect) her ancestors were brought as slaves, actually said "Let's try this policy from the villages my ancestors were enslaved, somewhere in Africa".

Again this thing, that they advocate "failed policies from inferior countries", is something you excusers of Trump seemingly pullled out of your ass. What the Trump quote actually says, is how dare they, these people who originate from these failed nations, to dare to speak about how The Greatest Nation In The World should run. He ties their ancestral origin directly to the fact of how supposedly THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE A SAY.

Nothing about how their suggested policies being the policies of THOSE failed countries. NOTHING. The very opposite, he said that they should bring their ideas to their home nations. Because they don't have the right to speak about how America should be run.

So, frankly, to hell with your nonsense excuses. Trump said what he said, not what you would have hoped for him to have said.
Quote
So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!

See?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on April 15, 2020, 05:42:05 PM
Interesting change of subject.  But still a stupid point.  We have protests related to social distancing NOW, no way Trump could have "ordered" it sooner.  And in fact, Trump CAN'T order it, the states have to implement it, which every knows cause Cuomo recently reaffirmed that Trump also can't order them open.

I'm actually finding that exchange funny between the various sides. It seems to be that Trump, under the very overly broad interpretations of the Commerce Clause under the Constitution that have evolved over the past 70 years definitely does have the authority to shut things in certain states if he can justify it. Which an emergency/pandemic situation would provide.

The pandemic scenario also creates a civil defense need, which plays into national defense, which again would give the executive power under the Constitution.

Then of course we have statutory law on the books from the 1918 flu pandemic which explicitly grants him powers for dealing with this kind of situation as well.

If we were dealing with a Democratic President, I think the Democratic Governors would be singing a different tune about what the President can do, and even should be doing about those states with Republican Governors who aren't doing "what they should be doing."
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on April 15, 2020, 05:44:48 PM
It's racist because it's racist. Certainly can't fault that logic.

Yes, a slaveowner that owned black slaves, and the slave trader that traded them, were doing a racist thing, even if their motivation was just the profit, and they didn't actually care about the race of their slaves.

So... Were the Romans and Vikings racist? They owned and engaged in slave trading as well. Only a lot of their slaves happened to be White and of European Descent, as well as the black and middle-eastern(well, Eastern Med) peoples that moved through their slave markets.

It's a pretty safe bet that the Greeks weren't shy about enslaving Greeks from other city-states as well, so were they racist because they owned slaves?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: NobleHunter on April 15, 2020, 05:49:25 PM
So... Were the Romans and Vikings racist? They owned and engaged in slave trading as well. Only a lot of their slaves happened to be White and of European Descent, as well as the black and middle-eastern(well, Eastern Med) peoples that moved through their slave markets.

It's a pretty safe bet that the Greeks weren't shy about enslaving Greeks from other city-states as well, so were they racist because they owned slaves?

Yes, they were racist. Not racist in the same way as the modern US but still racist.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 15, 2020, 05:50:54 PM
Quote
So... Were the Romans and Vikings racist? They owned and engaged in slave trading as well. Only a lot of their slaves happened to be White and of European Descent, as well as the black and middle-eastern(well, Eastern Med) peoples that moved through their slave markets.

It's a pretty safe bet that the Greeks weren't shy about enslaving Greeks from other city-states as well, so were they racist because they owned slaves?

In my example I meant the slavery that was implemented in the USA (and elsewhere around that same period), which was clearly a racist version of slavery, not the non-racist versions of slavery elsewhere and else when.

The peoples you mention were probably racists in other ways, but not because of their slavery.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: yossarian22c on April 21, 2020, 09:09:21 AM
...There's no indication that he's anti-immigration, opposing illegal immigration is not a data point on that.
...

Trump:
Quote
In light of the attack from the Invisible Enemy, as well as the need to protect the jobs of our GREAT American Citizens, I will be signing an Executive Order to temporarily suspend immigration into the United States!

So he uses covid as a reason to stop legal immigration. Even though we could easily screen these people or quarantine them on entry. But that's a little like closing the barn door after the horses ran off. The virus is already here and the US is the epicenter - I have a hard time understanding how this actually benefits the health efforts against the virus.

Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: DonaldD on April 21, 2020, 09:15:11 AM
Not to mention - all immigration is already currently on hold - the borders are closed with few exceptions (immigration not being one of them)

When the borders are planned on being reopened, it would certainly be the time to relax the restrictions in a targeted manner.  Making this announcement now, when there is no immigration anyway, based on a future that is as yet unknown, is purely politics.  But we know that Trump is not basing his actions on politics, so that can't be it...
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 21, 2020, 09:32:27 AM
...There's no indication that he's anti-immigration, opposing illegal immigration is not a data point on that.
...

Trump:
Quote
In light of the attack from the Invisible Enemy, as well as the need to protect the jobs of our GREAT American Citizens, I will be signing an Executive Order to temporarily suspend immigration into the United States!

So he uses covid as a reason to stop legal immigration. Even though we could easily screen these people or quarantine them on entry. But that's a little like closing the barn door after the horses ran off. The virus is already here and the US is the epicenter - I have a hard time understanding how this actually benefits the health efforts against the virus.

Trump will always find an excuse to do the isolationist xenophobe racist thing, because it appeals to the isolationist xenophobe racist segment of the population.

Who'd like to bet that he'll try to keep this 'temporary' suspension of immigration for the rest of his presidency, even if the epidemic ends? (if he gets a 2nd term.)

Okay, can the people who keep saying Trump isn't opposed to legal immigration, please PLEASE tell me what he would do if he HAD been opposed to it?

Not to mention - all immigration is already currently on hold - the borders are closed with few exceptions (immigration not being one of them)

When the borders are planned on being reopened, it would certainly be the time to relax the restrictions in a targeted manner.  Making this announcement now, when there is no immigration anyway, based on a future that is as yet unknown, is purely politics.  But we know that Trump is not basing his actions on politics, so that can't be it...

Yes, Trump wants to ban immigration *regardless of whether simple travel is banned", and he wants immigration to remain suspended indefinitely, or as much as he can get away with, even when non-immigration kinds of travel return.

That's the populist far-right xenophobe isolationist instinct I've been talking about.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on April 21, 2020, 09:40:37 AM
Meanwhile I have three open engineering positions that I can't fill, and two of the guys quit because we couldn't get them h1b.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Lloyd Perna on April 21, 2020, 09:58:31 AM
Maybe your problem is you're not offering a wage that non h1b slaves will work for.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on April 21, 2020, 10:55:41 AM
Ha, funny. My salary is about as high as its ever been, and I'm not an outlier and I'm natural born. We pay a competitive wage. We don't have Americans rejecting our jobs for salary, they never bother to apply. Most people who do apply have multiple offers. Everyone on my staff gets six figure salaries except for the new college grads who get about 80-90k. That should be plenty of incentive.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on April 21, 2020, 10:56:27 AM
If this keeps up, I'll wind up having to offshore and all the money goes out of the economy here.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 21, 2020, 12:05:34 PM
It will pass/resolve as things loosen up. I don't think it's an opportunistic move to try and set long term policies, but admit this is a time when nefarious moves could be made.

I was one of those H1-B applicants many years ago, from Canada but working for a silicon valley co. NAFTA made the process fairly easy until 9/11, which coincidentally was the exact time I was applying for permanent residency. The entire process came to a grinding halt, and 9/11 was minuscule compared to this.

We currently have sweeping policies that shut down vast swathes of our economy. It doesn't strike me as unreasonable to slow/halt inbound foreign jobs while we try and figure out if/when we'll start allowing our own citizens to walk the streets again.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on April 21, 2020, 12:12:35 PM
But isn't that a false dichotomy? It is unreasonable to halt foreign workers if there are no American workers to replace them. Also, as I just pointed out, the result won't be to replace a job in America filled by an Indian citizen, it will be to hire the same Indian citizen but they stay in India.

Quote
According to Pew Research Center, almost half of immigrants live in just three states - New York, Texas and California, home of Silicon Valley, where tech giants such as Google, Facebook and Cisco are based.

"Trump's immigration ban will hurt US tech companies' ability to recruit the talent necessary to remain competitive and focus on innovation," said Shaun Rein, managing director of the China Market Research Group.

"Instead of staying in America and building America's tech prowess, top talent will return to their home countries and build the next round of innovation powerhouses."
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on April 21, 2020, 03:00:41 PM
He could have just as easily told them to move to Venezuela (from which none of them originate), and if he had that would have been completely okay - yet you'd still assert it was racist.

Highly unlikely that I would have called it racist, unless he was talking to people with Venezuelan ancestry.

Venezuelan isn't a race.  There are indigenous people there, and others of multiple ancestries, but it's no more a race than American is the race of anyone from America.  Is it racist around the world for people of multiple countries to refer to "fat Americans" or "stupid Americans"?

It's not, whether or not, the people they refer to come from America.

Quote
Again this thing, that they advocate "failed policies from inferior countries", is something you excusers of Trump seemingly pullled out of your ass. What the Trump quote actually says, is how dare they, these people who originate from these failed nations, to dare to speak about how The Greatest Nation In The World should run. He ties their ancestral origin directly to the fact of how supposedly THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE A SAY.

Lol, again you guys hate that Trump is gifted at packing loaded concepts into shorthand statements in THE EXACT SAME WAY the media and the left pack unfair statements into the shorthand they use.  In fact, Trump is even better at it than the left and the media, or the left and the media is just more thinned skinned than the right, because the left and the media can't help themselves but to rebroadcast what he says for him.

In any event, there's zero question that policies advocated by those four are literally failed policies from inferior countries that should be opposed.  It matters little whether they themselves "grew up in the local village" if the voters in their community, who put them in office and raised them, came from those villages and installed those ideas in the four as they grew up.  It's no mistake that those four have had repeated issues with making anti-semitic statements.  They didn't learn those in US schools either, they learned them from those in their community that immigrated with those opinions and imported them into the US.

Quote
Nothing about how their suggested policies being the policies of THOSE failed countries. NOTHING. The very opposite, he said that they should bring their ideas to their home nations. Because they don't have the right to speak about how America should be run.

So, frankly, to hell with your nonsense excuses. Trump said what he said, not what you would have hoped for him to have said.

And he triggered you to the point of incoherence and his supporters took the message intended, keep socialism and third world policies out the US.  Again, the US is a Mecca for those looking for opportunity, which is the drive behind immigration, getting here and then - even in a second or third generation - advocating to undermine the very policies that caused American success in favor of policies that generated the misery from which they or their ancestors fled makes no sense.  Kind of like how we made religious freedom the first amendment in the bill of rights, after fleeing from European countries that interfered with the same.  Or how we banned grants of nobility, or guaranteed the right of the citizens to be armed.  We didn't want to repeat the failed policies of those homelands either (and for the record I have told my friends from the UK they should go back to the UK if they didn't like the right to bear arms - that wasn't racist either).
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on April 21, 2020, 03:10:46 PM
The peoples you mention were probably racists in other ways, but not because of their slavery.

As a historical matter virtually all people at all times were racist.  Racism is a short hand for a survival instinct that identifies the other as potentially dangerous or exploitable.  Without effective government and the ability to communicate, that's actually a position that it's unsafe to move away from.  You can still remnants of this kind of thinking in any number of places around the world.

Of course, in the US and other modern regions we like to believe we've moved past this as a survival necessity, though anyone honest would realize we just adapted it to the modern world and may align who we see as the other differently.  Patting oneself on the back because others are "racists," which is literally just viewing them as holding irrational views based on an irrelevant characteristic, while simultaneously, holding to irrational views based on irrelevant characteristics of others oneself is a version of virtue signalling.  Either you accept that each person is an individual and needs to be evaluated on that basis or you are just as much of an "ist" as the racist you despise.

There are good people on all sides of most issues, and there are even good people with views others would deem racist or sexist.  Don't believe me?  Can easily point to multiple countries around the world where such views are the majority or even overwhelming view - are they all bad people?  Are you really as enlightened as you believe if you label them all bad people?  Are you as enlightened as you believe if you don't?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on April 21, 2020, 03:16:57 PM
...There's no indication that he's anti-immigration, opposing illegal immigration is not a data point on that.
...

Trump:
Quote
In light of the attack from the Invisible Enemy, as well as the need to protect the jobs of our GREAT American Citizens, I will be signing an Executive Order to temporarily suspend immigration into the United States!

So he uses covid as a reason to stop legal immigration. Even though we could easily screen these people or quarantine them on entry. But that's a little like closing the barn door after the horses ran off. The virus is already here and the US is the epicenter - I have a hard time understanding how this actually benefits the health efforts against the virus.

I'll wait for the actual order, rather than the Trump tweet before I make a final decision.  But it's interesting to me, that he stated clearly the basis of his action - jobs - in light of tens of millions of Americans and even illegal immigrants already present in America being out of work - in connection with his proposed course of action.  Maybe you can walk me through why more immigration RIGHT NOW makes sense?

You went straight to the strawman of testing immigrants, which is a minor part of the concern.  We already have an unreversisble COVID foothold in the US, any infected immigrant could be quarantined, heck we could require quarantine of all immigrants whether or not texted to "stop" them from bringing in new infections, but it  wouldn't make any difference with the number of US citizens infected.  But bringing in more immigrants when existing resources are grossly strained by current job losses to compete for those resources and future jobs makes sense in what way?

And Aris if you want to be remotely persuasive how about you start by addressing the actual situation and possible explanations and not just jump to the only trick in your deck.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on April 21, 2020, 03:30:20 PM
Meanwhile I have three open engineering positions that I can't fill, and two of the guys quit because we couldn't get them h1b.

And you're exactly the reason we created that program, and that's also the reason a majority of Americans support skilled immigration.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: rightleft22 on April 21, 2020, 03:40:13 PM
A friend of mine immigrating from Canada and well into the process at the start of the Lock down was told that the the process was on hold for the time being
As the stopping of the immigration process was already pretty much the case, I view the tweet to stop immigration a tweet to keep the fires burning for his followers and antagonize liberal

Just another distraction
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 21, 2020, 03:50:47 PM
Venezuelan isn't a race.

Races are a societal convention. When you use a person's ancestral group, as perceived by you, to treat them as second class citizens, you're treating it like a race, and you're being racist.

Quote
There are indigenous people there, and others of multiple ancestries, but it's no more a race than American is the race of anyone from America.  Is it racist around the world for people of multiple countries to refer to "fat Americans" or "stupid Americans"?

It's definitely a prejudice, and if by "Americans" they meant not actual Americans but rather anyone who had some American DNA somewhere in their ancestry, they'd be racists, yes.

Quote
It's not, whether or not, the people they refer to come from America.

No, if the cute little word "originally" was used, it means they wouldn't have actually come from America, their ancestors would have.

Quote
Lol, again you guys hate that Trump is gifted at packing loaded concepts into shorthand statements

We hate that he's a far-right xenophobic racist. "Gifted"? He hasn't said a single thing that a thousand other far-right xenophobic racists haven't done before. "Go back to your countries, <non-white people>", you think that's somehow unique or special, or requires some weird little interpretation? It's spoken by the exact same type of person, the world over, a thousand times in a thousand different places.

It's racist-speak, told to please a racist crowd by a racist politician, for racist reasons, the same way the same thing HAS always been spoken everywhere and always, by racist politicians to racist crowds, the last 100+ years and more.

And all you Trump supporters are so utterly parochial, and so completely ignorant of history, that you think he's saying something new or special or strange that only you special few can understand.

Quote
And he triggered you to the point of incoherence and his supporters took the message intended,

I certainly believe they took the racist message that was intended. He's pushed the Overton window back to where it's okay to bash people for their ancestry, and to treat them as second-class citizens for the color of the skin, where it's okay to say that white people have more of a right to America than people of (coincidentally) black and brown ethnicities.

Quote
Again, the US is a Mecca for those looking for opportunity, which is the drive behind immigration, getting here and then - even in a second or third generation - advocating to undermine the very policies that caused American success in favor of policies that generated the misery from which they or their ancestors fled makes no sense.

Again, Trump complained about these supposed foreigners (aka non-white people) having the audacity to dare speak at all. Nothing about their specific policies they advocated.

That's just the lie you tell to others, and perhaps to yourself.

Quote
(and for the record I have told my friends from the UK they should go back to the UK if they didn't like the right to bear arms - that wasn't racist either).

Firstly, I wonder about their self-respect, if they remained your friends after that.

Secondly, when you mean "friends from the UK", let me guess: You mean people that actually came from the UK themselves, and probably recently too (NOT in their childhood). Not people who were "originally" from the UK, because that'd actually include the Founding Fathers.

White Anglo people become Americans after a single generation, you see, it's non-WASPs who are 'originally' from somewhere else and who can always be told to go back to their countries.

In progressive circles', people criticized calling Trump 'Drumpf' (his ancestral German name) because such mockery was also xenophobic.

Instead, by your argument, we should perhaps say to Trump -- if you want to act like a racist and abolish immigration that made America great, you who were originally from Germany, then go back to Germany?

Should we lower ourselves to your racist level, and should progressives become xenophobe racists themselves, before you bloody get it? Do you feel you are safe from xenophobia? Have you established the ancestry of your family, provided enough credentials to be sure you have an equal right to speak about how the United States should be run, Seriati?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 21, 2020, 04:10:09 PM
A friend of mine immigrating from Canada and well into the process at the start of the Lock down was told that the the process was on hold for the time being
As the stopping of the immigration process was already pretty much the case, I view the tweet to stop immigration a tweet to keep the fires burning for his followers and antagonize liberal

Just another distraction

Dozens of countries around the world have literally closed their borders to travelers, visitors and new immigrants. But the US deciding to temporarily do the same is somehow controversial?

See if you're able to get a Canada work visa and move up there right now. Is Trudeau part of the anti-immigration movement too?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on April 21, 2020, 04:10:58 PM
Quote
I'll wait for the actual order, rather than the Trump tweet before I make a final decision. 

Yes, we can expect that Tech will be lobbying hard to back Trump off of this. Which is why, as even Trump supporters will admit, he needs to stop announcing policy over Twitter. In the meantime, I'm going to take him at his word that he probably not only wants to stop new immigration, but also wants to stop renewing visas.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: rightleft22 on April 21, 2020, 04:38:11 PM
Quote
See if you're able to get a Canada work visa and move up there right now.
Did a check and from what I can tell Canada is allowing work visa's for foreign farm workers. Seems even with all the unemployment most people just don't want to do that work.
But yes your not just going to get in. 

Personally I think out of work young people should be 'asked' to take up the slack on those jobs before getting unemployment .
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: DonaldD on April 21, 2020, 05:10:13 PM
Dozens of countries around the world have literally closed their borders to travelers, visitors and new immigrants. But the US deciding to temporarily do the same is somehow controversial?
The borders have been closed already for weeks, including to immigration.  Guess what - nobody batted an eyelash - so, no, that's not what is controversial.  What was the point of pointing out, now, that the borders will be closed to immigration to protect  from the INVISIBLE ENEMY?  Here's a hint: Twitter: VDARE (https://twitter.com/vdare/status/1252438579822788609?s=20)
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on April 21, 2020, 06:53:39 PM
Quote
I'll wait for the actual order, rather than the Trump tweet before I make a final decision. 

Yes, we can expect that Tech will be lobbying hard to back Trump off of this. Which is why, as even Trump supporters will admit, he needs to stop announcing policy over Twitter. In the meantime, I'm going to take him at his word that he probably not only wants to stop new immigration, but also wants to stop renewing visas.

Immigration lawyers for our company are saying it might take 4-6 months for a visa transfer now and that's prior to whatever the new executive order does. That's for people already here in the country.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on April 21, 2020, 06:59:37 PM
Venezuelan isn't a race.

Races are a societal convention. When you use a person's ancestral group, as perceived by you, to treat them as second class citizens, you're treating it like a race, and you're being racist.

Race is not a social convention. A racist is exactly what MLK, Jr. defined: Judging by the color of a man's skin rather than the content of his character.

Quote
Quote
Lol, again you guys hate that Trump is gifted at packing loaded concepts into shorthand statements

We hate that he's a far-right xenophobic racist. "Gifted"? He hasn't said a single thing that a thousand other far-right xenophobic racists haven't done before. "Go back to your countries, <non-white people>", you think that's somehow unique or special, or requires some weird little interpretation? It's spoken by the exact same type of person, the world over, a thousand times in a thousand different places.

It's racist-speak, told to please a racist crowd by a racist politician, for racist reasons, the same way the same thing HAS always been spoken everywhere and always, by racist politicians to racist crowds, the last 100+ years and more.

And all you Trump supporters are so utterly parochial, and so completely ignorant of history, that you think he's saying something new or special or strange that only you special few can understand.

Wow. What pure projection. Everything you just accused Trump of has been the rallying points for Democrats since they fought against liberating their black slaves even before the Civil War. Trump is the guy with the Civil Rights medal, given to him next to Rosa Patks. Do not accuse Trump supporters of being "so utterly parochial, and so completely ignorant of history" when it is the Democrats who have legislated the barrios, urban plantations, and ghettos into existence to build a voter core.

Quote
Again, Trump complained about these supposed foreigners (aka non-white people) having the audacity to dare speak at all. Nothing about their specific policies they advocated.

That's an outright lie. Trump is very careful to not attack on any racial basis. Pretending is not supplying facts.

Quote
Instead, by your argument, we should perhaps say to Trump -- if you want to act like a racist and abolish immigration that made America great, you who were originally from Germany, then go back to Germany?

That is your argument based on a straw man argument that does not exist. Shame on you.

The only racist level here is not from Seriati.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 21, 2020, 10:58:12 PM
Race is not a social convention. A racist is exactly what MLK, Jr. defined: Judging by the color of a man's skin rather than the content of his character.

No, judging literally by the "color of a man's skin" is actually called colorism, and it's distinct from racism (though of course closely linked to it).

Quote
Wow. What pure projection. Everything you just accused Trump of has been the rallying points for Democrats since they fought against liberating their black slaves even before the Civil War.

I'm quite aware that the Democrats were the party of the racists back then. Currently however the party of the racists is the Republicans instead.

Quote
That's an outright lie. Trump is very careful to not attack on any racial basis. Pretending is not supplying facts.

Every black, Latino or Arab person in the United States can be attacked in the exact same manner as he attacked the four congresswomen, telling them that they should go back to the countries they "came from", even though they're born in America.

Quote
Quote
Instead, by your argument, we should perhaps say to Trump -- if you want to act like a racist and abolish immigration that made America great, you who were originally from Germany, then go back to Germany?

That is your argument based on a straw man argument that does not exist. Shame on you.

So, if it's supposedly not racist or otherwise bad, why shouldn't people not tell Trump to go back to Germany?

Who are these people that it's supposedly fine to tell to go back to "their countries", but Trump seemingly doesn't belong in that category?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 25, 2020, 11:50:42 AM
Imagine if Christine Ford’s mom had called a radio show 30 years ago and mentioned that something really bad happened to her daughter at a party. The media would treat it as conclusive proof and it would be a frontpage bombshell story.

Here's a 57sec video of that call happening. Except it's Tara Reade's mother. I'm sure this will be pursued aggressively by mainstream media /s

https://twitter.com/alexsalvinews/status/1253819567320649729
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on April 25, 2020, 12:06:07 PM
Not to be argumentative, but we don't know what her story or complaint would have been.  The evidence that Biden assaulted her is scant, and she apparently didn't report it even though she said she did.  I certainly don't know what did or didn't happen, but a number of investigations are ongoing in the press.  As far as I know, none of them has reached any strong opinion/conclusion on what might have happened.  Do you think you know?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 25, 2020, 12:20:26 PM
Not to be argumentative, but we don't know what her story or complaint would have been.  The evidence that Biden assaulted her is scant, and she apparently didn't report it even though she said she did.  I certainly don't know what did or didn't happen, but a number of investigations are ongoing in the press.  As far as I know, none of them has reached any strong opinion/conclusion on what might have happened.  Do you think you know?

Definitely not, the evidence is old and would appear to be difficult to corroborate. I had the exact same opinion on the Blasey-Ford accusations.

My comment is on disparity of media treatment, not the validity of the accusation.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 25, 2020, 12:26:35 PM
Case in point, a hard-hitting piece from the NYT on Biden. Number of times Tara Reade is mentioned? That would be, ah, zero. It seems kind of relevant to at least mention, but nothing-to-see-here is the order of the day when #metoo happens to land in the wrong place.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/25/us/politics/joe-biden-coronavirus-quarantine.html
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on April 25, 2020, 12:51:05 PM
I'm not really sure why it's relevant to mention in an article about his self-quarantine for coronavirus, not to mention that without corroboration or proof mentioning it would just be sensationalized rumor-mongering.  Do you think they should include every rumor of scandal in every article on Biden in a pretense of "fairness"? 
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: LetterRip on April 25, 2020, 12:58:32 PM
Imagine if Christine Ford’s mom had called a radio show 30 years ago and mentioned that something really bad happened to her daughter at a party. The media would treat it as conclusive proof and it would be a frontpage bombshell story.

Here's a 57sec video of that call happening. Except it's Tara Reade's mother. I'm sure this will be pursued aggressively by mainstream media /s

https://twitter.com/alexsalvinews/status/1253819567320649729

Here is more information about the call Reid confirms it is her mothers voice,

https://theintercept.com/2020/04/24/new-evidence-tara-reade-joe-biden/

https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/24/a-1993-larry-king-live-transcript-adds-evidence-to-tara-reades-allegation-against-joe-biden/

The accussation is definitely more credible with that information.

Interestingly
Quote
The complaint was left with Biden’s office, and if it still exists, is with Biden’s papers at the University of Delaware. The school recently told reporter Rich McHugh that the papers are sealed until two years after Biden leaves public life.

That should be supeonable by a police investigation.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on April 25, 2020, 02:32:50 PM
...No, judging literally by the "color of a man's skin" is actually called colorism, and it's distinct from racism (though of course closely linked to it).

No. Colorism is not a thing. You hate a person because of how he/she looks, then it is racism. Do you have different categories for "kinky-hairism" or "slanty-eyeism"?

Quote
I'm quite aware that the Democrats were the party of the racists back then. Currently however the party of the racists is the Republicans instead.

No. Watch "Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party" and get the real history and documented facts. For just a quick synopsis: The Democrats always used Racism as a tool to get votes. After Eisenhower revived the old Lincoln Civil Rights bills that the Democrats never allowed to come to the floor, they were still full 0f KKK retreads and racists, but they were becoming aware that the majority of voters no longer followed their agenda. It still took until LBJ wanted to stick a finger in his own party's eye that the GOP were able to get the bills voted upon. It was Everett Dirksen, the GOP minority leader who championed their passage and against the Democrat resistance. Look at the vote totals. The Dems got desperate during the resurgence of the South, and the growing middle-class there that supported the GOP. They invented a "Nixon Southern Strategy" that never existed, to claim that all the Democrat racists and bigots had moved to the Republicans. Check the records. None of those racists switched parties. That started as Dems and remained Dems. LBJ actually admitted his agenda to create a nanny state to "own" the minority vote for the next hundred years.

Quote
...Every black, Latino or Arab person in the United States can be attacked in the exact same manner as he attacked the four congresswomen, telling them that they should go back to the countries they "came from", even though they're born in America.

Quite a doofus argument. If course anyone can be attacked. But Trump is a people's president and doesn't have a racist bone in his body. Those four idiots, otherwise known as AOC plus three, said unAmerican things that should have gotten them expelled from Congress, but the Dems looked away and did nothing. Any mention of what THEY SAID resulted in whoever reported it being called racist.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Instead, by your argument, we should perhaps say to Trump -- if you want to act like a racist and abolish immigration that made America great, you who were originally from Germany, then go back to Germany?

That is your argument based on a straw man argument that does not exist. Shame on you.

So, if it's supposedly not racist or otherwise bad, why shouldn't people not tell Trump to go back to Germany?

Mainly because he never did the bad things that Fake News said he did. Everyone, not just Trump, thinks that anyone immigrating to this country to escape the bad conditions in their home countries should not try to import that country's problems with them. Explain to us the logic of that.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 25, 2020, 02:44:13 PM
I'm not really sure why it's relevant to mention in an article about his self-quarantine for coronavirus, not to mention that without corroboration or proof mentioning it would just be sensationalized rumor-mongering.  Do you think they should include every rumor of scandal in every article on Biden in a pretense of "fairness"?

I don’t disagree. The problem is if you visit many of the media sites (I just did for msnbc and nbcnews.com, abc news) you find either nothing on Biden, or puff pieces like the NyT one on how he's “struggling to find new ways to connect to his base”.

Literally nothing on an open police report alleging sexual assault. I suspect the only way these sites will give it anything close to the Kavanaug treatment is if he's actually charged with the crime. The army of social media metoo'ers who launched a full on blitz behind the Blasey accusation are just...gone.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: DonaldD on April 25, 2020, 02:56:46 PM
Headline right now on CNN: Biden's accuser says mother called... (https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/25/politics/tara-reade-mom-larry-king/index.html)
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 25, 2020, 03:14:57 PM
...No, judging literally by the "color of a man's skin" is actually called colorism, and it's distinct from racism (though of course closely linked to it).

No. Colorism is not a thing. You hate a person because of how he/she looks, then it is racism. Do you have different categories for "kinky-hairism" or "slanty-eyeism"?

I'm not to blame for your ignorance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_based_on_skin_color

"Colorism" is the word used for people that e.g. discriminate between lighter-skinned black people and darker-skinned black people.

Previously you spoke about discriminating on the "color of a man's skin" alone being racism. Now you are yourself realizing that the way that racists handle race isn't about skin-color alone, but that they care about other superficial characteristics also like "slanty eyes", and have expanded your understanding to "appearance" in general.

Except that these racists don't actually care about those superficial characteristics by themselves EITHER! They instead use them as a PROXY for (duh!) ancestry. Do you think that racists care if a white person goes and gets tanned in the beach? No, they don't.

But they care very much about a person's ANCESTRY!!! People's appearance for racists is actually unimportant, their racism is judging people by their *genetical ancestry* (and they use the apperance just as a proxy).

Now, modern day racists like Trump have done away with this proxy, and are claiming themselves non-racist, because they supposedly don't discriminate against black people, they simply discriminate against... people of Sub-saharan ancestry? They don't discriminate against Latinos, they simply discriminate against... people of Mexican and Puerto Rican ancestry? They don't discriminate against... "slanty-eyed" people, they simply discriminate against people of Asian ancestry? They don't discriminate against brown people, they simply discriminate against people of Arab ancestry?

Well, geez, how nice that you people can avoid accusations of racism, by merely attacking directly the ancestry of the people you want to attack, namely the thing that racists actually wanted to attack anyway!

You think MLK would have been fine with discrimination based on whether one's ancestors came from Africa or not, as long as the discrimination wasn't specifically skin-color based?

Have you not heard of black people that could "pass" for white, but they would still be considered black by racists, because racists don't actually care about skin color, but about ancestry instead?

Quote
None of those racists switched parties. That started as Dems and remained Dems.

1956:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_United_States_presidential_election
Every state Republican, except a handful in the Deep South which were Democratic. (back when the Democrats were the party of the racists)

1964, eight years later:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_United_States_presidential_election
Every state Democratic, except a handful in the Deep South which were Republican. 

1968:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_United_States_presidential_election
The same Deep South goes to George Wallace

I am guessing you don't think George Wallace to have been a racist either?

So, either the Deep South suddenly around 1960 became non-racist and the rest of the country became relatively less racist, or instead we had a political realignment of the parties around 1960. Evidence suggests the latter.

Quote
Quite a doofus argument. If course anyone can be attacked. But Trump is a people's president and doesn't have a racist bone in his body. Those four idiots, otherwise known as AOC plus three, said unAmerican things that should have gotten them expelled from Congress, but the Dems looked away and did nothing. Any mention of what THEY SAID resulted in whoever reported it being called racist.

I don't care about how it was reported, I judged Trump's statement by itself, as it stood.

He attacked them on the basis of their ancestry. That was racist: inherently so, unambiguously so, without further discussion on the subject needed or warranted.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on April 25, 2020, 04:07:50 PM
..."Colorism" is the word used for people that e.g. discriminate between lighter-skinned black people and darker-skinned black people.

You mean Michelle Obama. She hated Vallery Jerrett because the Chicago Daley Machine held back dark-skinned Blacks, like her father, while promoting light-skinned Blacks, like Jerritt. Jerritt eventually hooked her up with Barrack and got them both into colleges where their transcripts and class rankings were ignored, so the bitterness because of her father was forgotten. But that is still not racism. MJJK's definition still stands.

Quote
Previously you spoke about discriminating on the "color of a man's skin" alone being racism. Now you are yourself realizing that the way that racists handle race isn't about skin-color alone, but that they care about other superficial characteristics also like "slanty eyes", and have expanded your understanding to "appearance" in general.

Except that these racists don't actually care about those superficial characteristics by themselves EITHER! They instead use them as a PROXY for (duh!) ancestry. Do you think that racists care if a white person goes and gets tanned in the beach? No, they don't.

But they care very much about a person's ANCESTRY!!! People's appearance for racists is actually unimportant, their racism is judging people by their *genetical ancestry* (and they use the appearance just as a proxy).

Not much of an expert. Racists hate people for no good reasons. You can invent as many as you like, but the only real reason is for that person to be held back so the racist can assume a higher status, comparatively.

Quote
Now, modern day racists like Trump have done away with this proxy, and are claiming themselves non-racist, because they supposedly don't discriminate against black people, they simply discriminate against... people of Sub-saharan ancestry? They don't discriminate against Latinos, they simply discriminate against... people of Mexican and Puerto Rican ancestry? They don't discriminate against... "slanty-eyed" people, they simply discriminate against people of Asian ancestry? They don't discriminate against brown people, they simply discriminate against people of Arab ancestry?

You only describe yourself, because Trump has never discriminated by color, race, creed, or ancestry. You can create a strawman to hate, but you can't make that strawman real. Trump denied immigration from countries that Obama had previously identified as being unable to properly vet. You just called Obama a racist. Ancestry has nothing to do with a country not keeping good enough records to tell us who is not a terrorist.

Quote
...either the Deep South suddenly around 1960 became non-racist and the rest of the country became relatively less racist, or instead we had a political realignment of the parties around 1960. Evidence suggests the latter..

No, it doesn't. This was the era when the middle class was growing in the south and agriculture was shrinking demographically. The South was turning Republican because of issues, Racism was always the Dems stock-in-trade. What you ignore is the possibility that anyone could be GOP and not be racist. All the facts say the opposite. As the Southern racists stayed stuck to the Dems, the majority were driven by issues and to the GOP.

Quote
Quote
Quite a doofus argument. If course anyone can be attacked. But Trump is a people's president and doesn't have a racist bone in his body. Those four idiots, otherwise known as AOC plus three, said unAmerican things that should have gotten them expelled from Congress, but the Dems looked away and did nothing. Any mention of what THEY SAID resulted in whoever reported it being called racist.

I don't care about how it was reported, I judged Trump's statement by itself, as it stood.

He attacked them on the basis of their ancestry. That was racist: inherently so, unambiguously so, without further discussion on the subject needed or warranted.

He pointed to their own words, and how they merited action to be taken against them. All you can see is racism. Isn't it funny how you describe something as "unambiguous" when it is provably the opposite? Why don't you speak to what they said and respond to that? Trump didn't say the words - they did.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on April 25, 2020, 04:22:04 PM
I'm not really sure why it's relevant to mention in an article about his self-quarantine for coronavirus, not to mention that without corroboration or proof mentioning it would just be sensationalized rumor-mongering.  Do you think they should include every rumor of scandal in every article on Biden in a pretense of "fairness"?

I don’t disagree. The problem is if you visit many of the media sites (I just did for msnbc and nbcnews.com, abc news) you find either nothing on Biden, or puff pieces like the NyT one on how he's “struggling to find new ways to connect to his base”.

Literally nothing on an open police report alleging sexual assault. I suspect the only way these sites will give it anything close to the Kavanaug treatment is if he's actually charged with the crime. The army of social media metoo'ers who launched a full on blitz behind the Blasey accusation are just...gone.

You keep seeming to want every story to be about this complaint against him, when as you say they're about him finding ways to connect to his base or how he's managing his quarantine.  OTOH, if you google "Biden FOX News" almost every story is about Tara Reade's accusations.  Do you think that should dominate their coverage of him?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 25, 2020, 06:01:24 PM
I'm not really sure why it's relevant to mention in an article about his self-quarantine for coronavirus, not to mention that without corroboration or proof mentioning it would just be sensationalized rumor-mongering.  Do you think they should include every rumor of scandal in every article on Biden in a pretense of "fairness"?

I don’t disagree. The problem is if you visit many of the media sites (I just did for msnbc and nbcnews.com, abc news) you find either nothing on Biden, or puff pieces like the NyT one on how he's “struggling to find new ways to connect to his base”.

Literally nothing on an open police report alleging sexual assault. I suspect the only way these sites will give it anything close to the Kavanaug treatment is if he's actually charged with the crime. The army of social media metoo'ers who launched a full on blitz behind the Blasey accusation are just...gone.

You keep seeming to want every story to be about this complaint against him, when as you say they're about him finding ways to connect to his base or how he's managing his quarantine.  OTOH, if you google "Biden FOX News" almost every story is about Tara Reade's accusations.  Do you think that should dominate their coverage of him?

Please don't infer motivation, I don't "want" anything regarding this topic. I'm making an observation about what appears to be blatant media partisanship. In my opinion, this is not a good thing.

Do you think a sexual assault charge against the leading candidate for president of the united states should get less, more, or equal coverage to a similar charge against a prospective supreme court judge?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: DonaldD on April 25, 2020, 06:31:07 PM
Hmmm... how much coverage was about the senate hearings, vs just, stories about Kavanaugh that mentioned the assault?

I honestly don't remember - since Blasey Ford only came forward after Kavanaugh had been nominated, at which point there would have been a limited time to get Blasey Ford's statements into evidence... although at least some of the coverage was also about the fight to get her evidence admitted/heard.  There is no equivalent process underway right now for Biden.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on April 25, 2020, 06:49:00 PM
Quote
Do you think a sexual assault charge against the leading candidate for president of the united states should get less, more, or equal coverage to a similar charge against a prospective supreme court judge?

Why do you think there should be an easy answer?  If you're looking for equivalence, you won't find it.  I will say that if Biden were sitting before a panel that was going to pass judgment on his fitness for office and was formally charged with evaluating all evidence both for and against, then this charge should be a factor in their consideration.  But that's not what's happening, so this will all be handled as a purely partisan political *censored*fest in the media.  You might as well ask why Trump wasn't forced to suffer through an interrogation like the one FOX is slavering to subject Biden with, but we already know the answer.  As with almost everything these days, the lines will be drawn brightly and 10's of millions of $$ will be thrown up for and against every slender bit of information.  We also know that the attackers will never relent, just as they've never gotten over Benghazi, Mailgate, the Uranium conspiracy and even Obama's birthplace.

One important question will be to ask when will it will have gone too far?  We'll probably know the answer well after it's crossed that line.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on April 25, 2020, 07:31:33 PM
...If you're looking for equivalence, you won't find it.  I will say that if Biden were sitting before a panel that was going to pass judgment on his fitness for office and was formally charged with evaluating all evidence both for and against, then this charge should be a factor in their consideration.  But that's not what's happening, so this will all be handled as a purely partisan political *censored*fest in the media.  You might as well ask why Trump wasn't forced to suffer through an interrogation like the one FOX is slavering to subject Biden with, but we already know the answer.

Fox is the one network that at least tries to be fair and balanced. The charge that the office of President is not important enough for the Media to cover is ridiculous. Kavanaugh was not steamrollered because of any committee. He was steamrollered because the media covered the attacks against him 24/7 with no pause. Avenatti was on hundreds of times, and was heralded as a champion to the point where news celebrities named him a great presidential prospect, himself. Duh! He ended up in prison. The only reason Democrats get off with reprehensible conduct is because the MSM refuses to cover it. There was one important story that was so one-sided, that the media gave it a total of less than five minutes in a week - mere seconds at a time, and brushed off as a non-story when it was addressed at all. This has nothing to do with committee vs. elections.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on April 26, 2020, 07:17:40 AM
...If you're looking for equivalence, you won't find it.  I will say that if Biden were sitting before a panel that was going to pass judgment on his fitness for office and was formally charged with evaluating all evidence both for and against, then this charge should be a factor in their consideration.  But that's not what's happening, so this will all be handled as a purely partisan political *censored*fest in the media.  You might as well ask why Trump wasn't forced to suffer through an interrogation like the one FOX is slavering to subject Biden with, but we already know the answer.

Fox is the one network that at least tries to be fair and balanced. The charge that the office of President is not important enough for the Media to cover is ridiculous. Kavanaugh was not steamrollered because of any committee. He was steamrollered because the media covered the attacks against him 24/7 with no pause. Avenatti was on hundreds of times, and was heralded as a champion to the point where news celebrities named him a great presidential prospect, himself. Duh! He ended up in prison. The only reason Democrats get off with reprehensible conduct is because the MSM refuses to cover it. There was one important story that was so one-sided, that the media gave it a total of less than five minutes in a week - mere seconds at a time, and brushed off as a non-story when it was addressed at all. This has nothing to do with committee vs. elections.

OOOOO, look what you stepped in!
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: LetterRip on April 27, 2020, 02:11:20 AM
Hmm she seems to have a history of highly inconsistent memories on things both related to and unrelated to Biden; and also love/hate switching for powerful politicians.

https://medium.com/@eddiekrassenstein/evidence-casts-doubt-on-tara-reades-sexual-assault-allegations-of-joe-biden-e4cb3ee38460
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on April 27, 2020, 02:39:40 AM
Hmm she seems to have a history of highly inconsistent memories on things both related to and unrelated to Biden; and also love/hate switching for powerful politicians.

https://medium.com/@eddiekrassenstein/evidence-casts-doubt-on-tara-reades-sexual-assault-allegations-of-joe-biden-e4cb3ee38460

True or not, one of that report will likely make a difference.  For FOX conservatives it's a binary issue, either he did it or he didn't and most of them have already made their choice.  For everyone else, the only way to decide is for Biden to confess.  I'd be interested to see a poll of public opinions on this.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: LetterRip on April 27, 2020, 02:52:59 AM
Hmm a major revision - her complaint to the congressional human resources was not about Joe Biden, but about feeling bullied by coworkers.

 
Quote
WaPo writes, "In The Post interview last year, she [Tara] laid more blame with Biden's staff for “bullying” her than with Biden. “This is what I want to emphasize: It’s not him. It’s the people around him who keep covering for him,” Reade said, adding later, “For instance, he should have known what was happening to me. . . . Looking back now, that’s my criticism. Maybe he could have been a little more in touch with his own staff.'”
    Reade was referring to alleged bullying, not alleged sexual assault. And Reade clearly gives the impression that Biden himself is not the person responsible for whatever wrongdoings she allegedly suffered. The WaPo continues, "Reade said that in 1993 she filed a complaint with a congressional human resources or personnel office but did not remember the exact name. Her complaint dealt only with the alleged harassment, not the assault, she said."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation

What she told her mom and her brother was not about sexual assault, but apparently the neck touching.  So her mom's call might actually relate to Reade feeling bullied by his staff.  So the phone call by her mother is much less condemning than I'd initially believed.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 27, 2020, 11:23:27 AM
Hmm a major revision - her complaint to the congressional human resources was not about Joe Biden, but about feeling bullied by coworkers.

 
Quote
WaPo writes, "In The Post interview last year, she [Tara] laid more blame with Biden's staff for “bullying” her than with Biden. “This is what I want to emphasize: It’s not him. It’s the people around him who keep covering for him,” Reade said, adding later, “For instance, he should have known what was happening to me. . . . Looking back now, that’s my criticism. Maybe he could have been a little more in touch with his own staff.'”
    Reade was referring to alleged bullying, not alleged sexual assault. And Reade clearly gives the impression that Biden himself is not the person responsible for whatever wrongdoings she allegedly suffered. The WaPo continues, "Reade said that in 1993 she filed a complaint with a congressional human resources or personnel office but did not remember the exact name. Her complaint dealt only with the alleged harassment, not the assault, she said."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation

What she told her mom and her brother was not about sexual assault, but apparently the neck touching.  So her mom's call might actually relate to Reade feeling bullied by his staff.  So the phone call by her mother is much less condemning than I'd initially believed.

I wonder what she meant by " It’s the people around him who keep covering for him". Covering for what?

Also, it's fascinating to watch this play out this time around.

With Blasey-Ford you had a few folks here poking holes in her story, highlighting reasons why it probably wasn't a provable complaint, while others argued against those points vigorously and provided reasons why they were valid.

It's literally the same dialogue again, but with the roles inverted.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on April 27, 2020, 11:49:39 AM
Overall I have no problem believing that Biden did this, but you can't really call the stories equivalent, because the circumstances are also different. That Judge K got wasted in high school and took things a little too far seems a little more likely and a little less sinister than Biden randomly groping someone who worked for him in a public corridor on Capitol Hill. I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that the base story itself seems less plausible to me. On the other hand, Biden is well documented for touching women inappropriately, so that would work in the more plausible direction.

I personally never said that Ford's story was true, just that I didn't think she was making it up. I also believe that Reade probably isn't making this up in a vicious attempt to take Biden down. What is definitely different is that I'm not hearing anyone here or elsewhere calling this a political hit job.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 27, 2020, 12:07:12 PM
Blasey Ford couldn't even prove she was ever in the same room or the same house as Kavanaugh. Reade at least has that much.  I'm not sure what to believe. If it did happen it seems like Biden thought it was consensual, kind of like in 13 Reasons Why. But women lie a lot and often aren't prosecuted or even held accountable when they do. The person who sent Brian Banks to prison for 5 years for a rape he didn't commit was never charged with a crime even when it was proven that she lied. There is no deterrent to making up stories and if someone is looking for attention it's a sure fire way to get it. On the other hand he is a creeper. No way to tell.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: DonaldD on April 27, 2020, 12:22:11 PM
Blasey Ford couldn't even prove she was ever in the same room or the same house as Kavanaugh.
Really?  They were in the same social group, Blasey Ford had been going out with one of Kavanaugh's friends, Kavanaugh's calendar showed plans to meet up with the same people Blasey Ford remembered as being present at the get together in question... what evidence are you looking for?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 27, 2020, 12:25:51 PM
Well as far as I remember nobody even testified that they ever saw the two of them together in the same room. Maybe that was just a talking point though.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 27, 2020, 12:51:42 PM
No I think you're right. I don't recall anyone corroborating her story about the two of them being together, ever. That may be the biggest material difference in the two accusations, in one there's a clear connection and contact, even if completely legitimate/innocent. In the other, no contact of any kind was ever proven.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: LetterRip on April 27, 2020, 12:53:26 PM
I wonder what she meant by " It’s the people around him who keep covering for him". Covering for what?

I think that was in the context of the original allegation of him touching her neck.  Unfortunately the WashingtonPost search interface is crap and can't find the article from last year where it was written, only quotes of that line quoting the older post article.

Quote
With Blasey-Ford you had a few folks here poking holes in her story, highlighting reasons why it probably wasn't a provable complaint, while others argued against those points vigorously and provided reasons why they were valid.

Drunk teen attempts rape at party - not particularly beyond the pale.  Drunk guy doesn't remember being drunk or engaging in heinous activity - not really surprising.  Hard core drinker lies repeatedly about drinking - not particularly unexpected.  Person who claims to be the victim of said attempted rape remembers lots of details that noone else does - not surprising at all.

So highly plausible but tough to verify - what was verifiable was consistent. She was a highly credible witness.

Sober Senator sexually assaults staffer in corridors without any history that would imply he is likely or capable of such - quite surprising.  Staffer is an ardent supporter of his repeatedly and publically after the event and only changes dramatically after she has a substantial change in politics - somewhat surprising.  Staffer has drastically inconsistent stories about all aspects of the claims (what happened to her, why she left, why she came forward) - pretty surprising.  Things that are easily verifiable aren't able to be verified (filing a complaint with HR, complaining to staffers) - pretty surprising.  The only collaboration of her claim is for a drastically less serious claim.  She has an either highly faulty memory or has lied repeatedly about even fairly minor things (ie her praise of Putin).

Somewhat plausible - but all of the verification has failed except for the fairly minor complaint, and she has dubious credibility because she has repeatedly changed her story on even strange things like her praise for Putin.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: LetterRip on April 27, 2020, 12:58:55 PM
No I think you're right. I don't recall anyone corroborating her story about the two of them being together, ever. That may be the biggest material difference in the two accusations, in one there's a clear connection and contact, even if completely legitimate/innocent. In the other, no contact of any kind was ever proven.

The odds of her memory of who was at the party aligning with who was on his social calendar for meeting for a party - if in fact they weren't at the same party are absolutely astronomical.  You'd probably have better odds of winning the lottery multiple times.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on April 27, 2020, 01:56:29 PM
No I think you're right. I don't recall anyone corroborating her story about the two of them being together, ever. That may be the biggest material difference in the two accusations, in one there's a clear connection and contact, even if completely legitimate/innocent. In the other, no contact of any kind was ever proven.

The odds of her memory of who was at the party aligning with who was on his social calendar for meeting for a party - if in fact they weren't at the same party are absolutely astronomical.  You'd probably have better odds of winning the lottery multiple times.

Not as hard as you'd think if she was at "one remove" from his social circle and interacted with most of the same people. If you know who in your circle are also in his(or her) circle, you have a decent chance of creating a list of people who could end up in the same place at the same time even absent actual knowledge of any such event actually happening.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 27, 2020, 03:22:50 PM
I'm not terribly interested in actually debating either case but rather the overall treatment each has received. Here's an early timeline comparison of the two accusations:


Days 1-3 are revealing:

Kavanaugh accusation coverage/reactions (day 1-3):

- The New York Times publishes a story minutes after the original Wapo article surfaces, stating that because of this accusation, his nomination was now "in turmoil" (day 1 of accusation)
- CNN has four separate reports, compares it to Anita Hill (day 1).
- Chuck Schumer immediately calls for an FBI background investigation into the claims (day 2)
- Kavanaugh's nomination officially "descends into chaos," CNN reports. (day 2)
- Huffpo runs a front page story about the accusations, quoting Biden as saying, "Women’s Claims Of Sexual Assault Should Be Presumed To Be True." (day 2)
- The New York Times publishes an op-ed from Anita Hill, who argues: "With the current heightened awareness of sexual violence comes heightened accountability for our representatives." (day 3)

Biden accusations coverage/reactions (day 1-3):
- CNN reports, "Why is Bernie Sanders still running for president?" The Reade claim is not mentioned on the network, either on-air or online. (day 1)
- The NYT publishes a story explaining that Biden was growing "impatient" with the idea of more debates with Bernie Sanders. The Reade claim is not mentioned anywhere in the paper. (day 1)
- Jimmy Kimmel interviews Biden, and the two discuss "Where's Waldo?" Kimmel does not ask Biden about Reade's accusation. (day 2)
- Schumer, speaking on the Senate floor, touts a "Green New Deal." He accuses Republicans of "refusing to admit" that "climate change is real." (day 2)
- CNN teases an upcoming CNN town hall with Joe Biden. The Reade accusations are not discussed on-air in the network's preview coverage. (day 2)
- CNN's Anderson Cooper interviews Biden - does not ask Biden about Reade's claims in a lengthy virtual town hall. (day 3)
- In its writeup of the event, CNN assures readers, "Joe Biden: He's just like the rest of us."
- The Huffington Post covers Reade's claim. The outlet notes, "Last April, Reade was one of eight women to accuse the former vice president of inappropriate touching." The articles goes on to observe, however, that when she first accused Biden of inappropriate touching, Reade was "accused of being politically motivated and called a Russian operative... (day 3)

That's the first 72 hours. The differences are even starker in the days and weeks that follow.


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/media-that-rushed-to-report-kavanaugh-allegations-are-now-less-interested-in-biden-sexual-assault-claim
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on April 27, 2020, 03:36:53 PM
So highly plausible but tough to verify - what was verifiable was consistent. She was a highly credible witness.

Sober Senator sexually assaults staffer in corridors without any history that would imply he is likely or capable of such - quite surprising.

There may be an issue here with the term "sexually assults". In the past we thought of this as "man jumps on woman out of the bushes." Socially (and legally) speaking that is no longer the case, and afaik includes any kind of non-consensual touching. So senator jumps out of the bushes raping his staff? Unlikely. Senator touches them in ways they don't like? In Biden's case, extremely likely. Or have you not seen the umpteen videos of him practically groping young girls in public events? It creeps the **** out of me whenever I see it.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on April 27, 2020, 03:43:57 PM
The dissimilarities are far more relevant.  Except, of course, to FOX, which is the source of this trenchant analysis.  Compare the cable coverage of Blaisey Ford's testimony during the Kavanaugh hearing (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/politics/kavanaugh-ford-hearing-chyrons/).  You'll notice that FOX offers the least amount of coverage and the least amount of direct quotes from Ford or coverage during her testimony.  Then look how often they cite Kavanaugh's statements during his testimony.  See a pattern here?

Word to the wise: Never use FOX as a resource when trying to get a political story reported on a level playing field.   You may feel the same way about MSNBC and CNN, but in this case notice how thorough their coverage is of both Ford's and Kavanaugh's testimony.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: DonaldD on April 27, 2020, 03:44:15 PM
<shrug> Media is going to media.  There are currently 6 articles on Fox referencing the Reade allegations, there were at least as many yesterday.

The bigger issue is how the parties respond/responded to the stories, and their equivalence - I haven't followed the recent allegations - is it of sexual harassment, bullying, sexual assault..?  Is that the same as the sexual assault allegations made against Kavanaugh
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: yossarian22c on April 27, 2020, 03:45:20 PM
So highly plausible but tough to verify - what was verifiable was consistent. She was a highly credible witness.

Sober Senator sexually assaults staffer in corridors without any history that would imply he is likely or capable of such - quite surprising.

There may be an issue here with the term "sexually assults". In the past we thought of this as "man jumps on woman out of the bushes." Socially (and legally) speaking that is no longer the case, and afaik includes any kind of non-consensual touching. So senator jumps out of the bushes raping his staff? Unlikely. Senator touches them in ways they don't like? In Biden's case, extremely likely. Or have you not seen the umpteen videos of him practically groping young girls in public events? It creeps the **** out of me whenever I see it.

Biden has definitely touched women without consent. However the other accusations weren't nearly as serious as shoving someone against a wall and penetrating her with his hand. The current accusation is vastly more serious and comes after he has been in the public the entire time. So the timing of this accusation is more suspect than Kavanaugh but remains plausible.

This is one of the many reasons I again think the democrats again picked the one candidate, this time out of 20, that is/was easiest for Trump to win against in the fall.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on April 27, 2020, 03:45:33 PM
Quote
In Biden's case, extremely likely. Or have you not seen the umpteen videos of him practically groping young girls in public events? It creeps the **** out of me whenever I see it.

How do you feel about the many reports of Trump's sexual actions against different women? Does it creep the *censored* out of you?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: yossarian22c on April 27, 2020, 03:53:22 PM
<shrug> Media is going to media.  There are currently 6 articles on Fox referencing the Reade allegations, there were at least as many yesterday.

To be fair the only articles I've seen about Biden since Bernie dropped are either about the Reade allegations or about how he's struggling to be relevant at all. No positive stories, but I don't follow CNN or MSNBC so maybe I'm missing out on those. Biden has been in a virtual news black hole since covid took over in mid march. Not a great place to be for a presidential candidate.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 27, 2020, 04:12:21 PM
The dissimilarities are far more relevant.  Except, of course, to FOX, which is the source of this trenchant analysis.  Compare the cable coverage of Blaisey Ford's testimony during the Kavanaugh hearing (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/politics/kavanaugh-ford-hearing-chyrons/).  You'll notice that FOX offers the least amount of coverage and the least amount of direct quotes from Ford or coverage during her testimony.  Then look how often they cite Kavanaugh's statements during his testimony.  See a pattern here?

Word to the wise: Never use FOX as a resource when trying to get a political story reported on a level playing field.   You may feel the same way about MSNBC and CNN, but in this case notice how thorough their coverage is of both Ford's and Kavanaugh's testimony.

Of course Fox inserts their own bias, all media does. You're certainly under no obligation to address any of the timeline points or assess the relative (in)equality of the coverage, but "never trust [insert_source_here]" or making this about a single media outlet instead of analyzing the collective feels lazy. It's devoid of substance.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on April 27, 2020, 04:21:27 PM
Biden has definitely touched women without consent. However the other accusations weren't nearly as serious as shoving someone against a wall and penetrating her with his hand. The current accusation is vastly more serious and comes after he has been in the public the entire time. So the timing of this accusation is more suspect than Kavanaugh but remains plausible.

At a certain point I'm willing to go with my gut instinct, so long as it aligns at least somewhat with real evidence. If I see a guy touching people inappropriately and repeatedly in public and on camera, then I think it's a fair assumption that what they will do off-camera is worse. Sure, it's possible that what we see him do is all he does anywhere, but my gut tells me that's not a good bet. Based on what I have seen, I expect the worst as a reasonable extrapolation of the public/private transformation of behavior.

To answer Kasandra, Trump bugs a lot of people on a gut level too, and assuming you're going to allow that gut feeling into evidence my only advice would be to temper that with evidence as well. What has he actually done that you've observed, which validates the fears of what he's done that goes unseen? In Trump's case what I've seen is that he talks filthy, which translates to me as probably talking even worse in private. How that translates into him being a rapist I don't know. I don't really doubt he's slept with various people, maybe hookers, who knows what. I doubt he leads a clean life. But is he a rapist? I'll give that about the same odds as any famous person, in terms of the likelihood of him abusing that power to get what he wants from people. You've seen what's going on in Hollywood; did you suspect many of the people now outed? They're not like Trump, are they, but look what they did. So don't go on gut alone.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 27, 2020, 04:32:59 PM
Props to Kamala Harris for consistency. When asked about Tara Reade and the other women: “I believe them and I respect them being able to tell their story and having the courage to do it”

Non-trivial, given she's a potential VP pick.

video
https://twitter.com/KingsleyCortes/status/1254863230054199296
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 27, 2020, 04:41:15 PM
In Trump's case what I've seen is that he talks filthy, which translates to me as probably talking even worse in private. How that translates into him being a rapist I don't know. I don't really doubt he's slept with various people, maybe hookers, who knows what. I doubt he leads a clean life. But is he a rapist? I'll give that about the same odds as any famous person, in terms of the likelihood of him abusing that power to get what he wants from people.

I'd give Trump higher odds than "the same odds as any famous person", given that his former wife had also accused him of rape (before withdrawing the accusation), and several other women have also accused him from behaviour that ranges from sexual assault to outright rape (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations)
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on April 27, 2020, 04:45:08 PM
Biden has definitely touched women without consent. However the other accusations weren't nearly as serious as shoving someone against a wall and penetrating her with his hand. The current accusation is vastly more serious and comes after he has been in the public the entire time. So the timing of this accusation is more suspect than Kavanaugh but remains plausible.

At a certain point I'm willing to go with my gut instinct, so long as it aligns at least somewhat with real evidence. If I see a guy touching people inappropriately and repeatedly in public and on camera, then I think it's a fair assumption that what they will do off-camera is worse. Sure, it's possible that what we see him do is all he does anywhere, but my gut tells me that's not a good bet. Based on what I have seen, I expect the worst as a reasonable extrapolation of the public/private transformation of behavior.

To answer Kasandra, Trump bugs a lot of people on a gut level too, and assuming you're going to allow that gut feeling into evidence my only advice would be to temper that with evidence as well. What has he actually done that you've observed, which validates the fears of what he's done that goes unseen? In Trump's case what I've seen is that he talks filthy, which translates to me as probably talking even worse in private. How that translates into him being a rapist I don't know. I don't really doubt he's slept with various people, maybe hookers, who knows what. I doubt he leads a clean life. But is he a rapist? I'll give that about the same odds as any famous person, in terms of the likelihood of him abusing that power to get what he wants from people. You've seen what's going on in Hollywood; did you suspect many of the people now outed? They're not like Trump, are they, but look what they did. So don't go on gut alone.

There's an unmistakeable whiff of "fair and balanced" here.  Since Trump is widely KNOWN to have done all sorts of reprehensible things with sexual intent and is widely KNOWN to insult women in Congress or government who don't say nice things about him, it's ONLY FAIR to raise claims against his opponent in the next election to the same level or even exceed it.  Trump now gets a pass on all of his past actions so we can put Biden on media trial and denounce him for these still unsubstantiated claims.  I can pretty much guarantee that Reade will be exposed as a flake, but FOX will never report it because it does them no good.

NONE of you have any idea if what Reade says today (different from what she has said on many occasions in the past) is true, but, hey, it's only fair to hold Biden liable for those claims. 

That's what makes Ornery special for me, the disguised antipathy toward Democrats and liberals hidden under the cover of civil conversation and disparagement.  After all, being a Democrat already makes him suspect as a moral person.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 27, 2020, 04:53:16 PM
That's what makes Ornery special for me, the disguised antipathy toward Democrats and liberals hidden under the cover of civil conversation and disparagement.  After all, being a Democrat already makes him suspect as a moral person.

I think the coverage and treatment against Kavanaugh were incredibly partisan and over the top.

I think the treatment Biden has been getting so far is actually much more reasonable and appropriate, given the reality of hard to corroborate charges.

Do those opinions seem disingenuous or veiled to you?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: LetterRip on April 27, 2020, 05:03:12 PM
I'd give Trump higher odds than "the same odds as any famous person", given that his former wife had also accused him of rape (before withdrawing the accusation), and several other women have also accused him from behaviour that ranges from sexual assault to outright rape (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations)

She didn't withdraw tha accussation - she renamed it.  She said she accurately described the events in her deposition but no longer characterizes it as rape.  If her description was accurate and then lawfully it was rape - whether she 'no longer considers it' to be so or not.  She almost certainly has a gag order about it as part of their divorce settlement.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on April 27, 2020, 06:04:31 PM
That's what makes Ornery special for me, the disguised antipathy toward Democrats and liberals hidden under the cover of civil conversation and disparagement.  After all, being a Democrat already makes him suspect as a moral person.

I think the coverage and treatment against Kavanaugh were incredibly partisan and over the top.

I think the treatment Biden has been getting so far is actually much more reasonable and appropriate, given the reality of hard to corroborate charges.

Do those opinions seem disingenuous or veiled to you?

Opinions, speculation, skepticism and criticism that the media aren't challenging Biden to come clean and either confess or deny the accusations (which, obtw, he has already done).  There is no evidence to hold Biden accountable to, no testimony to prove or disprove, no formal investigation that has been launched that would lead to formal charges, only a lot of people (including here) who assume from other unproven claims against him that this one is also likely true. 

So, I guess holding him to whatever standard you're doing could be seen as disingenuous and only gauzily veiled.  Why don't we finish holding Trump accountable for his very well known charges before we move onto this one, eh?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: DonaldD on April 27, 2020, 06:09:49 PM
Why don't we finish holding Trump accountable for his very well known charges before we move onto this one, eh?
I'm pretty sure the answer to that is that the voters already litigated that during the 2016 election, so it must be irrelevant...
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on April 27, 2020, 06:51:01 PM
...Never use FOX as a resource when trying to get a political story reported on a level playing field.   You may feel the same way about MSNBC and CNN, but in this case notice how thorough their coverage is of both Ford's and Kavanaugh's testimony.

What did you just say? Fox coverage is far more fair and thorough than the other MSM, so why say never use them as a resource?  ...Unless you don't want the facts.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on April 27, 2020, 09:16:56 PM
...Never use FOX as a resource when trying to get a political story reported on a level playing field.   You may feel the same way about MSNBC and CNN, but in this case notice how thorough their coverage is of both Ford's and Kavanaugh's testimony.

What did you just say? Fox coverage is far more fair and thorough than the other MSM, so why say never use them as a resource?  ...Unless you don't want the facts.

Such an utterly sad and predictable response.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 28, 2020, 03:35:57 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/tara-reade-neighbor-joe-biden-sexual-assault-201409554.html

What was interesting to me was that the witness to hearing her story at the time both believes her friend and yet still supports Joe Biden. I reckon there will be a lot more of that than Democrats want to admit. People who believe he is guilty and will support and vote for him anyway. That's gotta hurt.

"LaCasse told Insider she’s a Democrat and plans to vote for Biden despite Reade’s allegation. Still, she felt compelled to stick up for her friend, who has faced a wave of criticism and death threats since accusing Biden of assault.

“I have to support her just because that’s what happened,” LaCasse said. “We need to stand up and tell the truth.”
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: oldbrian on April 28, 2020, 10:40:36 AM
Cherrypoptart:
Quote
People who believe he is guilty and will support and vote for him anyway. That's gotta hurt.

Why?  That is what Trump's followers have been saying for years - 'yes we know he is a flaming pile of garbage. But he promised to do the things we want while in office, so I will hold my nose and vote for him'

Meanwhile, I am STILL getting flack for voting 3rd party rather than voting for Clinton to keep Trump out.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on April 28, 2020, 11:00:14 AM
Quote
Meanwhile, I am STILL getting flack for voting 3rd party rather than voting for Clinton to keep Trump out.

That's why we should use ranked choice voting (RCV) for large-scale elections, especially national ones.  You could have voted your conscience for first choice and an "okay, sure" choice as your backup.  If RCV had been used in Florida in 2000, Gore would have been elected easily.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 28, 2020, 11:00:54 AM
Times Up (the advocacy organization that has raised $24M and helped support and fund Blasey-Ford) said it would not do the same for Reade because "Biden was a candidate for federal office, and assisting a case against him, Time’s Up said, could jeopardize the organization’s nonprofit status."

Some of the loudest #metoo, #timesup voices are now saying while they believe Reade (see Melissa Milano) they also still support Biden and feel he deserves due process.

Normally I would say that the massive cognitive dissonance inherent in those two positions would, rightly, twist you into a pretzel.  I simply don't believe the people claiming to hold those opinions, so that dissonance most likely isn't' actually occurring.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: DonaldD on April 28, 2020, 11:03:46 AM
I think what you will start seeing is that very rationalization - "yes, I believe he probably did do something inappropriate" or even "yes, I believe what he did was sexual assault" but then "seeing as how Trump has been credibly accused of sexual assault by more than a dozen women, bribed women to keep silent about affairs and lied about it to the electorate, attempted to bribe a foreign country to assist him in getting re-elected... I'll hold my nose and vote for Biden"
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 28, 2020, 11:28:08 AM
DonaldD I think you're right, but what a sad statement. I really do blame the democratic party for leaving their base with such horrible options.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: yossarian22c on April 28, 2020, 11:37:37 AM
DonaldD I think you're right, but what a sad statement. I really do blame the democratic party for leaving their base with such horrible options.

The democratic party had 20 candidates. The "party" didn't leave us with the horrible options that's the voters combined with the voting system. What's sad is the primary system basically whittled it down to Sanders vs Biden after 4 states. The primary system needs a huge revamp, its a difficult problem to solve because of the expense of national campaigns but I think we can do better. Ranked choice or approval voting would be hugely beneficial in crowded primaries. Primaries I think benefit more from approval voting but final elections with fewer candidates probably do better with ranked choice.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 28, 2020, 11:48:56 AM
DonaldD I think you're right, but what a sad statement. I really do blame the democratic party for leaving their base with such horrible options.

The democratic party had 20 candidates. The "party" didn't leave us with the horrible options that's the voters combined with the voting system. What's sad is the primary system basically whittled it down to Sanders vs Biden after 4 states. The primary system needs a huge revamp, its a difficult problem to solve because of the expense of national campaigns but I think we can do better. Ranked choice or approval voting would be hugely beneficial in crowded primaries. Primaries I think benefit more from approval voting but final elections with fewer candidates probably do better with ranked choice.

I suppose I'm viewing primary and caucus voters as "the party", but ok.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: yossarian22c on April 28, 2020, 12:02:14 PM
DonaldD I think you're right, but what a sad statement. I really do blame the democratic party for leaving their base with such horrible options.

The democratic party had 20 candidates. The "party" didn't leave us with the horrible options that's the voters combined with the voting system. What's sad is the primary system basically whittled it down to Sanders vs Biden after 4 states. The primary system needs a huge revamp, its a difficult problem to solve because of the expense of national campaigns but I think we can do better. Ranked choice or approval voting would be hugely beneficial in crowded primaries. Primaries I think benefit more from approval voting but final elections with fewer candidates probably do better with ranked choice.

I suppose I'm viewing primary and caucus voters as "the party", but ok.

Okay, I accept that use of "the party" then. Often "the party" is used to refer to the DNC or insiders and while they largely did support Biden I don't blame them for who the voters actually selected.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on April 28, 2020, 12:06:59 PM
DonaldD I think you're right, but what a sad statement. I really do blame the democratic party for leaving their base with such horrible options.

The democratic party had 20 candidates. The "party" didn't leave us with the horrible options that's the voters combined with the voting system. What's sad is the primary system basically whittled it down to Sanders vs Biden after 4 states. The primary system needs a huge revamp, its a difficult problem to solve because of the expense of national campaigns but I think we can do better. Ranked choice or approval voting would be hugely beneficial in crowded primaries. Primaries I think benefit more from approval voting but final elections with fewer candidates probably do better with ranked choice.

IMO, RCV is better than approval voting (AV) for the simple reason that with AV the voter doesn't have the same sense of voting their "preference".  If someone selected Nader and Gore, it implies that either is acceptable to them, when in fact anyone who pulled the lever for Nader preferred him over all other candidates.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: yossarian22c on April 28, 2020, 12:23:00 PM
IMO, RCV is better than approval voting (AV) for the simple reason that with AV the voter doesn't have the same sense of voting their "preference".  If someone selected Nader and Gore, it implies that either is acceptable to them, when in fact anyone who pulled the lever for Nader preferred him over all other candidates.

I agree in a field of 3 or 4 RCV is better than AV. In the field of 20 candidates the democrats initially had I think AV is just more user friendly. Also AV is better suited to primaries where the differences between candidates is smaller. I like RCV for a general so people can go cast a real protest vote but then still have their lessor of two evil votes count.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on April 28, 2020, 01:46:22 PM
IMO, RCV is better than approval voting (AV) for the simple reason that with AV the voter doesn't have the same sense of voting their "preference".  If someone selected Nader and Gore, it implies that either is acceptable to them, when in fact anyone who pulled the lever for Nader preferred him over all other candidates.

I agree in a field of 3 or 4 RCV is better than AV. In the field of 20 candidates the democrats initially had I think AV is just more user friendly. Also AV is better suited to primaries where the differences between candidates is smaller. I like RCV for a general so people can go cast a real protest vote but then still have their lessor of two evil votes count.

Good points.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on April 29, 2020, 12:24:35 AM
Okay, I accept that use of "the party" then. Often "the party" is used to refer to the DNC or insiders and while they largely did support Biden I don't blame them for who the voters actually selected.

Really? That's an interesting compartmentalization. How can you 'not blame' a group for creating intensive media coverage and buzz in support of one candidate? I assume you believe there's a direct link between positive coverage and platforming and popular awareness + support for a candidate, therefore I'm not sure where "I don't blame them" comes into it. I mean, assuming you don't like the final choice, hence the word 'blame', why should you not blame them? Obviously you can't exclusively blame them, but why not blame them?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on April 29, 2020, 02:00:05 AM
There's an unmistakeable whiff of "fair and balanced" here.  Since Trump is widely KNOWN to have done all sorts of reprehensible things with sexual intent and is widely KNOWN to insult women in Congress or government who don't say nice things about him, it's ONLY FAIR to raise claims against his opponent in the next election to the same level or even exceed it.  Trump now gets a pass on all of his past actions so we can put Biden on media trial and denounce him for these still unsubstantiated claims.  I can pretty much guarantee that Reade will be exposed as a flake, but FOX will never report it because it does them no good.

If you want to be "fair and balanced" on that front, you also need to mention all the "mean and nasty things" Trump will also say to men who disagree with him.

Schumer, Romney, and even Ted Cruz have all been on the receiving end of that. Trump seems to be an equal opportunity disparager, he does it frequently, and he does it often, and the higher your profile is when you draw his fire, the more likely he is to keep shooting.

And AOC in particular tends to revel in drawing Trump's ire, so it's hardly shocking she keeps getting targeted by Trump. It isn't because she's a woman, it's that she's deliberately seeking his (negative) attention because it helps keep her name in lights(although she'll very happily play the gender card, and Trump will level gender and ethnic specific insults which help with the claim)... And her feeding the fire in turn helps keep Trump's name in lights, so they mutually feed each other.

Comparable story with Trump on a number of other occasions. Women "seem to happen more often" because (feminist) women are in a unique position to be able to benefit from it much more so than men are. It helps "build their credibility" the more they can get Trump to attack them.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on April 29, 2020, 07:54:42 AM
Basically, you're saying it's impossible to tell who is or isn't being honest, since everybody has a personal interest in everything that involves them.  I guess it's even possible that Tara Reade cornered Biden and exposed herself in the hopes he would molest her so she could use the incident at some convenient point in the future.  Hell, it's not just possible, that's the most likely explanation I can think of!!!!!!

On another front, Trump is such a mental midget that every single one of his advisors is feeding him the crap that he regurgitates to the public.  I suppose it's possible -- more than likely, actually -- that they are indeed coordinating with FOX to drive up the ratings of that network.  Their bank balances will prove this is true. They had better hope he doesn't order pizza from one of Hillary's pizza joints and die before they're done using him.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on April 29, 2020, 11:28:57 AM
Basically, you're saying it's impossible to tell who is or isn't being honest, since everybody has a personal interest in everything that involves them.  I guess it's even possible that Tara Reade cornered Biden and exposed herself in the hopes he would molest her so she could use the incident at some convenient point in the future.  Hell, it's not just possible, that's the most likely explanation I can think of!!!!!!

On another front, Trump is such a mental midget that every single one of his advisors is feeding him the crap that he regurgitates to the public.  I suppose it's possible -- more than likely, actually -- that they are indeed coordinating with FOX to drive up the ratings of that network.  Their bank balances will prove this is true. They had better hope he doesn't order pizza from one of Hillary's pizza joints and die before they're done using him.

Fox may be Fair and Balanced, but you are certainly not. Tara Reade addressed the charges against Biden contemporaneously to many people who have authenticated what she said, unlike Blasey-Ford. Her mother appeared on Larry King complaining about how her daughter received no help from the then majority Democrats to protect her. Instead she was shunted into a windowless cubicle to get her away from the sex fiend Biden. The Reade charges were first publicly presented over a month ago. In that time, with Biden getting interviewed hundreds of times by the MSM, he was NEVER asked one question about it. Not one. No denial. Fair and balanced is not a slogan, it is a business plan that enables Fox to trounce all the other networks in ratings consistently. Not one time!

Fox has also shown the video of Biden, during the witch hunt against Kavanaugh saying that abused women should not just be heard, they should be believed.

It's funny, the above claim that Reade may have "cornered Biden and exposed herself in the hopes he would molest her so she could use the incident at some convenient point in the future.  Hell, it's not just possible, that's the most likely explanation I can think of!!!!!!" is as lame as the MSM never asking a Presidential presumed nominee anything about it.

Fox has covered the Reade complaint and the facts have been in the form of documented testimony and a video clip of Larry King (CNN) taking the call. That was not a transcript of the call paraphrased by a non-whistle blower and Schiff - it was the actual call. You'd think CNN would have the ability to find that clip, also. Not one time!
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on April 29, 2020, 11:54:11 AM
...AOC in particular tends to revel in drawing Trump's ire, so it's hardly shocking she keeps getting targeted by Trump. It isn't because she's a woman, it's that she's deliberately seeking his (negative) attention because it helps keep her name in lights(although she'll very happily play the gender card, and Trump will level gender and ethnic specific insults which help with the claim)... And her feeding the fire in turn helps keep Trump's name in lights, so they mutually feed each other.

You're correct that AOC gets in the limelight by presenting the words of her recruiters, the Justice Democrats, who admitted they did recruit her in a "cattle call" her brother sent in her name for. There are video clips of her sponsors explaining what she would say, so take the complicit Snopes response with an appropriate grain of salt. AOC did admit how she was recruited, and the Justice Democrats have bragged about their role. The claim that she is her own woman is okay, but she is only there because of the media limelight her sponsors provided her. What should also be noted, is that when AOC or her tag-alongs attack Trump, their words hit a suit of armor and bounce back at them. The MSM never reports their own attack, just the bounce back. We laugh at her saying beef must be outlawed because the Green New Deal wants to reduce cow farts, but even the laughter keeps her name in the news.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 29, 2020, 12:31:22 PM
Succinct.

https://imgur.com/a/LvOf873
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on April 29, 2020, 01:59:30 PM
Succinct.

https://imgur.com/a/LvOf873

Not there yet.  She's trying, though.  I wonder why she didn't come forward during the intervening years when he ran for President and served as VP.  What's different now?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on April 29, 2020, 02:12:19 PM
Basically, you're saying it's impossible to tell who is or isn't being honest, since everybody has a personal interest in everything that involves them.  I guess it's even possible that Tara Reade cornered Biden and exposed herself in the hopes he would molest her so she could use the incident at some convenient point in the future.  Hell, it's not just possible, that's the most likely explanation I can think of!!!!!!

On another front, Trump is such a mental midget that every single one of his advisors is feeding him the crap that he regurgitates to the public.  I suppose it's possible -- more than likely, actually -- that they are indeed coordinating with FOX to drive up the ratings of that network.  Their bank balances will prove this is true. They had better hope he doesn't order pizza from one of Hillary's pizza joints and die before they're done using him.

Fox may be Fair and Balanced, but you are certainly not.

That disqualifies your ability to make judgments, but that's nothing new.

Quote
Tara Reade addressed the charges against Biden contemporaneously to many people who have authenticated what she said, unlike Blasey-Ford.

Ford passed a lie detector test and has contemporaneous therapist notes.  Does Reade?

Quote
Her mother appeared on Larry King complaining about how her daughter received no help from the then majority Democrats to protect her.

From what?  She didn't say what the problem she was calling about was.  How do you know what it was?  Reade changed her story several times over the years, so which one did she tell her mother?

Quote
Instead she was shunted into a windowless cubicle to get her away from the sex fiend Biden.

Quite the informed statement.  In what way was Biden a sex fiend? 

Quote
The Reade charges were first publicly presented over a month ago. In that time, with Biden getting interviewed hundreds of times by the MSM, he was NEVER asked one question about it. Not one. No denial. Fair and balanced is not a slogan, it is a business plan that enables Fox to trounce all the other networks in ratings consistently. Not one time!

Don't worry, FOX is making up for it by talking about nothing else.  That's the same network that did everything possible to ignore Ford's charges against Kavanaugh, because as you say, Fair and Balanced.

Quote
Fox has also shown the video of Biden, during the witch hunt against Kavanaugh saying that abused women should not just be heard, they should be believed.

A reasonable statement.  Has Trump ever said that?

Quote
It's funny, the above claim that Reade may have "cornered Biden and exposed herself in the hopes he would molest her so she could use the incident at some convenient point in the future.  Hell, it's not just possible, that's the most likely explanation I can think of!!!!!!" is as lame as the MSM never asking a Presidential presumed nominee anything about it.

It's not funny.  Why don't you think it's possible?  Do you have any evidence stronger than your conviction that Biden sexually assaulted her?

Quote
Fox has covered the Reade complaint and the facts have been in the form of documented testimony and a video clip of Larry King (CNN) taking the call. That was not a transcript of the call paraphrased by a non-whistle blower and Schiff - it was the actual call. You'd think CNN would have the ability to find that clip, also. Not one time!

CNN doesn't have lots of clips.  In fact, transcripts.cnn.com doesn't go back farther than 2000.  Why would they have that one?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 29, 2020, 02:55:35 PM
Succinct.

https://imgur.com/a/LvOf873

Not there yet.  She's trying, though.  I wonder why she didn't come forward during the intervening years when he ran for President and served as VP.  What's different now?

I can't read her mind but it's possible that, like Blasey-Ford, she was emotionally scarred and conflicted. It's simply coincidence that they both decided to come forward during a compelling event.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on April 29, 2020, 03:18:28 PM
Succinct.

https://imgur.com/a/LvOf873

Not there yet.  She's trying, though.  I wonder why she didn't come forward during the intervening years when he ran for President and served as VP.  What's different now?

I can't read her mind but it's possible that, like Blasey-Ford, she was emotionally scarred and conflicted. It's simply coincidence that they both decided to come forward during a compelling event.

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic. Women can come forward when they perceive that their abusers are about to enter a unique position of trust, because they are seeing the abuser regularly in the news, and because people they may have confided in encourage them to finally take a stand. Or they could seek publicity, or they could be paid to fabricate a story. But the first choice is also an option.

eight more reasons involving non-famous abusers why women don't come forward with accusations (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-compassion-chronicles/201711/why-dont-victims-sexual-harassment-come-forward-sooner)
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 29, 2020, 03:41:16 PM
Kassandra was the one questioning the timing of the accusation, but good to know.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on April 29, 2020, 04:05:26 PM
Succinct.

https://imgur.com/a/LvOf873

Not there yet.  She's trying, though.  I wonder why she didn't come forward during the intervening years when he ran for President and served as VP.  What's different now?

I can't read her mind but it's possible that, like Blasey-Ford, she was emotionally scarred and conflicted. It's simply coincidence that they both decided to come forward during a compelling event.

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic. Women can come forward when they perceive that their abusers are about to enter a unique position of trust, because they are seeing the abuser regularly in the news, and because people they may have confided in encourage them to finally take a stand. Or they could seek publicity, or they could be paid to fabricate a story. But the first choice is also an option.

eight more reasons involving non-famous abusers why women don't come forward with accusations (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-compassion-chronicles/201711/why-dont-victims-sexual-harassment-come-forward-sooner)

You are giving possible reasons, but we don't know the real one yet, do we?  In the meantime, there could be many more possible reasons that could be spun out.  Just to be clear, I don't disbelieve her, but without further evidence I don't believe her, either.  I won't be giving plausible hypothetical reasons in the meantime.  I might have some more implausible explanations, though, since some people have already gone their (Biden's a "sex fiend", e.g.).
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on April 29, 2020, 04:10:13 PM
Succinct.

https://imgur.com/a/LvOf873

Not there yet.  She's trying, though.  I wonder why she didn't come forward during the intervening years when he ran for President and served as VP.  What's different now?

I can't read her mind but it's possible that, like Blasey-Ford, she was emotionally scarred and conflicted. It's simply coincidence that they both decided to come forward during a compelling event.

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic. Women can come forward when they perceive that their abusers are about to enter a unique position of trust, because they are seeing the abuser regularly in the news, and because people they may have confided in encourage them to finally take a stand. Or they could seek publicity, or they could be paid to fabricate a story. But the first choice is also an option.

eight more reasons involving non-famous abusers why women don't come forward with accusations (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-compassion-chronicles/201711/why-dont-victims-sexual-harassment-come-forward-sooner)

You are giving possible reasons, but we don't know the real one yet, do we?  In the meantime, there could be many more possible reasons that could be spun out.  Just to be clear, I don't disbelieve her, but without further evidence I don't believe her, either.  I won't be giving plausible hypothetical reasons in the meantime.  I might have some more implausible explanations, though, since some people have already gone their (Biden's a "sex fiend", e.g.).

"Wondering" about motives invites speculation. That's what wondering is for.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 29, 2020, 11:09:15 PM
Apparently journalists and reporters are not wondering that much about the accusations. None of them have asked Biden a single question about it. They seem strangely uninterested. #believesomewomen #me-maybe
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: LetterRip on April 30, 2020, 01:36:54 AM
This on the record confirmation from a neighbor of hers, seems to strengthen the allegation,

Quote
LaCasse said she remembers stepping outside her home in California to sneak a cigarette away from her kids sometime in 1995 or early 1996, when she was joined by Reade on her front stoop. They were emotional, discussing custody issues and violence, and she recalls Reade then mentioning Joe Biden, a man she was not particularly familiar with at the time.

"I do remember her telling me that Joe Biden had put her up against a wall and had put his hands up her skirt and had put his fingers inside her," LaCasse said.

Reade, as detailed in a previous NPR report, has accused Biden of pinning her up against a wall in the hallway of a Capitol Hill building and penetrating her vagina with his fingers in the spring of 1993.

https://www.npr.org/2020/04/29/847840765/new-information-emerges-around-biden-sexual-assault-allegation
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: yossarian22c on April 30, 2020, 11:14:05 AM
Apparently journalists and reporters are not wondering that much about the accusations. None of them have asked Biden a single question about it. They seem strangely uninterested. #believesomewomen #me-maybe

Or see LR's post above that they are digging into it to see what they can find. I hope this blows Biden's candidacy out of the water sooner rather than later. I don't think the old man had it in him to pull it out without a second scandal to add to Ukraine. If he has many of the same flaws as Trump he won't easily be able to rally independent and moderate turn out and he clearly doesn't excite the left of the party. Whatever else Trump has, he has a die hard 60-70% of the republican party who are going to turn out and vote for him no matter what.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 30, 2020, 11:18:06 AM
It looks like they're finally starting to dig in a bit. At some point, some brave soul will actually ask him about it.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: yossarian22c on April 30, 2020, 11:25:31 AM
It looks like they're finally starting to dig in a bit. At some point, some brave soul will actually ask him about it.

I still haven't heard much from or about Biden in the last month. There were a couple stories about the tech failings of his online town halls early on, notes about Biden when Bernie dropped, a story or two about how he's struggling to stay relevant while isolated, and the Reade story. Has he been doing interviews in the last couple weeks? You could tell me Joe hasn't gotten dressed and left his basement for the last 3 weeks and I wouldn't know any better.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on April 30, 2020, 11:29:36 AM
If Biden actually were to withdraw outright, rather than run and lose to Trump, what are the DNC rules about that? Is the runner-up (Sanders) automatically upgraded to winner? Or is he "out" regardless of whether Biden leaves? If so, does that mean the DNC leaders just pick their candidate themselves and run them against Trump? This whole "it's a private organization" thing is such baloney. The laws on that need to change post haste.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: NobleHunter on April 30, 2020, 11:41:50 AM
If Biden actually were to withdraw outright, rather than run and lose to Trump, what are the DNC rules about that? Is the runner-up (Sanders) automatically upgraded to winner? Or is he "out" regardless of whether Biden leaves? If so, does that mean the DNC leaders just pick their candidate themselves and run them against Trump? This whole "it's a private organization" thing is such baloney. The laws on that need to change post haste.

I don't think there are rules. If Biden withdraws before the convention, the delegates can chose whomever they want. Sanders would have advantages there but wouldn't necessarily win. If it's after Biden is officially the nominee, then I think his VP pick would likely be promoted to the main spot.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on April 30, 2020, 12:09:16 PM
I don't think there are rules. If Biden withdraws before the convention, the delegates can chose whomever they want. Sanders would have advantages there but wouldn't necessarily win. If it's after Biden is officially the nominee, then I think his VP pick would likely be promoted to the main spot.

I wonder whether the 'private company' policies at this point might not become unconstitutional. It would be difficult to deny at that point, if they really did pick someone else (imagine for the moment they picked Hillary!) that it would look quite a lot like usurping democracy and disenfranchising the voters. Don't you think? I know that typically rules aren't made about things until they become an issue, but I can't imagine that it's in any way sane to permit a small group of people to simply select the person the people can vote on in the general.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on April 30, 2020, 12:20:42 PM
If Biden were to withdraw (more likely due to health than scandal), the convention would go ahead, though I think it most likely would be held electronically unless a miracle with the coronavirus actually does occur.  Sanders clearly would have the advantage that all of his delegates are committed on the first ballot, but many of Biden's delegates might stick with him even so in order to deny Sanders.  If Sanders didn't creep over the line on the first ballot then all delegates are unbound.  That could open the door for a dark horse nominee to snag the selection.  If that were to happen, it would be more likely to be Cuomo than Hillary.  Cuomo would pummel Trump in the election, but if it was Hillary the Dems could kiss the election goodbye.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on April 30, 2020, 12:38:32 PM
My question isn't really about the Dem's chances depending on who they would pick, and more on the actual legality of them picking someone un-voted for. It seems to me that any mechanism which removes the voters' ability to have any say of who will appear in the general is roughly on par with how the Chinese government works.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on April 30, 2020, 01:49:51 PM
My question isn't really about the Dem's chances depending on who they would pick, and more on the actual legality of them picking someone un-voted for. It seems to me that any mechanism which removes the voters' ability to have any say of who will appear in the general is roughly on par with how the Chinese government works.

I think you're mixing up a bunch of different things.  The Party commitment to the delegates "wishes" is spelled out in the Party Rules.  In simple terms, the delegates are bound to specific candidates who have not withdrawn from the race on the first ballot.  Bernie Sanders hasn't withdrawn, but only suspended his campaign, so his pledged delegates have to vote for him on the first ballot.  If Biden likewise suspends his campaign, his delegates are still bound to him on the first ballot.  It gets murky after that, since the delegate election rules in most, but not all, states designate that the committed delegates are released before the second ballot.  The superdelegates (officially called uncommitted delegates) can't vote on the first ballot, but do get to vote on subsequent ballots.  There are about 400 or so of them.

The key is that the commitment of the Party to the delegates and vice versa is basically not in force after the first ballot, so anybody can receive votes on subsequent ballots.  Bernie has never been a registered Democrat, so in theory the convention delegates could cast votes for Cuomo, Trump, or even Fauci.  I'm sure I could think up a few dream tickets, but only when I've been hitting the bottle pretty hard.  I may get back to you on that point later.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 30, 2020, 01:55:29 PM
Even-handed examination by the NYTimes here on why none of the networks are having Reade on their shows.

"There’s still no clear explanation, however, for why Ms. Reade hasn’t been on mainstream TV. Representatives for CNN and MSNBC declined to explain why they haven’t booked a woman who is, whether you believe her or not, one of the few newsmakers right now who could cut through the pandemic."

Fox is the only one, and she's refused because she doesn't her story to be part of a "partisan movement". She says that she may have to go on Fox because none of the other networks are interested in hearing her story, much less investigate it.

Super mysterious, lol.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/business/media/tara-reade-joe-biden-media.html
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: rightleft22 on April 30, 2020, 02:01:17 PM
Even-handed examination by the NYTimes here on why none of the networks are having Reade on their shows.

"There’s still no clear explanation, however, for why Ms. Reade hasn’t been on mainstream TV. Representatives for CNN and MSNBC declined to explain why they haven’t booked a woman who is, whether you believe her or not, one of the few newsmakers right now who could cut through the pandemic."

Fox is the only one, and she's refused because she doesn't her story to be part of a "partisan movement". She says that she may have to go on Fox because none of the other networks are interested in hearing her story, much less investigate it.

Super mysterious, lol.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/business/media/tara-reade-joe-biden-media.html

My own position on the matter for what it worth - nothing. Ms. Reade is not reliable - 20 year allegations are to late no matter what party the person the allegations are against.
It sucks but they go nowhere   
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on April 30, 2020, 02:12:51 PM
Even-handed examination by the NYTimes here on why none of the networks are having Reade on their shows.

"There’s still no clear explanation, however, for why Ms. Reade hasn’t been on mainstream TV. Representatives for CNN and MSNBC declined to explain why they haven’t booked a woman who is, whether you believe her or not, one of the few newsmakers right now who could cut through the pandemic."

Fox is the only one, and she's refused because she doesn't her story to be part of a "partisan movement". She says that she may have to go on Fox because none of the other networks are interested in hearing her story, much less investigate it.

Super mysterious, lol.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/business/media/tara-reade-joe-biden-media.html

She's being tried in absentia, except nobody really cares about her.  Biden is the one on trial, and in this case FOX has no interest in talking to him, as he can only raise his image from the depths they've plunged him to.  Better to keep bashing him, asking why he hasn't come forward, and also refusing to talk to him.  You could argue the media on the other side of this question are similarly reluctant to engage directly with him for the opposite reason.  One day he will come forward, but if I were him I wouldn't do it until Reade has been hung out to dry first, which any news organization other than FOX should be able to do.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on April 30, 2020, 02:24:16 PM
Even-handed examination by the NYTimes here on why none of the networks are having Reade on their shows.

"There’s still no clear explanation, however, for why Ms. Reade hasn’t been on mainstream TV. Representatives for CNN and MSNBC declined to explain why they haven’t booked a woman who is, whether you believe her or not, one of the few newsmakers right now who could cut through the pandemic."

Fox is the only one, and she's refused because she doesn't her story to be part of a "partisan movement". She says that she may have to go on Fox because none of the other networks are interested in hearing her story, much less investigate it.

Super mysterious, lol.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/business/media/tara-reade-joe-biden-media.html

My own position on the matter for what it worth - nothing. Ms. Reade is not reliable - 20 year allegations are to late no matter what party the person the allegations are against.
It sucks but they go nowhere

Bill Cosby might disagree about late complaints going nowhere.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on April 30, 2020, 02:40:31 PM
Even-handed examination by the NYTimes here on why none of the networks are having Reade on their shows.

"There’s still no clear explanation, however, for why Ms. Reade hasn’t been on mainstream TV. Representatives for CNN and MSNBC declined to explain why they haven’t booked a woman who is, whether you believe her or not, one of the few newsmakers right now who could cut through the pandemic."

Fox is the only one, and she's refused because she doesn't her story to be part of a "partisan movement". She says that she may have to go on Fox because none of the other networks are interested in hearing her story, much less investigate it.

Super mysterious, lol.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/business/media/tara-reade-joe-biden-media.html

She's being tried in absentia, except nobody really cares about her.  Biden is the one on trial, and in this case FOX has no interest in talking to him, as he can only raise his image from the depths they've plunged him to.  Better to keep bashing him, asking why he hasn't come forward, and also refusing to talk to him.  You could argue the media on the other side of this question are similarly reluctant to engage directly with him for the opposite reason.  One day he will come forward, but if I were him I wouldn't do it until Reade has been hung out to dry first, which any news organization other than FOX should be able to do.
You seem to have missed the point. I did a quick google search and Biden has done 19 interviews spanning nearly four hours in the weeks since the allegation surfaced. Absolutely nobody is reluctant to interview him.

Fox would have Biden on in a heartbeat, they've reached out to him for comment to no avail and are probably asking his team for an interview daily. Saying Fox has no interest in speaking with him is a bizarre take.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on April 30, 2020, 02:46:41 PM
To clarify, I'm not saying the legitimate news media don't want to talk to him, but as you have repeatedly pointed out, none of them have asked him about Reade.  If FOX had him on, they wouldn't ask about anything else, except maybe Ukraine.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on April 30, 2020, 03:38:22 PM
Quote
Fox would have Biden on in a heartbeat, they've reached out to him for comment to no avail and are probably asking his team for an interview daily. Saying Fox has no interest in speaking with him is a bizarre take.

The only interest I've heard about FOX is from Sean Hannity.  See where that is going?  I would be interested in a pairing of Chris Wallace (FOX) and Anderson Cooper (CNN).  They have solid reputations as non-spin-mongers on their respective networks.  In fact, they could do the interview together for better perceived balance.  I can think of several others on other networks, but I would stay away from partisan provocateurs like anyone else on FOX.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on April 30, 2020, 06:24:00 PM
Quote
WASHINGTON—Urging supporters to help out and chip in as much as they can, the Joe Biden presidential campaign sent a fundraising email Thursday reminding donors that sexual assault allegations don’t bury themselves. “Now, more than ever, the Biden campaign needs your support in sweeping this under the rug,” read the email in part, calling on each and every Biden supporter to do their part in defeating Donald Trump by looking the other way. “We’ll be honest—this isn’t going to be cheap. It’s not just going away like we thought it would. We know it seems like we can coast off the media suppressing the story, but there’s a lot of important work to be done behind the scenes to ensure these accusations never see the light of day. These sexual assault allegations have already broken through to The Washington Post, and if we don’t meet our fundraising goal by midnight tonight, it could be front page news tomorrow. ” The email added that if supporters donated $25 or more, the campaign would express their thanks by sending them a free “Allegations? What Allegations?” bumper sticker.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on April 30, 2020, 06:55:49 PM
Some reason not to identify that as an Onion satire?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 01, 2020, 12:08:52 AM

"Bill Cosby might disagree about late complaints going nowhere."

And Weinstein. Both in prison for allegations that came decades after the alleged incidents. I didn't keep up with the whole stories but I think in both cases too women who said they raped him ended up being together with them again voluntarily later, in Weinstein's case voluntarily having sex with him and I think in Cosby's case at least being on friendly terms with him. I could be mistaken about that but the point is that even if women don't say anything at the time, even if they seem to be okay with it for years afterward, that doesn't mean that the man can't be convicted of rape and sent to prison decades later anyway. That plays into Reade's situation the same way it did for the Weinstein and Cosby cases, in her favor by the precedents set.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on May 01, 2020, 12:10:55 AM
However, in the Weistein and Cosby cases, other accusers came out of the woodwork as time went on, as both men were multiple offenders.

So far it is only Reade in regards to Biden.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on May 01, 2020, 12:34:44 AM
“The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable."

Women. Although I’ acknowledge that someone acting pervy and making people feel uncomfortable is not analogous to Cosby/Weinstein stuff.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 01, 2020, 01:31:46 AM
That's true that there aren't other accusers with Biden. Maybe he only did it the one time.

Of course maybe he didn't do it at all. Even by her own reports though she doesn't mention that she ever told him no or stop unless I missed it. If it happened maybe he thought it was consensual and then when he found out not quite he took that to heart and never did it again confining himself to shampoo brand guessing and the Japanese style after haircut shoulder rubs.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: DonaldD on May 01, 2020, 09:03:14 AM
Biden's statement (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-addresses-sexual-assault-allegations)
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: rightleft22 on May 01, 2020, 09:38:15 AM
Curious. What do the people on this site really think about such allegations coming to light 20+ years after the event and purity poultices. Do we really care or is it just fuel to go after someone?

Sexual harassment is a important issue and we need to create a environment where men and woman can come forward when such things happen. I fear this focus on 'he said she said' allegations rooted in the past and that can and will never progress beyond the 'he said, she said' allegations are undermining the movement. 
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on May 01, 2020, 09:54:12 AM
Speculating about this is like speculating whether the coronavirus was intentionally released from a lab or is naturally occurring.  We'll be forever in limbo unless and until Xi confesses.  In other words, 43% of the population blame China, and 43% are convinced that Biden did it.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: DonaldD on May 01, 2020, 09:59:24 AM
Quote
purity poultices
Heh.
Quote
Do we really care or is it just fuel to go after someone?
Yes and yes?  Sometimes, a person entering public life, or entering into a process that could give that person public authority, will motivate victims who until then only had a personal stake in an assault.  I'm not saying that this is or is not the case here, just that there are rational reasons for this to happen and to have an effect.

Whether it can be abused is another question.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on May 01, 2020, 10:03:57 AM
Biden's statement (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-addresses-sexual-assault-allegations)

Wow.  Just listening to the first minute or so.  Biden thinks women should be heard, but he's denying this happened.  Why would he deny it unless he was guilty?  When he denied it he looked like a deer caught in the headlights.  If he was being honest, he would have looked honest, so he's hiding the truth.  He gave his records to the University of Delaware, but is denying access to them.  Those records were categorized as private by the University over a year ago, which is common while the donor is still alive. 

Hey, but this is FOX Noose, so every denial is evidence of guilt, every hindrance to interfere wth fishing expeditions is proof of collusion. 

There can now be NO DOUBT that Biden did it.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on May 01, 2020, 10:08:09 AM
Curious. What do the people on this site really think about such allegations coming to light 20+ years after the event and purity poultices. Do we really care or is it just fuel to go after someone?

Sexual harassment is a important issue and we need to create a environment where men and woman can come forward when such things happen. I fear this focus on 'he said she said' allegations rooted in the past and that can and will never progress beyond the 'he said, she said' allegations are undermining the movement.

Definitely. I thought the Blasey-Ford process was a sh*t-show and incredibly thin on evidence. I feel the same way about Reade, minus the sh*t-show aspect although that could be coming still. I think in both cases “something” probably happened, but that’s less important than just being able to be exploited as political weapons by their respective opponents.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on May 01, 2020, 10:18:04 AM
Biden's statement (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-addresses-sexual-assault-allegations)

Wow.  Just listening to the first minute or so.  Biden thinks women should be heard, but he's denying this happened.  Why would he deny it unless he was guilty?  When he denied it he looked like a deer caught in the headlights.  If he was being honest, he would have looked honest, so he's hiding the truth.  He gave his records to the University of Delaware, but is denying access to them.  Those records were categorized as private by the University over a year ago, which is common while the donor is still alive. 

Hey, but this is FOX Noose, so every denial is evidence of guilt, every hindrance to interfere wth fishing expeditions is proof of collusion. 

There can now be NO DOUBT that Biden did it.

Yes. Like Kavanaugh, claiming you're innocent just means you really did it. The more vehement your denial, the more guilty you probably are. Kafka traps work the same whether red or blue.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Fenring on May 01, 2020, 11:45:01 AM
Curious. What do the people on this site really think about such allegations coming to light 20+ years after the event and purity poultices. Do we really care or is it just fuel to go after someone?

You mean, other than the fact that he clearly still does touch women uncomfortably with impunity? And in such a way where everyone knows it?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on May 01, 2020, 11:53:53 AM
Lol, so covering Tara Reade's claims are not issue that CNN really wanted to get into, but covering Biden's denial of those claims?  Already five articles (at least) on that.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on May 01, 2020, 11:54:22 AM
Biden's statement (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-addresses-sexual-assault-allegations)

Wow.  Just listening to the first minute or so.  Biden thinks women should be heard, but he's denying this happened.  Why would he deny it unless he was guilty?  When he denied it he looked like a deer caught in the headlights.  If he was being honest, he would have looked honest, so he's hiding the truth.  He gave his records to the University of Delaware, but is denying access to them.  Those records were categorized as private by the University over a year ago, which is common while the donor is still alive. 

Hey, but this is FOX Noose, so every denial is evidence of guilt, every hindrance to interfere wth fishing expeditions is proof of collusion. 

There can now be NO DOUBT that Biden did it.

Yes. Like Kavanaugh, claiming you're innocent just means you really did it. The more vehement your denial, the more guilty you probably are. Kafka traps work the same whether red or blue.

Yes, no question the Kavanaugh case was a high-tech lynching.  Biden should start screaming like Clarence and Brett did in order to get his defense across.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on May 01, 2020, 12:18:06 PM
Lol, so covering Tara Reade's claims are not issue that CNN really wanted to get into, but covering Biden's denial of those claims?  Already five articles (at least) on that.

Too many posts here side-stepping the issue of Biden and looking at the messengers. ...And mocking the messengers, at that.

Quote
You mean, other than the fact that he clearly still does touch women uncomfortably with impunity? And in such a way where everyone knows it?

The man can not endure a single debate with the President. He has too much baggage, and not just his quid-pro-quos and mental questions. The first time he is unable to cogently argue a valid point of issue will cause him to step down. Who will replace him?

The only positive he can count on is the complicit media - but they will turn on him in a minute if he is seen to be totally hapless. They must, in order to maintain any credibility as they shift their loyal support to whomsoever comes along to supplant him. The GOP is hoping that person would be Hillary, because she is unelectable. If the DNC bows to the Greens and put in Bernie, Fauxcahontas, or some other AOC-endorsed nominee, the numbers are not there to win. Will they turn to Klobachar or one of the two-percenters?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: yossarian22c on May 01, 2020, 12:35:45 PM
The GOP is hoping that person would be Hillary, because she is unelectable. If the DNC bows to the Greens and put in Bernie, Fauxcahontas, or some other AOC-endorsed nominee, the numbers are not there to win. Will they turn to Klobachar or one of the two-percenters?

Agree on Hillary v Trump going the same way again. I think if it comes down to the delegates voting that Warren wins, she can pull some of the Sanders delegates and isn't viewed as quite as far to the left for the rest of them. But I think Klobachar is by far the most electable of the group because she would do best in the swing states. But after the first ballot anyone is possible. Dark horses at that point would be Cuomo, Newsom, and Michelle Obama. The democrats could end up with one of the most memorable conventions of all time, "back room" zoom deals to see who comes out on top.

I think Biden is going to tank hard in the general, even if the Reade thing is shown to be false. I would love for him to find a reason to drop out.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on May 01, 2020, 01:00:39 PM
Some reason not to identify that as an Onion satire?

Was it not obvious satire, regardless of source?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on May 01, 2020, 01:22:01 PM
...I would love for him to find a reason to drop out.

He has enough already. What he needs is a face-saving excuse to hand off the baton. He needs to anoint someone before handing off, and that will probably be his VP selection, so Cuomo, Bernie, and Newsom are probably out of the picture, because they have the wrong chromosomes.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: rightleft22 on May 01, 2020, 01:44:50 PM
Curious. What do the people on this site really think about such allegations coming to light 20+ years after the event and purity poultices. Do we really care or is it just fuel to go after someone?

You mean, other than the fact that he clearly still does touch women uncomfortably with impunity? And in such a way where everyone knows it?

Biden a touch feel-ly guy which is uncomfortable to watch as is hearing Trump talk about woman and his daughter. Old men being icky

But no the issue I'm asking about isn't s about a specific person. I'm asking if those on this site really care about 20+ year old allegations that can't be proved.

I don't think we care other then to use them as debate points that will never change anyone bias so, whats the point?. Lets us feel good about ourselves and our choices? My feeling is that we are making things worse for what is a very serious issue.

Purity poultices is a far left thing where only people with out 'sin' can be a political leader. Another tool invented by the left to eat the left.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on May 01, 2020, 01:49:46 PM
Some reason not to identify that as an Onion satire?

Was it not obvious satire, regardless of source?

I said that to help make sure wmLambert wouldn't get too excited.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on May 01, 2020, 02:08:11 PM
Some reason not to identify that as an Onion satire?

Was it not obvious satire, regardless of source?

I said that to help make sure wmLambert wouldn't get too excited.

No, you were honestly driven by your own incorrect preconceived notions. It is second nature for you to project your own foibles onto others. Like I said, I don't mean to belittle you, but I do understand you. It's not your fault, but you could do better.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on May 01, 2020, 02:18:13 PM
Venezuelan isn't a race.

Races are a societal convention. When you use a person's ancestral group, as perceived by you, to treat them as second class citizens, you're treating it like a race, and you're being racist.

Sure, however, as no one is treating or proposing to treat anyone as a second class citizen on the basis of ancestry this is a total nonsequiter on your part.  Treating illegal immigrants as non-citizens is just factually correct and has nothing to do with racism.

Quote
Lol, again you guys hate that Trump is gifted at packing loaded concepts into shorthand statements

We hate that he's a far-right xenophobic racist. "Gifted"? He hasn't said a single thing that a thousand other far-right xenophobic racists haven't done before. "Go back to your countries, <non-white people>", you think that's somehow unique or special, or requires some weird little interpretation? It's spoken by the exact same type of person, the world over, a thousand times in a thousand different places.[/quote]

I think your comment is revealing.  There's zero evidence that he's far right.  His positions are pretty much center right.

There's zero evidence he's xenophobic.  It's not xenophobic to restrict illegal immigration, nor is it xenophobic to renegotiate trade agreements in your own countries interest.  That's pretty much what every country in the world does.

There's also zero evidence he's racist.

So pretty much you're just reasserting your unfounded claims.  Pretending that you're conducting some kind of unbiased or fair-minded analysis of speech patterns is just nonsense you tell yourself.  You are not any kind of expert on that, you've selected the "similar" speech concepts and carefully pruned out anything that doesn't support your "theory" and you've ignored everything rational that contradicts your desired conclusion.

Trump has pursued reasonable policies that are justifiable in all these areas.  Calling him a racist because you can't explain why his policies are wrong is ridiculous.

Quote
And all you Trump supporters are so utterly parochial, and so completely ignorant of history, that you think he's saying something new or special or strange that only you special few can understand.

And then you go with bizarre personal attacks.  Again, you demonstrate that the only one who's advocating an unreasoning hate based approach to debate based on irrelevant characteristics is you.

If you can't make an actual argument, defaulting to insults is a pathetic substitute.  Again, I'll say it directly this time, you are making insult based arguments because you're wrong on substance and have no other way to explain it. 

This thread, not just you, but many of the responses have convinced me that TDS really is a thing.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on May 01, 2020, 02:52:42 PM
No, judging literally by the "color of a man's skin" is actually called colorism, and it's distinct from racism (though of course closely linked to it).

You can read about 10m articles on racism that refer to the color of a man's skin, not to mention that it's been taught that way through the schools to hundreds of millions of Americans and billions around the world.

Colorism is about shades and is often used to describe intra-race discrimination, racism is considered broader and is generally viewed as referring to people outside your race.  Your critique was a grossly flawed misuse of the term, which given you used it to attack a proper use of racism, is an unacceptable flaw.  If you're going to pretend to greater knowledge then you have to live with the absolute requirement to use it correctly.

Quote
I'm quite aware that the Democrats were the party of the racists back then. Currently however the party of the racists is the Republicans instead.

Actually just false.  Democrats were and still are the party that views race as a legitimate basis upon which to hang material rights differences.  Behind every policy that seeks to institutionalize a difference based on race you will literally find the DNC.  The patronizing approach the DNC leaders take today is definitely less nasty than their open racism of yesteryear but it's still reflective of their deeply held beliefs that people of some races can't succeed on their own.

Plus, when it comes racism other than white on black, the DNC has far more of it and even openly endorses it from time to time. 

Quote
Every black, Latino or Arab person in the United States can be attacked in the exact same manner as he attacked the four congresswomen, telling them that they should go back to the countries they "came from", even though they're born in America.

Well that's not the same basis.  For it to be the "same basis" they'd have to be advocating stupid anti-American policies, then they could.  I mean I've heard people tell Bernie Sanders he should move to Russia and to Venezuela.  He's not from either but he does in fact advocate their stupid policies.

On the other hand, you are correct as a very general level, anyone can be insulted by being told to go back where they came from.  I've heard tribal leaders say that about white people, however, in that case I suspect you believe that they are entitled to do so (again, consistency of principals not being a strong suit among those making your arguments).
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on May 01, 2020, 02:58:27 PM
Quote
Speaking to MSNBC's Mika Brezezinski on Friday, the former vice-president denied any sexual misconduct against Tara Reade outright.

"It did not happen. Period," he said.

Brezezinski pressed Mr Biden on his former statements suggesting that women should be believed when coming forward with their stories of sexual violence.

In 2018, when now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford, Mr Biden was joined by a chorus of top Democrats in supporting Dr Ford's claims, and insisting that she be heard.

"For a woman to come forward in the glaring light of focus, nationally, you've got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she's talking about is real, whether or not she forgets the facts, whether or not it's been made worse or better over time," Mr Biden told reporters at the time.

"Are women to be believed unless it pertains to you?" Brezezinski asked Mr Biden on Friday.

"Women are to be believed, given the benefit of the doubt," Mr Biden said. "Then you have to look at the circumstances and the facts."

"The truth matters."

Lucy Flores is one of several woman who has accused Biden of of inappropriate behaviour
Mr Biden refused to speculate on Ms Reade's motives, saying she had a right to come forward "and say whatever she wants to say. But I have a right to say: 'Look at the facts.'"

But the former vice-president would not move to open his files at the University of Delaware for a search of documents pertaining to Ms Reade. Despite repeated questioning from Brezezinski, Mr Biden insisted those 1,800 boxes of documents did not contain any personnel files and would be used as political "fodder" for his ongoing presidential campaign.

Happy now?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on May 01, 2020, 03:04:52 PM
Not to be argumentative, but we don't know what her story or complaint would have been.  The evidence that Biden assaulted her is scant, and she apparently didn't report it even though she said she did.
]

Couple points on this.  Kasandra is right, the evidence that Biden assualted her is scant.  It's really her word against his.  The corroboration on the other hand is much much higher than was the case with Blasey Ford, which presents a real problem for those that believed Ford and found her credible. 

I will point out, there's no basis to the assertion that she "apparently didn't report it."  If they find the report its proof she did make it.  But even if they don't find it it's not proof that she didn't.  I mean, we can all imagine that a report made through her supervisors, at the time, may have been buried or thrown away rather than filed.  Heck, even it was filed, it would have likely ended up in the Senate's secret files where they settle claims - which I suspect is not the case since they didn't settle it. 

Quote
I certainly don't know what did or didn't happen, but a number of investigations are ongoing in the press.  As far as I know, none of them has reached any strong opinion/conclusion on what might have happened.  Do you think you know?

I think there's a question about what the press is investigating.  Are they looking for support or to disprove the assertions?  There's no question about which way they went on Kavanaugh and the extent they went to uncover everything they could find.  They were relentless and demanded from the first second that the FBI get involved, and that Kavanaugh be required to testify under oath before Blasey Ford.  Here, notwithstanding the ability to access Biden they didn't even raise the question.

They made zero effort to force him onto the record.  Even now they didn't probe him hard on his denial.  To me an obvious follow up to Biden was to ask him if Reade, or any other assistants, were ever tasked with bringing him his gym bag.  I mean, his practice on that should be in his memory.  And if he has a specific memory about her doing so that would be very interesting (even a specific memory that she was not one that did so would be interesting). 

The press could easily have gotten Reade on their programs, made her repeat her story over and over, which would have set the terms in stone and made it possible to verify or refute it.  Yet they didn't do that.  I note there's an interesting parallel to Blasey Ford here.  The press has been absolutely unwilling to get her on record again, which I find very suspicious.  I suspect the more she talked the less credible she would be, much like how some are taking the changes in Reade's story over time as evidence that it's not true.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on May 01, 2020, 03:06:29 PM
...Happy now?

Biden is done. His only salvation would be the MSM, and as his problems mount, they must try to retain a semblance of journalism in order to be most effective apologists for the VP as she takes the baton. My guess is Biden will drop the baton on the hand-off.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: yossarian22c on May 01, 2020, 03:11:00 PM
...Happy now?

Biden is done. His only salvation would be the MSM, and as his problems mount, they must try to retain a semblance of journalism in order to be most effective apologists for the VP as she takes the baton. My guess is Biden will drop the baton on the hand-off.

I wish Biden was done. But Trump also has people accusing of similar things along with his admission that as a celebrity you can do anything you want, "grab them by the p----", which is exactly what Biden is accused of doing.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: rightleft22 on May 01, 2020, 03:18:26 PM
...Happy now?

Biden is done. His only salvation would be the MSM, and as his problems mount, they must try to retain a semblance of journalism in order to be most effective apologists for the VP as she takes the baton. My guess is Biden will drop the baton on the hand-off.

I also wish that was true - there is no country for old men - lets move on

That said the hypocrisy of making allegations such as this a political right or left thing is stunning.  If you going to play in *censored* your going to get some in your mouth.

 
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on May 01, 2020, 03:26:38 PM
Quote
I will point out, there's no basis to the assertion that she "apparently didn't report it."  If they find the report its proof she did make it.  But even if they don't find it it's not proof that she didn't.  I mean, we can all imagine that a report made through her supervisors, at the time, may have been buried or thrown away rather than filed.  Heck, even it was filed, it would have likely ended up in the Senate's secret files where they settle claims - which I suspect is not the case since they didn't settle it.

Straight out of the rightwing playbook. 

1. Nobody can find it.
2. That doesn't mean she didn't file it.
3. In fact, it's easy to imagine that she did file it and it simply got lost.
4. It could even be in the "Senate's secret files" where we will never see it.
5. THEREFORE, there's no evidence that she didn't file it, and since there's no evidence she didn't file it and all the reasons why it can't be found, there's no reason not to think that she did file it.
6. And the big windup: yet more reason to believe that Biden did it.

But, let's not stop there.  Let's imagine that Reade withdraws her claims against Biden (again).  Why would she do that?

1. It could be that she lied and it never happened.
2. OTOH, it could be that Biden's surrogates got to her and told her what could happen to her if she continued talking.
3. It could be they tell her they have evidence linking her to Putin.
4, 5, 6...

and 7. Except for #1 all of the possible reasons show coercion to get her to withdraw her claims.  That's 1 against 6.  The odds are therefore (hmm, *censored*ing dog ate the calculator again, not going to wait two days to get it back this time...so, multiply - no divide...carry the...do I subtract now...?, ah!) 86% that Biden did it.

This is looking better all the time!

Lambert, Seriati, check my numbers.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on May 01, 2020, 03:39:23 PM
I find the way you characterize these two events very revealing.  On their records with respect to women, Kavanaugh is actually better than Biden. Kavanaugh's entire record is of uplifting women in his professional life and personal life, without any support for the character attack.  Biden's record is also very strong on his public acts and his political history.  However, it's Biden, not Kavanaugh, that has a record of touching women without consent, a record that is repeatedly demonstrated through photographic evidence, and that includes the underage. 

On the other hand, it's also Biden, who only 2 short years earlier was chair of the judiciary committee during the hearings on Clarence Thomas.  While he's been criticized for how he handled that hearing, it does reveal his real time position on the issues, which I take as some version of evolving out of the "old" model of doubting the woman without exceptional proof and a pre-cursor to me too.  It certainly led to him being very active on this issue over the next several years (including will Reade worked for him) and to his push on the Violence against women act immediately thereafter.  I tend to think that makes him less likely to be someone that would have done this, but I am aware that personal abusers are often public condemners of others.  I could certainly see women in his office covering for him in the interest of the greater good.

Drunk teen attempts rape at party - not particularly beyond the pale.  Drunk guy doesn't remember being drunk or engaging in heinous activity - not really surprising.  Hard core drinker lies repeatedly about drinking - not particularly unexpected.  Person who claims to be the victim of said attempted rape remembers lots of details that noone else does - not surprising at all.

So highly plausible but tough to verify - what was verifiable was consistent. She was a highly credible witness.

So, if you make up a version of a story that sounds plausible it becomes more likely?  Interesting that you didn't follow that approach for Biden below, where it's pretty easy to make up a story about a powerful Senator that feels entitled to put his hands on others and isn't aware of or doesn't respect their discomfort.  Keep in mind we're still years before the Lewinsky scandal, which made it very clear that use of interns for sexual purposes was something that occurred and was routinely covered up. 

Quote
Sober Senator sexually assaults staffer in corridors without any history that would imply he is likely or capable of such - quite surprising.  Staffer is an ardent supporter of his repeatedly and publically after the event and only changes dramatically after she has a substantial change in politics - somewhat surprising.  Staffer has drastically inconsistent stories about all aspects of the claims (what happened to her, why she left, why she came forward) - pretty surprising.  Things that are easily verifiable aren't able to be verified (filing a complaint with HR, complaining to staffers) - pretty surprising.  The only collaboration of her claim is for a drastically less serious claim.  She has an either highly faulty memory or has lied repeatedly about even fairly minor things (ie her praise of Putin).

It's also interesting that for K, you make up a lot of facts about K that make it sound worse, (e.g. calling it rape instead of groping, multiple references to being a drunk and not remembering) and ignore all the inconsistencies in the accusers story - and there were a large number of things that made no sense, including that no one else remembers being at such a party.  Yet with Biden, you spend most of your time focusing on how Reade's story changed, why ignore that Ford's story also changed?  That the number of people at the party changed, the number of attackers changed, that new details were added decades later?  And you ignore that between the two Reade is the one that told the story real time - not decades later - and that it's Reade who others confirmed they were told and for whom there is real time evidence of the connection and that she told others something happened?

It seems like what you find "plausible" has little to do with the underlying facts and everything to do with the parties involved, as there's basis to think Ford's record is stronger than Reades.  Now that said, neither one of them has remotely met the burden of proof.

Given how passionate you were on this for K, I can't find any part of your position here as reasonable.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on May 01, 2020, 03:42:03 PM
In other words, circumstantially Kavanaugh was innocent, circumstantially Thomas was wronged and circumstantially Biden is guilty.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDrake on May 01, 2020, 03:44:11 PM
I'd have a really easy time believing that Biden made advances on a staff member, and touched them inappropriately. I have a hard time envisioning that with no preamble he just reached up her skirt in a public hallway and then never did anything like that again. I still hope the scandal brings him down because I'm a #neverBiden for dozens of unrelated reasons.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: rightleft22 on May 01, 2020, 04:09:38 PM
Quote
I'd have a really easy time believing that Biden made advances on a staff member, and touched them inappropriately.

Dangerous ground to hold someone accountable for what you can imagine/believe them capable of doing.

I thought we let go of these types of allegations mattering with the election of Trump. We Don't Care, and if we did care it didn't matter so why the debate. Let us admit the truth or be hypocrites.

FYI those on the left who want to defeat the GOP in the next election any debate on these types of matters plays into the GOP hands. Focus on the Issues that you can back up with facts and avoid the distractions.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on May 01, 2020, 04:12:12 PM
In other words, circumstantially Kavanaugh was innocent, circumstantially Thomas was wronged and circumstantially Biden is guilty.

Circumstantial is only part of it. The main factor is what was true and proven, and what was false, and disproven. The only circumstantial part of it is the character and history of both men. Kavanaugh was always a paragon of virtue as attested by everyone who knew him. Biden has film clip after film clip of him inappropriately touching women, and having no scruples about what is right and wrong as proved by his enriching his family in so many tawdry ways.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on May 01, 2020, 04:15:36 PM
...I thought we let go of these types of allegations mattering with the election of Trump. We Don't Care, and if we did care it didn't matter so why the debate. Let us admit the truth or be hypocrites.

No. Trump's character has always been upheld by the people who know him and attested to his good qualities. Those character failures you cite were created out of whole cloth, and so embraced by the Never-Trumpers that you all consider them proven facts.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on May 01, 2020, 04:16:12 PM
Quote
I will point out, there's no basis to the assertion that she "apparently didn't report it."  If they find the report its proof she did make it.  But even if they don't find it it's not proof that she didn't.  I mean, we can all imagine that a report made through her supervisors, at the time, may have been buried or thrown away rather than filed.  Heck, even it was filed, it would have likely ended up in the Senate's secret files where they settle claims - which I suspect is not the case since they didn't settle it.

Straight out of the rightwing playbook.

It's actually straight out of the logic playbook.  You made an unfounded claim, that's not my fault.  I've never said she made the report, only that you have no basis to assert she didn't. 

Quote
6. And the big windup: yet more reason to believe that Biden did it.

Can you quote me where I said there is a reason to believe Biden did it?  Play the strawman game if you want.  There's no proof this occurred and reasons to believe it's unlikely it did, but it's far more supported than Blasey-Ford's assertions, which again is a problem for anyone that believed Ford and doesn't believe Reade (e.g., problem for Milano, not a problem for McGowan).

Not sure why you seem to take this so personally.  Are you really that invested in things you can't know the truth of?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on May 01, 2020, 04:34:14 PM
In other words, circumstantially Kavanaugh was innocent, circumstantially Thomas was wronged and circumstantially Biden is guilty.

Not sure what whose words you think you are restating, but I never said any of that.  It's also a fact that if you've ever asserted believe all women you're a hypocrite if you don't believe Reade.  Her account already has more support than many that have been part of that movement. 

I'm pretty much on the record that establishing guilt requires proof.  It's not just a matter of choosing who you want to believe more.  Me too was always about choosing who to believe more, just like the position it was rebelling against was choosing who to believe.  Guilt though is not about belief it's about proof.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on May 01, 2020, 04:43:04 PM
Quote
It's also a fact that if you've ever asserted believe all women you're a hypocrite if you don't believe Reade.

There you go again. Have I?  Do you think I have done that, even circumstantially?

Quote
Her account already has more support than many that have been part of that movement.

Any idea why so many women and women's groups are standing behind Biden on this one?  Is it only because every one of them is suffering from TDS?

Quote
I'm pretty much on the record that establishing guilt requires proof.  It's not just a matter of choosing who you want to believe more.  Me too was always about choosing who to believe more, just like the position it was rebelling against was choosing who to believe.  Guilt though is not about belief it's about proof.

That is so obviously not true that it's laughable.  I've tussled with you often enough in the past to know that you are a decent parlor lawyer, but your proof always seems to come down uniformly on one side of every issue.

If you're all about proof, will you agree that there's no proof that Biden did what Reade claims?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on May 01, 2020, 04:48:53 PM
Quote
Her account already has more support than many that have been part of that movement.

Any idea why so many women and women's groups are standing behind Biden on this one?  Is it only because every one of them is suffering from TDS?

Actually yes.  It's pretty much 100% hating Trump and preferring a Democrat over Trump, any Democrat even one that actually committed crimes.

Quote
Quote
I'm pretty much on the record that establishing guilt requires proof.  It's not just a matter of choosing who you want to believe more.  Me too was always about choosing who to believe more, just like the position it was rebelling against was choosing who to believe.  Guilt though is not about belief it's about proof.

That is so obviously not true that it's laughable.  I've tussled with you often enough in the past to know that you are a decent parlor lawyer, but your proof always seems to come down uniformly on one side of every issue.

If you're all about proof, will you agree that there's no proof that Biden did what Reade claims?

Of course.  There is no proof this occurred.

Again, it's your strawman that I said Biden is guilty.  My point was straightforward and simple.  Reade's claim is stronger and more supported than Blasey-Ford's and only the hypocritical would claim otherwise.  Parse it out yourself, but if you believe Ford and not Reade you are a hypocrite too.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on May 01, 2020, 04:54:49 PM
Quote
Actually yes.  It's pretty much 100% hating Trump and preferring a Democrat over Trump, any Democrat even one that actually committed crimes.

So, Democrats have absolutely no moral integrity.  Gotcha.

Quote
Reade's claim is stronger and more supported than Blasey-Ford's and only the hypocritical would claim otherwise.

Is this like using a point scoring system?  Since you have no proof, which you insist is necessary, you resort to claiming circumstantially that she is probably telling the truth because it would be hypocritical to think otherwise.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: rightleft22 on May 01, 2020, 04:55:14 PM
...I thought we let go of these types of allegations mattering with the election of Trump. We Don't Care, and if we did care it didn't matter so why the debate. Let us admit the truth or be hypocrites.

No. Trump's character has always been upheld by the people who know him and attested to his good qualities. Those character failures you cite were created out of whole cloth, and so embraced by the Never-Trumpers that you all consider them proven facts.

Bidens character has always been upheld by the people who know him... Those character failures you cite were created...  embraced by never-dem's.. bla bla bla

Must be nice to know how right you are and having made your case anyone that does not agree must be deluded. The Hypocrisy amazing, and that you can't see it, sad

Family values poultices is over. You can argue that you think values and character maters as you have no ground to stand on. Give it up and focus on the issues
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on May 01, 2020, 05:53:26 PM
Quote
I'm pretty much on the record that establishing guilt requires proof.  It's not just a matter of choosing who you want to believe more.  Me too was always about choosing who to believe more, just like the position it was rebelling against was choosing who to believe.  Guilt though is not about belief it's about proof.

That is so obviously not true that it's laughable.  I've tussled with you often enough in the past to know that you are a decent parlor lawyer, but your proof always seems to come down uniformly on one side of every issue.

It is laughable to want truth over subjecture? You do realize what you just posted?

The Me Too movement is something out of pre-Revolutionary War days, when the King's court could proclaim you guilty and you had to prove your innocence, even without confronting your accuser. In this country, the Constitution says one is innocent unless proven guilty. The Never-Trumpers are strongly on the wrong side of history.

BTW; I have only seen Seriati coming down on the side of truth when it is proven. You should take a page out of his book.

The Democrats are standing strongly behind Biden, and as the sunlight shines, he may lose some support.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: NobleHunter on May 01, 2020, 06:32:44 PM
No. Trump's character has always been upheld by the people who know him and attested to his good qualities. Those character failures you cite were created out of whole cloth, and so embraced by the Never-Trumpers that you all consider them proven facts.

It is so entertaining to hear you continually praise the character and good quality of a man who has cheated on all of his wives.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: DonaldD on May 01, 2020, 06:44:31 PM
No. Trump's character has always been upheld by the people who know him and attested to his good qualities. Those character failures you cite were created out of whole cloth, and so embraced by the Never-Trumpers that you all consider them proven facts.

It is so entertaining to hear you continually praise the character and good quality of a man who has cheated on all of his wives.
Not to mention someone who has been accused by more than 20 women of, at the least, sexual impropriety, as well as a man who used his position with the Miss Universe pageant to walk through the teenage girls' changing rooms while they were changing and often partly naked - talk about being skeevy and making women feel uncomfortable...
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on May 01, 2020, 06:52:25 PM
...Bidens character has always been upheld by the people who know him... Those character failures you cite were created...  embraced by never-dem's.. bla bla bla.

No, Biden is tarred by his own actions. We all saw him bragging about his family, yet you overlook the drug problems and illegal enrichments from his political connections. Trump's family is as well-balanced, successful, and worthy as anything out of the Camelot days of JFK. Even Trump's former wives have supported him. It's not them who prevents the magazines from putting Melania on their covers. The problem with saying there are "Never-Dems" is that history is not on your side. When you project your own short-comings onto others, you don't get to tarnish them with your own dirty laundry.

...Must be nice to know how right you are and having made your case anyone that does not agree must be deluded. The Hypocrisy amazing, and that you can't see it, sad.


Again, projection does not work. Presenting facts and debunking disinformation is not delusion, but denying them is. Biden is a non-apologetic offensive toucher. Take note for future action. If you disagree when disinformation is debunked, you should reaffirm the opposite point if you can. ...Not insult the person ofering you honesty and truth. If you don't sgree, prove your point instead of bullying.

...Family values poultices is over. You can argue that you think values and character maters as you have no ground to stand on. Give it up and focus on the issues

Wading through the typos, the solid ground is not about to be weakened by claims that Biden is a paragon of virtue; or that I, or others with clear consciouses, have any reason to feel shame.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on May 01, 2020, 07:46:13 PM
Thinking about this a bit more, it may be a bit of blessing in disguise for democrats. Biden is a shell right now. That's not a slam - he's approaching 80 and sh*t happens. I've seen plenty of 78-year-olds who are razor-sharp and others who are basically incoherent.

This could be forcing function to swap him out sooner than later. For the record, he doesn't strike me as someone who would do worst kind of things Reade said, but what the hell do I know.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Aris Katsaris on May 01, 2020, 10:43:25 PM
No, judging literally by the "color of a man's skin" is actually called colorism, and it's distinct from racism (though of course closely linked to it).

You can read about 10m articles on racism that refer to the color of a man's skin, not to mention that it's been taught that way through the schools to hundreds of millions of Americans and billions around the world.

Too bad, those articles are then wrong.

Categorization of people into "races" is only incidentally about skin-color. People use skin-color as a shorthand, not as the reality of what racists actually think it's about.

Quote
Actually just false.  Democrats were and still are the party that views race as a legitimate basis upon which to hang material rights differences.

So when exactly did the Deep South (Alabama, Mississippi, etc) supposedly switch from being fanatically racist to being fanatically anti-racist, from always supporting the racists of the DNC to always supporting the (supposed) anti-racists of the Republican party? And how did the most racist part of the country suddenly become the least racist then?

This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm expecting an answer here. There's many questions I pose that go conveniently not-answered, and I tend to believe that that's because you can't answer them.

Quote
Quote
Every black, Latino or Arab person in the United States can be attacked in the exact same manner as he attacked the four congresswomen, telling them that they should go back to the countries they "came from", even though they're born in America.

Well that's not the same basis.  For it to be the "same basis" they'd have to be advocating stupid anti-American policies, then they could.  I mean I've heard people tell Bernie Sanders he should move to Russia and to Venezuela.  He's not from either but he does in fact advocate their stupid policies.

Exactly, he's white and because he's white you didn't tell him to move back to his country (his family was "originally" from Poland), just to countries that (supposedly) share his politics. Sanders wasn't "originally" from Venezuela or Russia, yet told to go *there*, rather than Poland.

White people are, you see, treated as actual Americans and treated according to their opinions not, not as second-class citizens and by their origins.
That's exactly my point.

And, yes, btw, anyone who told Sanders to go back to Israel, they'd be an antisemite, and if they said Poland they'd be a racist, same way that Trump telling an "originally from Puerto Rico" woman to go back to Puerto Rico, is a racist.

Quote
On the other hand, you are correct as a very general level, anyone can be insulted by being told to go back where they came from.  I've heard tribal leaders say that about white people, however, in that case I suspect you believe that they are entitled to do so (again, consistency of principals not being a strong suit among those making your arguments).

If a "tribal leader" was running for president of the United States and told white people to go back where they came from (i.e. leave the United States), I'd call them a racist too. I had no problem calling Mugabe in Zimbabwe a racist.

Quote
I think your comment is revealing.  There's zero evidence that he's far right.  His positions are pretty much center right.
Three questions here:

1) In the republican primaries of 2016, or indeed any republican primary in the last 20 years, will you please name candidates that were further to the "right" than him?
2) Among all the political leaders of democratic nations anywhere in the world, can you name three people who are further to the right than him?
3) Do you also believe Lepen in France to be "center right"?

Again not rhetorical questions, please answer these.

Quote
Trump has pursued reasonable policies that are justifiable in all these areas.  Calling him a racist because you can't explain why his policies are wrong is ridiculous.

I'm calling him a racist because he told certain non-white people (ones who'd displeased him, of course), people who had been born in America, to go back to the countries they were "originally" from, and questioned their desire to have a say on how that Great Nation of Yours is to be run.

No matter how you squirm and try to downplay and excuse it, this alone (let alone the dozens other things he's done) would have sufficed to categorize him as a despicable racist, beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on May 02, 2020, 07:31:17 AM
Quote
It is laughable to want truth over subjecture? You do realize what you just posted?

In my ongoing effort to help you see things as they really are instead of how you imagine them to be, I'll point out that you made two neological errors in one sentence there.  You made up the word subjecture and should have used truthy instead of truth*.  You credit Seriati with telling the truth, when he really only artfully makes his narrow opinions sound plausible and somehow authoritative; hence, he is being truthy.  I do give him credit for his art, but not his subjecture. 

In using subjecture you betray your inability to focus on and grasp what people who disagree with you are thinking.  If you were able to see what they are thinking, you would be able to come up with a real word or phrase to describe what that is. I think you meant to say something like "disgusting distortions of the truth".  There you can see again how truthy (or truthiness) would be more correct.

The psychological term for claiming that other people you don't like are guilty of the kind of bias that infects your own thinking is projecture**.

* Truthy isn't really a neologism, but Stephen Colbert gave the word its current usage: "Only superficially true; that [which] is asserted or felt instinctively to be true, with no recourse to facts.
** Usage alert: That's a real word.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: rightleft22 on May 02, 2020, 10:53:08 AM
Quote
...Bidens character has always been upheld by the people who know him... Those character failures you cite were created...  embraced by never-dem's.. bla bla bla.

Quote
No, Biden is tarred by his own actions. We all saw him bragging about his family, yet you overlook the drug problems and illegal enrichments from his political connections. Trump's family is as well-balanced, successful, and worthy as anything out of the Camelot days of JFK. Even Trump's former wives have supported him. It's not them who prevents the magazines from putting Melania on their covers. The problem with saying there are "Never-Dems" is that history is not on your side. When you project your own short-comings onto others, you don't get to tarnish them with your own dirty laundry.

No, Trump is tarred by his own actions, we all see him bragging... demanding ass kissing, yet overlooked.... Biden's family is well-ballanced... bla bla bla

I suspect you would not change your thinking about Trump by such a argument... as its not a argument but a opinion. So why you imagine that your statements on Biden are convincing arguments/opinion I have no idea.

As a apologist you seem not to be able to see past your own crap.

Those who defended Trumps character cannot reverse those arguments to attack Biden character just as those that attacked Trump cannot now reverse those arguments to to defend Biden. There is no ground to stand on without coming off as a hypocrite.

Time to end the charade and admit that we don't care about character or family values if the guy we stand behind acts and does the things we want. The only way to do better at this point is to acknowledge our hypocrisies and let go of this idea of winning at all cost and the ends justifying the means. 

FYI if it was my choice Old men like Trump and Biden would step down, their time has passed and I say that as a old man. Perhaps if either showed signs of wisdom I might change my mind but age does not mean wisdom. 

Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: rightleft22 on May 02, 2020, 11:04:43 AM
@wmLambert -- I noted your issue with my spelling disability - its a vision thing - and wonder if you have a issue with your man's misspeaking and poorly worded/spelled tweets. Or is that yet another hypocrisy your blind to
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on May 02, 2020, 02:00:42 PM
Quote
Wading through the typos, the solid ground is not about to be weakened by claims that Biden is a paragon of virtue; or that I, or others with clear consciouses, have any reason to feel shame.

I just love that!!! :D. Rightleft22, "purity poultices" actually works pretty well.  If you didn't do it on purpose, I still give you full credit for it...:)
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on May 02, 2020, 08:58:14 PM
In other words, circumstantially Kavanaugh was innocent, circumstantially Thomas was wronged and circumstantially Biden is guilty.
No, circumstantially, the media is exercising a double standard on reporting about Biden vs how they'd handle this if the person accused was associated with the Republican Party.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on May 02, 2020, 09:03:04 PM
Quote
Her account already has more support than many that have been part of that movement.

Any idea why so many women and women's groups are standing behind Biden on this one?  Is it only because every one of them is suffering from TDS?

Considering many of those same groups stood behind Bill Clinton just over 20 years ago even in the face of DNA evidence to prove Monica's claim about her semen stained dress... I'd say they're more than willing to sacrifice their morals in order to support their political agendas.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on May 03, 2020, 07:41:42 AM
Quote
Her account already has more support than many that have been part of that movement.

Any idea why so many women and women's groups are standing behind Biden on this one?  Is it only because every one of them is suffering from TDS?

Considering many of those same groups stood behind Bill Clinton just over 20 years ago even in the face of DNA evidence to prove Monica's claim about her semen stained dress... I'd say they're more than willing to sacrifice their morals in order to support their political agendas.

Geez, wouldn't you expect at least one of them to be supporting him out of the same kind of moral perception you are?  I should ask if you think you are applying a partisan filter or are you thinking based on facts and moral perception?  Is Reade so clearly convincing that there can be little doubt that Biden's denials are simply dishonest?  Why don't you think the burden is on her to come up with enough information that a "jury of the public" would find Biden guilty?  Or is that not necessary in this case?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: TheDeamon on May 03, 2020, 11:35:18 AM
Quote
Her account already has more support than many that have been part of that movement.

Any idea why so many women and women's groups are standing behind Biden on this one?  Is it only because every one of them is suffering from TDS?

Considering many of those same groups stood behind Bill Clinton just over 20 years ago even in the face of DNA evidence to prove Monica's claim about her semen stained dress... I'd say they're more than willing to sacrifice their morals in order to support their political agendas.

Geez, wouldn't you expect at least one of them to be supporting him out of the same kind of moral perception you are?  I should ask if you think you are applying a partisan filter or are you thinking based on facts and moral perception?  Is Reade so clearly convincing that there can be little doubt that Biden's denials are simply dishonest?  Why don't you think the burden is on her to come up with enough information that a "jury of the public" would find Biden guilty?  Or is that not necessary in this case?

What you read is not what I said?

The moral prerogative is to determine if the accusation is valid, I held that position for the Republicans, I'll support it for the Dems. How they(the press, not the women's groups) are handing the Biden claim is how they should have handled the other claims against the Republicans, but of course that isn't what happened. And probably won't happen again in the future when the next "high profile" Republican is accused(that isn't Trump).

The comparison against how those groups circled around Bill Clinton, even in the face of indisputable (DNA) proof that he engaged in sexual acts with one of his interns. Was to point out that "there is a history" on these types of things where these women's advocacy groups apply very different standards for Democrats. The Reade accusations don't come anywhere near that standard of evidence, so that "so many women's rights groups" aren't even waiting for information one way or the other isn't shocking to me, they're completely politically motivated at the best of times.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: wmLambert on May 03, 2020, 12:15:55 PM
... "there is a history" on these types of things where these women's advocacy groups apply very different standards for Democrats. The Reade accusations don't come anywhere near that standard of evidence, so that "so many women's rights groups" aren't even waiting for information one way or the other isn't shocking to me, they're completely politically motivated at the best of times.

Thirty years ago Rush Limbaugh spoke about the Feminazis and the Left pilloried him for it. He seems to have been totally vindicated over the years. I wonder why so few have mentioned that COVID-19 seem to affect men at a far greater rate than women? Some doctors have started to prescribe estrogen and progesterone as a preventative.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on May 03, 2020, 12:19:05 PM
... "there is a history" on these types of things where these women's advocacy groups apply very different standards for Democrats. The Reade accusations don't come anywhere near that standard of evidence, so that "so many women's rights groups" aren't even waiting for information one way or the other isn't shocking to me, they're completely politically motivated at the best of times.

Thirty years ago Rush Limbaugh spoke about the Feminazis and the Left pilloried him for it. He seems to have been totally vindicated over the years. I wonder why so few have mentioned that COVID-19 seem to affect men at a far greater rate than women? Some doctors have started to prescribe estrogen and progesterone as a preventative.

I was ready to call BS on this but it's actually true (the estrogen/progesterone part at least).\
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on May 03, 2020, 03:13:46 PM
... "there is a history" on these types of things where these women's advocacy groups apply very different standards for Democrats. The Reade accusations don't come anywhere near that standard of evidence, so that "so many women's rights groups" aren't even waiting for information one way or the other isn't shocking to me, they're completely politically motivated at the best of times.

Thirty years ago Rush Limbaugh spoke about the Feminazis and the Left pilloried him for it. He seems to have been totally vindicated over the years. I wonder why so few have mentioned that COVID-19 seem to affect men at a far greater rate than women? Some doctors have started to prescribe estrogen and progesterone as a preventative.

I was ready to call BS on this but it's actually true (the estrogen/progesterone part at least).\

Nowhere are female hormones being used to prevent infection.  There are two small studies going on right now to test the effect of giving them to patients who are in hospital with COVID-19.

Quote
Some experts who study sex differences in immunity, however, warned that hormones may fail to be the magic bullet that some are hoping for; even elderly women with Covid-19 are outliving their male peers, and there is a drastic reduction in levels of hormones for women after menopause.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on May 03, 2020, 03:37:18 PM
... "there is a history" on these types of things where these women's advocacy groups apply very different standards for Democrats. The Reade accusations don't come anywhere near that standard of evidence, so that "so many women's rights groups" aren't even waiting for information one way or the other isn't shocking to me, they're completely politically motivated at the best of times.

Thirty years ago Rush Limbaugh spoke about the Feminazis and the Left pilloried him for it. He seems to have been totally vindicated over the years. I wonder why so few have mentioned that COVID-19 seem to affect men at a far greater rate than women? Some doctors have started to prescribe estrogen and progesterone as a preventative.

I was ready to call BS on this but it's actually true (the estrogen/progesterone part at least).\

Nowhere are female hormones being used to prevent infection.  There are two small studies going on right now to test the effect of giving them to patients who are in hospital with COVID-19.


That's true and I wasn’t actually paying attention to the “prevention” part of his post. Looks like it’s being tested only on those already infected.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on May 03, 2020, 04:44:59 PM
It's to your credit that you didn't fall for the misleading characterization.  That sort of "reporting" has been used to tout the chlorquine and other solutions without the proper caveats or clarifications.  As far as I understand the situation, the only chemical or biologically active treatment that has yielded results is remdesivir, but that is also being mischaracterized and overstated.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: yossarian22c on May 04, 2020, 01:18:15 PM
It's to your credit that you didn't fall for the misleading characterization.  That sort of "reporting" has been used to tout the chlorquine and other solutions without the proper caveats or clarifications.  As far as I understand the situation, the only chemical or biologically active treatment that has yielded results is remdesivir, but that is also being mischaracterized and overstated.

Remdesivir reduces average hospitalization from 15 to 11 days without increasing mortality as the malaria drug did. Its significant, because if it can be given sooner it is likely to be more effective because of how anti-virals work; the earlier the treatment starts the more effective it is. Reducing hospitalization stay time and potentially reducing future hospitalizations is significant in preventing overloads to the medical community. But you are right to view it realistically, a 11 day hospital stay is still extremely significant and there wasn't much to report about reduced mortality.

Also without significant increases to PPE and compartmentalization of covid patients so hospitals can return to much of their other regular work the medical community is going to be facing continued stress and hardship over the summer. I think NYC should be filling up the Javid center with covid patients and allowing their hospitals to return to other regular care. Such dedicated facilities may be needed other places too. Potentially allowing medical staff to rotate through the covid facilities for 2 week or month long tours of duty to try to avoid the burn out that is starting to happen from the increased stress they are facing in the hot zones and ICUs.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on May 04, 2020, 01:20:19 PM
Quote
Also without significant increases to PPE and compartmentalization of covid patients so hospitals can return to much of their other regular work the medical community is going to be facing continued stress and hardship over the summer. I think NYC should be filling up the Javid center with covid patients and allowing their hospitals to return to other regular care. Such dedicated facilities may be needed other places too. Potentially allowing medical staff to rotate through the covid facilities for 2 week or month long tours of duty to try to avoid the burn out that is starting to happen from the increased stress they are facing in the hot zones and ICUs.

A novel idea appropriate to dealing with the novel coronavirus.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Seriati on May 04, 2020, 01:37:40 PM
Quote
Actually yes.  It's pretty much 100% hating Trump and preferring a Democrat over Trump, any Democrat even one that actually committed crimes.

So, Democrats have absolutely no moral integrity.  Gotcha.

Certain Democrats have no moral integrity.  I suspect for the women's group involved they do have moral integrity, but it's a matter of weighing moral alternatives.  Ultimately they are willing to sacrifice "believe all women" on the alter of choosing Biden over Trump, which they believe is by far the lesser evil.  I'd suspect that they rationalize this internally by just refusing to believe that Reade's accusations are anything but a fabrication.  It's exactly what they did when Bill Clinton was accused as well.  It's in fact rational on their parts.  The only evidence I've ever seen about voting between the parties is that Republicans will on occasion vote against their own interests over principal (Doug Jones in the Senate for example). 

Quote
Quote
Reade's claim is stronger and more supported than Blasey-Ford's and only the hypocritical would claim otherwise.

Is this like using a point scoring system?  Since you have no proof, which you insist is necessary, you resort to claiming circumstantially that she is probably telling the truth because it would be hypocritical to think otherwise.

Yes it's point scoring system.  Not sure what nonsense you're parsing in your head to think otherwise.  Reade's accusation was talked about by Reade real time, Ford's only decades later.  Reade actually worked for Biden in the time period in question, Ford there's no real evidence they were together.  Something happened to Reade that prompted a change in job circumstances, no indication of anything for Ford.  Multiple people have come forward confirming specific or general statements made by Reade over decades, Ford?  Everyone she claims was there, including her friend, says they weren't.  Her witnesses are her husband and a limited release from her pschologist that doesn't name names and has an inconsistency over the number of people involved.   Did she release other records?  Nope.  Her supposed lie detector test?  Didn't release any of the verification information required to validate the results, and even the test itself was worthless as it didn't ask any direct questions, only questions about a statement.

There's really no world where Ford is more credible that Reade.  That doesn't mean either event happened or didn't happen.  If you believed Ford and don't believe Reade, it's just hypocrisy.

No. Trump's character has always been upheld by the people who know him and attested to his good qualities. Those character failures you cite were created out of whole cloth, and so embraced by the Never-Trumpers that you all consider them proven facts.

Bidens character has always been upheld by the people who know him... Those character failures you cite were created...  embraced by never-dem's.. bla bla bla

Not sure Biden's character as compared to Trump is the relevant measure.  K's reputation was sterling before the accusations, literally about as good as it could get.  Biden's is good but not better.  If reputation was enough then there's no explaining the differing treatment other that partisan ridiculousness.

So again, can anyone on the left call out their own side?  Does it not matter at all how ridiculous the imbalance is?  Is justice for all and fairness and equal protection just a dead letter in favor of your team can not be wrong no matter what?
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: ScottF on May 04, 2020, 01:46:44 PM
I'd suspect that they rationalize this internally by just refusing to believe that Reade's accusations are anything but a fabrication.

Sounds reasonable but then I saw this tweet from Lisa Bloom, daughter of Gloria Allred and an attorney as well:

"I believe you, Tara Reade.
You have people who remember you told them about this decades ago.
We know he is "handsy."
You're not asking for $.
You've obviously struggled mightily with this.
I still have to fight Trump, so I will still support Joe.
But I believe you. And I'm sorry"

I believe you but I'm still supporting him because I must fight Trump. I will credit her for being honest, but that's about it.
Title: Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
Post by: Kasandra on May 04, 2020, 01:50:02 PM
Quote
Certain Democrats have no moral integrity.  I suspect for the women's group involved they do have moral integrity, but it's a matter of weighing moral alternatives.  Ultimately they are willing to sacrifice "believe all women" on the alter of choosing Biden over Trump, which they believe is by far the lesser evil.  I'd suspect that they rationalize this internally by just refusing to believe that Reade's accusations are anything but a fabrication.  It's exactly what they did when Bill Clinton was accused as well.  It's in fact rational on their parts.  The only evidence I've ever seen about voting between the parties is that Republicans will on occasion vote against their own interests over principal (Doug Jones in the Senate for example).

Certainly true for Republicans, as well.  Think about Anita Hill, Christine Ford and all the women who have accused Trump without any support from any of them.  What always come through in these sorts of posts from you is a visceral disdain, if not hatred, for Democrats.  It's not rational.

Quote
Yes it's point scoring system.  Not sure what nonsense you're parsing in your head to think otherwise.  Reade's accusation was talked about by Reade real time, Ford's only decades later.  Reade actually worked for Biden in the time period in question, Ford there's no real evidence they were together.