We gotta talk about Uncle Joe

[Fenring]

Thanks for the answers about candidates, TheDrake. It's good to hear someone willing to ignore the letter when it comes to picking the right person.

[Kasandra]

Are you arguing that Biden isn't perfect?  As for Iraq I, Biden voted against that but advocated for Hussein to be deposed.  As for Iraq II, Biden voted for the authorization because he believed they had WMD that might one day be used against the US, but frequently and consistently criticized Bush for invading precipitously and not using diplomacy to oust Hussein.  In 2005 he said publicly that he regretted his vote for the authorization, because it was promulgated based on deception and misleading claims.  OTOH, I agree that he was wrong on the Bankruptcy Bill and the War on Drugs.  But this November's election will (almost certainly) be between Biden and Trump.  There's no question who would be the better alternative.  It won't be anybody who isn't running for the office.

[TheDrake]

On the flip side of this, I would also say that I would probably have voted for any of the other Democratic candidates over Trump, with few exceptions.

It is a copout when Democrats say they only authorized force to be used as a diplomatic tool. You went for it, you own it. You don't hand someone a gun and then pretend you had nothing to do with it when they shoot somebody.

[DonaldD]

It is a copout when Democrats say they only authorized force to be used as a diplomatic tool.

There's a difference between what you wrote, and Kasandra's claim that Biden's decision was based on the idea that Iraq had WMD (read, nuclear).  You seem to be addressing an argument that he didn't make.

[Kasandra]

On the flip side of this, I would also say that I would probably have voted for any of the other Democratic candidates over Trump, with few exceptions.

It is a copout when Democrats say they only authorized force to be used as a diplomatic tool. You went for it, you own it. You don't hand someone a gun and then pretend you had nothing to do with it when they shoot somebody.

That mean looking guy over there has a gun and 10,000 rounds of ammunition.  If we don't shoot him he's going to use that to kill us all in our sleep.  Do we just stand here or do we kill him first?  Wait, what?  You say it's not a gun, it's a gub, but he needed killing anyway?

[Seriati]

He lost the popular vote in 2016 before people had a chance to see him in action.

He's going to lose the popular vote in 2020 as well. It's inevitable. Democrats hate him, and in Democrat strongholds they are going to turn out in massive numbers.  That's what happened in 2016 as well.  In 2016, Trump won 30 states, Clinton won 20 on popular votes.  Clinton however really ran up her numbers in the DNC strong holds.  The CA margin in favor of Clinton was bigger, on it's own, than 23/30 state margins in favor of Trump (from the bottom up), add in NY and it goes to 26/30, and Illinois 28/30.  Basically, running up DNC votes in those 3 states created a popular vote margin almost big enough to tilt the entire "popular" margin in her favor.  CA is just friggin big, and very tilted, I mean Trump got more votes in CA (just over 4.6 million) than he did in 47 out of 50 states, only in TX and FL did he get more votes and even then, it was only around 4.8 million in each), and Hillary still won CA by more than 4 million votes.

But, it's not clear to me that winning big in NY, CA and Illinois really represents a "popular" mandate.  What it represents is actually that certain states with large populations are effectively one party states that wouldn't have much in common with the rest of the country.

His hardest-core and most rabid supporters will never leave him (and even in some cases threaten actual violence if he loses in November), but his base is shrinking rather than growing.

Not sure why you think that, is there new data?  He hit all time high on Republican support back in January.

[wmLambert]

...You have to ask how they would respond to today's issues and how did things they advocated back then turn out.  For instance, to give Fenring a taste, McCain picked Palin as a running mate and once addressed a campaign rally crowd with "My fellow prisoners...".  Bush 1 invaded Iraq, declared victory and left behind a festering cesspool of corruption and human rights chaos.  Meanwhile, Joe Biden had a solid record of achievement back then, so which vintage of Biden are we talking about?

Too many of these celebrities were spiked by the complicit media. For instance, McCain was flattered by that same media into thinking he was their darling. He wasn't -  and when he discovered that, he blamed it on his running mate. Bush 43, was basically a good man (his security detail loved him and Laura) and modeled his Presidency after Reagan, and nor his own father. He was pilloried by that media, but believed he should not resist their attacks and thought they would vet history and his legacy. Trump looked at that treatment and started going around the media via tweets and the bully pulpit. Bush 41 reneged on his promise of no new taxes, and bowed to the pressure of Democrats and the media. For doing what they wanted, he was also pilloried.

Joe Biden never had a real history of accomplishments, he was just hanging in there via tenure, and the blindness of the media to his plagiarism and corrupt money laundering for his family - and without anything like a "Clinton Foundation" to minimize the spotlight on his graft. The media is still avoiding putting him under a journalistic lens to evaluate that history and current mental fragility.

[TheDrake]

I'm not really sure why you put so much stock in how beloved anyone was by their security detail.

[wmLambert]

I'm not really sure why you put so much stock in how beloved anyone was by their security detail.

It goes toward understanding the quality of the person and the dedication to do the right thing. A person who treats his underlings poorly has a small heart and little regard for doing anything honestly or correctly. If these bosses require myrmidons to goose-step to their demands, then what you see is what you get. A President's security detail is inside the publicity façade and sees the person he/she has agreed to take a bullet for. A President really has to work hard and also be stupid to alienate the people who are entrusted with his life. Respect is earned, not just granted. Hillary is famous for belittling her military guards, even making them serve drinks for her festivities. She ordered them not to wear their uniforms, Her friends, the Thomassons (who she destroyed the Travel Office for,) are quoted at griping at a Blue Angels' flyover, until one of their group said, "but, they're our military, now!" Same with Obama. He avoided saluting officers sworn to protect him. Bill Clinton's girlfriend brought cookies and doughnuts for them when Hillary was out of town, and the detail all loved her.

[Kasandra]

He lost the popular vote in 2016 before people had a chance to see him in action.

He's going to lose the popular vote in 2020 as well. It's inevitable. Democrats hate him, and in Democrat strongholds they are going to turn out in massive numbers.  That's what happened in 2016 as well.  In 2016, Trump won 30 states, Clinton won 20 on popular votes.  Clinton however really ran up her numbers in the DNC strong holds.  The CA margin in favor of Clinton was bigger, on it's own, than 23/30 state margins in favor of Trump (from the bottom up), add in NY and it goes to 26/30, and Illinois 28/30.  Basically, running up DNC votes in those 3 states created a popular vote margin almost big enough to tilt the entire "popular" margin in her favor.  CA is just friggin big, and very tilted, I mean Trump got more votes in CA (just over 4.6 million) than he did in 47 out of 50 states, only in TX and FL did he get more votes and even then, it was only around 4.8 million in each), and Hillary still won CA by more than 4 million votes.

But, it's not clear to me that winning big in NY, CA and Illinois really represents a "popular" mandate.  What it represents is actually that certain states with large populations are effectively one party states that wouldn't have much in common with the rest of the country.

His hardest-core and most rabid supporters will never leave him (and even in some cases threaten actual violence if he loses in November), but his base is shrinking rather than growing.

Not sure why you think that, is there new data?  He hit all time high on Republican support back in January.

Winning the popular vote means more people voted for you than for the other guy.  It's as simple as that.  It's not a "mandate" to you because those voters picked a Democrat.  I have high confidence you would be saying the opposite if Trump had won the popular tally by a single vote.  Don't confuse things by implying it means the same thing as the electoral vote.  Each voter in Wyoming has 67 times more influence on the state's electoral votes (and Senate representation) than a voter in California.  In other words, if you weren't so strongly anti-Democrat you would be outraged at the near disenfranchisement of California voters and the lack of proportional representation in the US Senate where the Republican majority represents a minority of the nation's population and tilts toward small states with the highest proportion of white residents.

Who are the Republicans who think so highly of Trump?  Voters who self-identify as Republicans only account for about 30% of eligible voters and overall Trump's approval rating has never reached 50%.  So having 90-95% approval from them (similar to but still less than Reagan) is only a minority of eligible or likely voters. 

As for possible violence if Trump loses in November, how many Biden voters carry AR-15's to protests or into state senate buildings or Walmarts?  Trump complains that elections are rigged when he loses (remember he claimed the only reason he lost California was because 5 million illegal votes were cast for Clinton) and praises armed protesters when they rally against Democratic state governments.  He dismisses polls that show him trailing, fires those who told him those results and tweet-screams LIBERATE to his supporters in states with Democratic Governors even when they follow guidelines recommended by medical and scientific experts in his own Administration.  So, my "source" for worrying about possible violence is Donald Trump.  I can almost imagine him and Eva - sorry, I mean Melania - frantically urging on his supporters up to election day and even more desperately after the votes are counted.

[Kasandra]

Thanks for the answers about candidates, TheDrake. It's good to hear someone willing to ignore the letter when it comes to picking the right person.

Now that you've gotten answers from both TheDrake and me, how about answering your own question:

Biden vs Romney
Biden vs McCain
Biden vs Bush 41

[wmLambert]

Thanks for the answers about candidates, TheDrake. It's good to hear someone willing to ignore the letter when it comes to picking the right person.

Now that you've gotten answers from both TheDrake and me, how about answering your own question:

Biden vs Romney
Biden vs McCain
Biden vs Bush 41

Is it necessary to vet the votes of candidates whom the media has never correctly vetted? I don't remember any MSM talking about plagiarism and graft on Biden's part in those past elections. Now we add mental fragility, and he is a worse prospect than ever.

[Fenring]

Now that you've gotten answers from both TheDrake and me, how about answering your own question:

Your answer was that Kasich is the the only R candidate in recent memory you could ever vote for over a D? I guess that's something.

Biden vs Romney

Romney

Biden vs McCain

Neither.

Biden vs Bush 41

Neither.

You see, for me, the issue isn't who I prefer, but whether I would vote for someone at all. Now if both candidates are at least 'ok' or better, certainly I'll decide which I prefer. If I actively dislike any candidate there is no way I go out and vote for that person and endorse them. IMO that corrupts the system hopelessly and creates mandates that in reality don't exist. People should not ever be in office that are actually disliked, just less than their opponents. Would you hire someone as your CEO if you hated them a little less than the other applicants? Thinking of it that way, it's absurd and twisted logic to use voting as a negative resource.

Of the selection here, I wasn't personally offended by Romney in any particular way and don't think I'd be going against my conscience with him heading the executive. With all the others, yes. And certainly it's the same with Hillary and Trump (that neither would get my vote). Of the 2016 R candidates, for instance, I find it hard to think of any that were acceptable, other than perhaps Rand Paul. I didn't actually think he was a good candidate but he didn't offend me. And although I don't agree with extreme libertarian views, I could vote for someone who is 'good' even those I disagree with their politics. On the D side you know I feel the Bern, and actually in 2016 I didn't think that O'Malley guy came off badly other than he was overshadowed to the point of hilarity.

[TheDeamon]

In 2016, I would have had no issue voting for Bernie in the General Election, he wasn't on my state's ballot and I didn't do a write-in, but I did vote 3rd party that year.

For 2020, I would have strongly considered Tulsi Gabbard or maybe Andrew Yang(although I'm a bit iffy on him), but no way in hell would I vote for Bernie in 2020.

None of the other Democrat candidates really sat well with me, Kamala Harris is one I honestly don't know enough about to make a determination on, but I'm suspecting I'd lean towards an "I pass" on her as well.

[Crunch]

Is Biden gonna make it? With the release of his participation in the illegal unmasking of political opponents today, he's pretty damaged goods beyond even his sexual assault of Tara Reade, his corrupt financial connections to China, and his increasingly obvious mental decline.

Personally, I'd love to see Biden go all the way through the election cycle as the Dem candidate. But, holy sh*t, he's really damaged now. If only this had all happened in August/September. I think there's a good chance he gets dumped in a brokered convention.

[Kasandra]

Crunch, don't let tis slow you down...

National security officials can seek to reveal the identity of individuals involved in conversations subject to government surveillance, a process known as “unmasking.” Such requests are common; for example, last year alone, U.S. spy agencies were asked 7,724 times to reveal the identities of Americans caught up in those intelligence intercepts.

An accompanying memo to Grenell, signed by National Security Agency Director Paul Nakasone, notes that each person was “an authorized recipient” of the information and that the unmasking was approved through the agency’s normal protocol.

[Crunch]

A non-sequiter never does. smh

[Kasandra]

A non-sequiter never does. smh

It's only a non sequitur because it goes against your narrative (TWS).

[Crunch]

 

[Crunch]

Joe Biden has no foreseeable plans to resume in-person campaigning amid a pandemic that is testing whether a national presidential election can be won by a candidate communicating almost entirely from home.

“The idea that somehow we are being hurt by my keeping to the rules and following the instructions that (have) been put forward by doctors is absolutely bizarre,” he told ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

He's never coming out of his basement, is he? Biden is literally going to "mail in" the entire campaign.

[wmLambert]

George Stephanopoulos asked what he knew about the Obama administration’s moves to investigate Flynn, and whether there was anything improper done. Joe said “I know nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn,” Biden initially said Tuesday, calling the topic a “diversion” from the coronavirus pandemic. Then Stephanopoulos noted Biden was at the meeting where it was discussed, and Biden recanted and said, “I was aware that there was—that they asked for an investigation, but that’s all I know about it, and I don’t think anything else ...” Yet he signed the unmasking request.

[wmLambert]

I just noticed a typical Biden embarrassment from February. He made a big deal that Trump put kids in cages, but that he and Obama never did. Then, of all people, George Ramos, showed him a photo of the Obama-Biden cages with kids in them - and Biden rationalized, yeah, we did - but only to keep them safe!

[Kasandra]

It occurs to me to wonder who you and Crunch think you are talking to.

[Crunch]

smh

[Kasandra]

TWS . Post an original thought when you get one.

[wmLambert]

TWS . Post an original thought when you get one.

When the clown nose and Pinocchio syndrome coalesce like it does with you, how can you see past that big red nose to type on a keyboard? And when you do, why is it always insult and zero facts? Crunch is wise to respond minimally when you attack so ludicrously. Even when someone like Seriati takes the time to look at each of your disinformational opinions and document and refute each one, you just respond with more insult and display your inability to answer criticism, constructive or not.

[wmLambert]

Joe Biden is the point of this thread. Derailing discussion of Biden is inappropriate.

[Kasandra]

Joe Biden is the point of this thread. Derailing discussion of Biden is inappropriate.

Sorry, I got distracted by all the other derailments in this thread.  You should make sure that everyone else here knows the purpose is to say negative things about Biden.

[Fenring]

Joe Biden is the point of this thread. Derailing discussion of Biden is inappropriate.

Sorry, I got distracted by all the other derailments in this thread.  You should make sure that everyone else here knows the purpose is to say negative things about Biden.

I believe he was referring to this comment:

It occurs to me to wonder who you and Crunch think you are talking to.

Which is more or less equivalent to saying 'no one cares about your statements about Biden.' As it's a thread literally about talking about Joe, it would seem to be on topic to talk about Joe. The thread title is critical, but that doesn't prevent people saying positive things about him. The lack of anyone doing that is something you might want to think about a bit.

[wmLambert]

7/19: Audio Tape Released Between Corrupt Former Ukrainian President Poroshenko And Joe Biden Discussing Corrupt Activities. John Kerry Also On Tape.

https://creativedestructionmedia.com/investigations/2020/05/19/breaking-audio-tape-released-between-corrupt-former-ukrainian-president-poroshenko-and-joe-biden-discussing-corrupt-activities-john-kerry-also-on-tape/

Look for Joe to claim "health issues" and drop out. This may come after the DNC decides who his VP will be, to become the new nominee.

[Kasandra]

Where's the tape?  They only talk about it without quoting it or letting us listen to it.  Will you apologize for raising this if it turns out to be a dud?

[wmLambert]

Where's the tape?  They only talk about it without quoting it or letting us listen to it.  Will you apologize for raising this if it turns out to be a dud?

The highlights of the translated transcript is presented, and the entire tape is presented at the bottom of the page, although it is in Ukrainian. Just so you'll know for the future, if you scroll down you get more of the web page.

[DJQuag]

Where's the tape?  They only talk about it without quoting it or letting us listen to it.  Will you apologize for raising this if it turns out to be a dud?

The highlights of the translated transcript is presented, and the entire tape is presented at the bottom of the page, although it is in Ukrainian. Just so you'll know for the future, if you scroll down you get more of the web page.

Ornery.org.

Bringing passive aggressiveness designed to slide under forum rules since 1999.

BTW not aimed at you, Lambert, most people here do it.

[TheDrake]

There's nothing new here in these tapes. It proved what Biden already stipulated, that he put pressure on Ukraine to dump the failed and corrupt prosecutor.

[Kasandra]

There's nothing new here in these tapes. It proved what Biden already stipulated, that he put pressure on Ukraine to dump the failed and corrupt prosecutor.

Yes, but it proves his case.  Biden did it: Байден - брудна свиня.  What more do you need?

[Kasandra]

Joe Biden is the point of this thread. Derailing discussion of Biden is inappropriate.

Sorry, I got distracted by all the other derailments in this thread.  You should make sure that everyone else here knows the purpose is to say negative things about Biden.

I believe he was referring to this comment:

It occurs to me to wonder who you and Crunch think you are talking to.

Which is more or less equivalent to saying 'no one cares about your statements about Biden.' As it's a thread literally about talking about Joe, it would seem to be on topic to talk about Joe. The thread title is critical, but that doesn't prevent people saying positive things about him. The lack of anyone doing that is something you might want to think about a bit.

State your own opinions, don't play hall monitor.

[Fenring]

There's nothing new here in these tapes. It proved what Biden already stipulated, that he put pressure on Ukraine to dump the failed and corrupt prosecutor.

Yes, but it proves his case.  Biden did it: Байден - брудна свиня.  What more do you need?

For the record, I liked this because it made me laugh

I don't know who's right on this topic...

[Fenring]

Joe Biden is the point of this thread. Derailing discussion of Biden is inappropriate.

Sorry, I got distracted by all the other derailments in this thread.  You should make sure that everyone else here knows the purpose is to say negative things about Biden.

I believe he was referring to this comment:

It occurs to me to wonder who you and Crunch think you are talking to.

Which is more or less equivalent to saying 'no one cares about your statements about Biden.' As it's a thread literally about talking about Joe, it would seem to be on topic to talk about Joe. The thread title is critical, but that doesn't prevent people saying positive things about him. The lack of anyone doing that is something you might want to think about a bit.

State your own opinions, don't play hall monitor.

It is my opinion that he was referring to that comment...

[Kasandra]

The Tara Reade story may be on the verge of going away.  An investigative report published last week claimed that interviews with 74 staffers who worked for Biden or had close knowledge of his office say her story doesn't hold up.  Today, an article reports that her academic credentials and expertise as an expert witness in domestic violence are being challenged.

Defense lawyers in California are reviewing criminal cases in which Tara Reade, the former Senate aide who has accused Joseph R. Biden Jr. of sexual assault, served as an expert witness on domestic violence, concerned that she misrepresented her educational credentials in court.

Then known as Alexandra McCabe, Ms. Reade testified as a government witness in Monterey County courts for nearly a decade, describing herself as an expert in the dynamics of domestic violence who had counseled hundreds of victims.

But lawyers who had faced off against her in court began raising questions about the legitimacy of her testimony, and the verdicts that followed, after news reports this week that Antioch University had disputed her claim of receiving a bachelor’s degree from its Seattle campus.

[Crunch]

It’s incredible to see the destruction of Reade vs the canonization of Ford. Believe all Women was bull*censored*, now we’ve seen that proven.

[Crunch]

Speaking of Joe:

If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black.

Nice. Black Trump supporters are not really black. Might not even be human beings. 

The party of the KKK really hasn’t changed much.

[cherrypoptart]

Didn't Joe Biden engage in plagiarism?

https://www.businessinsider.com/plagiarism-scandal-joe-biden-first-presidential-run-1988-2019-3

"During an event at the Iowa State Fair, Biden mimicked entire portions of Kinnock's speech from earlier in the year. At one moment, Biden repeated the line that he was the first "in a thousand generations" to graduate from college, gesturing to his wife in the exact same way Kinnock did, while also saying the same line about her education and lineage.

Biden would later acknowledge that he in fact did have relatives who attended college, directly contrasting the Kinnock lines."

I don't know about Tara's possible background of deception but let's just say it's true. Biden also has a background of deception. So if you have two proven liars then who do you believe? Why assume she is lying about the accusation any more than he is lying about the denial if they are both liars? It seems like it would cancel out and you're back to he said / she said.

[Kasandra]

It’s incredible to see the destruction of Reade vs the canonization of Ford. Believe all Women was bull*censored*, now we’ve seen that proven.

If you read the article or similar articles about Reade, you'll find that she has misrepresented her credentials and qualifications for years.  Why doesn't that bother you?

[Kasandra]

Didn't Joe Biden engage in plagiarism?

https://www.businessinsider.com/plagiarism-scandal-joe-biden-first-presidential-run-1988-2019-3

"During an event at the Iowa State Fair, Biden mimicked entire portions of Kinnock's speech from earlier in the year. At one moment, Biden repeated the line that he was the first "in a thousand generations" to graduate from college, gesturing to his wife in the exact same way Kinnock did, while also saying the same line about her education and lineage.

Biden would later acknowledge that he in fact did have relatives who attended college, directly contrasting the Kinnock lines."

I don't know about Tara's possible background of deception but let's just say it's true. Biden also has a background of deception. So if you have two proven liars then who do you believe? Why assume she is lying about the accusation any more than he is lying about the denial if they are both liars? It seems like it would cancel out and you're back to he said / she said.

Do you think the plagiarism charge against Biden is comparable to Reade's decades long deceptions about her credentials and expertise?  If so, you definitely should not vote for Biden, but instead vote for Trump, who has been accused by more than a dozen women of sexual assault if those claims don't bother you.

[ScottF]

Straight talk and laying it right out there, in case you had any doubt: he is going to BEAT Joe Biden.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1263816200334737408

[Aris Katsaris]

Straight talk and laying it right out there, in case you had any doubt: he is going to BEAT Joe Biden.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1263816200334737408

Scott, I think the words he's saying are he's going to BE Joe Biden.

[rightleft22]

Didn't Joe Biden engage in plagiarism?

https://www.businessinsider.com/plagiarism-scandal-joe-biden-first-presidential-run-1988-2019-3

"During an event at the Iowa State Fair, Biden mimicked entire portions of Kinnock's speech from earlier in the year. At one moment, Biden repeated the line that he was the first "in a thousand generations" to graduate from college, gesturing to his wife in the exact same way Kinnock did, while also saying the same line about her education and lineage.

Biden would later acknowledge that he in fact did have relatives who attended college, directly contrasting the Kinnock lines."

I don't know about Tara's possible background of deception but let's just say it's true. Biden also has a background of deception. So if you have two proven liars then who do you believe? Why assume she is lying about the accusation any more than he is lying about the denial if they are both liars? It seems like it would cancel out and you're back to he said / she said.

Do you think the plagiarism charge against Biden is comparable to Reade's decades long deceptions about her credentials and expertise?  If so, you definitely should not vote for Biden, but instead vote for Trump, who has been accused by more than a dozen women of sexual assault if those claims don't bother you.

These types of arguments don't change anything. With the election of Trump arguments of values, morality character no longer matter. The right don't care and for the Left it just another means to devour themselves.

The Trump supporter is going to come off as a hypocrite (another value that does not matter) as is a Biden supporter.
If something like Plagiarism was going to matter you could not vote for either candidate

[ScottF]

Straight talk and laying it right out there, in case you had any doubt: he is going to BEAT Joe Biden.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1263816200334737408

Scott, I think the words he's saying are he's going to BE Joe Biden.

You know what? I just relistened to it a couple more times and I think you're right. Not nearly as funny and doesn't fit my narrative - but good catch.

[wmLambert]

...The Trump supporter is going to come off as a hypocrite (another value that does not matter) as is a Biden supporter.
If something like Plagiarism was going to matter you could not vote for either candidate

Except that the evil Trump you portray is a straw-man. His wives support him and say he is a good man. The only ones railing against him are all political opponents. It all comes back to that illegally leaked tape of his talk with Billy Bush, in which he repeated the statements that were made at the Matt Lauer Roast. (The Never-Trumpers say, "I heard it myself, so I know its true!" Yet what they heard was not what they think they heard.)

[Kasandra]

Doesn't mean anything.  Joe Biden hasn't had as many wives, but his wife still likes him.  Flail away, wmLambert.