Biden:

Our Administration..,"didn't lock people up in cages"

Fact check

But for Biden to say that Obama’s administration did not put people in cages is inaccurate. Obama and Biden in 2014 saw an influx of children arriving at the border without a parent or guardian, and reporting from 2014 by the Arizona Republic referred to a chain-link enclosure holding children as "cages." A former Homeland Security secretary under the Obama administration in interviews has acknowledged that some have described as "cages" the enclosures used during Obama’s tenure.

False.

Liberal rationale:
yes, but Obama's chain-link "enclosures" were not really cages because the policies at the time were different, even though there are photos of immigrant children behind chain-link "barriers" during the Obama admin.


Did the Obama/Biden admin build Trump's "cages"

Fact check: True

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama ... mmigrants/



Liberal rationale:
Yes, but those were built as 'barriers " to protect undocumented families and children from separating themselves while being detained by humanitarian assistants.


Detention centers were atrocious under Obama but worse under Trump

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... obama.html


Liberal rationale: Yes, they might have been atrocious under Obama but they are worse than atrocious under Trump.. Therefore, the detention centers under Trump are more evil and deplorable

The factor about the USA that most perturbs me, typified by Trump, is the gross failure to worry about a coherent policy on national security.

The biggest threats to human security today are climate, jobs and health, which pose clear and present danger. Yet the USA under Trump largely ignores or distorts those major threats, and instead wastes inconceivably vast resources on an obsolete military system that itself probably creates more net harm than help to national and global security.

This scale of delusion is supported by the massive appetite for mythological fantasy in US popular culture, ranging from mad religion to Hollywood movies.

If you believe bullshit you are far more likely to be blindsided by events.

Robert Tulip wrote:If you believe bullshit you are far more likely to be blindsided by events.

Believing absurd things is as much a marker as an influence. I think people who put all their chips on motivated reasoning are often outside of the social and economic circles in which there is a sense of influence on our common destiny. They are often shut out of the debates over policy, and are often too busy with work to be able to experience collective deliberation about sensible choices.

Expressive politics, in which people vote a certain way to express who they think they are, has moved from the shadows into a dominant position. Not that it was ever absent, but now people with the education and affluence to understand their own interests are still subscribing to other people's narratives rather than do the hard thinking to get what is going on. It doesn't help that culture caters to people's preference for escape over engagement.

In "Dark Money" Jane Meyer chronicles the transition of the billionaires from thinking they could just point out their beliefs and have a democracy agree with them, as they thought in the age of the John Birch Society, to recognizing that they had to act with stealth and disguise their motivations and goals. They are no less convinced of their own rightness, and no less determined to get their way (how else would someone become a billionaire?), but they have had to accept that the average person does not care whether they can oppress workers and accumulate monopoly power without government restraint. So they settle for dog whistle division and exploiting the fault lines in society, and now, intentionally muddying the waters of science.

The book "Strangers in their Own Land" by Arlie Hochschild takes the question further by asking why ordinary citizens of Louisiana continue to back the Tea Party, anti-government position even when local authorities are aiding and abetting corporations in ruining their lives with environmental destruction. Many of them are all in on religion, feeling that it keeps them from disintegrating emotionally and signals their commitment to clean living. Do they doubt the environmental facts due to their religious beliefs? No. They are so worried about jobs that they feel that some will just end up suffering so that others can have nice homes and drive nice cars. The pressure of economic desperation, of a felt need to escape the poverty of ordinary life without corporate industry, leads them to accept terrible corporate abuse and politics that reinforces it. Beliefs anchored in ignorance are a marker for their desperation, rather than a cause of irrationality.

Harry Marks wrote:I defy you to find a source that cannot be accused of bias.

ant wrote: Please note my unbiased source
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/

I rest my case.

And in today's news, we find that the Linick firing was because he called out Pompeo for using government resources to indulge his family and get errands run. Two Trump officials have already been ousted for that, but Pompeo evidently prefers the cover-up approach.

We also learned that Donald, Jr has tweeted the insinuation that Biden is a pedophile. Straight out of Mississippi politics. If you can't argue the facts and you can't argue the law, you can still give motivated reasoners an excuse to claim they are on the side of good.

We also learned that Donald, Jr has tweeted the insinuation that Biden is a pedophile. Straight out of Mississippi politics. If you can't argue the facts and you can't argue the law, you can still give motivated reasoners an excuse to claim they are on the side of good.

Way too many videos that have been circulating for a few years now of Biden's hands inappropriately handling females. In particular, under-aged girls. They are easy to find, but apparently more easy for liberals to ignore.

Any man that put his hands on my daughter (or wife) the way Joe Biden h does would have his ass handed to him. His political affiliation would not be enough for me to excuse his behavior.

Ironically, this seems similar to the religious looking the other way when their priests take advantage of their power and influence in the most foul manner possible.
In this case, Biden is a priest like figure who represents a political religion that gives hope to his flock. And we all know how politics can become a substitute for religion, when said religion has been watered down so much it's become dry.

His behavior around minors is just too bizarre.

The real question here is who in their right mind would not find Joe Biden's behavior creepy?

Who would have thought liberals would be willing to argue for a man like this under the guise of arguing against his opponent?

ant wrote:

We also learned that Donald, Jr has tweeted the insinuation that Biden is a pedophile. Straight out of Mississippi politics. If you can't argue the facts and you can't argue the law, you can still give motivated reasoners an excuse to claim they are on the side of good.

Way too many videos that have been circulating for a few years now of Biden's hands inappropriately handling females. In particular, under-aged girls. They are easy to find, but apparently more easy for liberals to ignore.

The pics and videos being circulated on the right are normal politician baby-kissing and child-blessing. How do I know this? I don't, but I know how the right wing extremists are behaving, and I read it from a credible source, so I believe it.

I do think Biden's hair-sniffing and shoulder-handling is creepy. I would rather that the Dems had united around someone squeaky clean like Obama. But I also know that it would make no difference: the right wing would accuse Liz Warren of pedophilia.

His behavior around minors is just too bizarre.

I sincerely doubt it. I also doubt the insinuations that Trump raped underage girls, since his obvious deep pockets and high profile made him an easy target for gold-diggers of whatever variety.

Who would have thought liberals would be willing to argue for a man like this under the guise of arguing against his opponent?

You are really wedded to this narrative. If I were a Trump supporter I suppose I would be too. But the man and his movement are not just populist, they are also authoritarian, deeply dishonest (most notably to their populist supporters) and unscrupulous. So I know very firmly who I am against.

The pics and videos being circulated on the right are normal politician baby-kissing and child-blessing

Unbelievable.

Translation:

The right is circulating the videos, therefore Biden's behavior in them must be normal toward children.
How do I know this? I don't - but it's the right that's circulating the videos.


Truly a remarkable justification of the deviant and very public psycho-sexual behavior by a public figure running for the highest office in the land.

Not surprising though. It's a slippery slope:
Dismiss Tara Reade's sexual assault accusations, despite Biden himself previously asking people NOT to dismiss these types of courageous outings of powerful men, and it leads to looking the other way when children are being literally fondled on camera.

If a priest put his hands on children the way Biden does and it happened to be televised there would be a national uproar.
But Biden is running against Trump so it's just grandfatherly, old politician behavior. Even Pelosi is on record as saying Biden needs to keep his distance. And despite that, his perverse behavior continued. Biden's senility issues are almost a complete afterthought now!


I fear for our country when evil and immoral behavior can be dismissed so easily for the sake of political ideology.


The forked tongue of doublespeak is more prevalent than ever.

ant wrote:

The pics and videos being circulated on the right are normal politician baby-kissing and child-blessing

Unbelievable.

Got any evidence? Or just the kind of creatively modified stuff KindaSkolarly has a seemingly endless supply of.

ant wrote:OPEDS are NOT fact checks.

ant wrote:https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... ponse.html

Good thing the cited "please note my unbiased source" is not an Op-Ed piece, then. According to RCP it is a "commentary," from

Kayla Gowdy is the social media and rapid response director for America First Action PAC.

Way better than an Op-Ed.