Robert wrote:
By contrast, Biden makes a tiny joke and the gaffometer goes off the deep end.
Joe Biden:
Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids
Is the above just another "a tiny joke" or brute stupidity?
In total there are 3 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm
Robert wrote:
By contrast, Biden makes a tiny joke and the gaffometer goes off the deep end.
Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids
Right on cue, Dear Leader asked the military to remove peaceful protesters so that he could go and desecrate the Bible by posing in front of a church as part of a call to "dominate" by the government, including a threat to call in troops if the states do not "dominate" to the extent he seeks. He shows no awareness that it was just that kind of thinking that killed George Floyd.Harry Marks wrote: I fear that the way the right generally frames such issues will reassert itself before long, as Charlie Sykes has predicted. "Give it 24 or 48 hours," he said.
I disagree strongly that the argument over who should lead reduces to one side's ad hominem vs. the other's, as if there can never be any difference on the merits, because "it's all just politics." This is an excessively cynical view. The reasons for opposing Trump aren't ad hominem, as you must recognize if you don't claim him as your candidate. You say you don't defend him, either, but continually minimizing his outrages and magnifying the flaws of the other guy has precisely that effect. Calling Biden a racist allows negating the much more plausible charge of Trump's racism.ant wrote:That is politics, DWill. And it has been a part of the game for a very, very long time. Each side has in their respective war chest a blunt Ad Hominem beating stick. And each side uses it regularly. It is disingenuous to cry foul on one team but not the other.DWill wrote:]The attacks on Biden's decency are designed to level the playing field with Donald Trump
OK, if you consider that to be disqualifying, that's up to you and I don't argue with you. There has never been an uproar over Biden's touchiness, though. To say there has been is to distort people's reactions. I do not consider that to be something serious enough to compel me to vote for a third party candidate and create more risk of Trump being reelected. I say it's no exaggeration to claim that the November election represents a national emergency. In such a case, the only rational course is to blunt the emergency through the better choice.Joe Biden's intrusive mannerisms with females is not decent. I'm sorry, but it is all over the internet for everyone to see. It has been part of his character for years and he has even been called out by members of his own team. He has been asked to temper his touchy-touchy desires and has ignored all calls for it. Add sexual misconduct allegations on top of that and it is reasonable to have suspicions about his moral conduct when not enough eyes are on him. He can't control himself and we are likely to reasonably follow his own advice that we should believe a woman if she comes forward with allegations of sexual misconduct. This should not even be a debate.
If it's not your conscious intent, the effect is to achieve just that. Otherwise, you would say, for example, that Biden is not without his own liabilities in regard to race. You wouldn't use those problems as an implicit way of saying he and Trump have the same problem.If you are implying that I am attempting to even the playing field for Trump you are wrong. I will not be voting for Trump (i did not the first time) and do not secretly consider him to be my dog in this race.
I added the "20 years ago" not to say that the age of the alleged crime makes it less serious, but I can see why you thought so. With so much time passing, these allegations become murky, just as I think they did regarding Brett Kavanaugh. The date of the alleged assault isn't important to me; the particulars of Tara Reade's accusation are, though. She could be telling the truth, but there are aspects of her story that don't add up, and you can find analyses of its strengths and weaknesses. You apparently support a literal "believe the women" stance (and think that Kavanaugh should not have his SC seat), but I think that creates a dangerous precedent. Listen to the women, yes, but believe in the accuracy and veracity of charges based solely on their coming forward with them? I don't want to make that a blanket policy for allegations, no matter of what sort.Ant wrote:2 years, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years ago does not matter and should not matter when it comes to serious allegations like sexual misconduct. I am surprised you are trying to sanitize it by pleading to Father Time.DWill wrote:Biden is not perfect and may even have committed criminal sexual assault 20 years ago (the evidence against him is not strong), but still there is no contest, and it's hard to imagine how there could be, regardless of whom the other party had put up to oppose Trump.
You are being severely unsympathetic here too. Women who have experienced sexual harassment and assault do not look at such egregious acts committed against them by marking days off a calendar. The trauma lives with them for the rest of their lives.
You are a reasonable man. I find it shocking that you are essentially saying "it was 20 years ago, so he's a better man than the guy who did it, oh, 10 years ago"
That reasoning can do nothing but minimize the words of future women who will bravely come forward to expose men like Biden.
Another great moment in the Trump presidency!DWill wrote:Trump has reached a new low. He has no bottom.
I don't think you meant to mischaraterize what I wrote, but you mischaracterized what I wrote.I disagree strongly that the argument over who should lead reduces to one side's ad hominem vs. the other's, as if there can never be any difference on the merits, because "it's all just politics."
SHOW ME WHERE I have "minimized" a particular action he has taken.You say you don't defend him, either, but continually minimizing his outrages
Calling Biden a racist allows negating the much more plausible charge of Trump's racism.
False.OK, if you consider that to be disqualifying, that's up to you and I don't argue with you. There has never been an uproar over Biden's touchiness, though. To say there has been is to distort people's reactions
This alleged effect you are suggesting I am intentionally or otherwise creating exists in your mind.If it's not your conscious intent, the effect is to achieve just that
geo wrote:Another great moment in the Trump presidency!DWill wrote:Trump has reached a new low. He has no bottom.