This is who Joe Biden is

[eohrnberger]

It's puzzling as to why more haven't figured this out yet. ^

I think it that they simply don't want to 'figure it out', continue living in denial, the continuation of the same denial they've held since November 2016.

They may very well be surprised again (hopefully) in November. The federal government certainly doesn't need more power and control over people's lives, and nation certainly doesn't need 'defund the police' and it's associated rampant crime (as we see in Democrat controlled cities and states), open borders and socialism.

 

[Mr Person]

Ive never said (1) and I dont believe (2). BUt in any case, (1) is not sexist and (2) is not racist. Check your definitions.

Calling a woman a "ho" for having sex is not sexist? Do you call men "ho" or "slut" for liking sex?

Claiming that the first black president and now the would-be first black VP isn't eligible by birth isn't racist, having not done that to anyone else?

:lol:




If you never called her a "ho" and you never said Obama wasn't born here - or expressed doubt - then bravo. But it is more than a little suspicious the way so many of the now-Trumpists, including Trump, ran away from their prior claims.

For years and years, 40% in polls said Obama was lying about his birthplace and religion. 20% said they "were not sure".

That's a lot. Now you can't find them. Obama roasted Trump to his big fat ***** face at the correspondents dinner, then released the long form, and wompity-womp, floppity-flop.

But now Harris is the VP and we've got "Ho!" "Ineligible because immigrant parents!"




Flail some more, Fletch. Flail.

 

[Cordelier]

Im not focusing on the superficial. Biden was. Get your facts straight.

There is literally nobody in politics today in this country who has more experience than Joe Biden. He has been running for President since before about half of this country has been alive. You think he didn't know exactly - and I mean exactly - what boxes he wanted crossed off for a VP? The African American and womens' vote is as key to the Democratic voter turn-out as the evangelical vote is to the Republicans. But I'll let you in on a little secret.... when Joe Biden was the ranking member and then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was about as hard-nosed as any Democrat on there. He took the crime bills Reagan and Bush, Sr. sent up to Capitol Hill and he actually toughened them up.... and Harris was just as hard-nosed as a prosecutor and then AG of California. By picking her, he not only picked up support, but he also picked up cover from the left wing of the party.

 

[Cordelier]

What do I stand for?? Im not the topic of this thread. If you want to start a thread where I am the topic, go for it.

*LOL* Since you assumed the title of "Arbitrer of all things Republican", I figured you'd have some insights on the subject, Fletch.

 

[trixare4kids]

What the hell do you even stand for anymore, Fletch?? Tell me, because I'd like to know. Is it small government? Because that went out the window when Clinton left office. Is it law and order? Uh-huh... tell that to Barr & Co. Law and order *LOL* What a ****ing joke. We can see pretty clearly what "Trump Justice" means every time he springs a scumbag like Arpaio, Stone and Flynn.

If I am reading Fletch right, and I think I am … He is saying that it's both sexist and racial to pick a women based on her gender and her color. When will the Democrats get past their need to use identity politics? When will they simply stop picking people by race and gender, or complaining about others whiteness and maleness, and simply pick the most qualified?

 

[Nickyjo]

Soooo, Joe makes political history by picking a female person of color, child of immigrants. Trump makes political history by insulting females, persons of color, immigrants and their children. All things being equal, easy choice. Or hold your nose and vote for more Trump judges.

 

[Cordelier]

If I am reading Fletch right, and I think I am … He is saying that it's both sexist and racial to pick a women based on her gender and her color. When will the Democrats get past their need to use identity politics? When will they simply stop picking people by race and gender, or complaining about others whiteness and maleness, and simply pick the most qualified?

I think that's only an issue if he picks someone that is obviously unqualified for the job, Trixie. You can say a lot of things about Kamala Harris.... but I think it's pretty clear she has the brains, talent, ability and experience to do the job. Disagree with her politics all you want - that's fair game. But let's not pretend she isn't qualified for the job.

 

[Nickyjo]

If I am reading Fletch right, and I think I am … He is saying that it's both sexist and racial to pick a women based on her gender and her color. When will the Democrats get past their need to use identity politics? When will they simply stop picking people by race and gender, or complaining about others whiteness and maleness, and simply pick the most qualified?

Strange when you consider Trump’s cabinet, which has little to do with most qualified. Anyway, I propose a trade, liberals will stop complaining about whiteness and maleness (Biden complains about himself?) when Trump stops complaining about non-white people and femaleness.

 

[trixare4kids]

I think that's only an issue if he picks someone that is obviously unqualified for the job, Trixie. You can say a lot of things about Kamala Harris.... but I think it's pretty clear she has the brains, talent, ability and experience to do the job. Disagree with her politics all you want - that's fair game. But let's not pretend she isn't qualified for the job.

What makes her qualified for the job and Pence not qualified?

Take your time while answering.

 

[trixare4kids]

Strange when you consider Trump’s cabinet, which has little to do with most qualified. Anyway, I propose a trade, liberals will stop complaining about whiteness and maleness (Biden complains about himself?) when Trump stops complaining about non-white people and femaleness.

Um, what?

 

[Cordelier]

What makes her qualified for the job and Pence not qualified?

Take your time while answering.

I think Pence is absolutely qualified. I disagree with a lot of his politics, but I don't disagree with his qualifications whatsoever.

 

[Fishking]

Trump was not elected in a vacuum. Lincoln Project type Repubs are largely the reason for Trump.

I think the biggest reason is actually due to how radical the left has become. How anyone to the right of Chairman Mao is considered a Nazi and have been attacked with all kinds of vitriol.

 

[trixare4kids]

I think Pence is absolutely qualified. I disagree with a lot of his politics, but I don't disagree with his qualifications whatsoever.

OK.

Kamala is qualified if you like flip-flopping politicians who'd say anything one day, and change their minds the next to further their careers. And that is precisely why I say she is not qualified. She implied her future boss is a racist and a sexual predator, and then turned around and took it all back.

She's even worse than Hillary...

 

[Cordelier]

I think the biggest reason is actually due to how radical the left has become. How anyone to the right of Chairman Mao is considered a Nazi and have been attacked with all kinds of vitriol.

And yet Joe Biden got the nomination and he's about as centrist as they come. Go figure.

 

[Cordelier]

OK.

Kamala is qualified if you like flip-flopping politicians who'd say anything one day, and change their minds the next to further their careers. And that is precisely why I say she is not qualified. She implied her future boss is a racist and a sexual predator, and then turned around and took it all back.

She's even worse than Hillary...

"She's worse than Hillary..."

What does that really mean, Trixie? Seriously... I've heard it said a lot - "worse than Hillary". It's a Republican code. You say it at your meetings and everyone nods and knows what your talking about. I'm not sure what that actually means, though....

Has she been convicted of a crime? Has she had to resign from public office in disagrace? I mean Nixon I can understand.... when people used to go around saying "he's worse than Nixon" that actually meant something - Watergate and all. But Hillary Clinton - with all the dirt that has been thrown at her over almost the last 30 years.... nothing has ever really "stuck". Don't you find that curious? I figure to go through that kind of gauntlet for as long as she has and at the level she has.... she's either got to be the smartest person who ever lived... or maybe there wasn't really anything to it all. Like Shakespeare's story told by a fool... "full of sound and fury but signifying nothing."

Anyway, I'm digressing. You want to talk about politicians making accusations and then back-tracking. Remember this classic moment from the 2016 Presidential debates:

CLINTON: ... I told people that it would be impossible to be fact-checking Donald all the time. I’d never get to talk about anything I want to do and how we’re going to really make lives better for people.

So, once again, go to HillaryClinton.com. We have literally Trump — you can fact check him in real time. Last time at the first debate, we had millions of people fact checking, so I expect we’ll have millions more fact checking, because, you know, it is — it’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.

TRUMP: Because you’d be in jail.

Because she'd be in jail. For what? What's the crime? And if there was one, how vigorously has the Trump Justice Department investigated it? Because I don't see Hillary Clinton under investigation today... do you? I haven't seen any suggestion about having her investigated. No reasonable suspicion of wrong-doing in her part. And yet it's all... "Throw her in jail" or "Worse than Hillary".

Did you ever stop to think that maybe... just maybe - she has been wronged in all of this? Or is that just too much of a leap away from the mentality of the mob for you to take?

 

[Aurora]

hang on.

i thought Biden was gonna pick Hillary or Michelle and one of them was gonna take over. that's what Facebook, Twitter and FW:FW:FW:FW: has been saying for months.

Kamala will be a liability. Biden is a total empty shell. Worst candidates ever. Will be a an entertaining 2.5 months.

 

[Aurora]

If either major party was a party of character, we wouldn't have been given a choice between Trump and Hillary Clinton in 2016.

It's about policy. The man is the delivery vehicle. Biden is a total loss and their policy is abysmal.

 

[Aurora]

Some of think the same of trump and Pence. Many Presidents pick VP's that scare those that hate them as they might be replaced by someone less like themselves, trump could not have picked someone less like himself.

Kamala was at the bottom in the primaries. She was soundly rejected. The DNC machine has other ideas. If Biden wins, he will step aside in time, Kamala takes over as president. A new type of election gerrymandering.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Kamala will be a liability. Biden is a total empty shell. Worst candidates ever.

^ Trump voter

 

[Casper]

Kamala was at the bottom in the primaries. She was soundly rejected. The DNC machine has other ideas. If Biden wins, he will step aside in time, Kamala takes over as president. A new type of election gerrymandering.

Live with it.

 

[Perotista]

It's about policy. The man is the delivery vehicle. Biden is a total loss and their policy is abysmal.

That's where I think you're wrong. I think this election is mostly about Trump and his childish antics of throwing temper tantrums and calling others names. His schoolyard bullying tactics. More about his obnoxcious persona and his very unpresidential behavior. So much so, at least among those who are non-affiliated, less to non-partisan, swing voters, the group most folks call independents. That policy and what Trump has done or hasn't done as president is taking a back seat to quite a lot of them.

to these folks, who opposed Trump really makes little difference. I think you found that out in the midterms when there was no Hillary to save Trump and the GOP. Independents who in 2016 went to Trump 46-42 over Hillary with 12% voting third party, against both. In 2018 the voted Democratic by a 54-42 margin over the Republican congressional candidates. It isn't so much that Trump and the Republicans dropped from 46 down to 42%. It's the rise from 42% to 54% among independents voting Democratic. Then again, perhaps that shouldn't have been a surprise. 42% of independents voted for Hillary, then add the 12% who voted against both Hillary and Trump, you come up with 54%. Coincidence? Perhaps?

Now Trump's antics and his very unpresidential behavior along with his shall I say uncouth personality has had 4 years to grate on these folks. No, I don't think this election is policy driven as a battle of personalities. Perhaps childish in like a spoiled brat vs. an adult. Maybe? Time will tell.

After all, to many swing voters, the presidential election is nothing more than a beauty contest. Independents don't pay much attention at all to the day to day grind going on in Washington or even politics in general. It becomes a choice of who they like the best or dislike the least as back in 2016. Their perceptions of the candidates. Maybe even who they are tired of the most. Another difference is in 2016 Hillary Clinton was more or less the incumbent. The establishment, the status quo as she campaigned as being a third Obama term. This time around Trump is the incumbent, the establishment, the status quo. The one folks will decide to kept or let go. Biden is kind of irrelevant.

 

[Fishking]

And yet Joe Biden got the nomination and he's about as centrist as they come. Go figure.

Yes...there are a decent amount of liberals that are still rational but they keep quiet out of fear, but voting is anonymous.

 

[Nickyjo]

Um, what?

You haven't noticed his insults of minorities, his lies about refugees, his comments about "****hole" countries, his "nasty women" comments, his false info on black crime, his "she's not my type" response when accused of sexual assault? You gotta get out more.

 

[trixare4kids]

You haven't noticed his insults of minorities, his lies about refugees, his comments about "****hole" countries, his "nasty women" comments, his false info on black crime, his "she's not my type" response when accused of sexual assault? You gotta get out more.

What I've noticed is lots of deception, leftist lies, the Democrats' phony platitudes. their non-stop virtue signaling and like :bs coming from them, and their minions... Trump's no saint but neither are your precious Democrats.

 

[Aurora]

That's where I think you're wrong. I think this election is mostly about Trump and his childish antics of throwing temper tantrums and calling others names. His schoolyard bullying tactics. More about his obnoxcious persona and his very unpresidential behavior. So much so, at least among those who are non-affiliated, less to non-partisan, swing voters, the group most folks call independents. That policy and what Trump has done or hasn't done as president is taking a back seat to quite a lot of them.

to these folks, who opposed Trump really makes little difference. I think you found that out in the midterms when there was no Hillary to save Trump and the GOP. Independents who in 2016 went to Trump 46-42 over Hillary with 12% voting third party, against both. In 2018 the voted Democratic by a 54-42 margin over the Republican congressional candidates. It isn't so much that Trump and the Republicans dropped from 46 down to 42%. It's the rise from 42% to 54% among independents voting Democratic. Then again, perhaps that shouldn't have been a surprise. 42% of independents voted for Hillary, then add the 12% who voted against both Hillary and Trump, you come up with 54%. Coincidence? Perhaps?

Now Trump's antics and his very unpresidential behavior along with his shall I say uncouth personality has had 4 years to grate on these folks. No, I don't think this election is policy driven as a battle of personalities. Perhaps childish in like a spoiled brat vs. an adult. Maybe? Time will tell.

After all, to many swing voters, the presidential election is nothing more than a beauty contest. Independents don't pay much attention at all to the day to day grind going on in Washington or even politics in general. It becomes a choice of who they like the best or dislike the least as back in 2016. Their perceptions of the candidates. Maybe even who they are tired of the most. Another difference is in 2016 Hillary Clinton was more or less the incumbent. The establishment, the status quo as she campaigned as being a third Obama term. This time around Trump is the incumbent, the establishment, the status quo. The one folks will decide to kept or let go. Biden is kind of irrelevant.

I have to live with policy every day. His antics on Twitter mean nothing. It's claimed Biden is a nice guy, his policy is a disaster. he won't be running the show. The hyper left is running the show. He picked the worst candidate as his VP. She will be a nightmare. IT'S ABOUT POLICY.

The propaganda machine is with Biden. In another year Biden won't be able to tie his shoelaces.