Will Joe Biden be the next president? (1 Viewer)

[Jon]

I am curious about that too. I have not seen an answer yet to that question.

Why wouldn't they tape it? I think Trump alluded to things being taped in one of his talks.

 

[moke123]

From what I have found he gave it live. The only source saying otherwise was trump.

 

[Jon]

Nobody ever really believed that, because it's ludicrous, and goes against a principle that our justice system has always stood for, and will always stand for - Innocent until proven guilty.

I would like to both agree with you and disagree. Firstly, as you rightly point out, it is ludicrous. I offer no explanation for the obvious.

But secondly, if nobody ever really believed that, you are saying that all the liberal members of congress are liars. They all voted against Kavanaugh, united in their belief that he tried to ra** the alleged victim. They believed the woman, despite no corroborating evidence that it happened. "Women must be believed." That is unless you are Bill Clinton or Biden. "All women must be believed, except, err, if you are a Democrat, a nominee that you support, or perhaps a friend of yours. Otherwise, we believe all the women!"

 

[Jon]

From what I have found he gave it live. The only source saying otherwise was trump.

How can anyone tell if it is live or not?

 

[Isaac]

What you are reacting to is "window dressing" formulated to make Biden and the Democratic party look good

Oh, I agree -- totally. But window dressing is the thing votes are made from, and we need it as much as they do right now.

I seriously doubt that Biden's sermon was meant to be a messaging vehicle for saying that the Democratic party won't go far left

No, but AOC's freeze-out & Bloomberg's inclusion might be--or at least might be a sign that Democrats realize they can't be terribly open about being far left. The less the better, as empty as it may turn out to be.

To me, this is more of an empty listing of platitudes

Absolutely true. This is always how socialists get elected. Making extravagant promises to suffering people with no mention of the long term road that goes down.

This is why despite people's insistence that it's not the case, I believe conservatism has always been a little bit more of a "moral" basis than progressive socialistic views. (Note - I'm not saying "more moral", necessarily, but more heavily based on intangible moral ideas, is all). Because the conservative leaning doesn't just depend on raw material gain. I.E., Even if Democrats promised to send me a check for $10,000, I still feel they're the wrong choice. The key is I don't WANT to live in a country where things are just handed to me for no reason. I actually WANT to live in a system of work, tactical choices, and resultant achievement. It's what makes me interested in getting out of bed in the morning, and is at least part of the basis on which we all respect and have some pride in our country of individuals.

 

[Isaac]

I would like to both agree with you and disagree. Firstly, as you rightly point out, it is ludicrous. I offer no explanation for the obvious.

But secondly, if nobody ever really believed that, you are saying that all the liberal members of congress are liars. They all voted against Kavanaugh, united in their belief that he tried to ra** the alleged victim. They believed the woman, despite no corroborating evidence that it happened. "Women must be believed." That is unless you are Bill Clinton or Biden. "All women must be believed, except, err, if you are a Democrat, a nominee that you support, or perhaps a friend of yours. Otherwise, we believe all the women!"

I guess I see what you are saying. One explanation might be that, despite the fact that they never really believed it, they push hard for it, because they think that is the only way to get some justice for the true cases. Theoretically, they could be using a baseless-but-appealing means to an end, in reaction to a certain amount of injustice that truly has occurred in past times..

 

[moke123]

How can anyone tell if it is live or not?

Reuters stated he was joined on stage by Jill B., Kamala, and her husband after his live speech. He was not in the convention center alone.

The DNC made a point of letting the media know that Joe Biden was speaking live tonight, as did Kamala Harris the night before.

 

[Jon]

Theoretically, they could be using a baseless-but-appealing means to an end, in reaction to a certain amount of injustice that truly has occurred in past times..

Yes, they all lied for political motive, which is corruption, is it not?

The same happens with many liberal politicians. Let's take Justin Trudeau. I think he is facing his 3rd ethics violation for his family receiving millions from a charity, which then gets a half billion dollar contract (from memory). Just watch this comical video of him avoiding answering a very simple question ("How much?") from an investigative committee. It makes a farce of his presidency.

 

[Isaac]

I assumed that they were all taped because it's a virtual conference. but I guess I have no reason to doubt their claims if they say it was live, then maybe it was live.

 

[Jon]

Reuters stated he was joined on stage by Jill B., Kamala, and her husband after his live speech. He was not in the convention center alone.

What if they did several re-runs? Then just take the best one? Having others in the convention center does not necessarily mean that it was live.

Reuters said this:

...delivering an austere address in a quiet room

Was there an audience in this quiet room?

 

[Isaac]

Yes, they all lied for political motive, which is corruption, is it not?

yes either that, or just seeing red from previous generations of more widespread Injustice on the subject. Like I always say, the pendulum always swings too far on political issues that legitimately need some change but usually not to go as far as people go with it.

Heck, if what that movement says is right, then why stop there? Why not extend it to assault, burglary, arson, bribery, and pretty much every other crime in the world? let's change it so that if someone walks into a police station and says John hit me in the face, we immediately protect the identity of the accuser and give them thirty thousand support programs to boost their case while simultaneously destroying the career and reputation of John. Why not just make it apply to every crimes until we're in total anarchy and the concept of physical evidence becomes a distant memory.

I say anarchy, because pretty soon John will figure out what he can say too. And then theoretically, the same pampering process will apply in his favor. At which case it's all "a wash". I mean it's so ridiculous..
Of course the reason it doesn't go this far is because one of the principles of the movement is that these benefits only apply to women, because women are always innocent victims and men are always guilty predators. Enter Kamala Harris.

 

[Jon]

or just seeing red from previous generations of more widespread Injustice on the subject

If they see red and lie, it is still corruption. Just saying! If you have to lie to prove your case, you don't really have much of a case at all, do you?

 

[moke123]

I give up. It was all computer generated. Wasn't even Biden. He was in his basement droolin all over himself.

 

[Steve R.]

I would like to both agree with you and disagree. Firstly, as you rightly point out, it is ludicrous. I offer no explanation for the obvious.

But secondly, if nobody ever really believed that, you are saying that all the liberal members of congress are liars. They all voted against Kavanaugh, united in their belief that he tried to ra** the alleged victim. They believed the woman, despite no corroborating evidence that it happened. "Women must be believed." That is unless you are Bill Clinton or Biden. "All women must be believed, except, err, if you are a Democrat, a nominee that you support, or perhaps a friend of yours. Otherwise, we believe all the women!"

The concept that "all the liberal members of congress are liars", needs to be seriously expanded. The Democratic members of Congress put serving the Party over serving the national interest. That can be seen by adding the impeachment process and the Mueller investigation to the Kavanaugh nomination. Additionally, the Democrats manufactured the Russian collusion hoax. Democrats march in lockstep with what they are told even if that means acting in an unethical manner. So when Biden, in his sermon, spoke of restoring the soul of America; I found that to be laughable, as Democrats do not believe in behaving ethically.

 

[Jon]

I give up. It was all computer generated. Wasn't even Biden. He was in his basement droolin all over himself.

I am only asking a legitimate question. If Reuters says it was live, what was their evidence? Trump said the talks were taped. You seemed to discredit his version of events quite readily. When pushed on evidence, you caved.

Edit: Just to add, I am not saying it was live or not live. Instead, I am asking the question, what evidence is there that it was live?

 

[moke123]

Will a photo from an AP photographer taken during the speech suffice? Note the attribution at the end of caption.

 

[moke123]

You seemed to discredit his version of events quite readily.

You are aware that he has an issue with the truth, aren't you?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e-more-than-20000-false-or-misleading-claims/

 

[ColinEssex]

Just out of interest, is there any other realistic candidate for the presidency other than the Orangeman idiot in the White House and an old geezer on the edge of Alzheimer's? Or is that it out of 300 million people?
Col

 

[Isaac]

Will a photo from an AP photographer taken during the speech suffice? Note the attribution at the end of caption.
View attachment 84408

I'm one that's willing to believe what the DNC says in this case, but I'm curious what I'm missing here--probably my mistake--what is it about a photo shot of his webcast combined with the attribution to a specific photographer has anything to do with it being live or not? I sense you're making a point that is going over my head

 

[Pat Hartman]

Fags were cigarettes when I was a teenager

We can always fall back on the old trope "If a politician's lips are moving, he's lying". That's what makes the left crazy about Trump. He's not a politician and when his mouth is open, it's stream of consciousness which is sometimes idiotic and sometimes not but it isn't a prepared lie and they don't know how to respond. When other people say x, it's an opinion or at worst an exaggeration. When Trump says it, it's a baldfaced lie and he means evil intent!

I don't think you can apply today's mores to people in history. Opinions change. We are all more "woke" than we were in the past. Why doesn't anyone ever talk about slavery today? It is alive and well all over Africa and the Muslim world since it is condoned by the Koran.

I've been watching a TV series on the history of Africa. It is very interesting. They talk about how African tribes were always at war with each other and the losers ended up as slaves. Once they started trading with the Europeans, they eventually ran out of stuff the Europeans wanted to buy and so they started selling their slaves. It was Africans enslaved by Africans who got shipped to our shores. Westerners didn't just show up in Ghana and ask "do you have any slaves to sell", at least not at first. And today, Africans are still enslaving Africans but those black lives don't matter either.

Tulsi Gabbard was apparently frozen-out from participating in the convention.

That's because she was one of the two rational candidates. In a different time, I would consider voting for her.

In many cases this has gone so far as to lead to many a suggestion that prostitution no longer be prosecuted.

I lived in Miami in the early 70's and I remember the Miami Harold publishing the names of johns when they raided houses of prostitution. What a turn around.

Although I disagree with many liberal policies, my problem these days comes down to hypocrisy. I cannot abide their hypocrisy. If you believe in something, I can respect that whether I agree or disagree but when you expect me to abide by different rules than you, you've lost me. Why is it so hard for the masses to actually see the hypocrisy of the political class? This country is split right down the middle. How can so many people be OK with the hypocrisy? Elizabeth Warren was recently screaming about bailouts for the rich. That brought me back to 2008 and the financial meltdown. I knew I didn't want to vote for Obama because he clearly hated America but I also didn't want to vote for John McCain because he presented himself as a victim and I didn't agree with his policies. So the two of them are hot on the campaign trail when Congress proposed the bailout bill. At first it looked like they wouldn't go back to Washington to vote and then one decided to go vote so the other had to follow. I thought - great, I'll vote for the one who votes AGAINST bailing out the banks. Guess what? They both voted for the bailout so I had to vote for the Libertarian candidate who had no chance of winning. So Pocahontas --- you are a hypocrite!!!! and so are the rest of the people who scream at the top of their lungs about taxing the rich. Open your eyes stupid, only slightly more than half of wage earners actually have to pay any income tax at all and 80% of the money collected comes from top 20% right now. There aren't enough rich people in the world to fund your outrageous freebies even if you took all their income. Why the hell do you think California is trying to pass a bill to tax assets? How that will work is never discussed. Who decides whether my small business is worth $1.98 or $500,000,000?