Biden to speak soon
-
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 04:10 last edited by jon-nyc
No actually I was just giving a direct and serious answer to your question.
-
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 04:11 last edited by
no, you didn't. A direct answer would have involved admitting the factual basis of the claim, not wriggling around about semantic definitions of lying vs good faith mistakes. Which of course you know it cannot be.
-
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 04:43 last edited by
I thought it was a great speech. Dude can seriously still read, and emote. As someone who, in my mid-50's, started fumbling for words, I don't think Joe has dementia or Alzheimers (God I hope not).
I did find it funny that he lambasted Trump for suspending the FICA withholding. Didn't Obama do the same thing in 2008?
-
no, you didn't. A direct answer would have involved admitting the factual basis of the claim, not wriggling around about semantic definitions of lying vs good faith mistakes. Which of course you know it cannot be.
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 04:59 last edited by@Horace said in Biden to speak soon:
no, you didn't. A direct answer would have involved admitting the factual basis of the claim, not wriggling around about semantic definitions of lying vs good faith mistakes. Which of course you know it cannot be.
It’s a huge distinction. Bush was wrong about WMD. He didn’t lie. If you meant to ask a different question just say so.
-
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 05:03 last edited by
No, I don't allow that Biden made a good faith mistake. And I don't allow a huge distinction between willful ignorance and a deliberate lie.
-
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 05:08 last edited by jon-nyc
I’ll remember that. You are willfully, um, innocent about many subjects that you are newly keen to speak about. Politics and history chiefly among them.
-
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 05:15 last edited by
You say things like that and then never back them up.
-
no, you didn't. A direct answer would have involved admitting the factual basis of the claim, not wriggling around about semantic definitions of lying vs good faith mistakes. Which of course you know it cannot be.
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 11:25 last edited by@Horace said in Biden to speak soon:
not wriggling around about semantic definitions
Bro, are you anti-semantic?
-
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 11:30 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Biden to speak soon:
FoxNews called it “the most forceful and steely speech of his career”.
I watched a little bit of it. Let's be honest, this dude has been nothing but a smooth operating politician for 40 years with his fake smiles, (creepy) hugs, and ability to go from serious to somber on a dime. Combine that with the fact that he was in a room with very few people, reading from a script (as @Kincaid said), it would be hard not to give a good speech. Even for any of us here.
I truly don't mean that as a critique of Biden, it's just more I think I'll always be annoyed the bar for our leaders is so incredibly low.
-
@jon-nyc said in Biden to speak soon:
FoxNews called it “the most forceful and steely speech of his career”.
I watched a little bit of it. Let's be honest, this dude has been nothing but a smooth operating politician for 40 years with his fake smiles, (creepy) hugs, and ability to go from serious to somber on a dime. Combine that with the fact that he was in a room with very few people, reading from a script (as @Kincaid said), it would be hard not to give a good speech. Even for any of us here.
I truly don't mean that as a critique of Biden, it's just more I think I'll always be annoyed the bar for our leaders is so incredibly low.
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 11:38 last edited by@89th said in Biden to speak soon:
Combine that with the fact that he was in a room with very few people, reading from a script (as @Kincaid said), it would be hard not to give a good speech. Even for any of us here.
And yet there is variation across individuals, and across different speeches by the same individual. Even though they are all prepared speeches displayed on a teleprompter.
-
You’re acting as if you don’t know what ‘dishonest’ means. It has nothing to do with what someone personally witnessed.
You’re putting yourself in the ‘Bush lied moonpies fried’ camp.
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 11:38 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Biden to speak soon:
You’re acting as if you don’t know what ‘dishonest’ means. It has nothing to do with what someone personally witnessed.
You’re putting yourself in the ‘Bush lied moonpies fried’ camp.
No, when something is proven to be wrong, and the "fine people" trope has certainly and exhaustively been proven to be wrong, it is nothing more than a planned lie to include it in a speech of such import.
And as a comment, a speech that has been rehearsed for weeks may not be a good indicator of a person's actual mental state.
-
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 11:44 last edited by
I don’t know, Jolly. Most people I encounter haven’t been exposed to the debunking of it. Things can be reported wrong and gain traction that way, from the benign (“DB” Cooper) to the trivial (potatoe) to the insidious (‘only two percent of rape claims are false’). This clearly falls in that category. It’s far from obvious that Biden has seen the debunking.
Anyway, if you want to hear a Presidential candidate’s speech that contains no falsehoods maybe you’ll have better luck next week.
-
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 12:10 last edited by
Biden ain't most people. He is an old Washington hand, surrounded by people who live and breathe politics.
He knew. It was done deliberately for political advantage. The alternative may be even more alarming.
-
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 12:45 last edited by
The meat of his abilities will come out on the campaign trail.
-
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 13:24 last edited by
The last thing we need on the campaign trail is for either candidate to reveal his meat.
-
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 13:26 last edited by
From America's Paper of Record:
-
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 13:30 last edited by
snort
-
I don’t know, Jolly. Most people I encounter haven’t been exposed to the debunking of it. Things can be reported wrong and gain traction that way, from the benign (“DB” Cooper) to the trivial (potatoe) to the insidious (‘only two percent of rape claims are false’). This clearly falls in that category. It’s far from obvious that Biden has seen the debunking.
Anyway, if you want to hear a Presidential candidate’s speech that contains no falsehoods maybe you’ll have better luck next week.
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 13:58 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Biden to speak soon:
I don’t know, Jolly. Most people I encounter haven’t been exposed to the debunking of it. Things can be reported wrong and gain traction that way, from the benign (“DB” Cooper) to the trivial (potatoe) to the insidious (‘only two percent of rape claims are false’). This clearly falls in that category. It’s far from obvious that Biden has seen the debunking.
All dishonest political messaging can fall under that category.
If Biden were to be presented with a thorough debunking, he would continue to go on saying it. Because it is politically valuable to paint Trump as a cartoonish racist. And that's why the willful ignorance (at best) of that point persists. There is no meaningful difference between that willful ignorance and a deliberate lie. I look forward to you flailing away at an attempt to catch me in something similar.
Anyway, if you want to hear a Presidential candidate’s speech that contains no falsehoods maybe you’ll have better luck next week.
Whatabout Trump?
-
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 14:56 last edited by
I didn't watch any of it and haven't read any of it.
But I'm pretty sure it was full of half-truths and blatant lies.
And he was obviously suffering from dementia.
-
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 17:54 last edited by
I've seen fact checks of the speech from such places as WaPo and the BBC, each of which identifies the falsehood about the "fine people" remark. It's an important accusation, as I would hope we can all agree, but those whose tribe the false accusation benefits will find ways to shrug it off.
Jon, don't forget to point it out to me next time I engage in that sort of thing. I'm going to hold you to that one. Let's see if you're up to it, or if you're just posturing, as usual.