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.
-
@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.
@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.
@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.
-
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.
You were warned.
-
The last thing we need on the campaign trail is for either candidate to reveal his meat.
-
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.
@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?
-
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.
-
Biden did a pretty good job of not veering into highly controversial / non-fact based criticisms of Trump.
The "fine sides" and BLM stuff was probably the touchiest - and as evidenced by this thread, sucks up oxygen for no good reason.
But on Russia he kept to "election interference" instead of collusion. I don't even think he mentioned impeachment.
On criticisms of covid response he kept to comparison against other countries, making PPE in the U.S. instead of China, and a federal mask mandate. Things that the federal govt. could actually do something about.
In short - the speech didn't seem like it was written by a "radical leftist".
-
Biden did a pretty good job of not veering into highly controversial / non-fact based criticisms of Trump.
The "fine sides" and BLM stuff was probably the touchiest - and as evidenced by this thread, sucks up oxygen for no good reason.
But on Russia he kept to "election interference" instead of collusion. I don't even think he mentioned impeachment.
On criticisms of covid response he kept to comparison against other countries, making PPE in the U.S. instead of China, and a federal mask mandate. Things that the federal govt. could actually do something about.
In short - the speech didn't seem like it was written by a "radical leftist".
@xenon said in Biden to speak soon:
Biden did a pretty good job of not veering into highly controversial / non-fact based criticisms of Trump.
The "fine sides" and BLM stuff was probably the touchiest - and as evidenced by this thread, sucks up oxygen for no good reason.
Any Trump voter has good reason to take that particular dishonest accusation seriously and personally. It is a purely tribal response to shrug it off. Objectively, that particular false accusation contributes to the wide swath of reputation damage done to anybody who publicly supports Trump.
-
Biden did a pretty good job of not veering into highly controversial / non-fact based criticisms of Trump.
The "fine sides" and BLM stuff was probably the touchiest - and as evidenced by this thread, sucks up oxygen for no good reason.
But on Russia he kept to "election interference" instead of collusion. I don't even think he mentioned impeachment.
On criticisms of covid response he kept to comparison against other countries, making PPE in the U.S. instead of China, and a federal mask mandate. Things that the federal govt. could actually do something about.
In short - the speech didn't seem like it was written by a "radical leftist".
@xenon said in Biden to speak soon:
Biden did a pretty good job of not veering into highly controversial / non-fact based criticisms of Trump.
The "fine sides" and BLM stuff was probably the touchiest - and as evidenced by this thread, sucks up oxygen for no good reason.
But on Russia he kept to "election interference" instead of collusion. I don't even think he mentioned impeachment.
On criticisms of covid response he kept to comparison against other countries, making PPE in the U.S. instead of China, and a federal mask mandate. Things that the federal govt. could actually do something about.
In short - the speech didn't seem like it was written by a "radical leftist".
It was supposed to be that way...That is the narrative. Funny ol' Uncle Joe...Yeah, he's a little eccentric, the hair sniffing and what not, but he wouldn't hurt a flea. Reassuring. Calm. Inclusive.
Meanwhile, if you watched much of the rest of the convention, especially the daytine, streaming stuff, you got to see some of the most divisive, racist and Left-wing people in American politics.
And if you think Uncle Joe ain't gonna be beholden to many of these idiots in his own party, appointing them to government positions where they will influence policy, there ain't a cow in Texas.
-
Three things come to mind...
-
Biden has a history of plagiarizing speeches. He's lazy.
-
In this instance it very well may be that his caretakers figured that all the rehearsing he did the first time he gave the speech would help him get through a reading of it this time easier than giving a newly written speech, minimizing the chances of him doing something that showed his senility.
-
Most importantly, it shows that he promised all the same stuff a decade ago, didn't actually do a damned bit of it, and he won't do any of it this time either.
-
