Biden to speak soon
-
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 02:39 last edited by
Do you think he will accept the nomination?
-
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 02:49 last edited by
What nomination?
-
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 02:57 last edited by jon-nyc
He’s doing well.
I think the GOP made a mistake spending so much time talking about him like he’s an Alzheimer’s patient.
-
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 03:01 last edited by
Because unfair criticisms of the opposition are just bad politics. It's why both sides are so circumspect in their characterizations of one another.
-
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 03:16 last edited by
He pulled out the "fine people on both sides" trope. Trump called white supremacists and neo nazis fine people.
Say jon, do you consider that part of his speech a lie, or do you consider it accurate?
Ax, as always, I would also love to hear your thoughts on that question. Thanks buddy.
-
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 03:54 last edited by
Unclear. Huge number of people never saw it in context so assume he meant that there were fine people doing the anti Semitic chants. He could easily be among them. Or not.
-
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 04:02 last edited by
FoxNews called it “the most forceful and steely speech of his career”.
-
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 04:04 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Biden to speak soon:
Unclear. Huge number of people never saw it in context so assume he meant that there were fine people doing the anti Semitic chants. He could easily be among them. Or not.
Very few facts are personally witnessed. It doesn't excuse people from being dishonest about them.
-
wrote on 21 Aug 2020, 04:06 last edited by
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, 04:07 last edited by Horace
@jon-nyc said in Biden to speak soon:
FoxNews called it “the most forceful and steely speech of his career”.
Wow, Fox news continues to demonstrate that it is closer to impartial than any other mainstream news source.
For my part I was impressed that he did little stumbling. The acting of the ebbs and flows was forced and affected and smarmy to my sensibilities, but it was a decent speech for the masses.
-
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, 04:08 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.
Well, no, I'm not acting like I don't know what 'dishonest' means. But you're acting like Biden made a good faith effort to attain the truth of that rather severe allegation before making it.
-
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.