Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] 2020 US election - Joe Biden vs Donald Trump
- Thread starter Hamilton
- Start date
- Apr 5, 2014
- 25,958
Very sceptical about some of that. Much of it seems to be cut and potentially distorted.
His 70s references are the language of the time, so I discount that whoever uses them. Most of us probably used them.
The first frame about 'not needing another N bigshot' appears to be him reading from a transcript of someone else's words. So we have no context.
His 'chains' joke is rather dark and his assumption that black people should vote for him is rather arrogant.
But I never trust these videos when they have been clipped. He has the endorsement of the NAACP which should tell us he is a safe bet where race issues are concerned.
Last edited:
Yeah, definitely some stuff in there that makes Biden look genuinely a bit bad but a lot of that video is cobbled together nonsense. There's even a section where he is quoting someone else, edited to look as if they are his words.
If in doubt, look at who posted the video. Why! It's NSC's
in residence, Dimjym.
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,878
You should be. Biden was reading out (and attacking) racial slurs used by Louisiana legislators in a committee meeting. The video has been doing the rounds but it takes a few seconds to google the context, all of which (of course) is on public record.
Seriously man, its not that ****ing difficult to spend three minutes research the context of the things in this video. Not doing it just makes you look like a clown... which is perhaps the case.
I just watched the full version of this press conference and what they are asking for is not unreasonable. If the playboard was reversed and Trump had won, with Democrats making the same claims, I think a lot of people in here would have wanted to have some kind of independent investigation of this, and I would of course have agreed with that too as someone with the quite neutral standpoint of "feck all of them".
I think that this might not quite be as over as people think yet and that there is a significant chance that votes might need to be recounted in some states.
When there's thousands of incident reports not only from Republican poll watchers but also from neutral election workers, you have to investigate those claims or the whole point of that system becomes meaningless. Its as if UN would send election observers to some third world country and then ignore what if they were saying that things were not working as they should.
I'm guessing the yank justice system are going to agree with this and that people are celebrating a bit too early. I would have thought that the Trump people saying "this is not over yet" was just a case of blind, furious denial but I've changed my mind. We'll see.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,226
As I understand it there are mechanisms in place to investigate any and all claims. I thought that courts have already looked at many of these claims and thrown them out. I am happy to wait for the end of this process to see if any of the claims hold any water. My (limited) understanding of the process (gathered from watching MSM coverage
) suggests that this process ends in the supreme court if said claimed are deemed worthy of such high office. So far though from what I have seen and read these claims have not been making it over the first hurdle. I don't know if he/they have anything better than what has been produced so far but it seems to me that his advice from the rupublican party and others close to him is to concede and move on.
Hu_Camus
New member
- Jan 27, 2019
- 502
This is my last word to the rabbid mob.
Antifas is not anti-fascist - it's the very epitome of Fascism.
And I challenge each and every one of you pocket revolutionaries to name a SINGLE revolution in human history that was not bloody and even in the medium term, counter-productive.
I should be free to spout any shit I feel like, as long as no-one is hurt in the process - Free Speech takes no sides.
You clowns are trying to shut down DEBATE - so take your religiosity, your "TRUTH", and shove it.
Many would argue that the first post-renaissance revolution was that of the French in 1789 - go Google Maximilien Robespierre, his fate, and consider it a likelyhood that if we throw the baby out with the bathwater, we'll all be Robespierres.
A Truism is that "The Revolution eats its children". - well I would suggest that gentle evolution is what we need now in our less-than-perfect modern world - for if there are children to be eaten....THEY WILL BE YOURS.
Antifas is not anti-fascist - it's the very epitome of Fascism.
And I challenge each and every one of you pocket revolutionaries to name a SINGLE revolution in human history that was not bloody and even in the medium term, counter-productive.
I should be free to spout any shit I feel like, as long as no-one is hurt in the process - Free Speech takes no sides.
You clowns are trying to shut down DEBATE - so take your religiosity, your "TRUTH", and shove it.
Many would argue that the first post-renaissance revolution was that of the French in 1789 - go Google Maximilien Robespierre, his fate, and consider it a likelyhood that if we throw the baby out with the bathwater, we'll all be Robespierres.
A Truism is that "The Revolution eats its children". - well I would suggest that gentle evolution is what we need now in our less-than-perfect modern world - for if there are children to be eaten....THEY WILL BE YOURS.
StonehamPark
#Brighton-Nil
Thank God for that.
Mr Banana
Tedious chump
This feels somewhat like thwacking at a rock with an elastic band but...reporters and editors do not add the words "baseless" and "without evidence" to things unless it's a last resort.
As I understand it there are mechanisms in place to investigate any and all claims. I thought that courts have already looked at many of these claims and thrown them out. I am happy to wait for the end of this process to see if any of the claims hold any water. My (limited) understanding of the process (gathered from watching MSM coverage
I don't know if he/they have anything better than what has been produced so far but it seems to me that his advice from the rupublican party and others close to him is to concede and move on.
Obviously there are mechanisms in place to do this but also quite obvous that there is a lot of work to be done. From the press conference:
"There are thousands of reports of poll watchers being intimidated and unable to do their job and as of 4:00 p.m. this afternoon, 131 affidavits have been completed just in Michigan with over 2,800 incident reports that have been submitted to us since Election Day."
"As you guys can understand with 2,800 incident reports, this is a lot to track down. It means we’re interviewing these people, we’re getting their statements and we’re turning them into affidavits, but that takes a lot of time and effort."
I thought that the media already on election day saying "there is no evidence of wrongdoing" was a pretty weird statement because... no shit Sherlock - a lot of claims most likely cant be properly investigated the same second they happen. I'm not saying that any of the claims of wrongdoing are correct, because **** do I know, but what I do know is that very few things could be reliably investigated in minutes or hours - and that once the big players of justice get involved, its not unlikely they would agree.
I think there is a fair chance that the next couple of weeks will be quite intense on this matter - and not only in the brain of the Trump.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,226
Bloody right!!!!
The thing about free speech is that as much as you are free to spout any shit you fell like (a freedom you are taking fully advantage of in this post) others are also free to point out that you are spouting shit (a freedom many on this thread have taken advantage of).
What you are missing though is that people pointing out that you are spouting shit is not shutting down debate. It is merely pointing out that you are spouting shit. If people pointing out your shit spouting causes you to think that maybe you should stop, it may be worth listening to those thoughts and improve the quality of your spouting (that's your choice though I am not trying to impinge on your 'fee speech/ shit spouting). If you continue to spout shit while complaining that people are trying to shit down your shit spouting you come across as a bit of a snowflake
I will no go an shove my "TRUTH", bloody thing causes nothing but trouble.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,226
I think it all depends on the quality of the evidence presented. I would certainly not expect this to be over yet. Plenty still to happen.
I suppose we will also find out how much faith people have in the electorial system. Even if the process finds in favour of Biden. What will it take for theTrump and his cult members to believe that he lost? We are lead to beleive that he doesn't have the capability to accept defeat, where does it end?
Indeed. They have been very quick on the trigger. If someone claims that something is wrong, calling it "without evidence" very rapidly is probably going to be technically correct but not necessarily all there is to it.
If I call the police to say "I've been robbed" and they reply "but there's no evidence" before I've had the chance to gather and/or provide the evidence needed, its obviously flawed.
The media rarely use these rhetorics on other subjects. Take i.e. the case of alleged Russian involvement in election. There was speculation way before there was anything even resembling hard evidence - and I certainly dont recall media writing it off as "baseless" and "without evidence".
I'm guessing most in here will disagree because of their political opinions/emotions but to me as dead neutral on Republicans vs Democracts and both of these old corrupt maggots, I have to say its all sounding very simple in the echo chambers while looking quite wonky when having a closer look.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,226
As true as this is the context that I heard it most was that Trump had made the accusations with 'no eveidence' to back it up. This is of course true and not in keeping with the way things are done. Perhaps as you suggest the media should be jumping to conclusions about the evidence then neither should Trump. It is surely more usual to keep one's powder dry on these things
Ye that one is interesting as well.
I think its quite likely that - unless it all takes a U-turn - that he will realise that it is over just a few days before inauguration, and that he will pretty much just vanish underground. No tweets, no interviews, no nothing, just ****ing off to Hawaii or something to spend the rest of his days (or at least a few years) eating fat food and chilling in the sun.
Dont think they will need to drag him out or something like that, he is too proud for that.
Hu_Camus
New member
- Jan 27, 2019
- 502
Bloody right!!!!
The thing about free speech is that as much as you are free to spout any shit you fell like (a freedom you are taking fully advantage of in this post) others are also free to point out that you are spouting shit (a freedom many on this thread have taken advantage of).
What you are missing though is that people pointing out that you are spouting shit is not shutting down debate. It is merely pointing out that you are spouting shit. If people pointing out your shit spouting causes you to think that maybe you should stop, it may be worth listening to those thoughts and improve the quality of your spouting (that's your choice though I am not trying to impinge on your 'fee speech/ shit spouting). If you continue to spout shit while complaining that people are trying to shit down your shit spouting you come across as a bit of a snowflake
I will no go an shove my "TRUTH", bloody thing causes nothing but trouble.
Look at the highlight.
OPINION
So here's my opinion on you, as is the fashion here.
You come across as a narcissistic dimwit.
Hmmmm - its easy, and I can see how there is joy in it ....thanks for that.