Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Trump vs Biden


RoofGardener

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, and then said:

Is the virus transmissible through audio and video?  That senile old codger can't string 10 minutes of dialogue together without making statements that are incomprehensible or at a minimum, disjointed.  His campaign is hiding him and unfortunately for him, Americans enjoy debates.  He won't be able to skip them without consequences

andthen, Trump can't go three minutes at the mike without winding up lost in the cornfield.  Here we are in the midst of health and financial crisis and he goes on about bringing back incandescent lights because they make you look better?  Next he will be reminding you that you are allowed to say Merry Christmas again thanks to him. He would be way ahead in the polls now if his handlers had hidden him.

The reality is that Trump is just as much a senile old codger as Joe.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I was being facetious, read what I was replying to. 

Ok.  I read it again and still don't get your response.  Anyway, there are a lot of people who don't think for themselves, they don't remember last election or last year or even last week sometimes so they can be easily manipulated into voting a certain way.  As for what the Wistman said, it made no sense to  me.  Of course the democratic party is manipulated and there is always an agenda, just like the republican party.  That's why many who publicly said rude, accurate things about Trump when he was running before the primaries, then endorsed him after or right before the primaries.  It  has been going on a long time and the biggest place it is obvious is when the national conventions happen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Because you weren't being bused into a black school in Delaware and Biden wasn't your senator.

Twice in my life I have seen what happens when you bus kids to a different neighborhood, instead of busing there should have been equity in all schools in a city somehow, but I can see how busing was the easiest way of dealing with something.  The problem is that it only went one way.  In Albuquerque the feds sued the City of Albuquerque public schools because the native kids living at the dorms  that used to be boarding schools were only attending local schools (the neighborhood I grew up in)  So the first year my mother started teaching in 1970 those kids were bused all over the city and the teachers in the school she was hired were upset.  She told the principal she would take them all but that wasn't allowed. 

Then in the 80's I moved to Midland with my two children and found that they had recently been sued by the feds to start busing because the city was severely segregated, hispanics (native/conquistador spainairds,  they had been there longer than any one) in one quarter, rich whites in another quarter, very poor people, mostly black, in one quarter then the 4th quarter was a mix of every one middle class.  The way they approached it was to let all children go to their neighborhood elementary school kindergarten through 3rd grade, then bus all 4th graders to the rich neighborhood, all 5th graders to the middle class neighborhood and all 6th graders to the poor neighborhood.  It got the feds off their backs and I guess the people were happy.  It is the only segregated town I have ever lived in.  There were only 2 highschools and junior highs so almost everyone was already bused after grade 6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Ok.  I read it again and still don't get your response.  Anyway, there are a lot of people who don't think for themselves, they don't remember last election or last year or even last week sometimes so they can be easily manipulated into voting a certain way.  As for what the Wistman said, it made no sense to  me.  Of course the democratic party is manipulated and there is always an agenda, just like the republican party.  That's why many who publicly said rude, accurate things about Trump when he was running before the primaries, then endorsed him after or right before the primaries.  It  has been going on a long time and the biggest place it is obvious is when the national conventions happen.

Basically it's been asserted in this thread that there is nothing offensive about biden but there is in fact much offensive about him even when you ignore the creepy way he treats females and especially little girls :wacko:

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Because black people don't think for themselves and vote how they're told. 

Scurrilous snark. :)  Clyburn was sheepdogging his electorate for Biden, the candidate who in his long career has little to no record of friendliness or fairness to Amercan people of color.  But since Clyburn's electorate trusts him (sadly in my view), they voted as he pressed them to do.  Such happens when too much trust is invested in one's congress critters, by any faction of the electorate, and is common among many.  It's a hallmark of the current zeitgeist. The SC vote did cement Biden's winning run for the nomination, Bernie lost all headwind as other states fell in line (voted for Biden), and suddenly Clyburn was hailed on cable TV as a kingmaker.  So yes, in the end, the democrats voted for Biden.  I concede that point...it's unavoidable, but without context is misleading of the process.

Let's remember that other primary candidates (besides Bernie) had campaigned hard and long and had actually won a few primaries.  Biden had come in late and hadn't done any of that.  There were reports that the other candidates resented his coming in at the last moment and getting the red carpet treatment.  Remember?  Still they all threw in the towel and transferred their wins to Biden....at once.  Don't you think one or other of them would be reluctant to give up their chances?  Why did they all decide Biden should be the one to win, and that not one of them should?  Why not Harris, for instance.  She's a neoliberal, she might have thought her chances were as good as Biden's, if all the other candidates would bow out and give her their wins.  Buttigieg had oodles of corporate pac money, tons of charm, and had distanced himself from the progressives and Bernie.  Why were his chances no good, but Biden's were without peer.  Couldn't the same screws be tightened for a Buttigieg run as they were (in my view) for Biden?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Wistman said:

Scurrilous snark. :)  Clyburn was sheepdogging his electorate for Biden, the candidate who in his long career has little to no record of friendliness or fairness to Amercan people of color.  But since Clyburn's electorate trusts him (sadly in my view), they voted as he pressed them to do.  Such happens when too much trust is invested in one's congress critters, by any faction of the electorate, and is common among many.  It's a hallmark of the current zeitgeist. The SC vote did cement Biden's winning run for the nomination, Bernie lost all headwind as other states fell in line (voted for Biden), and suddenly Clyburn was hailed on cable TV as a kingmaker.  So yes, in the end, the democrats voted for Biden.  I concede that point...it's unavoidable, but without context is misleading of the process.

Let's remember that other primary candidates (besides Bernie) had campaigned hard and long and had actually won a few primaries.  Biden had come in late and hadn't done any of that.  There were reports that the other candidates resented his coming in at the last moment and getting the red carpet treatment.  Remember?  Still they all threw in the towel and transferred their wins to Biden....at once.  Don't you think one or other of them would be reluctant to give up their chances?  Why did they all decide Biden should be the one to win, and that not one of them should?  Why not Harris, for instance.  She's a neoliberal, she might have thought her chances were as good as Biden's, if all the other candidates would bow out and give her their wins.  Buttigieg had oodles of corporate pac money, tons of charm, and had distanced himself from the progressives and Bernie.  Why were his chances no good, but Biden's were without peer.  Couldn't the same screws be tightened for a Buttigieg run as they were (in my view) for Biden?

Bernie was a place holder, used to get the results to fit the agenda.  It is something all 3 parties do to manipulate the outcome of the primaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, The Wistman said:

Scurrilous snark. :)  Clyburn was sheepdogging his electorate for Biden, the candidate who in his long career has little to no record of friendliness or fairness to Amercan people of color.  But since Clyburn's electorate trusts him (sadly in my view), they voted as he pressed them to do.  Such happens when too much trust is invested in one's congress critters, by any faction of the electorate, and is common among many.  It's a hallmark of the current zeitgeist. The SC vote did cement Biden's winning run for the nomination, Bernie lost all headwind as other states fell in line (voted for Biden), and suddenly Clyburn was hailed on cable TV as a kingmaker.  So yes, in the end, the democrats voted for Biden.  I concede that point...it's unavoidable, but without context is misleading of the process.

Let's remember that other primary candidates (besides Bernie) had campaigned hard and long and had actually won a few primaries.  Biden had come in late and hadn't done any of that.  There were reports that the other candidates resented his coming in at the last moment and getting the red carpet treatment.  Remember?  Still they all threw in the towel and transferred their wins to Biden....at once.  Don't you think one or other of them would be reluctant to give up their chances?  Why did they all decide Biden should be the one to win, and that not one of them should?  Why not Harris, for instance.  She's a neoliberal, she might have thought her chances were as good as Biden's, if all the other candidates would bow out and give her their wins.  Buttigieg had oodles of corporate pac money, tons of charm, and had distanced himself from the progressives and Bernie.  Why were his chances no good, but Biden's were without peer.  Couldn't the same screws be tightened for a Buttigieg run as they were (in my view) for Biden?

South Carolina was significant because it showed how the candidates did with demographics others then rural whites. Unlike with Iowa and New Hampshire. South Carolina made is clear the other candidates didn't have much minority support.

It's really hard to win the Democrat ticket if your support amongst minorites isn't very good. 

Also, as I mentioned before. California was part of super Tuesday this year. In the past this wasen't true. So traditionally candidates could hang on longer to shoot their shot. But with both Texas and California on super Tuesday you can't hang on as long. So the candidates had to make a choice of if they wanted someone with similar values as themselves and their supporters to win or if they wanted to give it to Bernie because his supporters aren't split between 5 candidates.

I think it would be a bigger failure of the system if someone with only 30 percent of the vote ended up winning simply because how candidates split voters. It wouldn't be representative of the Democrats. 

Nonething about this progression is a conspiracy. It's all logical politics. 

 

 

Edited by spartan max2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Bernie was a place holder, used to get the results to fit the agenda.  It is something all 3 parties do to manipulate the outcome of the primaries.

I don't think that's true.  He was in my opinion a genuine threat to the powers that be and had the wind behind him, hence the contortions by the party to secure his defeat... though like last time once he conceded he has worked hard for the nominee...to the chagrin of many of his supporters and charges of him being a sheepdog.  That being said, there was never much chance that the institutional Democratic party would in the end let him be the nominee...my point with all of this.

  What is the third party?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Because black people don't think for themselves and vote how they're told. 

They said that about women, too.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Wistman said:

I don't think that's true.  He was in my opinion a genuine threat to the powers that be and had the wind behind him, hence the contortions by the party to secure his defeat... though like last time once he conceded he has worked hard for the nominee...to the chagrin of many of his supporters and charges of him being a sheepdog.  That being said, there was never much chance that the institutional Democratic party would in the end let him be the nominee...my point with all of this.

  What is the third party?

If that were true and he were serious about running he would have run as an independent, he would have gotten a lot of support that way, and may have finally broken the choke hold the two parties have on our election system, but he was not serious so last minute he throws in to skew the votes in the primaries and then puts his name as support for Biden.  Total  manipulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

They said that about women, too.

Doug

Context.  There is context to my ignorant sounding post.  It was in response to something.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Desertrat56   Recent independent runs haven't worked.  He was cautioned not to try a Dem run, but he thought (so he says) that it was the only possible path to an actual win, though odds were always against him.  Remember, he wasn't going to run at all until it turned out that Hillary had no, as in no, competitors (at first) in the primary so he threw in his hat and made a run for it.

I don't think Bernie's a manipulator.  Sorry.

Now I'm tired of this argument.  I've made my points.  Happy day everybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, The Wistman said:

@Desertrat56   Recent independent runs haven't worked.  He was cautioned not to try a Dem run, but he thought (so he says) that it was the only possible path to an actual win, though odds were always against him.  Remember, he wasn't going to run at all until it turned out that Hillary had no, as in no, competitors (at first) in the primary so he threw in his hat and made a run for it.

I don't think Bernie's a manipulator.  Sorry.

Now I'm tired of this argument.  I've made my points.  Happy day everybody.

Bernie is high enough in the democratic party to do what ever they tell him to do.  It isn't about him being a minipulator, it is about the party.  You don't have to say sorry for disagreeing with me.

Happy day to you too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Basically it's been asserted in this thread that there is nothing offensive about biden but there is in fact much offensive about him even when you ignore the creepy way he treats females and especially little girls 

It comes down to the 2016 dilemma and lack of a good choice again. 

2016 At least Trump is not Hillary.

2020 At least Biden is not Trump

Crazy heartless old men competing to run a once great country into the ground.  Shades of the Hunger Games.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Trump tries to evoke with MAGA, the good ole days.

The days where segregation was a "thing" but so was general acceptance of laws, working for a living and respecting your neighbors?  What Biden believes is actually immaterial.  He'll be kept under cover - like now - while others point to where he should sign.  Half the nation is aware of that and will refuse to accept it.  Kind of like the blue cities/states that told Trump to shove it over immigration LAWS.  That door swings both ways and I think your comrades are going to lose their minds in indignation when THEY are being ignored.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tatetopa said:

It comes down to the 2016 dilemma and lack of a good choice again. 

2016 At least Trump is not Hillary.

2020 At least Biden is not Trump

Crazy heartless old men competing to run a once great country into the ground.  Shades of the Hunger Games.  

You have a  third choice, and voting for the third choice might be better or it might not, but either way voting against Trump or against Biden, OR voting for the "least of the bad options" are immature and useless, that is how Trump got elected in 2016, all those 30 year old men who hated Hilary and had never voted before went out and voted for Trump.  Total idiocy.  It is why we have such a messed up system, because everyone buys the lie, the big LIE that we are stuck choosing betwteen a democrat and a republican.  In local elections and even some areas the federal representatives are not all democrats and republicans, however in order to break the majority (which ever side it happens to be on this time) we need to start consistently electing independents, green, libertarian, space party, love party or anything not democrat and republican.

Those two parties run the country by running/ruining our elections with their control.  Just like the teamsters, they no longer have anyone's best interest of anyone except the survival of the organization.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, and then said:

The days where segregation was a "thing" but so was general acceptance of laws, working for a living and respecting your neighbors?  What Biden believes is actually immaterial.  He'll be kept under cover - like now - while others point to where he should sign.  Half the nation is aware of that and will refuse to accept it.  Kind of like the blue cities/states that told Trump to shove it over immigration LAWS.  That door swings both ways and I think your comrades are going to lose their minds in indignation when THEY are being ignored.  

Yep those days.  But neither Trump nor Biden can turn back the clock.  And maybe we want the good parts like law and order, respect for neighbors and elders, and earning a living back without segregation and Red Scares.

We can't go back to get any of that stuff, we have to go forward. Family wage manufacturing jobs aren't coming back no matter which party in in power.. Bringing back incandescent lights, saying Merry Christmas  and making toilets flush louder won't get us back the values we really are nostalgic for.  

The door does swing both ways and frequently you have been a proponent of swinging that door toward state, city, and individual rights.  More than once you have exhorted to burn it down..  Seems like BLM may have been taking queues from you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

Those two parties run the country by running/ruining our elections with their control.  Just like the teamsters, they no longer have anyone's best interest of anyone except the survival of the organization.

Yep, I have taken that third choice several times and most recently in 2016.  Only a couple of times in local elections has it paid off.  And yet, hope springs eternal.  Sometimes though, it is not a matter of who wins, but staying true to principles that both parties have abandoned.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, and then said:

I begin to believe that it will be days or weeks after the election before we are told - by the Supreme Court - who the winner is.  The mail-in balloting scam is going to WRECK the trust in this election.

I'm from Oregon, we have mail in voting, we have literally never had a problem with it. You know how I know this? Eastern Oregon is super p***ed off the rest of the state is liberal, Bend would never shut up if there was even the slightest HINT of fraud from those ballots. Its not even been the slightest of issue for us, and it helps us avoid having to stand in line for six hours when its downpouring and an amorous bigfoot is lurking in the nearby woods.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, OverSword said:

Because black people don't think for themselves and vote how they're told. 

Yknow, at some point republicans are gonna have to look at all the minority groups who hate their guts, and ask themselves one simple question "Maybe it's us?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Autochthon1990 said:

Yknow, at some point republicans are gonna have to look at all the minority groups who hate their guts, and ask themselves one simple question "Maybe it's us?".

Or at some point the minority groups and the rest of us will look in the mirror and ask ourselves what have the democrats done for us lately?  The democrats, since the 90's abandoned the working class for big business.  To us commoners they do lip service only.  Don't listen to them, watch what they do, look who pays for their elections.  They are more worried about power than they are about you or I.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Autochthon1990 said:

I'm from Oregon, we have mail in voting, we have literally never had a problem with it. You know how I know this? Eastern Oregon is super p***ed off the rest of the state is liberal, Bend would never shut up if there was even the slightest HINT of fraud from those ballots. Its not even been the slightest of issue for us, and it helps us avoid having to stand in line for six hours when its downpouring and an amorous bigfoot is lurking in the nearby woods.

Don't know what to tell you.  When a new system is put in place for states that haven't used it on such a scale before, it opens the process up to being untrustworthy.  I think Democrat politicians want it for reasons that have nothing to do with protecting the health of their constituents.  That opinion is shared by a huge number of Republicans and the real issue isn't how much cheating will happen.  You get that, right?  It's about trust in the process.  If one side doesn't TRUST the outcome, they will be focused on denying it.  

You know, like you guys have been doing since 2016 even when you never found ANY EVIDENCE that there was cheating.  But hey, I get it.  Anything to beat the BOM.  After all, it isn't like the media will help Rs create any public pressure or like they'd be strong enough to do anything but just accept the flawed results.  IMO, there is no way this election is going to lead to a peaceful transition of power.  ESPECIALLY if a judge or panel of judges makes the decision.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

The reality is that Trump is just as much a senile old codger as Joe.

If that makes you feel better about Biden then that's on you.  Trump has been playing the media like a Stradivarius for years.  He has an uncanny knack for winning in nearly every situation against the Dems who've been trying to take him down.  Biden is demonstrating real symptoms of dementia.  It isn't that his speech is "rambling".  He straight up loses the thread and it has been obvious since he first started his run.

If he is forced to debate on a live stage, you guys will lose any chance you had with the Independents you so badly need.  If he cowers and hides, that's going to damage him as well.  Trump's campaign - Trump himself - will BRUTALIZE Joe for cowardice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, and then said:

Don't know what to tell you.  When a new system is put in place for states that haven't used it on such a scale before, it opens the process up to being untrustworthy.  I think Democrat politicians want it for reasons that have nothing to do with protecting the health of their constituents.  That opinion is shared by a huge number of Republicans and the real issue isn't how much cheating will happen.  You get that, right?  It's about trust in the process.  If one side doesn't TRUST the outcome, they will be focused on denying it.  

You know, like you guys have been doing since 2016 even when you never found ANY EVIDENCE that there was cheating.  But hey, I get it.  Anything to beat the BOM.  After all, it isn't like the media will help Rs create any public pressure or like they'd be strong enough to do anything but just accept the flawed results.  IMO, there is no way this election is going to lead to a peaceful transition of power.  ESPECIALLY if a judge or panel of judges makes the decision.  

Please, he could (And is aimed to) defeat Trump in an electoral landslide and you'd just blame the deep state. We took a look at Russian interference, found it, found solid proof of it, made it known to the public. That's not why he was impeached, he was impeached for just an insane amount of unethical bull****. I mean honestly the commander and chief is, right now, shilling for a /bean company/ behind the resolute desk. 

You guys need to get your heads out of your ass, admit you backed the worst possible candidate for the position, and rectify it in 2020, or you're not gonna like what the history books have to say about you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.