World leaders now have to deal with Trump as POTUS

[Doc Socks Junior]

16 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

You bring up YouTube a lot in this post

I figured it's useful for folks to know where you get your ideas from.

16 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

A better speech would be at the very least a bare minimum (at the VERY LEAST) I would expect from someone who believed Trump was a danger to democracy. He could have outright said "if you want the ability to vote in 2028, fight for your rights every step of the way, don't let Trump bully you, don't let him pass legislation, protest at every turn and ensure that in 4 years time you still have a country to vote in". The quote you did cite doesn't highlight the danger Trump allegedly poses, nowhere near.

Sure, Slow Joe could have given a better speech. But, as someone who understands that Trump does pose a threat to democracy, I found the speech acceptable. Biden has given multiple speeches to that affect with more gusto. However, in the context of a transfer of power - which, of course, is at the core of Trump's threat to democracy - it doesn't really make sense to go all in. 

However, we've now moved down one step in the rung. Now you're just quibbling about how much he said. His speech as is basically mirrors your options from #56.

But of course, it's simply a moving target. You've had the idea "Biden lied about his belief in Trump being a danger to democracy" inserted into your head, and now you're looking for post-hoc rationalization.

But see, now you say that "a better speech would be at the very least a bare minimum". You actually repeat that point three times. What's the median thing Joe could have done? Obviously you aren't just talking about speech any more.

16 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

You're being disingenuous if you cannot think of a single thing Biden could have done to have expressed his views on Trump being an existential threat to democracy. 

You're being disingenuous by saying I cannot think of a single thing Biden could have done.

I never said such a thing. I don't think that there are many options that don't also erode democracy as well.

The most basic option is political rhetoric, and he's been doing that for a while. 

16 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Which YouTuber did I watch? As far as I know I haven't watched any YouTuber analyse Biden's speech. Do you have access to my YouTube Watch History in order to arrive at this conclusion? Even if I did watch such a YouTube video (as far as I know I didn't) the conclusions I draw from them are my own. 

As such I will go back and repeat my comment from the last post and address it to you once again:

"Incorrect"

The guy with the annoying voice. I would also agree that the speech wasn't analysed. 

Your inability to draw your own conclusions from YouTube videos was well illustrated in our discussion about the SoTU, to the point where you were simply parroting lies you heard on a video, so I won't bother repeating the discussion here.

16 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Oh, you're still talking about YouTube      

Joe Biden is lying, if you disagree I'm happy to agree to disagree (provided you don't try to twist that into me losing the debate). There's nothing more to say on that. 

Your inherited contention that Joe Biden was lying here doesn't fit the available pattern of facts, is contingent on an illogical inference, and ultimately, is a constructed fantasy which you require in order to bolster your belief system.

I'm unsurprised that you are clinging to it so strongly.

[Doc Socks Junior]

8 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

But even if they did think that, every post that has interpreted my comments in a violent way or asked me for suggestions has been swiftly challenged and explicitly countered with obvious non-violent alternatives as well as declaring that Biden is doing the right thing by facilitating a peaceful transfer of power (see posts #23, #24, #34, #47, #56, #60).

In post #23, you say ”he would do anything he could to prevent it, including stopping him from taking office".

So, post 73 is a lie, and given you must have needed to look back at the previous posts, almost certainly an intentional lie.

Alas, I must return to my usual admonition to you: lie less.

[Doc Socks Junior]

Back on topic...

https://www.newsweek.com/russian-state-tv-airs-melania-trumps-nudes-primetime-1982683

Looks like the Russian politicians are shaking in the boots at the thought of another Trump presidency.

Edited November 10, 2024 by Doc Socks Junior

[+DieChecker]

19 hours ago, psyche101 said:

That's how democracy works. Not a Maga concept I know. 

@DieChecker and I had a very interesting discussion about this. He's a great poster, you should take some tips there. 

Democracy can be used to destroy democracy. People can vote a dictator in who can remove the right to vote. 

Respecting democracy is democratic. Quite the conundrum but that's how it works. 

It seems more like you're trying to start your own conspiracy theory again. 

The #2 issue at exit polling was "Protect Demoncracy". Funny how both the Ds and Rs think they're candidate will protect it, but coming from two opposite directions. 

Myself, I'm not sure either was for real. Both parties want only to retain power.

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Back on topic...

https://www.newsweek.com/russian-state-tv-airs-melania-trumps-nudes-primetime-1982683

Looks like the Russian politicians are shaking in the boots at the thought of another Trump presidency.

I wonder if it is actual fear of Mr Chaos Dictator, or part of an partnership? Many say Putin owns Trump, but might it now be the other way around?

[Doc Socks Junior]

5 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I wonder if it is actual fear of Mr Chaos Dictator, or part of an partnership? Many say Putin owns Trump, but might it now be the other way around?

Well, no, airing his wife's nude modelling work probably doesn't count as actual fear.

I haven't seen convincing evidence of Putin owning Trump. From the Trump-Putin-Musk ongoing contact it looks like more of a partnership.

[+Razman]

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I wonder if it is actual fear of Mr Chaos Dictator, or part of an partnership? Many say Putin owns Trump, but might it now be the other way around?

He's just waitin for him , partnership you know..

 

Edited November 10, 2024 by Razman

[+Link of Hyrule]

5 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

I figured it's useful for folks to know where you get your ideas from.

 Ok boomer  

 

5 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Sure, Slow Joe could have given a better speech. But, as someone who understands that Trump does pose a threat to democracy, I found the speech acceptable. Biden has given multiple speeches to that affect with more gusto. However, in the context of a transfer of power - which, of course, is at the core of Trump's threat to democracy - it doesn't really make sense to go all in. 

However, we've now moved down one step in the rung. Now you're just quibbling about how much he said. His speech as is basically mirrors your options from #56.

But of course, it's simply a moving target. You've had the idea "Biden lied about his belief in Trump being a danger to democracy" inserted into your head, and now you're looking for post-hoc rationalization.

But see, now you say that "a better speech would be at the very least a bare minimum". You actually repeat that point three times. What's the median thing Joe could have done? Obviously you aren't just talking about speech any more.

You're being disingenuous by saying I cannot think of a single thing Biden could have done.

I never said such a thing. I don't think that there are many options that don't also erode democracy as well.

The most basic option is political rhetoric, and he's been doing that for a while. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/full-remarks-biden-addresses-trump-victory-and-transfer-of-power-223829061589

Biden's speech said nothing about Trump's danger. This is ridiculous if Biden believes his own rhetoric. But as I've contended, Biden doesn't believe his rhetoric. The end. 

 

5 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

The guy with the annoying voice. I would also agree that the speech wasn't analysed. 

Your inability to draw your own conclusions from YouTube videos was well illustrated in our discussion about the SoTU, to the point where you were simply parroting lies you heard on a video, so I won't bother repeating the discussion here.

Did he talk about that? Lol, I don't even remember that. Hilarious that you think a video I don't even recall discussing that specific topic is my source for pointing out that I believe Biden doesn't believe his rhetoric  

 

5 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Your inherited contention that Joe Biden was lying here doesn't fit the available pattern of facts, is contingent on an illogical inference, and ultimately, is a constructed fantasy which you require in order to bolster your belief system.

I'm unsurprised that you are clinging to it so strongly.

I think I've said all I need to. 

 

5 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

In post #23, you say ”he would do anything he could to prevent it, including stopping him from taking office".

So, post 73 is a lie, and given you must have needed to look back at the previous posts, almost certainly an intentional lie.

Alas, I must return to my usual admonition to you: lie less.

My bad, I forgot I had written that. Of course, in context of post #23, I also wrote that Joe Biden is doing the right thing by not calling for any violence, and clarified that "he never truly believed Trump was a danger to democracy", so when I suggested that Biden would stop him from taking office IF he believed Trump was a danger, it was hyperbolic. I hope that clarifies, the context appears obvious to me, but I did miss that when I went through my posts in my last post. I hope I've clarified for you  

Edit: for those who wish to see my post, they'll note that in addition to my clarifying contexts, I also included the word IF, which you did not include in your response, as in IF Biden believes what he claims, not "this is what Biden should do and his beliefs be damned":  

On 11/9/2024 at 10:26 PM, Link of Hyrule said:

Of course I agree that Biden should do what he's doing now.  But he never truly believed Trump was a danger to democracy, and that's my point in this.  He was just talking. If he truly believed Trump was a danger to democracy  he would do anything he could to prevent it, including stopping him from taking office. 

 

Edited November 10, 2024 by Link of Hyrule

[Golden Duck]

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

The #2 issue at exit polling was "Protect Demoncracy". Funny how both the Ds and Rs think they're candidate will protect it, but coming from two opposite directions. 

Myself, I'm not sure either was for real. Both parties want only to retain power.

Some would say that Demoncracy [sic] was the winner

[psyche101]

14 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

While his own version of January 6 is one option, it wouldn't have been my first suggestion, or even fifth or sixth or tenth. My initial post (post #10) explicitly pointed to  "political rhetoric" and "lies" and suggests Biden doesn't believe his blabber, and I go back to that point several times (eg, post #41, #55 and #67),  so i don't know why folks think violence is the only logical option. But even if they did think that, every post that has interpreted my comments in a violent way or asked me for suggestions has been swiftly challenged and explicitly countered with obvious non-violent alternatives as well as declaring that Biden is doing the right thing by facilitating a peaceful transfer of power (see posts #23, #24, #34, #47, #56, #60). 

If folks are misunderstanding my posts it's therefore almost certainly intentional, and anyone reading along can see the (il)logic required to frame my words as violence.

Several have read it that way 

I know you can't ever be at fault because you consider yourself perfect, but it's a coincidence that you are the common denominator. 

You're rubbish at communicating.

[psyche101]

13 hours ago, Unusual Tournament said:

Really don’t know that much about it. All it seems like the least qualified people are going to be in powerful positions 

RFK is a known danger to health. 

Trump is actually putting people at risk by elevating that utter moron into such in important decision 

Maybe after four years there won't be that many Americans left the way it's going.

[+Link of Hyrule]

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

Several have read it that way 

Maybe, but I've clarified multiple times, so if they still read it that way, then that's on them. 

 

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

I know you can't ever be at fault because you consider yourself perfect, but it's a coincidence that you are the common denominator. 

I'm not perfect. Better than you, certainly, but not perfect. If you read my post and STILL think I'm advocating violence, then that's on you, no matter what quality of communication you allege. On that note:

 

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

You're rubbish at communicating.

Good to know, if you truly believe this you should be bearing with me and seeking clarification instead of running with assumptions that are almost always incorrect. 

[psyche101]

3 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Maybe, but I've clarified multiple times, so if they still read it that way, then that's on them. 

 

I'm not perfect. Better than you, certainly, but not perfect. If you read my post and STILL think I'm advocating violence, then that's on you, no matter what quality of communication you allege. On that note:

 

Good to know, if you truly believe this you should be bearing with me and seeking clarification instead of running with assumptions that are almost always incorrect. 

That's what I've done. Several times. 

Clarification doesn't help. It's still a very silly conspiracy theory.

Very silly 

[CrimsonKing]

22 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

RFK is a known danger to health. 

Trump is actually putting people at risk by elevating that utter moron into such in important decision 

Maybe after four years there won't be that many Americans left the way it's going.

Read somewhere earlier today that RFK might not be able to get security clearance to do anything big in the department of health.

[psyche101]

25 minutes ago, CrimsonKing said:

Read somewhere earlier today that RFK might not be able to get security clearance to do anything big in the department of health.

Oh that would be a relief. 

You've heard what a whackjob he is het. His kids say it was a nightmare growing up. He once chainsawed the head of a dead whale, tied it to the roof of his car and drive around town. 

There's a good reason his family says nice guy, but they don't support a single thing he says 

[+and-then]

15 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

If folks are misunderstanding my posts it's therefore almost certainly intentional, and anyone reading along can see the (il)logic required to frame my words as violence.

I saw nothing even remotely indicative of advocating for violence.

[+Link of Hyrule]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

That's what I've done. Several times. 

Clarification doesn't help. It's still a very silly conspiracy theory.

Very silly 

Your opinion is noted. Thanks for the chat. 

[CrimsonKing]

3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Oh that would be a relief. 

You've heard what a whackjob he is het. His kids say it was a nightmare growing up. He once chainsawed the head of a dead whale, tied it to the roof of his car and drive around town. 

There's a good reason his family says nice guy, but they don't support a single thing he says 

Yeah,I wouldn't be one to take medical advice from him lol

[+Link of Hyrule]

3 minutes ago, and-then said:

I saw nothing even remotely indicative of advocating for violence.

I know, it's the way the left reads things. They are unable to grasp basic context. It's the type of attitude that allows them to claim Trump threatened a bloodbath if he lost the election. All part of the same intentionally deceptive presentation of facts. Oh, Hyrule, you said that Joe Biden should start an insurrection..... BS, they know I didn't, but it suits them to paint my words like. I do think that if he truly believed that Trump was a threat to democracy he wouldn't just be leaving it while saying nothing, at the very least he could say something to remind people to guard democracy, and that was the entire point of my comment, which has since been taken out of all sorts of context to try and imply that I think Biden should be violent... 

Edited November 11, 2024 by Link of Hyrule

[+Razman]

1 hour ago, Link of Hyrule said:

I know, it's the way the left reads things. They are unable to grasp basic context. It's the type of attitude that allows them to claim Trump threatened a bloodbath if he lost the election. All part of the same intentionally deceptive presentation of facts. Oh, Hyrule, you said that Joe Biden should start an insurrection..... BS, they know I didn't, but it suits them to paint my words like. I do think that if he truly believed that Trump was a threat to democracy he wouldn't just be leaving it while saying nothing, at the very least he could say something to remind people to guard democracy, and that was the entire point of my comment, which has since been taken out of all sorts of context to try and imply that I think Biden should be violent... 

Ok , so this was your first comments i saw about this . -----

"Of course I agree that Biden should do what he's doing now.  But he never truly believed Trump was a danger to democracy, and that's my point in this.  He was just talking. If he truly believed Trump was a danger to democracy  he would do anything he could to prevent it, including stopping him from taking office. 

"If Biden truly believed that Trump was a danger to democracy he'd do something about it. He took an oath to defend the united States from enemies both foreign and domestic. 

"No, if you truly believe someone/something is a threat to democracy, you stop it. To not do so is to abandon your country.

"Defend the Constitution by handing government to someone who will destroy democracy... that doesn't make sense

So i asked you how he was supposed to stop it and never got an answer. I asked again what was your point but eventually i saw that you were just going as much out of your way as you could to claim that Biden was lying and that it wasn't sincere(his speech), thats why i asked if it bothered you in some way that Biden and Harris was doing the right thing by congratulating him and support for a transition. I mean , from some of the things you were saying above , it caught me by surprise coming from you , but yea , it kind of sounded like you were calling for some drastic measures of a sort at first .  i wasn't accusing you of some kind of insurrection as i know that is not like you, i was just asking if thats what you were saying and what the heck you were talking about. I didn't see all the thread at first , just caught those couple things , but once i saw more , i got it then.

Edited November 11, 2024 by Razman

[+Link of Hyrule]

22 minutes ago, Razman said:

Ok , so this was your first comments i saw about this . -----

"Of course I agree that Biden should do what he's doing now.  But he never truly believed Trump was a danger to democracy, and that's my point in this.  He was just talking. If he truly believed Trump was a danger to democracy  he would do anything he could to prevent it, including stopping him from taking office. 

"If Biden truly believed that Trump was a danger to democracy he'd do something about it. He took an oath to defend the united States from enemies both foreign and domestic. 

"No, if you truly believe someone/something is a threat to democracy, you stop it. To not do so is to abandon your country.

"Defend the Constitution by handing government to someone who will destroy democracy... that doesn't make sense

So i asked you how he was supposed to stop it and never got an answer. I asked again what was your point but eventually i saw that you were just going as much out of your way as you could to claim that Biden was lying and that it wasn't sincere(his speech), thats why i asked if it bothered you in some way that Biden and Harris was doing the right thing by congratulating him and support for a transition. I mean , from some of the things you were saying above , it caught me by surprise coming from you , but yea , it kind of sounded like you were calling for some drastic measures of a sort at first .  i wasn't accusing you of some kind of insurrection as i know that is not like you, i was just asking if thats what you were saying and what the heck you were talking about. I didn't see all the thread at first , just caught those couple things , but once i saw more , i got it then.

My comments were hyperbolic, suggesting what a person who truly believes democracy was in danger would do. As you yourself quoted, I have written several times that "of course Biden should do what he's doing right now" (in other words, not bringing it up, not making a big deal out of it). But if Biden truly believed that Trump was a danger to democracy he WOULD be doing something. Perhaps that would be as drastic as telling people to march in protest (and if Biden could see no genuine alternative making this warning would be better than nothing), but it doesn't have to be that extreme, I've offered several alternatives about how he could include the dangers of a Trump presidency within his congratulatory speech. 

If you asked me this question and I didn't reply, I apologise as I must have missed your post. I'm sure I've said basically this same thing several times in this thread, so if I did miss your post then I hope my general sentiment was represented in one of the other posts I've made. Apologies for missing your post, and I hope I've clarified now  

[+Razman]

58 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

My comments were hyperbolic, suggesting what a person who truly believes democracy was in danger would do. As you yourself quoted, I have written several times that "of course Biden should do what he's doing right now" (in other words, not bringing it up, not making a big deal out of it). But if Biden truly believed that Trump was a danger to democracy he WOULD be doing something. Perhaps that would be as drastic as telling people to march in protest (and if Biden could see no genuine alternative making this warning would be better than nothing), but it doesn't have to be that extreme, I've offered several alternatives about how he could include the dangers of a Trump presidency within his congratulatory speech. 

If you asked me this question and I didn't reply, I apologise as I must have missed your post. I'm sure I've said basically this same thing several times in this thread, so if I did miss your post then I hope my general sentiment was represented in one of the other posts I've made. Apologies for missing your post, and I hope I've clarified now  

Yea , once i saw more of the thread then i figured it out. At first i thought " maybe he's losing it or something"  Or maybe he's actually mad that Trump won.

Edited November 11, 2024 by Razman

[Doc Socks Junior]

5 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

 Ok boomer  

Two generations off, but that level of inaccuracy is what I expect.

5 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/full-remarks-biden-addresses-trump-victory-and-transfer-of-power-223829061589

Biden's speech said nothing about Trump's danger. This is ridiculous if Biden believes his own rhetoric. But as I've contended, Biden doesn't believe his rhetoric. The end. 

And yet, we've established that he did mention that danger (i.e., "struggle for the soul of America is not over"). You contend that's not enough to convince you.

As I said, you can fantasize whatever you want. I'm just here representing reality.

5 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Did he talk about that? Lol, I don't even remember that. Hilarious that you think a video I don't even recall discussing that specific topic is my source for pointing out that I believe Biden doesn't believe his rhetoric  

Hilarious you feel the need to conceal that you're simply a pass through for a YouTuber's opinions. 

5 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

I think I've said all I need to. 

You've repeated what you've heard, and refuse to listen to logic...so yeah, I think the steps of the dance have played out as usual.

5 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

My bad, I forgot I had written that. Of course, in context of post #23, I also wrote that Joe Biden is doing the right thing by not calling for any violence, and clarified that "he never truly believed Trump was a danger to democracy", so when I suggested that Biden would stop him from taking office IF he believed Trump was a danger, it was hyperbolic. I hope that clarifies, the context appears obvious to me, but I did miss that when I went through my posts in my last post. I hope I've clarified for you 

Eh, I mean, your dishonesty is common enough that I don't feel you need to say "my bad". Just own the pretzel logic, chief.

I understand that you're not calling for violence yourself, it's a little straw man you're setting up to muddy the waters. Another little lie.

You said that if Biden truly believed Trump was a threat to democracy that he'd do "anything" and stop Trump from taking office. That he isn't doing so is proof, to your mind, that Biden was being dishonest. I'm saying that statement doesn't follow good logic. I'm saying that behaving like an authoritarian is not the way to deal with a threat to democracy, and Biden not abandoning democracy to deal with a threat thereto is proof of good sense, not dishonesty. 

You said in that recent post that all your suggestions for how Biden could prove his bonafides were non-violent. As we can see from #23, that is a lie. (And, indeed, that was the post I responded to because of how ridiculous the assertion was.)

5 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Edit: for those who wish to see my post, they'll note that in addition to my clarifying contexts, I also included the word IF, which you did not include in your response, as in IF Biden believes what he claims, not "this is what Biden should do and his beliefs be damned":  

Yes, that point - irrational as it is - was always understood by me.

Edited November 11, 2024 by Doc Socks Junior

[+Link of Hyrule]

19 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Two generations off, but that level of inaccuracy is what I expect.

Nah, there's no way you're that old  

 

19 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

And yet, we've established that he did mention that danger (i.e., "struggle for the soul of America is not over"). You contend that's not enough to convince you.

As I said, you can fantasize whatever you want. I'm just here representing reality.

In context, he was saying "the election was fair, this proves it, so let's bring the temperature down". That is not a warning that Trump is a danger to democracy, that's a dig at the 2020 stolen election claims and saying "we were right all along" and an admission that his own rhetoric was raising temperatures. Seriously check the context yourself: 

Quote

You know, the struggle for the soul of America since our very founding has always been an ongoing debate and still vital today. I know, for some people, it’s a time for victory, to state the obvious. For others, it’s a time of loss.

Campaigns are contests of competing visions. The country chooses one or the other. We accept the choice the country made. I’ve said many times you can’t love your country only when you win. You can’t love your neighbor only when you agree.

Something I hope we can do no matter who you voted for is see each other not as adversaries but as fellow Americans. Bring down the temperature.

I also hope we can lay to rest the question about the integrity of the American electoral system. It is honest. It is fair, and it is transparent. And it can be trusted, win or lose.

https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/joebiden2024presidentialelectionoutcome.htm

But of course, you watched the speech, you know this, and yet you're trying to package this statement as Biden addressing the threat to democracy that Trump allegedly represents. That's not what this says at all. 

 

19 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Hilarious you feel the need to conceal that you're simply a pass through for a YouTuber's opinions. 

You've repeated what you've heard, and refuse to listen to logic...so yeah, I think the steps of the dance have played out as usual.

Hilarious that you keep bringing YouTube up  

 

19 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Eh, I mean, your dishonesty is common enough that I don't feel you need to say "my bad". Just own the pretzel logic, chief.

I understand that you're not calling for violence yourself, it's a little straw man you're setting up to muddy the waters. Another little lie.

You said that if Biden truly believed Trump was a threat to democracy that he'd do "anything" and stop Trump from taking office. That he isn't doing so is proof, to your mind, that Biden was being dishonest. I'm saying that statement doesn't follow good logic. I'm saying that behaving like an authoritarian is not the way to deal with a threat to democracy, and Biden not abandoning democracy to deal with a threat thereto is proof of good sense, not dishonesty. 

You said in that recent post that all your suggestions for how Biden could prove his bonafides were non-violent. As we can see from #23, that is a lie. (And, indeed, that was the post I responded to because of how ridiculous the assertion was.)

Typical, no point replying when you get in this mood  

 

19 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Yes, that point - irrational as it is - was always understood by me.

Yet you didn't include it in your post, I felt it's an important qualifier comment that puts the whole thing in proper context, but you do you, mate. 

Edited November 11, 2024 by Link of Hyrule

[Doc Socks Junior]

Removed irrelevancy.

2 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

In context, he was saying "the election was fair, this proves it, so let's bring the temperature down". That is not a warning that Trump is a danger to democracy, that's a dig at the 2020 stolen election claims and saying "we were right all along" and an admission that his own rhetoric was raising temperatures. Seriously check the context yourself: 

But of course, you watched the speech, you know this, and yet you're trying to package this statement as Biden addressing the threat to democracy that Trump allegedly represents. That's not what this says at all. 

In context, in fact, as the quote you put shows, he actually says "the struggle for the soul of America is not done" (i.e., the threat to democracy that Trump and his ilk represent) then he says "Bring down the temperature." then he says "I also hope we can lay to rest" etc.

You can't even put things in proper order when you've quoted them. Odd, that. Is trying to mislead people a practiced thing, or can you honestly not read?

2 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Hilarious that you keep bringing YouTube up  

As long as that's your major source of opinions, it will get brought up.

2 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Typical, no point replying when you get in this mood  

No point in replying when your false statements get directly recognized, and called out? Yes, quite typical of you.

2 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Yet you didn't include it in your post, I felt it's an important qualifier comment that puts the whole thing in proper context, but you do you, mate. 

The word "if" is unimportant to the illustration of the lie in your subsequent post. You said that all your suggestions for how Biden could prove his bonafides were non-violent. As we can see from #23, that is, and remains, a lie. (And, indeed, that was the post I responded to because of how ridiculous the assertion was.) Typical non-sequitur by you, attempting to muddy the waters.