Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 03-10-2020, 05:12 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,731
To follow up: Why doesn't Biden have a pat answer for this? He has had plenty of time to rehearse. What's wrong with this:

I fully support the Second Amendment. I am not trying to take your guns. Yes, I believe that if you have an AR-15 or other assault weapon you should have to register it with the government and we will not allow any more to be sold. Too many people have died with these types of weapons, and although I'm sure you are a good guy, we just can't allow them anymore. I fully support your right to hunt, target shoot, and carry pistols if your state allows it.

If the person pushes back, then say:

I'm sorry we don't see eye to eye on this issue. I'm sure that there are many other issues that we agree upon so that you could still vote for me. I urge you to look at the issues and I hope that you decide that you can still vote for me in November. We need good hardworking guys like you to support our campaign.

Smack him on the back, and then move on. That's Politics 101. Joe's been at it for almost 50 years. He should know better.
  #52  
Old 03-10-2020, 05:13 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 28,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Smack him on the back, and then move on. That's Politics 101. Joe's been at it for almost 50 years. He should know better.
So the perceived assault upset you but you recommend that he actually commit battery?
  #53  
Old 03-10-2020, 05:19 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Biden's mental acuity on display:
OMG, the reporter described the individual as a "voter." Must be a Trump supporter.
  #54  
Old 03-10-2020, 05:20 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
So the perceived assault upset you but you recommend that he actually commit battery?
WTF are you talking about? A slap on the back is not a battery. It's a common social interaction.
  #55  
Old 03-10-2020, 05:23 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 28,832
Not to me it isn't.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 03-10-2020 at 05:25 PM.
  #56  
Old 03-10-2020, 05:46 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 3,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
The citizen then places his hand in front of Biden's finger and says "That's (indicating Biden's pointing) not okay." The reply is not "I'm sorry for invading your personal space" or "Come on, dude, I'm not that close to you" but is a threat to slap the citizen in the face.

How is that not a crime?
Because it's conditional. You, a lawyer, should understand that makes it not an assault.

Quote:
"Don't tell me that, pal, or I'm going to go out and slap you in the face."
(Bolding mine)

On preview, it's also not an imminent threat: "I'm going to go out and..."

Last edited by Moriarty; 03-10-2020 at 05:47 PM.
  #57  
Old 03-10-2020, 05:54 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
Because it's conditional. You, a lawyer, should understand that makes it not an assault.

(Bolding mine)

On preview, it's also not an imminent threat: "I'm going to go out and..."
Come now. You know that you cannot make a conditional threat if you do not have the privilege to use force if the condition if fulfilled.

Example:

1. If you try to harm my spouse, I will punch you in the mouth.

Not assault/illegal threat. If the condition is met, you are privileged to use force.

2. I'll kick your ass if you don't stop dating my sister.

Assault/illegal threat. You do not have privilege to use force if he dates your sister. Dating your sister is legal and you have no say in the matter.

Not imminent? Whatever "I'm going to go out" means in that context (is Biden going to have a scrape in the parking lot? That's more unhinged than anything) a reasonable person would believe that he may take a slap. You cannot get away with a "not imminent" threat by merely saying it will happen 3 seconds from now.

This is horn book stuff here.
  #58  
Old 03-10-2020, 05:59 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,731
IOW, here is the statement:

Quote:
Don't tell me that, pal, or I'm going to go out and slap you in the face.
The "that" that Biden is demanding that he not tell him is that the citizen may not ask him to quit poking his finger in his face. The citizen has every right to say that to anyone. Therefore as the citizen did say that and will continue to say it, he will reasonably fear a battery based upon Biden's words.

ETA: Under your analysis, if a person says "If your heart continues to beat, I will slap you" does that make it not assault as the threat was conditional?

Last edited by UltraVires; 03-10-2020 at 06:00 PM.
  #59  
Old 03-10-2020, 06:06 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
IOW, here is the statement:



The "that" that Biden is demanding that he not tell him is that the citizen may not ask him to quit poking his finger in his face. The citizen has every right to say that to anyone. Therefore as the citizen did say that and will continue to say it, he will reasonably fear a battery based upon Biden's words.

ETA: Under your analysis, if a person says "If your heart continues to beat, I will slap you" does that make it not assault as the threat was conditional?
Does any idle threat constitute a legal assault?

Idle threats are made between people all the time.

I am not sure a reasonable person would believe that Biden meant to throw down then and there with that worker. Biden does not seem a credible threat in that situation.

That he was browbeating that worker is still a super shitty thing to do.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #60  
Old 03-10-2020, 06:35 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Does any idle threat constitute a legal assault?

Idle threats are made between people all the time.

I am not sure a reasonable person would believe that Biden meant to throw down then and there with that worker. Biden does not seem a credible threat in that situation.

That he was browbeating that worker is still a super shitty thing to do.
Ah, it's a good point. I'm sure no prosecutor would want to prosecute that in this situation. It is certainly unusual for a presidential candidate to threaten to slap someone that if I was that guy I might think (and if I was not a supporter, indeed hope) that he might just slap me.

Again, if you use my wife example above, nobody including Biden, would be so forgiving. "Aw hell, I wasn't really going to slap her" wouldn't go very far.

The situation is important. If a bunch of friends are joking and one says, while laughing, "I oughta slap the shit out of you" nobody would reasonably take that as a threat. After someone says to your face that you are full of shit and then says it, I wouldn't discount reasonable fear. And keep in mind that you don't have to be in literal fear that the slap might hurt or that Biden will beat your ass right then and there. The fear is of the offensive contact alone.

The argument is a good one: No presidential candidate is going to slap a citizen on the campaign trail, therefore it is not reasonable to think that he would, even though he said he would.

However, I would respond that it is so unusual for a candidate to threaten to slap someone on the campaign trail that such unusual circumstances would cause that fear in a reasonable person.

Regardless of whether it is a technical crime, it is certainly poor form for a candidate who makes his platform about eliminating domestic violence to personally get violent over a mundane issue.

I'm still wondering what the citizen did wrong here.
  #61  
Old 03-10-2020, 08:36 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
....
I'm still wondering what the citizen did wrong here.
He lied about what Biden plans to do with guns, right to Biden's face. Assuming your suggested Biden response is correct, he's not planning on taking away the AR-15 from anyone who owns one, just have it be registered and not sell any more.

So, he straight up lied about Biden's position and, when Biden called him on it, the guy doubled down.
  #62  
Old 03-10-2020, 08:45 PM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Trump already took it. That is mentioned in the four sentence OP.

Not sure it helps Biden to dignify this dementia thing with a response.
Its the mistake that Warren made with that DNA test, playing Trump and his troll army at their own game.
  #63  
Old 03-10-2020, 08:47 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Assuming your suggested Biden response is correct, he's not planning on taking away the AR-15 from anyone who owns one, just have it be registered and not sell any more.

So, he straight up lied about Biden's position and, when Biden called him on it, the guy doubled down.
I'd be willing to bet the worker would be upset with this too.

Even if the worker was lying about Biden's position (probably just misunderstood it but we can go with lying for this) Biden's response was a bit over-the-top. The guy has been in politics almost his whole life. Nutjobs shouting at you from the peanut gallery is part of the job description and usually the politician brushes it off with a quip and moves on. There is no profit in fighting with such people for the politician as today showed. Why Biden, a savvy political actor, went there is what suggests to me his brain is not firing on all cylinders.

And as many know around here I am no fan of guns but even I know that an AR-15 ban is pure bullshit. The whackjobs who want to cause harm will just slide to a different weapon which, probably, is just as capable as the AR-15 at causing mayhem. It just might not look as cool when doing it.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 03-10-2020 at 08:51 PM.
  #64  
Old 03-10-2020, 09:55 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,731
If you watch the first 10 seconds of this video, Biden indeed says he is coming to take assault weapons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq4vPgyRQY8

Bingo. So it is hard to say that a citizen is "lying" when he says that Biden wants to come and take his guns.

But as noted, even if the citizen was completely lying, why do you insult, threaten, and use profanity at a campaign rally. It says to me that Biden is losing it.

Did you notice his campaign worker trying to shuttle him elsewhere? He told her to "shush." I worked in campaigns in little old WV, but was repeatedly told three rules: 1) the candidate never puts on a hat, 2) the candidate never drinks at a rally, and 3) the candidate never gets into an argument with a voter.

The fact that Biden has come unhinged is just the latest example that shows he has lost it.
  #65  
Old 03-10-2020, 10:08 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
The fact that Biden has come unhinged is just the latest example that shows he has lost it.
I am starting to wonder if the DNC has had a long talk with Biden to get him to become president then he will step aside after a few months for "reasons" and the VP the DNC wants will take over.

Question is who is that VP?
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #66  
Old 03-10-2020, 10:33 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I am starting to wonder if the DNC has had a long talk with Biden to get him to become president then he will step aside after a few months for "reasons" and the VP the DNC wants will take over.

Question is who is that VP?
He almost certainly won't run for a second term. Does anyone think he might? Why would the Dems nominate a guy who could not complete eight years?

A non-gay Mayor Pete would have been a sure winner IMHO. Even Mayor Pete as he is would inspire more confidence and have a better chance against Trump than either of these old guys.
  #67  
Old 03-10-2020, 10:47 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,731
I've watched most of the major news feeds and none of them are reporting (even Fox) the "slap you in the face" line. It seems that the only source of that is one single reporter on the scene.

That may not be accurate. I withdraw all of my prior comments about that unless and until there is further evidence he said that.
  #68  
Old 03-10-2020, 10:50 PM
China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,920
Sheesh, let's be honest and say I wish Joe hadn't said that (at least not on camera).

But let's not blow out of proportion a politician on the campaign trail going off script and saying a bad word or three every once in a while. That's only human, and it's not like he lost his shit or something.
  #69  
Old 03-11-2020, 12:37 AM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
Sheesh, let's be honest and say I wish Joe hadn't said that (at least not on camera).

But let's not blow out of proportion a politician on the campaign trail going off script and saying a bad word or three every once in a while. That's only human, and it's not like he lost his shit or something.
Fair enough...if you can provide and pile of examples of other people running for president of the US threatening to slap a voter for asking a question that annoyed them.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #70  
Old 03-11-2020, 05:30 AM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 31,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Fair enough...if you can provide and pile of examples of other people running for president of the US threatening to slap a voter for asking a question that annoyed them.
Asking supporters to beat up protesters is more dangerous, IMO.
  #71  
Old 03-11-2020, 06:30 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,516
Biden's just "plain speaking". He's the kind of guy who "tells it like it is". He's responding like a "regular guy", someone you might "want to have a beer with". I've been told repeatedly that these are desirable traits in a president.
  #72  
Old 03-11-2020, 06:35 AM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bedlam
Posts: 30,594
I took that test once and my mind went blank on words beginning with F. I managed three. Well, four, counting, "Fuck, this is hard."
  #73  
Old 03-11-2020, 07:44 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Just outside of Titletown
Posts: 23,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I am starting to wonder if the DNC has had a long talk with Biden to get him to become president then he will step aside after a few months for "reasons" and the VP the DNC wants will take over.
The DNC doesn't control the President. The President controls the DNC.
  #74  
Old 03-11-2020, 08:37 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
The DNC doesn't control the President. The President controls the DNC.
No kidding. The DNC is not some group of Stonecutters pulling all the strings for one side of the political spectrum. It's a barely functional group of political operatives that is, at times, only slightly financially solvent.
  #75  
Old 03-11-2020, 09:28 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
No kidding. The DNC is not some group of Stonecutters pulling all the strings for one side of the political spectrum.
You say that, but notice that there's never been a president named "Homer".
  #76  
Old 03-11-2020, 09:32 AM
Jas09 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 5,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Fair enough...if you can provide and pile of examples of other people running for president of the US threatening to slap a voter for asking a question that annoyed them.
He didn't threaten to slap a voter. He said they could take it outside (which is also a pretty crazy thing to say, but it's not the first time he's made a comment like that). The "slap you in the face" bit was a mis-hearing that has gone viral (of course) even though it's not based in the facts.

As to whether the voter was "full of shit": he was. Biden is in no way "actively working to end our second amendment rights". He just has a different interpretation of how far those rights extend. That was the whole point of bringing up shouting fire in a theater and the part about whether the individual can own "any gun" (meaning things like fully automatic machine guns). Of course that last part is being misquoted as well to mean that Biden said that the voter "couldn't own any gun" rather than "couldn't own *any* gun". The right to bear arms has limitations, just like all of the enumerated rights do. Whether those limitations include or exclude private ownership of AR-15s is a political question. Accusing someone who thinks that particular weapon (and weapons with similar capabilities) should not be legal for private ownership of wanting to end the second amendment is not arguing in good faith.

As to the *Bingo* video, again folks don't seem to get (or don't want to get) the difference between banning/confiscating a particular set of weapons vs. banning/confiscating all weapons. When this voter says "you want to take away my guns", Biden hears "you want to take away all of my guns". Which is clearly not true, as he pointed out with his digression on shotguns.

It's yet another area where our discourse has gotten so impotent that we can't even talk about pragmatic solutions to obvious problems without resorting to maximalist/minimalist positions and accusations of bad faith (see: abortion rights, climate change, immigration policy).
  #77  
Old 03-11-2020, 03:47 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jas09 View Post
He didn't threaten to slap a voter. He said they could take it outside (which is also a pretty crazy thing to say, but it's not the first time he's made a comment like that). The "slap you in the face" bit was a mis-hearing that has gone viral (of course) even though it's not based in the facts.

As to whether the voter was "full of shit": he was. Biden is in no way "actively working to end our second amendment rights". He just has a different interpretation of how far those rights extend. That was the whole point of bringing up shouting fire in a theater and the part about whether the individual can own "any gun" (meaning things like fully automatic machine guns). Of course that last part is being misquoted as well to mean that Biden said that the voter "couldn't own any gun" rather than "couldn't own *any* gun". The right to bear arms has limitations, just like all of the enumerated rights do. Whether those limitations include or exclude private ownership of AR-15s is a political question. Accusing someone who thinks that particular weapon (and weapons with similar capabilities) should not be legal for private ownership of wanting to end the second amendment is not arguing in good faith.

As to the *Bingo* video, again folks don't seem to get (or don't want to get) the difference between banning/confiscating a particular set of weapons vs. banning/confiscating all weapons. When this voter says "you want to take away my guns", Biden hears "you want to take away all of my guns". Which is clearly not true, as he pointed out with his digression on shotguns.

It's yet another area where our discourse has gotten so impotent that we can't even talk about pragmatic solutions to obvious problems without resorting to maximalist/minimalist positions and accusations of bad faith (see: abortion rights, climate change, immigration policy).
We've done these arguments before. And I side with the voter here. Suppose I have five kids. A madman wants to kidnap two of them. I claim that he is trying to "take my kids."

Would anyone seriously argue that he is not trying to take my kids because he will leave me with three?

But anyways, that's not the point. The voter/person/citizen made an argument that is not entirely absurd at least, right? Or even if he was completely wrong, as said above, that is par for the course in campaigns. There is no reason to piss someone off and make this viral video. He should have listened to his campaign handler who he was trying to shush.

This does not bode well for a guy who has been in politics for 50 years and is breaking very basic rules.
  #78  
Old 03-12-2020, 09:39 PM
Jas09 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 5,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
We've done these arguments before. And I side with the voter here. Suppose I have five kids. A madman wants to kidnap two of them. I claim that he is trying to "take my kids."

Would anyone seriously argue that he is not trying to take my kids because he will leave me with three?
Not a very useful analogy, since of course kidnapping children is wrong no matter how many you take.

A (slightly) better one would be something like the police confiscating illicit drugs out of my medicine cabinet and me claiming they are "taking my medication". We have agreed that there are some drugs that are unsafe to own and other that are safe to own. We can debate which ones should be on which side of the line without going into absolutist positions like "all drugs should be legal".

Or actually an even better analogy (since it touches on a right protected by the BOR) is the one Biden actually started the discussion with (shouting "fire" in a theater).
Quote:
But anyways, that's not the point. The voter/person/citizen made an argument that is not entirely absurd at least, right? Or even if he was completely wrong, as said above, that is par for the course in campaigns. There is no reason to piss someone off and make this viral video. He should have listened to his campaign handler who he was trying to shush.
Yeah, this is probably true. But I'm not too upset about him trying to push back against claims that he wants to ban all firearms. Especially in a setting like the one he was in.
Quote:
This does not bode well for a guy who has been in politics for 50 years and is breaking very basic rules.
Eh, we shall see. I stopped thinking I had any idea how much the basic rules actually matter when Donald Trump was elected president.
  #79  
Old 03-12-2020, 10:14 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jas09 View Post
Not a very useful analogy, since of course kidnapping children is wrong no matter how many you take.

A (slightly) better one would be something like the police confiscating illicit drugs out of my medicine cabinet and me claiming they are "taking my medication". We have agreed that there are some drugs that are unsafe to own and other that are safe to own. We can debate which ones should be on which side of the line without going into absolutist positions like "all drugs should be legal".

Or actually an even better analogy (since it touches on a right protected by the BOR) is the one Biden actually started the discussion with (shouting "fire" in a theater).
Yeah, this is probably true. But I'm not too upset about him trying to push back against claims that he wants to ban all firearms. Especially in a setting like the one he was in.
Eh, we shall see. I stopped thinking I had any idea how much the basic rules actually matter when Donald Trump was elected president.
You're begging the question with that analogy. You are assuming that AR-15s are like illegal drugs or that owning one is like falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.

A more apt analogy would that you cannot fire an AR-15 in a crowded theater. By banning the ownership you are imposing a prior restraint which would be more analogous to saying that nobody can speak because that speech might turn out to be falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater. The mere possession or ownership of an AR-15 produces no public danger unless it is employed in that situation.

But nobody said he wants to take all guns. The voter said that Biden wants to take "his" guns, which if some of them are AR-15s, then he is absolutely correct. I have yet to see any mainstream or non-mainstream source claim that Biden wants to ban "all" guns. The statement is that he wants to ban "guns."

And again, even if you dispute the characterization, its not a good sign for the politician to go ape shit. Why can't Biden say that he doesn't want to ban all guns, just some.
  #80  
Old 03-12-2020, 10:56 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,663
Boy, those analogies really just distill the whole conversation down, don't they? Makes it really easy to see the nuances.

Just kidding.
  #81  
Old 03-13-2020, 12:41 AM
Jas09 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 5,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
But nobody said he wants to take all guns. The voter said that Biden wants to take "his" guns, which if some of them are AR-15s, then he is absolutely correct. I have yet to see any mainstream or non-mainstream source claim that Biden wants to ban "all" guns. The statement is that he wants to ban "guns."
Except, of course, Biden's policy isn't to confiscate even AR-15s. He wants the sale of new ones to be banned and existing ones to either be bought back or registered with ATF.

"This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act."

https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/

Anyway, nobody wants another gun thread. But if Joe wants to keep calling out people for lying about his platform, I think I'm OK with that.
  #82  
Old 03-13-2020, 10:18 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,919
Biden would not take any cognitive tests. He is very insecure about his own intelligence.
  #83  
Old 03-13-2020, 10:35 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Biden would not take any cognitive tests. He is very insecure about his own intelligence.
Quote:
A 1987 clip of Joe Biden has resurfaced, showing him exaggerating his academic record, boasting that he graduated in the top half of my class - before he later admitted that he graduated 76th in a class of 85.
Cut him some slack - it was law, not arithmetic.
Quote:
I graduated from the University of Delaware with a double major in history and political science. My reference to degrees at the Claremont event was intended to refer to these majors - I said 'three' and should have said 'two, he added, though the newspaper points out that Biden actually received a single B.A. degree in history and political science.
Besides, he was only off by three.

Regards,
Shodan
  #84  
Old 03-13-2020, 10:57 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 466
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garak View Post
no because if he is found cognitively incompetent, his enemies will use that against him
LOL, if he is found cognitive incompetent, that's what you go with?!!
His enemies could use it against him...
Not, maybe he shouldn't be president.
Not, maybe he should retire.

But his enemies might use it against him. Astounding
  #85  
Old 03-13-2020, 11:01 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Biden would not take any cognitive tests. He is very insecure about his own intelligence.
You've convinced me - Joe should run as a Republican instead, where they're absolutely fine with people of questionable mental competence who lie about their college record being president.
  #86  
Old 03-13-2020, 11:09 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
You've convinced me - Joe should run as a Republican instead, where they're absolutely fine with people of questionable mental competence who lie about their college record being president.
Seriously. This thread is bizarre.
  #87  
Old 03-13-2020, 11:43 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
You've convinced me - Joe should run as a Republican instead, where they're absolutely fine with people of questionable mental competence who lie about their college record being president.
No, he's running as a Democrat. He may not be sure if he is running for the Senate or the White House, but by golly he is sure* he is a Democrat. And based on this thread, the Democrats are also fine with it.

Regards,
Shodan

*Subject to change without notice. Void where taxed or prohibited. Past performance is no guarantee of future success.
  #88  
Old 03-13-2020, 11:56 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,837
I think Joe Biden may be using some fake tanner. In fact, I think you can see it in some of his pictures. No one who colors his skin should be eligible to be president! Covfefe!
  #89  
Old 03-13-2020, 12:02 PM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
No, he's running as a Democrat. He may not be sure if he is running for the Senate or the White House, but by golly he is sure* he is a Democrat. And based on this thread, the Democrats are also fine with it.
Are they? Or are you just assuming that because Republicans will willingly excuse any corruption, crime or incompetence on the part of their candidates, Democrats are equally tribal and partisan?

Personally I'm not a fan of Joe and declared long ago on this very board the view that Joe and Bernie were far too old to be doing this shit and that I wished they weren't running (I'm also not a Democrat). And I've also repeatedly pointed out that Biden was notorious for his verbal gaffes in 2008 and thus no one should be surprised that he is continuing to gaffe in 2020. But compared to the alternative both Biden and Sanders are far more competent, coherent and honest and I will almost certainly vote in November for whichever of them wins the nomination. That's not "being fine with it"; that's choosing the best option available.
  #90  
Old 03-13-2020, 12:10 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,737
Yes, they are. And no, I'm not assuming - I've read the thread (and many others like it).

Regards,
Shodan
  #91  
Old 03-13-2020, 03:44 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,837
It's Newton's fourth law: Both parties always have to be equally good and bad, and their supporters are always equally partisan, for ever and ever, amen.
  #92  
Old 03-26-2020, 07:08 PM
Tigers2B1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Just behind my eyes
Posts: 1,141
Some of the latest videos of Biden show a guy who clearly has something wrong with him. He doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. I mean no sense at all. The Democrats need to go ahead and get somebody else as their nominee or Trump will eat him alive. If you want Trump keep Biden.
  #93  
Old 03-26-2020, 07:15 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers2B1 View Post
Some of the latest videos of Biden show a guy who clearly has something wrong with him. He doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. I mean no sense at all. The Democrats need to go ahead and get somebody else as their nominee or Trump will eat him alive. If you want Trump keep Biden.
Do you understand how anything works? Answer: no. "The Democrats" can't "go ahead and get somebody else". That is not a real world suggestion.
  #94  
Old 03-26-2020, 07:26 PM
Tigers2B1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Just behind my eyes
Posts: 1,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Do you understand how anything works? Answer: no. "The Democrats" can't "go ahead and get somebody else". That is not a real world suggestion.
I think if someone's medically shown not to be mentally fit that would be enough. That Biden is suffering from some sort of cognitive decline is clear to everyone who listens to him now. He needs to be evaluated.
  #95  
Old 03-26-2020, 07:40 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Just outside of Titletown
Posts: 23,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers2B1 View Post
That Biden is suffering from some sort of cognitive decline is clear to everyone who listens to him now.
You can keep repeating it, but it still isn't true.
  #96  
Old 03-26-2020, 07:57 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers2B1 View Post
I think if someone's medically shown not to be mentally fit that would be enough. That Biden is suffering from some sort of cognitive decline is clear to everyone who listens to him now. He needs to be evaluated.
Howzabout we let the voters evaluate him? Or do you have some specific "Presidential Candidate is Not Crazy Committee" in mind?
  #97  
Old 03-26-2020, 07:58 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers2B1 View Post
I think if someone's medically shown not to be mentally fit that would be enough. That Biden is suffering from some sort of cognitive decline is clear to everyone who listens to him now. He needs to be evaluated.
If I ever find myself teaching high school English and need to explain to students the concept of "dramatic irony"--in which the reader understands the significance of a character's words in a way that the character does not--I'll be sure to have this post handy.
  #98  
Old Yesterday, 09:08 AM
Tigers2B1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Just behind my eyes
Posts: 1,141
Good, your ad hominem attacks really save the day Dorkness. When there's a two-person debate with extended responses Biden may not always be able to rely on his notes - I certainly hope he doesn't have one of those moments. Or multiple moments.
  #99  
Old Yesterday, 10:43 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers2B1 View Post
Good, your ad hominem attacks really save the day Dorkness. When there's a two-person debate with extended responses Biden may not always be able to rely on his notes - I certainly hope he doesn't have one of those moments. Or multiple moments.
Compared to his opponent he will always be a model of coherence and clarity.

And it is not an "ad hominem attack" to observe that you are applying a rather blatant double standard in this thread.
  #100  
Old Yesterday, 10:48 AM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers2B1 View Post
Good, your ad hominem attacks really save the day Dorkness. When there's a two-person debate with extended responses Biden may not always be able to rely on his notes - I certainly hope he doesn't have one of those moments. Or multiple moments.
I watched a two person debate two weeks ago. It wasn't him who referred to corona as ebola three different times.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017