# Joe Biden's in **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 25, 2019, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-bidens-in/833042 "2019-04-25T16:13:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 28
**Author:** ![UnwittingAmericans](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d9b06d/32.png) [@UnwittingAmericans](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UnwittingAmericans)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2019, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-bidens-in/833042/541 "2019-06-23T20:11:35Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …“as usual?” Can you be a bit more specific about what it is I “usually do?” > > And what have I “intentionally ignored?” If your GPS told you “bear left at the church,” you would get out and spend an hour videoing yourself searching the church looking for the bear, just so you could put it in an angry-tweet @Magellan. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2019, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-bidens-in/833042/542 "2019-06-23T20:12:56Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > … Based on the things he has done over the last year I have completely changed my mind. And I haven’t changed my mind because of “falling for left wing activist hack jobs.” Trump and co have severally damaged America at a structural level. They’ve gutted the Federal government, they’ve stripped funding, they’ve purged agencies and replaced them with loyalists. Biden has shown nothing in the last year to indicate that he understand the scale of what he needs to do to be able to deal with this. It appears he is woefully out of touch. Let’s see if I got this straight: Joe Biden spent eight years a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Before that he spent 36 years as a Senator, serving as Chairmen of both the Judiciary Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction. He’s spoken in no uncertain terms of his antipathy for Trump, and of how Trump’s damage needs to be undone. And now you, **Banquet Bear** , inform us that it is not **Biden** but **Banquet Bear** who has the better idea of how to proceed if/when the Trumpist grip on power is overturned. Is that about it? I would be laughing, were it not that this level of pretension and ignorance is rampant in post-literate America, and may present a serious obstacle to social or political recovery. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2019, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-bidens-in/833042/543 "2019-06-23T20:15:44Z")
> [@UnwittingAmericans](#): > > If your GPS told you “bear left at the church,” you would get out and spend an hour videoing yourself searching the church looking for the bear, just so you could put it in an angry-tweet @Magellan. …rather than personal ad-hominems, can you either answer my question or address the substance of my post? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2019, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-bidens-in/833042/544 "2019-06-23T20:22:47Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > You want to argue that trying to work with anyone in the GOP is pointless, that the path forward is handling them as evil that must be destroyed with no negotiation and no compromise? Fine. Most voters would disagree but fine. I give up. Your repeated misstating of my position here leaves you in rather poor shape, AFAIAC, to complain at such length about Wiegel allegedly doing something similar to Biden in just one tweet. I keep saying that I have no objection to trying to work with the GOP - the problem is when your **plan** , two years out, is to win 8-10 GOP votes (or more) to overcome a filibuster. The problem is _reliance_ on working with the GOP as the way you’re going to get things done, when Mitch McConnell in 2021 will in all likelihood behave the same way Mitch McConnell has from 2007 to the present, and a **naive belief** that once Trump’s gone, Mitch will not only forswear the foolish ways he adopted from 2017-present, but also the same foolish but effective ways he adopted during the previous decade. If Elizabeth Warren becomes our 46th President, I’ll want her to try to work with Republicans if there are Republicans who are amenable to persuasion. But I also consider it fortunate that if she’s the nominee, she will also be preparing the party for what has to be considered the likelihood that McConnell will continue to be the same brick wall he’s been since 2007, and won’t have the utilization of magical powers of persuasion that Obama somehow lacked as Plans A through Z. Now you can get back to complaining about Wiegel. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2019, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-bidens-in/833042/545 "2019-06-23T20:31:18Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > For the shittiness that you aided and abetted. > > In his case violating the code as put forth in that policy instructing their writers to, even in their own social media accounts, refrain from posting that which “could objectively be perceived as reflecting political, racial, sexist, religious or other bias or favoritism.” > > Posting a single line out of its context in a manner which distorted and misrepresented its clear intended meaning within the context Context! I keep hearing **about** the context, and how he took that line out of context. I keep hearing, “I say Wiegel took this line out of context, but I’m not going to come up with the context, so you’ll have to take my word for it.” _Are you fucking kidding me??_ This is the Dope. No, I’m **not** going to take your word. Evidence, bud, let’s see some evidence. And boy howdy, you’re throwing around some pretty serious accusations here, given your repeated failure to provide any evidence. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2019, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-bidens-in/833042/546 "2019-06-23T20:34:15Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Let’s see if I got this straight: > > Joe Biden spent eight years a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Before that he spent 36 years as a Senator, serving as Chairmen of both the Judiciary Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction. He’s spoken in no uncertain terms of his antipathy for Trump, and of how Trump’s damage needs to be undone. > > And now you, **Banquet Bear** , inform us that it is not **Biden** but **Banquet Bear** who has the better idea of how to proceed if/when the Trumpist grip on power is overturned. Is that about it? > **[Argument from authority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)** > > An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an influential figure is used as evidence to support an argument. > All sources agree this is not a valid form of logical proof, that is to say, that this is a logical fallacy (also known as ad verecundiam fallacy) , and therefore, obtaining knowledge in this way is always fallible. > However, in particular circumstances, it is sou... ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2019, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-bidens-in/833042/547 "2019-06-23T20:34:28Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Let’s see if I got this straight: > > Joe Biden spent eight years a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Before that he spent 36 years as a Senator, serving as Chairmen of both the Judiciary Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction. He’s spoken in no uncertain terms of his antipathy for Trump, and of how Trump’s damage needs to be undone. > > And now you, **Banquet Bear** , inform us that it is not **Biden** but **Banquet Bear** who has the better idea of how to proceed if/when the Trumpist grip on power is overturned. Is that about it? > > I would be laughing, were it not that this level of pretension and ignorance is rampant in post-literate America, and may present a serious obstacle to social or political recovery. …it appears the “Biden-stans” have decided to go “full Bernie Bro.” That’s a real fucking shame. I’m well aware of Biden’s credentials. I stated that a year ago I supported his run for the presidency precisely because of his qualifications and his experience. Did you not see that I wrote that? You even quoted me saying that! This is a fucking messageboard and the entire point of the Election forums is to debate things related to the election. If we all stopped “expressing our opinions” then this place turns into an echo chamber. Would that make you happy? Is that what you are after? No I don’t think Biden is the best candidate to deal with the aftermath of the Trump regime. I think that his experience is to his detriment. I think there are better candidates than him. And I think they are better candidates despite the fact they haven’t spent 36 years as a Senator, haven’t served as Chairmen of both the Judiciary Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, that haven’t been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction. I could discuss that with you if you like: but it appears that you would rather “chill the debate” by attacking me. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2019, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-bidens-in/833042/548 "2019-06-23T20:42:31Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Links to the context have already been given in this thread, included from Howard Dean. The only link I see, going back, is the one to Howard Dean’s tweet. Which again just **says** Weigel took that remark out of context. Put up or shut up. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2019, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-bidens-in/833042/549 "2019-06-23T20:56:30Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I keep hearing, “I say Wiegel took this line out of context, but I’m not going to come up with the context, so you’ll have to take my word for it.” …just for the record: here is Wiegel’s tweet in context. > [@Wiegel](#): > > A Friday afternoon **hot take** for you: In the long run, the Biden quote this week that may do the most damage is “Nothing will fundamentally change,” said to a room of donors. I’ve bolded the important context. [A “hot take” is “a quickly produced, strongly worded, and often deliberately provocative or sensational opinion or reaction.”](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hot%20take) Wiegel literally tells us that what he has written was “deliberately provocative” and that it was his opinion, not objective reporting. That doesn’t mean that what he said was incorrect, misleading, or out of context. And it certainly wasn’t unethical by any stretch of the imagination. It was a tweet. When we’ve got [Chuck Todd lying](https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1141488146930184193) about Ocasio-Cortez to (probably) get himself an interview with the President and Maggie Haberman under credible suspicion of [“access journalism”](https://twitter.com/care2much18/status/1021060227096088576?lang=en) there is plenty to debate in regards to “ethics in political journalism.” But Wiegel’s tweet isn’t one of them. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2019, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-bidens-in/833042/550 "2019-06-23T21:37:24Z")
Context! [Fuller quote.](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/19/18690910/biden-fundraiser-controversy-segregationists-donors) > [@](#): > > “By the way, you know, remember I got in trouble with some of the people on my team, on the Democratic side, because I said, ‘You know what I’ve found is rich people are just as patriotic as poor people.’ Not a joke. I mean, we may not want to demonize anybody who has made money.” > > The truth of the matter is, you all, you all know, you all know in your gut what has to be done. We can disagree in the margins but the truth of the matter is it’s all within our wheelhouse and nobody has to be punished. No one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change. Because when we have income inequality as large as we have in the United States today, it brews and ferments political discord and basic revolution. Not a joke. Not a joke. I’m not (inaudible) revolution. But not a joke. It allows demagogues to step in and say the reason where we are is because of the other, the other.” You’re not the other. I need you very badly. I hope if I win this nomination, I won’t let you down. I promise you. I have a bad reputation, I always say what I mean. The problem is I sometimes say all that I mean. There’s really no disagreement that he was saying that income inequality as large as we have it is a real and serious problem that he intends to address by taxing them more but that given how much they have it won’t really impact them and their lifestyles in any fundamental way. It is a clear misrepresentation to say that he was promising there will be no changes at all. You have to be _fucking kidding **me** _ if you do not see that as a horrific misrepresentation. As the Vox article that I harvested pointed out, there really is not that much actual difference between that statement and Warren pointing out that her wealth tax, “two cents on every dollar above a $50 million-plus fortune” isn’t going to be anything that any of them cannot easily afford. They’ll still be very rich. The difference is tone. He approaches the players with a presumption of good will that he believes facilitates working together to a common good, trying to get all on board. He resists othering and demonization. He does not sign onto a model that says the wealthy are on one side and the rest of us on the other; he takes what is a radical position in today’s environment that we are on the same side of the common good. And he implies that their alternative to working with him on this is being portrayed by others as the enemy who must be destroyed. Now I get that those who find “revolution” as the operative mindset do not find that approach appealing. He will not be those voters’ first choice. But these are not gaffe on his part. IT IS HIS BRAND MESSAGE. He is less about beating down others, be they the very wealthy or Republicans, than he is about selling them. He would alway choose to play this “good cop” in any good cop bad cop arrangement. And he knows he doesn’t need to sell them all, just enough of them to get the job done. In terms of actual policy it’s really the same basic things among most everyone running, all with some crazy dreaming included. All in the direction of addressing income and wealth inequality, all for addressing climate change more vigorously, all for better execution of universal healthcare coverage, all for addressing issues of social justice and rights … all likely to have what gets through Congress (even with a Democratic majority in both House and Senate) as the rate limiter, not their ambition of how far to take it. So the actual laundry detergent in the boxes are not all that different while the packaging and marketing are the thing. He is selling a box that says “Let’s at least try to move away from hyperpolarization, demonization, and othering.” It might not sell well to Democratic voters and it might. It clearly is not the packaging you prefer. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2019, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-bidens-in/833042/551 "2019-06-23T22:09:08Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > It is a clear misrepresentation to say that he was promising there will be no changes at all. …it isn’t a misrepresentation to say that Biden didn’t make any explicit commitment to any change in the transcript that you posted. It isn’t a misrepresentation to say the opening paragraph of the transcript is a strawman, it isn’t a misrepresentation to state that “what the donors know in their gut” is a subjective thing not an objective thing, and what they “know in their gut what needs to be done” is probably different to what the average American voter “knows in their gut”. It isn’t a misrepresentation to agree with the Vox article you cited when they stated “these comments are somewhat muddled.” What is clear though is you continue to misrepresent Wiegel’s hot-take. And you seem to think a reporter expressing a deliberately provocative opinion on twitter is more problematic than inconsistent, unclear and muddled messaging from Biden and his camp. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2019, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-bidens-in/833042/552 "2019-06-23T23:08:40Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …for fucks sakes it was a fucking tweet. And after having examined what was said in context I can’t really disagree with his “hot take.” There was nothing unethical about what he posted, certainly nothing that would be actionable. Maybe not unethical, but sloppy and irresponsible. And I don’t buy that just because he’s not putting it in an article and acting in the capacity as a WaPo writer that it’s somehow less egregious. Weigel has followers. Weigel has readers. Weigel is clearly active in politics and in a much stronger position than you or I to influence the debate, and people can influence the debate by regurgitating distortion on twitter. It’s not asking a lot for someone in his position to take some ownership of what he posts. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2019, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-bidens-in/833042/553 "2019-06-23T23:26:24Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > Maybe not unethical, but sloppy and irresponsible. …it was a fucking tweet. It was a hot take. The tweet was labeled as such. It wasn’t “sloppy” and Weigel bears no responsibility to Biden, his opinions are his own. > [@](#): > > And I don’t buy that just because he’s not putting it in an article and acting in the capacity as a WaPo writer that it’s somehow less egregious. Weigel has followers. Weigel has readers. Weigel is clearly active in politics and in a much stronger position than you or I to influence the debate, and people can influence the debate by regurgitating distortion on twitter. It’s not asking a lot for someone in his position to take some ownership of what he posts. I’ve read the transcript. What distortion are you talking about? ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2019, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-bidens-in/833042/554 "2019-06-23T23:39:21Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > … Trump and co have severally damaged America at a structural level. They’ve gutted the Federal government, they’ve stripped funding, they’ve purged agencies and replaced them with loyalists. Biden has shown nothing in the last year to indicate that he understand the scale of what he needs to do to be able to deal with this. No president has to fix the country on his or her own. As monumental as the job of undoing Trump’s damage is, it will be undertaken not by one person, but by many. All a president has to do is to appoint to his or her cabinet people who are smart, knowledgeable, effective, and decent. You’ve offered no evidence that Biden is incapable of making such appointments. I’m not a fan of Biden, but his numbers have been good for a while and remain good. At the moment he’s the best chance we have of dislodging the rancid clown. Unless, of course, we decide to _help_ the rancid clown by muddying the front-runner. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > … If people hold the opinion that Biden is unsuitable to be the next President of the United States then this is the right place to argue that. Seriously, “unsuitable”? It’s a binary choice. It’s Trump or the Democrat. Keep knocking down the Democrats until the one you favor is the only one standing, and you will have achieved the foisting of four more years of Trump (at least) on a world that never deserved such a fate. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2019, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-bidens-in/833042/555 "2019-06-24T00:29:34Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > No president has to fix the country on his or her own. > > As monumental as the job of undoing Trump’s damage is, it will be undertaken not by one person, but by many. All a president has to do is to appoint to his or her cabinet people who are smart, knowledgeable, effective, and decent. …strawman. I haven’t claimed that it is the president has to fix the country on their own. > [@](#): > > You’ve offered no evidence that Biden is incapable of making such appointments. Why would I need to offer evidence for a claim that I haven’t made? I don’t think on a fundamental level Biden understands the level of threat that the people responsible for elevating Trump into power pose to America as a nation. That doesn’t give me confidence he would make the “appropriate appointments.” I think there are other candidates that are running that would show a better understanding of the issues at play and would make better choices than Biden would. And to be completely clear lest you demand I provide evidence for this: this is my opinion based on my personal evaluation on the candidates that are running and my knowledge and understanding of Trump, his administration, and how they came to power. I could elaborate on this: but I literally don’t have that many hours free in my day. > [@](#): > > I’m not a fan of Biden, but his numbers have been good for a while and remain good. At the moment he’s the best chance we have of dislodging the rancid clown. Unless, of course, we decide to _help_ the rancid clown by muddying the front-runner. If the front-runner is running through a muddy puddle we aren’t helping the “rancid clown” by pointing out the front-runner is covered in mud. You guys have got to stop trying to “shut-down-the-debate” because you think that something is going to “help Trump.” You can’t quantify that. You can’t quantify the impact of me “disagreeing with Biden” on an internet messageboard will have on the next election. This isn’t a “game of checkers.” If you are going to defeat Trump then you are going to have to work for it. It isn’t going to happen here. You will need to fight to get people out to vote, fight and actively combat voter suppression, fight to ensure the security of the next elections, get out on the streets and make your voices heard. What I do here in this thread isn’t going to convince anyone to vote for Trump. So stop pretending that it will. > [@](#): > > Seriously, “unsuitable”? Seriously. Unsuitable. > [@](#): > > It’s a binary choice. It’s Trump or the Democrat. Keep knocking down the Democrats until the one you favor is the only one standing, and you will have achieved the foisting of four more years of Trump (at least) on a world that never deserved such a fate. What do you think the primary process is all about? It isn’t a binary choice. The Democrats should be putting the best candidate forward and to do that there should be honest and robust debate. If Biden has flaws then the best time to discuss that is **now**. Get all the dirty laundry out in the open **now**. If Biden wins the primary then I will happily shut my mouth and put in every effort (that I can on the other side of the planet) into seeing he gets elected. But I think there are better candidates. And i think that Biden is seriously problematic. You would do better to listen what other people have to say rather than trying to shut the debate down. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2019, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-bidens-in/833042/556 "2019-06-24T00:51:21Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …strawman. I haven’t claimed that it is the president has to fix the country on their own. Why would I need to offer evidence for a claim that I haven’t made? You offered as your reason for Biden being an Unsuitable Candidate: > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Trump and co have severally damaged America at a structural level. They’ve gutted the Federal government, they’ve stripped funding, they’ve purged agencies and replaced them with loyalists. Biden has shown nothing in the last year to indicate that he understand the scale of what he needs to do to be able to deal with this. and > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > I don’t think on a fundamental level Biden understands the level of threat that the people responsible for elevating Trump into power pose to America as a nation. How are these _not_ claims that Biden’s unsuitability lies in his failure to be able to conceive of each and every solution himself? How are these not claims that Biden must “understand the level of threat” in order for anything beneficial to be accomplished? It’s a narcissistic argument, really: the Democratic candidate must see the political scene exactly the way you do, or he/she can accomplish nothing! > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > You guys have got to stop trying to “shut-down-the-debate” because you think that something is going to “help Trump.” > > … You would do better to listen what other people have to say rather than trying to shut the debate down. You’re projecting. There’s making your case for a candidate—and then there’s putting your energy into impairing a candidate who’s in a better competitive position than is your candidate. People can see the difference. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2019, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-bidens-in/833042/557 "2019-06-24T01:18:24Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > You offered as your reason for Biden being an Unsuitable Candidate: > > and > > How are these _not_ claims that Biden’s unsuitability lies in his failure to be able to conceive of each and every solution himself? How are these not claims that Biden must “understand the level of threat” in order for anything beneficial to be accomplished? …my claims are what I said. I did not assert that “Biden’s unsuitability lies in his failure to be able to conceive of each and every solution himself.” I did not assert that that “Biden must “understand the level of threat” in order for anything beneficial to be accomplished.” If you want to know what I actually said then read the words that I wrote and that you quoted. I’m happy to address that but not the strawman version you’ve invented. > [@](#): > > It’s a narcissistic argument, really: the Democratic candidate must see the political scene exactly the way you do, or he/she can accomplish nothing! Give me a fucking break. Narcissistic? Do you not understand the purpose of the elections forum? Disagreement is not narcissism. What a ridiculous comment. > [@](#): > > You’re projecting. Not at all. You are trying to shut down disagreement. > [@](#): > > There’s making your case for a candidate—and then there’s putting your energy into impairing a candidate who’s in a better competitive position than is your candidate. This thread is about Joe Fucking Biden. I’m not obligated to make a case for “another candidate”. This is a discussion about Biden. If I think he has flaws than what is your problem with people discussing that here? I’m not “impairing” Biden by discussing what I consider his flaws to be on a messageboard. Did you seriously actually write that I’m “impairing a candidate who’s in a better competitive position than is your candidate?” Even if I was doing that…what would be the problem with doing that? Its literally a “competition.” What is the correct thing I’m supposed to be doing? How am I supposed to behave? > [@](#): > > People can see the difference. You seem to both be misunderstanding what I’m saying in this thread and misunderstanding the purpose of a debate forum on a messageboard. I’m sure people can “see the difference.” But I’m not sure why you think the difference is important. This isn’t the “ra ra Biden” thread. I’m not going to hop on the “Biden Train” just because you are telling me I’m doing things wrong. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2019, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-bidens-in/833042/558 "2019-06-24T01:42:28Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Context! Not bad - only took you a day and a half. > [@](#): > > [Fuller quote.](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/19/18690910/biden-fundraiser-controversy-segregationists-donors) > There’s really no disagreement that he was saying that income inequality as large as we have it is a real and serious problem He definitely said this. > [@](#): > > that he intends to address by taxing them more Is the place where you quote him saying that in invisible ink, or something? Maybe he just means upping the minimum wage to $10. > [@](#): > > It is a clear misrepresentation to say that he was promising there will be no changes at all. Good thing nobody said that! > [@](#): > > You have to be _fucking kidding **me** _ if you do not see that as a horrific misrepresentation. If someone had said that, that would certainly be the case. > [@](#): > > As the Vox article that I harvested pointed out, there really is not that much actual difference between that statement and Warren pointing out that her wealth tax, “two cents on every dollar above a $50 million-plus fortune” isn’t going to be anything that any of them cannot easily afford. They’ll still be very rich. > > The difference is tone. He approaches the players with a presumption of good will that he believes facilitates working together to a common good, trying to get all on board. ‘The players’ - so Mitch was there? He can presume good will on McConnell’s part from here to the end of the Universe, but Obama did the same, and how much good did it do? Again, nothing against trying to reach across the aisle. But best if it’s a supplementary approach, because quite frankly a presumption of good will on McConnell’s part is like a presumption of magic unicorns. > [@](#): > > He resists othering and demonization. This hardly makes him unique among the Dem candidates. Just because they realize what they’re up against, that’s not the same as othering and demonization. Excluded middle, and all that. > [@](#): > > And he implies that their alternative to working with him on this is being portrayed by others as the enemy who must be destroyed. So it’s OK if Biden slanders his opponents, as long as they’re Democrats. He’s just got to make nice with Republicans and rich people. Gotcha. > [@](#): > > So the actual laundry detergent in the boxes are not all that different while the packaging and marketing are the thing. He is selling a box that says “Let’s at least try to move away from hyperpolarization, demonization, and othering.” It might not sell well to Democratic voters and it might. > > It clearly is not the packaging you prefer. A plan to get your plans through Congress is not mere packaging. And Biden’s plan has already been proven to be magic unicorns: I’m old enough to remember the Obama Administration. I don’t put my trust in magic unicorns. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2019, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-bidens-in/833042/559 "2019-06-24T01:42:42Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …it isn’t a misrepresentation to say that this whole post was gaslighting. FWIW I feel it is completely fair for you to state that you don’t think Biden grasps the scale and such. I don’t agree but your expressing those thoughts is completely legit. You think Wang or Sanders or Warren or Gabbard or whoever have a better grasp on the severity and are more “suitable” that is fine. Biden is on record as planning to reverse Trump’s tax cuts that inordinately benefitted large corporations and the very wealthiest. He is on record as wanting to expand low income tax credits. He proposes eliminating the “stepped basis loophole” on inheritance and using that to better fund college education. These are not no changes and all in that room know that these are his plans. And are open to some degree to accepting his taxing them more for the greater good. And to the recognition that they can afford this. What he does not do is go to class warfare as his approach to take on wealth inequality. If you want a Robespierre he ain’t your guy. He’s taken heat for going against the class warfare grain. But that’s not his angle. He tries to avoid the “othering” play. Again in directionality there aren’t many differences on the D side. And assuming a D win whoever wins will try to work to get a few Rs in Senate to cross over and aim for some bipartisan compromises. No one will end up passing a plan that taxes the very wealthy so high that they must change their lifestyles, or move away to avoid such punitive taxation. No executions in the town square by anyone. Sorry. In rhetorical approach though, the difference is huge. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2019, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-bidens-in/833042/560 "2019-06-24T01:52:06Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > this whole post was gaslighting. …[gaslighting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting) is a “form of psychological manipulation in which a person seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity.” My post most definitely was not gaslighting. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-bidens-in/833042.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-bidens-in/833042.md?page=29)