Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

nolivesmatter

Tell me how wrote: »

Because there is no reason to believe that people from diverse backgrounds are less capable than people from backgrounds which reflect those that have traditionally held power and have been appointed to senior roles.

But the fact that heretofore so few administrations were truly diverse or so few people from diverse backgrounds found themselves in positions of authority is evidence that people were being appointed to roles because of a preference for how they looked/sounded/used a toilet.

You guys cannot grasp this, I know that before I even type it, but Biden picking a diverse administration and VP is not evidence that it is identity politics, it is evidence that that people of diverse backgrounds deserve to be awarded such roles.

Kamala Harris has advanced degrees in finance and law, was elected as District attorney for San Francisco before being elected as attorney general for California before being elected as Senator for California before being elected as Vise President of the United States. And throughout last year, and here again today people have tried to cheapen her achievements by suggesting she was selected only because she was a woman of colour and not because she was a woman of colour who is supremely qualified for the role.

Of course there isn't. I haven't made that case. I haven't seen anyone here make that case either.

Kamala Harris is qualified? Fine, I can accept that. What I don't accept is the fact that that apparently wouldn't have mattered if she weren't female and black.

As you said yourself people have in the past been appointed based on how they "looked/sounded/used a toilet." I don't think that was right then. And I don't see how it's right now.

y0ssar1an22

Tell me how wrote: »

No, it isn't.

By all means counter my statements of fact with evidence to counter them. Just asking meandering vague questions and putting the burden on me to defend my points is not how discussions work.

thats not how things work. if you make an assertion, you can be asked about it.

nirvana are the best ever.

oh really, like why? what songs?

your attitude? stop asking questions and show me why they are not the best band.

you cant prove a negative.


if you want, you can say why you support biden with specifics. if you say jobs, i will ask you specifically what he has done to create jobs while also giving a counter example of how he cost jobs

Smee_Again

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Of course there isn't. I haven't made that case. I haven't seen anyone here make that case either.

Kamala Harris is qualified? Fine, I can accept that. What I don't accept is the fact that that apparently wouldn't have mattered if she weren't female and black.

As you said yourself people have in the past been appointed based on how they "looked/sounded/used a toilet." I don't think that was right then. And I don't see how it's right now.

And that’s why Harris was the best person for the job, to break that cycle and show that the VP didn’t have to be an old grey white dude.

And the great thing is we know the American people agreed because over 80M of them voted for her and Biden.

Tell me how

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Of course there isn't. I haven't made that case. I haven't seen anyone here make that case either.

Kamala Harris is qualified? Fine, I can accept that. What I don't accept is the fact that that apparently wouldn't have mattered if she weren't female and black.

As you said yourself people have in the past been appointed based on how they "looked/sounded/used a toilet." I don't think that was right then. And I don't see how it's right now.

Because all things being equal, it was time that a candidate was selected, that was the point Biden was making, not that an underqualified candidate would be selected?

Trying to make this out to be an identity politics issue is being done with the same energy who in the last 12 months have been chanting 'All Lives Matter' when for years/decades/centuries people of that mentality didn't care when diverse lives were treated as less important than those of the dominant and prominent white male.

nolivesmatter

Tell me how wrote: »

Because all things being equal, it was time that a candidate was selected, that was the point Biden was making, not that an underqualified candidate would be selected?

Trying to make this out to be an identity politics issue is being done with the same energy who in the last 12 months have been chanting 'All Lives Matter' when for years/decades/centuries people of that mentality didn't care when diverse lives were treated as less important than those of the dominant and prominent white male.

I guess to understand fully where you stand on this, Biden's options came down to two candidates, Kamala Harris and a white male who we somehow knew was more qualified than Harris, who would you pick and why? This isn't a got ya question (it reads very much like one but it isn't). I'm just interested in the answer.

y0ssar1an22

Tell me how wrote: »

No, it isn't.

By all means counter my statements of fact with evidence to counter them. Just asking meandering vague questions and putting the burden on me to defend my points is not how discussions work.

tell me how,

lets bring it back to basics...
what are your statements of fact?

eh, yes it is. you make an assertion, you back it up or i question it.

as i said, i hope people like you are never in power. do you really believe the burden is to prove innocence?

Tell me how

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

tell me how,

lets bring it back to basics...
what are your statements of fact?

eh, yes it is. you make an assertion, you back it up or i question it.

as i said, i hope people like you are never in power. do you really believe the burden is to prove innocence?

This looks like excerpts from about 3 different threads across 2 forums. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Tell me how

nolivesmatter wrote: »

I guess to understand fully where you stand on this, Biden's options came down to two candidates, Kamala Harris and a white male who we somehow knew was more qualified than Harris, who would you pick and why? This isn't a got ya question (it reads very much like one but it isn't). I'm just interested in the answer.

If someone was more qualified for a role such as VP of the US, and these qualifications were likely to influence the quality by which they were going to do the job, I would definitely pick the white male.

But people are suggesting that someone who was highly qualified was only picked because of who they were not what they could do. And the people suggesting this, largely preferred a once elected, several times failed business man who had proven themselves incapable of adequately performing as President to go back in to the job over a former lawyer and career politician who had served 2 terms as Vice President.

So by all means, demand the most qualified always are preferred for every role, but try not to justify Trump over Biden for President if taking this position.

y0ssar1an22

Tell me how wrote: »

This looks like excerpts from about 3 different threads across 2 forums. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

okay, back to basics again


if someone made the following statement:

your brother is a cocaine addict.

you would rightly refute those statements and ask for proof.

your attitude seems to be..prove he's not a coke addict.

your sense of justice is compokety skewed

Tell me how

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

okay, back to basics again


if someone made the following statement:

your brother is a cocaine addict.

you would rightly refute those statements and ask for proof.

your attitude seems to be..prove he's not a coke addict.

your sense of justice is compokety skewed

WTF has sense of justice got to do with the premise of taking part in a discussion?

You come here with strong opinions, but admit that you have little knowledge. You want information handed to you to explain what at this point are complex and extended topics rather than do your own research in order to defend you having an opinion.

My view is, either don't express strong opinions on topics which you admit you don't know the details of because it just looks like you 'adopted' those opinions rather than developed them like the rest of us have done with ours.

Night, night.

y0ssar1an22

Tell me how wrote: »

WTF has sense of justice got to do with the premise of taking part in a discussion?

You come here with strong opinions, but admit that you have little knowledge. You want information handed to you to explain what at this point are complex and extended topics rather than do your own research in order to defend you having an opinion.

My view is, either don't express strong opinions on topics which you admit you don't know the details of because it just looks like you 'adopted' those opinions rather than developed them like the rest of us have done with ours.

Night, night.

i'm proud of my beliefs, but thats beside the point.

what i want you to do is define your's. which you seem incapable of doing. like, do you have your own opinion?

do you not realise that is a sad problem? you believe in something you cant (or wont) talk about.

eagle eye

y0ssar1an22 wrote:

great ideas and doing a great job...can you give some examples?

Covid and the economy. Do we need to spell it out for you? Many posts in this thread discussing all he's done already in these areas.

Leroy42

Y0ssar, you have been given many reasons why people are happy with the job that Biden is doing. And it was explained why the thread is slower than a similar thread was for POTUS Trump.

I myself gave you a list, many of which you either ignored or admitted you hadn't a clue about.

You then like to throw up the tired cliche that the media is out to get him, despite him being afforded almost unprecedented media coverage. That he failed to use that media interest to his benefit, instead he wasting it on lies, attacks on the press, attacks on people for standing up for themselves and their beliefs, belittling his opponents, telling outright lies and trying to push disinformation is his won failing not the media.

By any measure, Biden is doing a good job. He is dealing with the clusterf*** of the pandemic that Trump left behind with grace and leadership. Let's remember that Trump refused to do a usual handover of power, because he is a sore loser, so Biden was behind the eight ball from the start. Of course, Trump didn't care that that might cost lives, he was upset at losing.

Again, please go back to Trumps first 4 months in charge and compare that to Biden. You cannot tell me that they are even in the same ballpark. Bien came in with clear plans about the pandemic, infrastructure, Covid relief bill. He has already started work on repairing international relations, got the US back into Paris accord etc.

What did Trump achieve? His headline Repeal and replace turned out to be nothing. He didn't even understand what was wrong or what needed to be changed. He never had an infrastructure plan. He had no idea how to deliver his pet project, the wall. Can you imagine the chaos of Biden did the same with vaccines? Having no actual clue. 4 years later still complaining that the vaccines will be delivered, paid for by Mexcio, but it was all the medias fault?

everlast75

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

i'm proud of my beliefs, but thats beside the point.

what i want you to do is define your's. which you seem incapable of doing. like, do you have your own opinion?

do you not realise that is a sad problem? you believe in something you cant (or wont) talk about.

You are not arguing in good faith.

In subjects you clearly are wrong about, you either claim to, or actually do not have a clue and ask others to explain.

When people take the time to explain, you shift the discussion.

You make broad statements of your beliefs, but don't question those when given information that counters them.

The reality here is, on numerous points, you are factually wrong. But i could spend 5 years explaining things to you but i fear absolutely nothing would change.

hotmail.com

everlast75 wrote: »

You are not arguing in good faith.

In subjects you clearly are wrong about, you either claim to, or actually do not have a clue and ask others to explain.

When people take the time to explain, you shift the discussion.

You make broad statements of your beliefs, but don't question those when given information that counters them.

The reality here is, on numerous points, you are factually wrong. But i could spend 5 years explaining things to you but i fear absolutely nothing would change.

I suspect you've never once said you were wrong on something here. Pot kettle comes to mind.

But most of us just get on with it. We don't get sensitive about it.

normakelle

What is so wrong with voter reform in Georgia that has the lefties, companies and celebrities up in arms.

You need to show id which you need for most aspects of living in America.

Political parties and affiliates cannot give out water or food near the voting centre but poll workers can or alternatively you can bring your own it's to stop bribes for votes good idea.

The polling station is open from 7 am to 7pm on voting day and if you are in line at 7pm you can still vote.

All sensible measures so is biden making out that black people and minorities are too stupid to get id. Too stupid that he is worried they will get dehydrated waiting to vote and that he has no problem with the baseball league pulling out of Georgia, with a loss of revenue and jobs for the people of Georgia. Lol

Why are companies even getting involved with voting regulations.

Maybe he has alternative motive 🀔

Carfacemandog

Dow Jones hit a record high this week - 33,171 (currently 33,151).

It seems those who put so much faith in this meaning the economy was booming over the last few years must have missed this, so just sharing it around for their benefit.

Leroy42

normakelle wrote: »

What is so wrong with voter reform in Georgia that has the lefties, companies and celebrities up in arms.

You need to show id which you need for most aspects of living in America.

Political parties and affiliates cannot give out water or food near the voting centre but poll workers can or alternatively you can bring your own it's to stop bribes for votes good idea.

The polling station is open from 7 am to 7pm on voting day and if you are in line at 7pm you can still vote.

All sensible measures so is biden making out that black people and minorities are too stupid to get id. Too stupid that he is worried they will get dehydrated waiting to vote and that he has no problem with the baseball league pulling out of Georgia, with a loss of revenue and jobs for the people of Georgia. Lol

Why are companies even getting involved with voting regulations.

Maybe he has alternative motive 🀔

Have you looked into it?

Here is a summary of it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/02/us/politics/georgia-voting-law-annotated.html

The key question is why are the GOP doing this now? What issue(s) are they looking to solve?

It may be a mere coincidence that the Dems recently made a breakthrough in the state and Trump narrowly lost the state in the election. But without any reasons for the need for reform its hard to see any other reason.

normakelle

normakelle wrote: »

What is so wrong with voter reform in Georgia that has the lefties, companies and celebrities up in arms.

You need to show id which you need for most aspects of living in America.

Political parties and affiliates cannot give out water or food near the voting centre but poll workers can or alternatively you can bring your own it's to stop bribes for votes good idea.

The polling station is open from 7 am to 7pm on voting day and if you are in line at 7pm you can still vote.

All sensible measures so is biden making out that black people and minorities are too stupid to get id. Too stupid that he is worried they will get dehydrated waiting to vote and that he has no problem with the baseball league pulling out of Georgia, with a loss of revenue and jobs for the people of Georgia. Lol

Why are companies even getting involved with voting regulations.

Maybe he has alternative motive 🀔

Ah your back, have you got the money trail that you promised?

normakelle

Leroy42 wrote: »

Have you looked into it?

Here is a summary of it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/02/us/politics/georgia-voting-law-annotated.html

The key question is why are the GOP doing this now? What issue(s) are they looking to solve?

It may be a mere coincidence that the Dems recently made a breakthrough in the state and Trump narrowly lost the state in the election. But without any reasons for the need for reform its hard to see any other reason.

Just because the new York Times writes an article it must be true. Its their interpretation of the new law. No bias whatsoever. We all know why they are lashing back at the laws because they know without fraud biden wouldn't have won. In fact Joe biden is belitting black people and insulting their intelligence.

normakelle

DubInMeath wrote: »

Ah your back, have you got the money trail that you promised?

Well maybe if you switched off cnn and educated yourself on what is really happening in America with the corrupt politicians both democratic and republican.

normakelle

normakelle wrote: »

Well maybe if you switched off cnn and educated yourself on what is really happening in America with the corrupt politicians both democratic and republican.

So that's a no then, really surprised.

Also swing and a miss on what I watch.

Leroy42

normakelle wrote: »

Just because the new York Times writes an article it must be true. Its their interpretation of the new law. No bias whatsoever. We all know why they are lashing back at the laws because they know without fraud biden wouldn't have won. In fact Joe biden is belitting black people and insulting their intelligence.

I didn't say it was all true, just wondering how much review of the law you had done. As you right off articles like the NYT, it pretty obvious you haven't actually reviewed it all.

Why do you think they are pressing ahead with this new law? What issues is it aimed at dealing with, and how does it do that?

We all know about fraud? So you're theory is that the Republicans overseaw fraud in their own state and are now looking to stop the fraud they allowed?

What level of fraud? What evidence? Who was involved? How did they do it?

You talk about bias and then come out up debunked rubbish like that.

They lost the election, and now are looking to change the rules to try to avoid losing it in the future. So by your own admission, this law is aimed at reducing dem votes.

osarusan

normakelle wrote: »

We all know why they are lashing back at the laws because they know without fraud biden wouldn't have won.

Post up some evidence of voter fraud that you have seen, let us have a look for ourselves.

normakelle

normakelle wrote: »

Just because the new York Times writes an article it must be true. Its their interpretation of the new law. No bias whatsoever. We all know why they are lashing back at the laws because they know without fraud biden wouldn't have won. In fact Joe biden is belitting black people and insulting their intelligence.

https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/the-lefts-jim-crow-rhetoric-absurd-insulting-and-dishonest

extra gravy

normakelle wrote: »

https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/the-lefts-jim-crow-rhetoric-absurd-insulting-and-dishonest

You claim the NYT is biased then provide a link from a conservative think tank as proof of your assertion :pac:

"No bias whatsoever."

osarusan

normakelle wrote: »

https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/the-lefts-jim-crow-rhetoric-absurd-insulting-and-dishonest

That says nothing about voter fraud winning Biden the state of Georgia in the presidential election. Literally nothing, the word 'fraud' doesn't even appear in the article.


So can you post up some actual evidence to support your claim that 'without fraud biden wouldn't have won.'

Here's some reading for you while you're at it: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-plain-wrong-fraud-claims-georgia-secretary-state/story?id=75032595

normakelle

extra gravy wrote: »

You claim the NYT is biased then provide a link from a conservative think tank as proof of your assertion :pac:

"No bias whatsoever."

It doesn't matter whether it has Liberal or Conservative leanings. Facts speak for themselves

Cody montana

Carfacemandog wrote: »

Dow Jones hit a record high this week - 33,171 (currently 33,151).

It seems those who put so much faith in this meaning the economy was booming over the last few years must have missed this, so just sharing it around for their benefit.

Didn’t some say it would collapse if Biden was elected?
Also, weird how Biden isn’t bragging about it?

extra gravy

normakelle wrote: »

Facts speak for themselves

Please provide the facts that prove your claim that "without fraud biden wouldn't have won."