Everything Joe Biden--Gaffes, Miscues, Touching, Songs

[reddogblitz]

4 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

if I'm understanding you correctly, the loathsome DJT (who, prior to the virus, was credited with creating incredible opportunities for all Americans, but most notably people of color as unemployment tumbled to historic lows) has to be replaced, even if that means voting for a guy with a long history of being on the wrong side of legislation involving racial equality.  So, replace the guy who removed barriers to success and replace with the old democrat who has had 50 years to create meaningful reform and has failed to do so.  

 

Uncle Joe has a long history of being wrong about a lot of stuff. He has horrid judgement.  He  voted for the Iraq war. When Obama was considering doing the raid on Bin Laden, Uncle Joe was the only one against it. He said it was too dangerous.

[B-Man]

 

 

Well, yes: Biden’s Staff Gave Him A Script So He’d Know Why He Was Calling Kamala Harris.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

29 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Uncle Joe has a long history of being wrong about a lot of stuff. He has horrid judgement.  He  voted for the Iraq war. When Obama was considering doing the raid on Bin Laden, Uncle Joe was the only one against it. He said it was too politically dangerous.

FIFY

[transplantbillsfan]

5 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Gotta love someone who claims to have a good record on PPP attempting to prove it by ignoring how he got every bit of the Russia story wrong, every bit of the 2016 election story wrong -- then follows it up with a post that claims Trump's economic successes were actually Obama's  

 

Never change, Transplant. Keep removing all doubt that you're a serious intellect. 

 

Actually I already disproved your assertion of Russia.

 

I don’t know how much we've talked one on one about the 2016 election, but I know you've said multiple times you were wrong with it, too.

 

As for the election coming up...

 

Just be ready... your avatar will be changing. 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

2 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Actually I already disproved your assertion of Russia

 

False. You proved you knew nothing about the subject. 

[TtownBillsFan]

4 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Actually I already disproved your assertion of Russia.

 

I don’t know how much we've talked one on one about the 2016 election, but I know you've said multiple times you were wrong with it, too.

 

As for the election coming up...

 

Just be ready... your avatar will be changing. 

 

Good God, dude.  You couldn't be more wrong on most everything you post down here, where I used to think you had some sense on the top-side.  But, dude, really;  you're supporting this Harris pick?  You're LOSING yourself.  There is NOTHING redeemable about that woman, and you know all the reasons.  Keep hitching your saddle to these two turds.  You're going to ride off into the sunset, with a new avatar (if you're a good enough person to live up to your word), saddled to a couple piles of DUNG.  As delusional as you've been, you deserve no less, and I can't wait to watch it happen;  IF you have any character, and will abide by it.

[B-Man]

 

 

[B-Man]

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

14 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

 

Trump rode the wave of 6+ years of steady economic recovery under the wave of Obama.

 

And the gap between "people of color" and White people was as wide as it always was.  

 

You understand that it's the gap that's the biggest point of contention, right?

 

Soooo...

 

 

 

As I stated, your belief that Donald Trump has been a unique benefit for people of color fallacious.

 

Just here to help because I like you

 

It's a fool's game to pretend that Obama was not at the helm of the country during the financial crisis, and that it was a difficult time to be president.  While criticism of some of his policy decisions is fair, it seems silly to rehash the choices he made and the winners and losers he created.  

 

Likewise, it's foolish to pretend that Donald Trump's policy decisions, tax initiatives, focus on deregulation, changes to capital gain rates and the like was not a major part of the economic explosion that followed.  There are CEOs who have said as much, but more importantly, the repatriation of capital and substantially more business-friendly environment sparked the fire that followed.   Don't be foolish, Transpy, you can hate and despise Trump and still acknowledge his role in the economic explosion that followed after 8 years of insufferable doom and gloom under O'Biden.  The word 'malaise' is appropriate to describe the world under that particular regime. 

 

Then again, maybe Obama had it planned out where he deftly hand-selected his successor as a dodge to set up the greatest upset in American political history so that DJT could totally &^%$ over his initiatives and policy decisions so that it was one long and winding road from Barry to Don.  

 

Your gap analogy is a macro issue, the things elites speak of, the type of language used by those firmly entrenched in a job that pays well (or better), that will not be impacted by any policy decisions that seeks to close the gap, and who generally utter it while snacking on filet mignon flavored tofu and drinking a delightful red from Sonoma.  Job opportunities and employment are a micro issue, in that cold hard cash in hand is what allows people to feed themselves.  Holding your nose at sound economic opportunities for our citizens because it happened under the wrong guy's watch is sad, though...

 

It is interesting.  The 'gap' that exists would be a systemic issue, correct?  Why would someone like you--with a great job and gold-standard benefits that allowed you to skate across the COVID rink unscathed--chose to run toward the very type of politician that has been in the driver seat of the system for nearly 5 decades?   The system is broken, you say, so let's load up with more system?  Your view of progressive politics seems more and more like an attempt to change the world so long as your own bubble is not impacted. 

 

Finally, a word about wage inequity.  I was speaking with my daughter about the male/female wage gap a few years back, purported to be something like .75 cents on the dollar women to men.  This was back when people identified as men and women, or at least did so when it was politically expedient and divisive.  We dove into one of the oft-cited surveys on that issue, and what we found was interesting.  When doing the calculations, certain assumptions were made.  The author's of the survey looked at hourly wage, and on the side of the womenfolk, made some assumptions and adjusted as follows:

• Women are traditionally the main provider of child care services, so that was factored into the hourly rate;
• Women are traditionally responsible for domestic household duties (cleaning, cooking etc), and that was factored into the hourly rate;
• Women traditionally have the children in the family, and the time our of the office post-childbirth was factored into the hourly rate*;
• Women traditionally care for elderly parents and special needs children, and this was factored into the hourly rate;

In short, that particular survey assumed that women on average were 'working' 12-14 hour days and men only 8.  So, a man making $55,000 for job A, and a woman holding the exact same job at $55,000, revealed a stunning disparity in wage based on the 6 extra hours that had nothing at all to do with wage and employment.   

 

My assumption was that the authors of the survey knew the results were the most important issue, and that well-intentioned people would run with the ".75c on the dollar!" and not look much deeper than that.  Why?  Because it works every time. 

 

Now go take on the day.

 

*Thankfully, we're entering into a brave new world where child birth will not be limited to a "Women only" club.  Soon, many men, thousands maybe, will be in hospitals and bathtubs across the country experiencing the joy of childbirth.  #progress

 

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

False. You proved you knew nothing about the subject. 

Where was that gem?  I feel like I read all of @transplantbillsfan posts and must have missed it. 

[Tiberius]

14 hours ago, RiotAct said:

in all seriousness, if there was any question that Biden is going to win, today should have erased it.

 

He probably picked the best woman VP from the “probables” (with the least amount of baggage) besides Tammy Duckworth.

But he is running against the worst president in American history, so it's an easy choice

 

Biden-Harris! 

40 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

100% better than Trump even on a Bad day, while drunk and stoned arguing with DC Tom--

 

Still 100% better 

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Where was that gem?  I feel like I read all of @transplantbillsfan posts and must have missed it. 

 

I'll have to scrounge for it. It was a month or two ago in either the Trump/Biden thread or one of the three Russia threads. It was a page of straight disinformation, untruths, and incredible conspiracy wrangling by Transplant without a shred of evidence to back any of it up -- all the while ignoring the page or so I laid out for him with actual evidence. It was one of his most shamefully ignorant posts in a long while. 

 

That he thinks it was a good post for him sums up Transplant's mental acuity quite well though.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I'll have to scrounge for it. It was a month or two ago in either the Trump/Biden thread or one of the three Russia threads. It was a page of straight disinformation, untruths, and incredible conspiracy wrangling by Transplant without a shred of evidence to back any of it up -- all the while ignoring the page or so I laid out for him with actual evidence. It was one of his most shamefully ignorant posts in a long while. 

 

That he thinks it was a good post for him sums up Transplant's mental acuity quite well though.

I'd really love to read it.  In all my worldly travels, I've had one response to the very simple question:  "How did they get it all so wrong?".  That response was from our own Doc Brown, and while I disagreed it was nice to get something back other then . 

 

Transpy tends to default to the emotional, imo.  I think he's a thoughtful guy, and if I had one observation, it's that he defaults to the 'emotional' v the logical.  His foray into the weatherman fallacy makes some sense at face value, but simply must be discarded when considering the totality of the information available and the time frame over which the weatherman would have had to been wrong.  When does it storm and the weather rage for 945 days straight?

 

I feel like there is a wall between the emotional (Transpy) and the logical (LS), and I say in all sincerity:

 

Mr. @transplantbillsfan-Gorbachev, tear down that wall!

 

 

 

 Btw, just found a few emojis of the type that @Foxxmade famous here. Where the %$#@ has that small-to-medium sized ominvorous mammalia been of late? 

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I'd really love to read it.  In all my worldly travels, I've had one response to the very simple question:  "How did they get it all so wrong?".  That response was from our own Doc Brown, and while I disagreed it was nice to get something back other then . 

 

Transpy tends to default to the emotional, imo.  I think he's a thoughtful guy, and if I had one observation, it's that he defaults to the 'emotional' v the logical.  His foray into the weatherman fallacy makes some sense at face value, but simply must be discarded when considering the totality of the information available and the time frame over which the weatherman would have had to been wrong.  When does it storm and the weather rage for 945 days straight?

 

I feel like there is a wall between the emotional (Transpy) and the logical (LS), and I say in all sincerity:

 

Mr. @transplantbillsfan-Gorbachev, tear down that wall!

 

 

 

 Btw, just found a few emojis of the type that @Foxxmade famous here. Where the %$#@ has that small-to-medium sized ominvorous mammalia been of late? 

 

Agreed! @Doc Brown is great and always willing to honestly discuss topics. I like @transplantbillsfan a great deal too -- even if he is an intellectual mess he's well meaning. His response to the overwhelming factual evidence which proves the entire Russia/Trump story was a set-up and faked by our own intelligence services was to parrot MSM talking points from early '18 as if they still held water. He didn't engage at all with the information offered as a counter, rather he claimed it to be conspiracy while pushing an actual conspiracy theory about Russians stealing the election for Trump and it only not coming out because Trump obstructed the investigation.

 

In other words, it was lunacy. But hilarious lunacy. 

 

I'll find the post in a bit when work settles down this morning. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Here's the exchange, @leh-nerd skin-erd -- I'm putting it behind the spoiler screener because both posts are very long. Click on the links to the posts to see the quotes in full (I quote his old posts, he quotes mine, but they don't show up when I quote the quotes). Starts with mine, finishes with one of the most laughable posts of Transplant's career -- one which he takes a bow at the end without irony  

 

On 6/22/2020 at 4:35 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

@transplantbillsfan -- moving this to a more appropriate thread... 

 

 

You asked me to show you where you had ever said anything wrong about Trump/Russia -- and I explained I did not have time over the weekend to dig. Rather than answer my question on your current opinion on the matter so we could cut right to the chase, you wanted to play games. So, game on.  

 

I had time today to look. And boy was it fun. Let's take a trip back through your Journey of Being Wrong from the very first day on Trump/Russia... by the time we get through this, the only question left is whether or not you will admit to being wrong as you said you would.

 

Let's find out! 

 

Starting with, your very first PPP post on the subject in October of 2018: 

 

 

Note two things about this chalk-full-of-wrong post... first, you displayed no understanding of the Butina case and why it was important. What Butina showed was that despite the media narrative at the time, the only actual Russian spy deployed by Putin was identified, charged, and expelled immediately upon the changing of administrations. Not something one would expect from a "puppet" president. It also overlooks the fact that the Obama DOJ knew Butina was a Russian spook for well over a year but let her operate freely anyway... but again, details aren't important. Just feelz. 

 

But where you were demonstrably wrong was with your last statement. You imply Russia did influence the 2016 election. After the Mueller report, the OIG report, all the FBI disclosures and multiple trials and their accompanying discovery, transcripts, and testimonies, it's proven that Russia did NOT influence the election. 

 

So you literally were wrong from your first day on this topic. 

 

But that was just the start of your incredible Journey of Being Wrong... 

 

 

*Bolded and numbers are mine

 

1. This is a false statement. Per Mueller's own report, there was no evidence of collusion/conspiracy in his report. None. That was cemented by the later findings of the OIG and the disclosures from the Crossfire Hurricane team and its documents/origin point. They had an open investigation for nearly 3 years and found nada. Zip. Zero.

 

2. The first page of the report shows that this is incorrect. Mueller (really Weissman) makes it clear that collusion is not a legal term even though it's synonymous with conspiracy. Thus they used conspiracy, not collusion in the report. But they're the same thing. And -- guess what, he found zero evidence of it despite your first incorrect statement. 

 

Your ignorance on this topic was in FULL display early on... 

 

But there's a lot more! 

 

 

*Bolded and numbers are mine

 

1. You were wrong before about this, and you're still wrong in this post. But you're sticking to it regardless, even when others in the thread show you the excerpts in the report proving you're wrong... 

 

2. The report was a political operation, not a legal one. Its legal findings all exonerated Trump. Fully. On both conspiracy and obstruction. You're wrong again... 

 

And yet... you were't done making sure everyone understood that you knew/know very little about this topic! You were just getting warmed up! 

 

 

*Bolded and numbers are mine

 

1. Note the weasel way you worded this one. "I never thought would be undeniably proven" -- leaving it wide open for you to argue that it happened, they just couldn't prove it. Which brings us back to the question I asked you the other day and you've been running from ever since: Do you believe Trump or his campaign colluded/conspired with the Russians to steal the 2016 election? Show the class how you're still wrong on this topic by answering that honestly. 

 

2. Actually, we know now in light of the OIG report and the declassifications of the ICA source material, that it's proven Russia favored neither side. In fact, they ran operations designed to favor both Trump and Clinton because their goal was to sow chaos, not tilt the scales one way or the other. We know, for a fact now, that John Brennan kept the information about the Russians favoring Clinton out of the ICA in order to deceive the public. So, again, you are undeniably wrong again -- because you were lied to by the same people you're trying to defend. They lied to you because they think you're too stupid to think for yourself... and so far on your Journey of Being Wrong, they seem to be correct in that assessment. 

 

3. In reality, it was a very weak obstruction case based on legal fantasy. It was such a weak obstruction case that it was immediately rejected -- not just by Barr but by Rod Rosenstein who was there from the very beginning of the SCO and had no loyalty to Trump whatsoever. So, you're wrong again -- but this is because you're a partisan and not thinking critically. Thus you think this is somehow subjective... it isn't.  

 

4. "The Mueller stuff" which you got wrong every step of the way. Laughably so.  

 

5. Ooops! Wrong again. That case got tossed in the trash by the courts. 

 

6. Wrong again! This was one that even worked in your favor!  

 

Oh, wait, but there's more on @transplantbillsfan's ridiculously long and well documented Journey of Being Wrong. 

 

 

*Bolded and numbers are mine

 

1. What's hilarious about this one is that you admit (without really admitting) you were wrong with your very first post already highlighted above.  You admit, almost a year later, that no votes were changed. Russia didn't influence the election -- despite their efforts to do so. Meddle does not = interfere. 

 

2.  Wrong all the way. He's off the hook (exonerated) and there was no additional CI investigation. That's two wrongs in one statement! 

 

3. We know now Trump was not fully briefed on the threats. This is proven by multiple declassifications and congressional testimonies. You were wrong again -- but it sure is a nice piece of fiction to string those things together like that (while omitting the fact that what he said on stage was A) a joke and B) not right after being briefed by the FBI. Starting to see how you were programmed VERY EARLY ON? 

 

We're still not done! And to be frank, I was tuckering out at this point in my search. My sides were hurting too much from laughing at your stunning display of ignorance time and time again... so let's keep going along with you on your wonderfully ironic Journey of Being Wrong while also being super condescending! 

 

 

*Bolded and numbers are mine

 

1) A prosecutor doesn't exonerate, so Mueller's words were improper. The result of the Mueller probe was a declaration of innocence. No charges brought, no indictment. And we live in a country where we are innocent until proven guilty. Trump was found innocent in full. Even on obstruction which both RR and Barr ruled on despite Weissman's punting. 

 

2) We in fact do know exactly what they briefed him on, and per Comey's own testimony they did not brief Trump in full deliberately. Why? Because he was a target of their CI investigation. This is not speculation, it's now proven fact. You were wrong about that and the timing of the email release. But again, why bother learning the facts when you can be lazy and let the Legacy Media tell you how to think instead? 

 

******************************************

 

This is not really the end of your Journey of Being wrong, but it's a good stopping point. I'm certain there's more stupidity in the year that followed but I think 17 clear examples of times you, @transplantbillsfan were demonstrably wrong about the Trump/Russia story and its outcome is more than enough to prove my point.

 

You were wrong from your very first day down here on this topic... 

 

And you've never copped to it. Not once. 

 

Here's your chance to remedy that.

 

 

 

On 6/23/2020 at 8:43 PM, transplantbillsfan said:

 

I don't understand where the posting of an article makes me wrong.

 

Can you explain that?

 

 

Can you post something that proves Russia didn't influence the election? Not something that says there was "insufficient evidence," but instead something that proves it.

 

You claim that proof exists, just provide it and this will be one of the things I admit was wrong about.

 

So just pull out the parts of the Mueller report, OIG report, FBI disclosures and trials that directly stated there's proof Russia had no influence on the election.

 

 

I didn't read the Mueller report and never will. 

 

Maybe Mueller found no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but that could be because Mueller himself was impeded in his investigation by members of the Trump campaign who lied, encrypted and deleted communications, individuals providing false or incomplete info, and Trump dangling pardons in the face of people of interest like Manafort in an effort to interfere with the investigation. Those were claims by Mueller, not me.

 

As for collusion, Mueller's Summary of major findings at least provides several examples of what would surely be considered collusion. And that combined with an impeded investigation shouldn't lead anyone to the conclusion that Trump was proven innocent. Mueller never said that.

 

 

What is wrong about it?

 

I just explained it to you.

 

 

Ummm... no they didn't 

 

 

Yes. Needs to be undeniably or almost undeniably proven.

 

It hasn't been here.

 

And yes, I believe there was collusion. It's clearly there. I'm not as sure about conspiracy, but sure, I'd say I believe that happened, too.

 

 

Prove it.

 

I know Russia hacked the Republicans, too. But the information wasn't released in any kind of damaging way as it was for Clinton.

 

Provide me the evidence that the Russians were equal opportunity destroyers of both Clinton and Trump. That's news to me.

 

 

Wow this I do NOT agree with.

 

 

Doesn't really seem so so far.

 

 

 

Here ya go. You're right. 

 

I was dead wrong on this one. I absolutely did not think Trump would be impeached.

 

I really didn't think the House would end up going through with it because of political risk.

 

I was dead wrong about that one and will eat crow on it.

 

 

This was probably from me reading so much of you my head got twisted all around.

 

This post was wrong, too.

 

 

Trump certainly wasn't exonerated.

 

He does hold the power of the Presidency, though.

 

I think losing the election in November is just the first of his worries to come.

 

 

Bill Barr himself admits Trump was warned Russia was trying to meddle.

 

Don't see how this is incorrect.

 

 

No.

 

No.

 

No.

 

So much wrong with this.

 

No.

 

 

Trump WAS told the elections were meddling and were trying to meddle, plain and simple.

 

 

You're right. And that's why I just admitted those parts where I was proven wrong. Keep the rest of that proof coming and you'll get even more of that validation you seem to need. 

 

For now I think you should step outside and get some Sun, though. Just some friendly advice.

 

We both surf a lot, you just do waaAAaaayyy too much of this:

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Taro T]

8 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Fact check: Harris called Biden a racist.  False.  She merely pointed out that he celebrated and supported them (for decades). 

 

TOTALLY different. /sarcasm

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

22 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Here's the exchange, @leh-nerd skin-erd -- I'm putting it behind the spoiler screener because both posts are very long. Click on the links to the posts to see the quotes in full (I quote his old posts, he quotes mine, but they don't show up when I quote the quotes). Starts with mine, finishes with one of the most laughable posts of Transplant's career -- one which he takes a bow at the end without irony  

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

Well, I have to credit the man, he gave it the good old college try. The formatting was a bit difficult to follow but I think I pieced it together.  

 

In summary, Trump colluded with Russia because there was no evidence of collusion and the SC never moved forward with exoneration even though the office would never exonerate anyone.  And obviously, because nothing was found, messages were maybe encrypted or people lied, but most importantly the fact that nothing was found is clear evidence that something should have been.  Given that line of reasoning, we need to immediate move to investigate Justin Trudeau, Angela Merkle and both parents from the old "Leave it to Beaver" show--Hugh Beaumont and Barbara Billingsley.   There is no evidence against those people, either, which drops 'em right in the thick of it. 

[Deranged Rhino]

19 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Well, I have to credit the man, he gave it the good old college try. The formatting was a bit difficult to follow but I think I pieced it together.  

 

In summary, Trump colluded with Russia because there was no evidence of collusion and the SC never moved forward with exoneration even though the office would never exonerate anyone.  And obviously, because nothing was found, messages were maybe encrypted or people lied, but most importantly the fact that nothing was found is clear evidence that something should have been.  Given that line of reasoning, we need to immediate move to investigate Justin Trudeau, Angela Merkle and both parents from the old "Leave it to Beaver" show--Hugh Beaumont and Barbara Billingsley.   There is no evidence against those people, either, which drops 'em right in the thick of it. 

 

 Exactly  

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Well, I have to credit the man, he gave it the good old college try. The formatting was a bit difficult to follow but I think I pieced it together.  

 

In summary, Trump colluded with Russia because there was no evidence of collusion and the SC never moved forward with exoneration even though the office would never exonerate anyone.  And obviously, because nothing was found, messages were maybe encrypted or people lied, but most importantly the fact that nothing was found is clear evidence that something should have been.  Given that line of reasoning, we need to immediate move to investigate Justin Trudeau, Angela Merkle and both parents from the old "Leave it to Beaver" show--Hugh Beaumont and Barbara Billingsley.   There is no evidence against those people, either, which drops 'em right in the thick of it. 

There's more to the Barbara Billingsley story than you may know: