Joe Biden’s 9/2 Speech

[Wacka]

Soros is there in sunglasses in the Guyana jungle saying "come to me my babies". Biden is just the figurehead. Same result for the  dem party.  Tibs,etc. have already drunk the Kool-Aid

 

 

Aside: when typing this, the autocorrect changed dem to dementia and Kool to Kill.  I am not kidding!

[The Frankish Reich]

4 hours ago, Brueggs said:

If the debates don't matter, why is Biden camp trying so hard to make them not happen?  I know it hurts, but even you have to know why...

Because that's what the guy who's winning does. 

Trump felt like he was riding high (his polls were better; whether he was actually "leading" is uncertain) he was all about finding reasons not to debate:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/24/us/politics/trump-presidential-debate.html

A few months of coronavirus and he was singing a different tune:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-calls-for-presidential-debate-to-be-moved-up-due-to-mail-in-voting

 

So much for that theory. I love how Trumpies conveniently forget his LOL flubs. Maybe we could try injecting a little common sense inside the body?

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Because that's what the guy who's winning does. 

Trump felt like he was riding high (his polls were better; whether he was actually "leading" is uncertain) he was all about finding reasons not to debate:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/24/us/politics/trump-presidential-debate.html

A few months of coronavirus and he was singing a different tune:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-calls-for-presidential-debate-to-be-moved-up-due-to-mail-in-voting

 

So much for that theory. I love how Trumpies conveniently forget his LOL flubs. Maybe we could try injecting a little common sense inside the body?

 

Those links don't make the case you are suggesting. 

 

First, the Times article was an anonymous source (so, likely BS). Second, that article didn't say Trump didn't want to debate. 

[IDBillzFan]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Those links don't make the case you are suggesting. 

 

First, the Times article was an anonymous source (so, likely BS). Second, that article didn't say Trump didn't want to debate. 

 

Alinsky 101: accuse your competition of doing all the bad things that you are actually doing.

[Brueggs]

39 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Because that's what the guy who's winning does. 

Trump felt like he was riding high (his polls were better; whether he was actually "leading" is uncertain) he was all about finding reasons not to debate:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/24/us/politics/trump-presidential-debate.html

A few months of coronavirus and he was singing a different tune:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-calls-for-presidential-debate-to-be-moved-up-due-to-mail-in-voting

 

So much for that theory. I love how Trumpies conveniently forget his LOL flubs. Maybe we could try injecting a little common sense inside the body?

Maybe he should have thought about that before running for president?  It seems like old Joe has "forgotten" that the job has certain requirements.  If he isn't up for the debate, that is on him and his team.  If he's scared because that's what the other guy does, it just further proves his incompetence.  People can dislike Trump all they want, it doesn't lend any more credibility to Biden.  He is quite possibly the weakest presidential candidate of all time.

[Nanker]

Are you kidding? Putin is quaking in his boots at the terrifying thought of meeting Joe the Dope Biden. Likewise Xi of China, and Un of PRK. There’s no way they want Joe to be the next POTUS. They’ll do everything thing they can to get their lackey Trump re-elected. 
 

It’s so obvious.

 

[Chef Jim]

On 9/2/2020 at 12:17 PM, SectionC3 said:

 

 

All of the lying by the current occupant of the White House surely has made him sick!

 

 

What lies?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

[The Frankish Reich]

8 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Those links don't make the case you are suggesting. 

 

First, the Times article was an anonymous source (so, likely BS). Second, that article didn't say Trump didn't want to debate. 

Look who doesn’t trust “anonymous sources” now — a (former, apparently) Q-Anon fan! You’re right: all that Q-ey anonymous stuff is likely BS. 

I’m glad you’ve finally come to your senses. 

Edited September 4, 2020 by The Frankish Reich

[Deranged Rhino]

46 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Look who doesn’t trust “anonymous sources” now — a (former, apparently) Q-Anon fan! You’re right: all that Q-ey anonymous stuff is likely BS. 

I’m glad you’ve finally come to your senses. 

 

Again, Q isn't about anonymous sources, it's in fact the opposite of that. Q shares information which can be vetted and confirmed on its own merits regardless of Q. The NYT has shown one thing for certain over the past four years of its operation: anonymous sources = BS. You might want to consider why you keep believing them when they keep on proving to be wrong. 

[WEATHER DOT COM]

6 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Again, Q isn't about anonymous sources, it's in fact the opposite of that. Q shares information which can be vetted and confirmed on its own merits regardless of Q. The NYT has shown one thing for certain over the past four years of its operation: anonymous sources = BS. You might want to consider why you keep believing them when they keep on proving to be wrong. 

 

This is the stupidest thing ever written in PPP. You have out-Tibsed yourself - congrats

[Reality Check]

2 minutes ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:

 

I am the stupidest thing ever written in PPP. You have out-Tibsed yourself - congrats

 

[The Frankish Reich]

9 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Again, Q isn't about anonymous sources, it's in fact the opposite of that. Q shares information which can be vetted and confirmed on its own merits regardless of Q. The NYT has shown one thing for certain over the past four years of its operation: anonymous sources = BS. You might want to consider why you keep believing them when they keep on proving to be wrong. 

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of "anonymous"

[T master]

On 9/2/2020 at 1:44 PM, SectionC3 said:

My goodness that was lovely.  That’s what a president should sound like.  Dignified.  Smart.  Reserved.  Thoughtful. Truthful.   Cognizant of the significant problems facing middle America right now with respect to the struggle to re-open schools to in-person learning.  I can’t wait until he is our President.  It’s time to restore America’s soul, and Joe Biden is just the person to do it. 

 

Discuss!

 

 

Any one can read words put on a screen in front of them & sound dignified. Smart. Reserved. Thoughtful. & Truthful when they have a speech writer hell i bet you believe Cuomo, Diblasio & Schumer are doing a great job too ! 

[Deranged Rhino]

3 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of "anonymous"

 

In this context it means: fictional person who does not exist. 

 

The NYT track record on using such sources makes that abundantly clear. How can you continue to take them seriously when they lied to your face for years about Russia (!) and Mueller using only "anonymous sources" who turned out to be either completely wrong or non existent? 

[The Frankish Reich]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fox-news-backs-part-of-atlantic-report-that-trump-disparaged-fallen-soldiers%3F_amp%3Dtrue
oops. Looks like multiple sources confirm that this came from an honest to God

real life staffer. He/she could be lying, sure. But a real source. Now as for your mysterious

Q ....

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fox-news-backs-part-of-atlantic-report-that-trump-disparaged-fallen-soldiers%3F_amp%3Dtrue
oops. Looks like multiple sources confirm that this came from an honest to God

real life staffer. He/she could be lying, sure. But a real source. Now as for your mysterious

Q ....

 

They managed to get 2 anonymous sources (both of whom are allegedly former members of 45's administration, just like people such as Sally Yates & Colonel Vindman were members of the administration) to confirm 4 anonymous sources? (And there's absolutely no chance whatsoever that the 2 were among the original 4 because there's no way an anonymous source with an axe to grind would talk to 2 different reporters.  Right?)

 

Well, that seals it.

Edited September 5, 2020 by Taro T

[The Frankish Reich]

9 hours ago, Taro T said:

 

They managed to get 2 anonymous sources (both of whom are allegedly former members of 45's administration, just like people such as Sally Yates & Colonel Vindman were members of the administration) to confirm 4 anonymous sources? (And there's absolutely no chance whatsoever that the 2 were among the original 4 because there's no way an anonymous source with an axe to grind would talk to 2 different reporters.  Right?)

 

Well, that seals it.

The point was this: Deranged Rhino said that when he referred to "anonymous sources," he really meant "no source at all; Jeffrey Goldberg (the Atlantic) just made it up."

And obviously that's not true.

https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/09/04/jennifer-griffin-of-fox-news-did-not-confirm-most-salacious-part-of-atlantic-story/

Read the article, not the headline. It appears that several reporters confirm that "senior officials" confirmed most everything; the only question is whether Trump called WW1 vets "suckers" as opposed to other vets.

And somehow his beloved "Q" doesn't count as "anonymous" because, well, I can't figure that one out.

I have tried, here and in another thread, to understand this reasoning; I can't because it simply defies all logic.

Edited September 5, 2020 by The Frankish Reich

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

The point was this: Deranged Rhino said that when he referred to "anonymous sources," he really meant "no source at all; Jeffrey Goldberg (the Atlantic) just made it up."

And obviously that's not true.

https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/09/04/jennifer-griffin-of-fox-news-did-not-confirm-most-salacious-part-of-atlantic-story/

Read the article, not the headline. It appears that several reporters confirm that "senior officials" confirmed most everything; the only question is whether Trump called WW1 vets "suckers" as opposed to other vets.

And somehow his beloved "Q" doesn't count as "anonymous" because, well, I can't figure that one out.

I have tried, here and in another thread, to understand this reasoning; I can't because it simply defies all logic.

 

Did read the article.  It's still anonymous sources confirming anonymous sources.  And there is at least 1 item in the article that has been debunked by several people, that being that it was 45's call not to drive to the cemeteries.  The secret service nixed that, as was reported at the time & since.  If we know 1 part of the anonymously sourced story is false, it seems fair to assume the rest of it is as well.  Especially when we know so many "FORMER senior officials" hate 45 & have an axe to grind.

 

Don't have a horse in the "anonymous sources made the story up" or "the Atlantic reporter made the story up" race.  But considering the amount of BS that has been put out in the MSM the past 4 years, definitely won't give the story credit until someone/something more credible provides confirmation.

 

As for Q vs Qanon vs ???, believe that Q (whoever they are) is in the administration or has ridiculously close ties to it.  Don't believe all Q's info is true, but some of it is.  Qanon is people (believers & non-believers) trying to interpret the "drops" with their own spin and more than a few are loons & more than a few are like the sock puppets here trying to derail anything that may be legit about it.

 

Won't speak for DR on that matter.  He's provided his background & motivations here on many occasions and he is more than capable to speak for himself.  He also has been right on a lot of stuff that seemed preposterous almost 4 years ago, so personally put a lot more of his theories and info about politics into the "plausible" bin than into the "preposterous" one due to his track record.  And by politics am encompassing all the Spygate, Russiagate, & human trafficking under that umbrella.  So much of that stuff that seemed outlandish when it was brought up, turned out to be spot on.  (The alien stuff & some other remains in their original bins, but for the politics stuff he has done the work to know more of the behind the scenes stuff than anybody else here & IMHO we are very fortunate to have him posting here.)  

 

My 2 cents.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

7 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

Did read the article.  It's still anonymous sources confirming anonymous sources.  And there is at least 1 item in the article that has been debunked by several people, that being that it was 45's call not to drive to the cemeteries.  The secret service nixed that, as was reported at the time & since.  If we know 1 part of the anonymously sourced story is false, it seems fair to assume the rest of it is as well.  Especially when we know so many "FORMER senior officials" hate 45 & have an axe to grind.

 

Don't have a horse in the "anonymous sources made the story up" or "the Atlantic reporter made the story up" race.  But considering the amount of BS that has been put out in the MSM the past 4 years, definitely won't give the story credit until someone/something more credible provides confirmation.

 

As for Q vs Qanon vs ???, believe that Q (whoever they are) is in the administration or has ridiculously close ties to it.  Don't believe all Q's info is true, but some of it is.  Qanon is people (believers & non-believers) trying to interpret the "drops" with their own spin and more than a few are loons & more than a few are like the sock puppets here trying to derail anything that may be legit about it.

 

Won't speak for DR on that matter.  He's provided his background & motivations here on many occasions and he is more than capable to speak for himself.  He also has been right on a lot of stuff that seemed preposterous almost 4 years ago, so personally put a lot more of his theories and info about politics into the "plausible" bin than into the "preposterous" one due to his track record.  And by politics am encompassing all the Spygate, Russiagate, & human trafficking under that umbrella.  So much of that stuff that seemed outlandish when it was brought up, turned out to be spot on.  (The alien stuff & some other remains in their original bins, but for the politics stuff he has done the work to know more of the behind the scenes stuff than anybody else here & IMHO we are very fortunate to have him posting here.)  

 

My 2 cents.

 

 

 

...Bolton of all people, the epitome of anti-Trump even refuted it.......