Biden's follies

[Doc]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

So much class, honor and dignity Joke has brought to the WH...

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

What I find fascinating is that the White House (the Biden Family) are not absolutely livid over this blunder. After all it’s their safety at stake. Instead the sock puppet press secretary goes out and tries to cover for the Family instead of showing complete frustration with the security detail. 

The Biden family paraded their grandchildren around maskless during the inauguration, COVID still killing Americans at an alarming clip.  The optics were terrible, the message terrible, but the Biden family likely isn't bothered by such pedestrian things.  A party is a party. 

 

I'd think they are pretty used to the special treatment treatment, and if Uncle Hun dropped a bag of nose candy or two about, that's a private family matter. 

 

Above. The. law. 

 

[Kemp]

 

[Gregg]

[JDHillFan]

“by all accounts…” redhawk

[Wacka]

My iPhone doesn't translate Bidenese.

[B-Man]

 

Joe Biden Is the Second Most Unpopular President in Modern History – But He Totally Got 81 Million Votes!

by Jim Hoft

 

According to report by Andrew Romano from Yahoo News that played on CNN, Joe Biden is the second most unpopular president in modern US history at this point in his presidency. Jimmy Carter was first.
This actually was allowed to air on CNN.But Joe Biden TOTALLY got 81 million votes! And there was DEFINITELY no cheating in the 2020 election. 

 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/07/joe-biden-is-second-most-unpopular-president-modern/

[B-Man]

 

 

BECAUSE HE’S AWFUL? JUST SPITBALLING HERE. 

 

Why is Joe Biden so unpopular?

 

 

And the comparison with Jimmy Carter is unfair to Jimmy Carter, because the press was actually pretty hard on him, while it’s bent over backward — or just bent over — in support of Biden.

 

 

https://currently.att.yahoo.com/att/why-is-joe-biden-so-unpopular-170442363.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=1_11

 

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

11 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

Joe Biden Is the Second Most Unpopular President in Modern History – But He Totally Got 81 Million Votes!

by Jim Hoft

 

According to report by Andrew Romano from Yahoo News that played on CNN, Joe Biden is the second most unpopular president in modern US history at this point in his presidency. Jimmy Carter was first.
This actually was allowed to air on CNN.But Joe Biden TOTALLY got 81 million votes! And there was DEFINITELY no cheating in the 2020 election. 

 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/07/joe-biden-is-second-most-unpopular-president-modern/

Well there's some fine logic for you.

Joe Biden is currently unpopular because his performance as President has been poor.

Which, of course, makes it impossible that he could have received 81 million votes in 2020, before he had an opportunity to prove that he is up for the job.

Applying the same reasoning:

- I saw a recent poll saying Hitler is the most hated man in history, which obviously proves that the Germans did not in fact elect him 90 years ago.

- Jesus is now very popular in Italy, so it is inconceivable that Romans had him executed 2,000 years ago.

This is the crap many people read. And then quote it without even taking a moment to notice the absurdity.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

[wnyguy]

On 7/23/2023 at 12:16 PM, The Frankish Reich said:

Well there's some fine logic for you.

Joe Biden is currently unpopular because his performance as President has been poor.

Which, of course, makes it impossible that he could have received 81 million votes in 2020, before he had an opportunity to prove that he is up for the job.

Applying the same reasoning:

- I saw a recent poll saying Hitler is the most hated man in history, which obviously proves that the Germans did not in fact elect him 90 years ago.

- Jesus is now very popular in Italy, so it is inconceivable that Romans had him executed 2,000 years ago.

This is the crap many people read. And then quote it without even taking a moment to notice the absurdity.

The absurdity is believing, even for 1 second, that Joe Biden received 81 million legitimate votes. 

[The Frankish Reich]

1 minute ago, wnyguy said:

The absurdity is believing, even for 1 second, that Joe Biden received 81 million legitimate votes. 

There you go. 

Why would this be absurd?

The fivethirtyeight reliable poll average pre-election had Biden winning nationally by ... almost exactly the margin that he did win by.

Every stupid Trump theory has been shot down, one by one:

- Venezuelan Election Machines hacked! The subject of a record-breaking defamation settlement when discovery showed absolutely zero evidence of this.

- Georgia election officials brought in fake ballots in suitcases! The subject of Giuliani's recent concession that this was not true.

- Arizona flooded with fake votes, including by dead voters! The subject of an audit by a Republican-paid firm, showing that no such thing happened and in fact the Biden vote was just a tick higher than reported in official results.

And still: they believe.

It's a religion. Blessed are those who have not seen and still believe in Trump's bs.

[Doc]

1 hour ago, wnyguy said:

The absurdity is believing, even for 1 second, that Joe Biden received 81 million legitimate votes. 

 

It's even scarier to think he might have...

[wnyguy]

8 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

It's even scarier to think he might have...

Gosh darn it, I never thought of that.

[Gregg]

31 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

It's even scarier to think he might have...

 

People voted against Trump not for Biden. That is where the votes came from. If it was Biden vs someone else, then he gets nowhere near 81 million. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

There you go. 

Why would this be absurd?

The fivethirtyeight reliable poll average pre-election had Biden winning nationally by ... almost exactly the margin that he did win by.

Every stupid Trump theory has been shot down, one by one:

- Venezuelan Election Machines hacked! The subject of a record-breaking defamation settlement when discovery showed absolutely zero evidence of this.

- Georgia election officials brought in fake ballots in suitcases! The subject of Giuliani's recent concession that this was not true.

- Arizona flooded with fake votes, including by dead voters! The subject of an audit by a Republican-paid firm, showing that no such thing happened and in fact the Biden vote was just a tick higher than reported in official results.

And still: they believe.

It's a religion. Blessed are those who have not seen and still believe in Trump's bs.

Trump was lawfully elected President in 2016, yes?  He was the legitimate President, you agree, yes? 

 

There is more than one religion, obviously.  

Edited July 26, 2023 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[The Frankish Reich]

Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Trump was lawfully elected President in 2016, yes?  He was the legitimate President, you agree, yes? 

 

There is more than one religion, obviously.  

Yes, he was. Have I ever said otherwise?

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

Just now, The Frankish Reich said:

Yes, he was. Have I ever said otherwise?

 

I don't know, I was asking.  I just think it's sort of a travesty to speak about the Church of Stolen Elections (2020) without including a conversation about Our Lady Of lllegitimate Presidencies (2016).

 

Thanks for clarifying. 

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

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

I don't know, I was asking.  I just think it's sort of a travesty to speak about the Church of Stolen Elections (2020) without including a conversation about Our Lady Of lllegitimate Presidencies (2016).

 

Thanks for clarifying. 

 

 

Because you are generally a reasonable person, here's my taxonomy of election claims:

 

A. The Strong Actual Fraud claims. These are the Trump claims.

- A.1. Someone hacked/manipulated election machines/software to make them spit out invalid/fraudulent results.

- A.2. Someone stuffed the ballot boxes with "votes" from nonexistent (dead, moved away) or invalid (multiple ballots, same person) voters.

 

B. The Weak Improper Influence claims. (Someone or some entity "Improperly Tried to Influence How People Voted"). These are the Hillary 2016 Russian influence claims.

- B.1. Foreign actors, perhaps with assistance (collusion) of American actors. Russian state-sponsored persons/entities improperly (and/or illegally) engaged in online propaganda either to suppress Democratic votes, drum up Republican votes, or to discourage people from voting entirely.

- B.2. Domestic actors, perhaps with the assistance of U.S. government actors, sought to suppress something or to emphasize something with the intent (or result) of causing people to change whether and how they voted. This is the Hunter's Laptop theory. It is also the Comey Overreaction/More Hillary Emails theory.

 

[EDIT: adding another category]

 

C. The Voter Suppression/Undue Voter Encouragement Claims. These are the Stacy Abrams-type claims, that a state government run by the opposing party took steps to make it unduly difficult to cast a ballot in a way that differentially impacted one party. Polling stations shut down/consolidated into more distant stations in minority/Democratic areas, or polling hours shortened/Sunday voting eliminated, etc. The reverse side of this coin: claims that voting was made too easy in a way that benefits the opposing party or minority groups, like allowing for Sunday voting and transporting groups en masse from church to the ballot box.

 

They are very different kinds of claims. What I'm saying is that Trump's A.1 and A.2 claims have basically zero evidentiary support. And so his supporters (not so much him yet; he's slow to catch on) have begun moving to the weaker B.2 claim. That doesn't mean that there is necessarily nothing there; just that it is more akin to the Hillary B.1 claims than it is to the earlier Trump A.1 and A.2 claims.

 

"Election interference" is a catch-all dealing with all these "engaged in shenanigans to change whether and how actual voters voted." That is quite different from "counted phantom votes" or "changed properly cast votes from one candidate to another."

 

It makes some sense to speak of an election as "stolen" if there is:

1. Solid proof of A.1 and/or A.2 happening, in

2. Sufficient numbers as to plausibly change the result of the election as a whole.

 

Attorney General Barr investigated 2020, and didn't say there was no way A.2 (people ineligible to vote who voted) happening, but he did say there was no evidence that this was in numbers sufficient to change the result.

 

It does not make sense to speak of an election as "stolen" if we are talking about improper influence, since that means that people voted one way rather (or voted when they otherwise wouldn't have, or vice versa) than another based on what they heard or read. That simply doesn't agree with what we typically mean by "stolen" or "rigged." Those terms are properly reserved for the "A" category strong claims, with proof.

Edited July 26, 2023 by The Frankish Reich

[wnyguy]

27 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Because you are generally a reasonable person, here's my taxonomy of election claims:

 

A. The Strong Actual Fraud claims. These are the Trump claims.

- A.1. Someone hacked/manipulated election machines/software to make them spit out invalid/fraudulent results.

- A.2. Someone stuffed the ballot boxes with "votes" from nonexistent (dead, moved away) or invalid (multiple ballots, same person) voters.

 

B. The Weak Improper Influence claims. (Someone or some entity "Improperly Tried to Influence How People Voted"). These are the Hillary 2016 Russian influence claims.

- B.1. Foreign actors, perhaps with assistance (collusion) of American actors. Russian state-sponsored persons/entities improperly (and/or illegally) engaged in online propaganda either to suppress Democratic votes, drum up Republican votes, or to discourage people from voting entirely.

- B.2. Domestic actors, perhaps with the assistance of U.S. government actors, sought to suppress something or to emphasize something with the intent (or result) of causing people to change whether and how they voted. This is the Hunter's Laptop theory. It is also the Comey Overreaction/More Hillary Emails theory.

 

They are very different kinds of claims. What I'm saying is that Trump's A.1 and A.2 claims have basically zero evidentiary support. And so his supporters (not so much him yet; he's slow to catch on) have begun moving to the weaker B.2 claim. That doesn't mean that there is necessarily nothing there; just that it is more akin to the Hillary B.1 claims than it is to the earlier Trump A.1 and A.2 claims.

 

"Election interference" is a catch-all dealing with all these "engaged in shenanigans to change whether and how actual voters voted." That is quite different from "counted phantom votes" or "changed properly cast votes from one candidate to another."

I go with option A1 and A2 for that last election and I think it will be the same next election.