Why is Biden avoiding the media?

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 59
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R
Do you seriously think Biden calling Harris “president” three times instead of two changes a single thing about the comparison between Biden and Trump?
I don’t think you realize how interactions between me and Danielle are lol
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
rather it means he is self-scrutinising well enough for now.
This statement seems to indicate Biden is dodging exposure more likely because his constituency isn't nitpicky rather than any actual dementia.

Trust in governmental authority inevitably extends to Biden.

Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
Or, and hear me out here, its because we're in a PANDEMIC.

Like, I'm not the biggest fan of Biden, in fact, I barely tolerate the dude - he's better than Trump but he's not a good president. A thing he's done right? Trying to avoid huge rallies, and wears his mask, and ya know- not spreading covid
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Danielle
the Continental Army taking over airports in the year 1775
Yeah? Well, my 5th great grandfather served the US Army Balloon Corps in 1775 at Area 1, aka today: BOS, where my first immigrant ancestor, my 9th GG, arrived in 1625 from Scotland, and 6 centuries before that from France, via knighthood from Guilluame le Conquerant. Trump knew what he was talking about.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,276
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@fauxlaw
You know there were no airports in 1775 right?
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@ILikePie5
Technically the third time he called her president elect. I hate you. 
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Danielle
Technically the third time he called her president elect. I hateyou. 
Eh close enough. I love you.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5

U.S.—A new study has found that Biden has successfully handled the border crisis by reducing the amount of media coverage of the border crisis by 867%.

"Biden has expertly handled this crisis, reducing the number of media reports of the problem significantly," said Jen Psaki in a press conference today. "Under the previous administration, there were thousands of news stories a day on the poor conditions of the migrants at the border. Under Biden, that number is way, way lower."

Estimates suggest that whereas there was a steady stream of reports about bad conditions, inept government action, and inhumane handling of migrants who had crossed the border, Biden has "built a wall" around the information coming from the border, so that the influx of news stories has all but stopped.

"As Biden continues to expertly handle the crisis of media coverage, we expect the number of news stories to be reduced down to Obama administration levels in no time," Psaki said proudly.

"But what about the kids in cage--" one Newsmax reporter began, only for Psaki to pull a handle and send him plummeting through a trap door.



fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
Joe Biden couldn't handle his own premature efactulation crisis.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,276
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
@fauxlaw
If this is a crisis I wonder what you guys would call the situations that lead to Trump’s two impeachment trials and his horrendous handling of COVID...
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
1. Neither impeachment of President Trump in the House was conducted according to House Rules, established by the instigator of both actions; the Speaker of the House, herself at the beginning of the 116th Congress in 2016. Both actions violated several of the House Rules, which I have defined in this Forum in other strings, and need not repeat here. Further, neither action met the requirements of congressional investigation as established by precedent of the Supreme Court in at least three separate decisions imposed by the Supreme Court, also defined by me in other strings, and will not be repeated here. Subsequently, the Senate, in both cases, dismissed the House actions by acquittal. What crisis?

2. Horrendous handling of Covid by President Trump? Who imposed a critical travel ban restricting entry into the United States from hotspots around the world where the virus was expanding rapidly, and opposed by your current President until he admitted the wisdom of the ban?  Further, who initiated Warp Speed, by which research, testing, and eventual production of vaccines was accelerated above all previous efforts of production and distribution of vaccines? Moreover, who initiated use of hospital ships, expanded and created medical centers where none existed previously to confront expansion of the virus which were subsequently poorly used by local administrators in hot spots where, otherwise, expansion might have been reduced? President Trump. And who, conversely, complained, criticized, and generally discounted those efforts? Your current occupant of the White House, in purely political overtones, having naught to do with the crisis, itself, but with his political whip.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@fauxlaw
If this is a crisis I wonder what you guys would call the situations that lead to Trump’s two impeachment trials and his horrendous handling of COVID...
Depends whether or not you are a mindless sheep supporting a well-established political party that caters to the rich, and whether you are a mindless sheep relying on a billionaire media owner to tell you what to worry about, and provide the only science you are allowed to look at.

Most of those sheeple do not read books, by lifestyle choice.

They are not deplorable, just sad empty shells.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Mindless sheep? Nope. I am not catered to... contrary to your claim. I made my wealth. Me. Alone. By my effort. I invest in me, putting my money to work for me rather than merely working for it paycheck to paycheck. I pay me. I gained no advantage due to Trump not available to anyone else of like mind.

I read voraciously, on any manner of subjects.  I do not watch Fox. I do not watch Newsmax. I don't watch CNN or MessNBC. I don't watch much of anything. I don 't engage much in social media. It is mostly a waste of my time. I am not a mind-numbed robot. I choose my lifestyle. I don't engage in stupid activities or consume stupid stuff. I am prepared for just about any consequence but direct nuclear attack. I don't need to fret about empty shelves. I can live off the grid if need be for many months, even without city provision of water. I've been preparing for calamity for 30 years.  Several times in my lifetime, due to circumstances beyond my control, I've needed to dip into that self-preserved stockpile. I no longer engage in many circumstances beyond my control; I control them. When I cannot, I don't worry about it. 

Any other mindless accusations?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Nope. I am not catered to... contrary to your claim.
It wasn't a claim.  If you have personally chosen to read a book instead of trusting people in power, then you already know whether or not you are a sheep.

The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them. —Mark Twain

The unexamined life is not worth living. -Socrates
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Socrates believed that living a life where you live under the rules of others, in a continuous routine without examining what you actually want out of it is not worth living.

This illustration of a sheepish lifestyle is what Socrates would describe an unexamined life. Hence Socrates’ renowned statement “The unexamined life is not worth living”. Declaring that humans must scrutinize their lives in order to live a fulfilled one isn’t agreeable to any extent to most sheep.

Socrates claimed that having a mechanical life with an unthinking routine, under the rules of others without ever examining whether or not they truly want to live with those routines or rules is basically not worth living anymore. Happiness then becomes a tiresome exercise in delusion rather than lasting satisfaction from balance and contentment.









Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,276
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@fauxlaw
What crisis?

If the bar for what counts as a presidential crisis is the House invoking an impeachment that properly follows all House’s rules and a Senate conviction then you are proving my point.

Most people would agree however that getting caught trying to extort a foreign nation into investigating your political opponent and inciting an insurrection attempt on the US Capitol are pretty damn serious. Today’s Trumpers might hand waive all of this away while complaining about the treatment of Dr. Seuss, but future generations most certainly will not.

Horrendous handling of Covid by President Trump?

I give Trump credit for initiating Operation Warp Speed and dispatching hospital ships the same way I give my waiter credit for bringing me my steak the way I ordered it. Sure it’s a good thing no one can deny that, but there is nothing impressive about it and is most certainly not deserving of praise. Any president would have done this. I mean seriously, do you really think Trump is the one who thought of directing funds towards the faster development of a vaccine? Everyone in the country was asking what we were doing about that.
 
But the travel ban argument is so much worse. To argue that the travel ban was even warranted let alone important you have to accept that COVID19 is in fact a deadly virus that needed to be taken seriously. Yet Trump would spend the next few months telling us repeatedly that it would magically disappear, refusing to put on a mask or tell anyone else to, and holding rallies in packed crowds one after the other breaking every single guidance issued by his own CDC.
 
You can’t have it both ways. Either his travel ban (the only thing he proactively did to try and mitigate the virus) was a meaningless action or he completely neglected his oath of office.
 
And who, conversely, complained, criticized, and generally discounted those efforts? Your current occupant of the White House, in purely political overtones, having naught to do with the crisis, itself, but with his political whip.

Biden never criticized OWS or sending the hospital ship, he criticized the travel ban and for good reason; if Trump actually cared about the virus and actually thought it was a threat he would not have ignored every other health measure he could have taken. Funny how banning Chinese people was the only precaution he thought we needed. However, it is possible he really did think this was a deadly disease so maybe he had good intentions here, but that prospect is no better. If he really believed this was a danger to the country as he told Bob Woodward then everything else he did becomes that much worse.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
If......
"if" is useless word when it acknowledges only that which is not currently true.

Most people would agree
Regardless what most people agree when the Supreme Court precedent, as I said, has already mandated how and when, and by what action either house of Congress may "investigate" anything. The word, by the way, does not exist constitutionally. The function of Congress is clearly laid out in Article I. Show me "investigate." 

To argue that the travel ban was even warranted let alone important...
Show me, then, why Hidin' Biden ultimately agreed, by April 2020, that the travel ban was necessary.https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/03/politics/joe-biden-trump-china-coronavirus/index.html
Correct, you cannot have it both ways, which is why Biden admitted he was wrong to criticize the ban. What does OWS have to do with it?



Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,276
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@fauxlaw
"if" is useless word when it acknowledges only that which is not currently true.
You’re the one who set the bar, I was merely responding to it. How is it pointless to explain to you what your own argument leads to?

Regardless what most people agree when the Supreme Court precedent, as I said, has already mandated how and when, and by what action either house of Congress may "investigate" anything. The word, by the way, does not exist constitutionally. The function of Congress is clearly laid out in Article I. Show me "investigate." 
It really is quite telling when the response to Trump’s actions is to point out that the house didn’t properly follow its rules. Like the famous legal saying goes; “If the facts are not on your side, argue the law”.

Fortunately, future generations will not be so caught up in the passions of the moment and will see right through this BS red herring.

Correct, you cannot have it both ways, which is why Biden admitted he was wrong to criticize the ban.
Great. So which is worse; being wrong on the travel ban and then later adapting your views to the science, or being right on the travel ban and then being wrong on everything you did afterward despite the science being clearer and clearer as the months went on?

fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
an impeachment that properly follows all House’s rules and a Senate conviction
s I said, preceding the above with "if" just says none of it is true. 

First, A simple read of the House Rules of the 116th Congress would reveal that House were were NOT properly followed. House committees, by Rule [House Rules of the 116th Congress Rules X and XI], and by Supreme Court precedent [[U.S. v. Rumley [1953], [Quinn v. U.S. [1954], and Watkins v U.S. [1957]], cannot arbitrarily begin investigation, or issue subpoenas, by their own recognizance. They must obtain full House approval by majority vote. Having failed to do so, the entire House impeachment investigation in both impeachment efforts by several committees was entirely and completely invalid. 

Second, there was no Senate conviction in either impeachment. Done.

All it takes is a little research instead of listening to your biased news sources who know squat about the proper functions of Congress, or the law. Apparently, neither do you. RESEARCH. It's what you do. Well, it's what I do. Double R: Read and Research. Apparently, that's not what your moniker is.

Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,276
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@fauxlaw
All it takes is a little research instead of listening to your biased news sources who know squat about the proper functions of Congress, or the law. Apparently, neither do you. RESEARCH. It's what you do. Well, it's what I do. Double R: Read and Research. Apparently, that's not what your moniker is.
Why is this so difficult?

No one cares about researching house impeachment rules. What people care about, what historians and future generations will care about, is the fact that we had a President of the United States who attempted to extort a foreign nation into investigating his political opponent, and also incited an insurrection attempt on our US Capitol. 50 years from now no one will be talking about whether Nancy Pelosi was within the rules to call a vote.

But like I said, when the facts are against you this is all you have to work with.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@fauxlaw
The fact that Congress spent time from Day one working to remove Trump instead of helping the country to move forward set a new purpose for the Congress: To use majority power to eliminate political opposition. 

Once one party does it, the other party will follow suit in retaliation. Thus the people are forever forgotten as they take a backseat to petty political power grabs from people who live and work in Washington DC, far from the people they are supposed to shepherd. We haven't seen such a disregard for democracy since FDR tried to permanently eliminate SCOTUS opposition with majority power.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
You allege there was an impeachable crime committed. You allege no one cares how that crime was investigated by the House. No one? I CARE! 

Get it?

The House alleged, but did not bother to investigate correctly, and the Senate concluded there was no crime committed and, therefore, acquitted. How is it that you conclude the Senate was wrong? See the mirror? It reflects back on you. the burden of proof, my friend, is yours, not mine.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,276
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@fauxlaw
I CARE!
Good for you. Now if you’ll excuse the rest of us, we’ll be over here talking about what Trump actually did with the facts that we actually have. Enjoy pouting over the house rules not being properly followed. Most of us care more about the reality of the situation than the technicalities of the process.

the Senate concluded there was no crime committed
This is such an absurd excuse. Senate republicans refused to convict because they cared more about their own political careers than doing the right thing. That’s not evidence of Trump’s innocence, it’s proof of just how self serving republican politicians are. And that’s before we consider the 10 republican house members and the 7 republican senators who voted to impeach/convict.

But again, future generations and historians will see right through this.

How is it that you conclude the Senate was wrong? See the mirror? It reflects back on you. the burden of proof, my friend, is yours, not mine.
The burden has been satisfied with the facts, you know, the ones you are still complaining about how we got even though most of what we know didn’t even come from the investigations. In the first impeachment we have the transcript/call notes because Trump himself released them. The offenses that lead to the second impeachment occurred before our eyes.

The fact that people like yourself will so desperately avoid confronting any of the facts by complaining about process does not mean the evidence is not clear. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,276
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
The fact that Congress spent time from Day one working to remove Trump instead of helping the country to move forward set a new purpose for the Congress: To use majority power to eliminate political opposition. 
The democrats declined to impeach Trump despite the Mueller investigation finding him to have committed 11 counts of instruction of justice. It’s not their fault Trump  was such an incompetent buffoon who didn’t give a rats ass about upholding the constitution.

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
They were absolutely ready to Impeach Trump, but Mueller had the balls to declare there was no collusion.

It didn't matter though. The radical leftist tyrants discovered they could impeach their political opposition not once but twice without the need for an independent investigator coming out to say there is no evidence. That is the new rubric.

Thanks for supporting that.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,626
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Greyparrot
I think that when Trump is brought up on charges in New York State, he will move to the Moscow Trump Tower that he proposed before he became  President.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,276
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Mueller never said there was no collusion. He said they were unable to substantiate a conspiracy charge. The fact that Trump refused to speak to Mueller in part because Trump’s own attorneys told him he couldn’t do so without perjuring himself, probably had a bit to do with that.

That is of course irrelevant anyway, because the obstruction of justice charges came out in the same report so the lack of conspiracy evidence has absolutely nothing to do with why the democrats did not impeach Trump over the latter.

It also shouldn’t need to be said but does, that the democrats didn’t conduct this investigation and in fact had nothing to do at all with it. It was initiated and conducted by Trump’s own justice department and lead by two lifelong republicans.

What never ceases to amaze me is how right wingers act like the democrats impeaching Trump twice  says more about the democrats than it does about Trump. Even as republicans explain their acquittal votes not on Trump’s innocence but on lame process arguments that no reasonable neutral observer would ever care about. Like I have been saying, future generations will not be blinded by this BS.


ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R
Mueller never said there was no collusion. He said they were unable to substantiate a conspiracy charge.
This is so false lol. This is word for word from the Mueller Report: “[we] did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”


He said with regards to the obstruction charge that, “the Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’”

Essentially there’s not enough evidence to prove Trump did anything wrong. Mueller didn’t even recommend impeachment to Congress like Ken Starr did with Bill Clinton. This nation runs on the concept of innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. If there isn’t sufficient evidence, the person is innocent.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,276
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
Essentially there’s not enough evidence to prove Trump did anything wrong.
You tell me my claim is false, then go on to describe the exact point I just made.

The claim was that Mueller said there was no collusion. He did not. Saying that there is not enough evidence to charge a crime, is an entirely different thing than saying they were able to conclude no crime was committed.

Mueller didn’t even recommend impeachment to Congress like Ken Starr did with Bill Clinton.
So what? Mueller wasn’t interested in that. Unlike Ken Starr, Mueller was interested in doing his job and not playing politics. Ken Starr was brought in to investigate a real estate deal and ended up writing a whole report on Clinton’s jizz being found on a dress. If Mueller was playing that game God knows where we would have ended up.

This nation runs on the concept of innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. If there isn’t sufficient evidence, the person is innocent.
This isn’t a criminal trial. The prospect of impeaching Trump over the findings of the Mueller report was not about whether he should maintain his freedom, it was about whether he should maintain the nuclear codes.

Trump is innocent in the eyes of the law, not the mind of any reasonable person.

And not for nothing, but I can’t get over the hypocrisy of a Trump supporter preaching innocent until proven guilty after years of “lock her up” chants over Clintons emails and Benghazi.