Biden You Ain't Black remark

[Josiah]

I remember reading an article that said Biden was the least attractive presidential candidate in a lifetime. I forget where I read the article but believe it was on a left-leaning web site, that also reckoned he was being fielded knowing he had little to no chance of winning.

The conclusions were similar to what you've described here. In the middle of a crisis (and the virus is something of a crisis, even if arguably manufactured to at least some extent) people don't tend to change the leader. If they fielded a strong candidate who lost to Trump then that candidate would be weakened if they tried again in 2024. Biden is old enough that, by 2024, he'll be a spent force and realistically his mental acuity seems such now that he's unlikely to be coherent enough in 2024 to even want to stand.

Another article I read suggested that the electorate liked Obama in 2008 when he was promising to end wars and generally make life better at home. By 2016 when the progressive/woke movement was in full swing people had had enough of it and elected someone who would end it.

It is perhaps encouraging to think that there are enough voters out there who are moderate, largely centrist, who don't want the government in our business or our bedrooms, to rein in the fringes of both sides at the ballot box.

The question for Democrats - Liberals - Socialists - Communists: Why is Joe Biden a MUCH stronger candidate against Trump than Hillary Clinton was?


American political history proves that it's much easier to get re-elected than to get the nod the first time. In 2016, the presidency was "open." The Democrats put up a strong, well funded candidate who ran a good campaign. A "wild card" "popularist" got the nomination on the Republican side, in spite of the Party doing all it could to block that. And Trump won. Now here we are in 2020. Trump is seeking a (much easier) re-election and was entirely unchallenged. And the Democrats are running Joe Biden. So, how is Biden a MUCH strong, MUCH more appealing candidate than was Hillary Clinton?


So why is Biden the Democrats choice, because they honestly think it will take the While House? Of course not, that's laughable. The reason is: 1) He is the "sacrificial lamb" for an election that will be lost. He's a "good ole boy" and a "team player" who (more than just about anyone in the Party) is used to loosing. He is to the Democrats in 2020 what Bob Dole was to the Republicans in 1996. 2) He is a good ole boy team player who won't rock the boat or disrupt the Party. The only other choice - Sanders, the Socialist/Communist, if the nominee would entirely re-structure the Party, fire all the good ole boys that Bill Clinton put into control/leadership and the Democrat nominatees since him have kept in place (with power, control and fat salaries). We saw a bit of the same thing in 1968 for the Democrats. 2020 is lost anyway, try not to do more damage. Meanwhile, the Democrats can focus on the Senate which they believe they CAN take from the Republicans, and controlling both houses, they can largely render Trump impotent.


Ain't this fun? No wonder people around the world enjoy the show.


.

 

[tango]

That one is easy. Orange man bad. Anyone else good. Vote blue no matter who.

You know, like in 2016.

Oh, wait....

 

[JRT]

Really? Post it

You don't follow the news? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/24/us/politics/trump-tweets-racist.html

 

[Andrew]

You don't follow the news? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/24/us/politics/trump-tweets-racist.html

lol there is no quote from Trump in that entire article

Edit: I apologise, in an earlier post I thought you said "tweeted" not "retweeted".
So the guy he retweeted from is so called a racist from his other tweets? A bit of a stretch there

 

[tango]

You don't follow the news? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/24/us/politics/trump-tweets-racist.html

I didn't get to read much before the paywall shut me out but from what I could see it looks like the horror was that Trump copied something from a person who has sometimes said things thought unacceptable by a few.

Unless there's more behind the paywall this looks a lot like the silly logic of combining "we don't want to be like Hitler" with "Hitler ate food" and concluding "we can't eat food or we'll be like Hitler".

 

[JRT]

He actually is careful about not making public remarks of a racist or sexual nature. However he retweets such remarks of others fairly frequently. Retweeting has the effect of spreading the content to a wider audience and is widely regarded as approval. Some of his private remarks do not show the same self control.

 

[tango]

He actually is careful about not making public remarks of a racist or sexual nature. However he retweets such remarks of others fairly frequently. Retweeting has the effect of spreading the content to a wider audience and is widely regarded as approval. Some of his private remarks do not show the same self control.

So is he retweeting racist posts or not? You started out saying he was, then it looked like he retweeted something from a person who has allegedly made racist remarks in the past, and now you're saying he's careful not to make public remarks that are racist.

Are there any more ways you could possibly spin this thing?

 

[Jason76]

This stuff is a massive joke, cause it's all designed as trap - by "pretending to be a friend".