The right's disingenuous treatment of Joe Biden

Posts like this just amaze me. The left is ignoring the law by using courts and juries. As opposed to the rights using fudged documents by Russian agents not in a court of law. When they have tried, over 60 times, courts of law shut them down even when the justice was T**** appointed.
Forget the Constitution? I have no idea what this is about but I suppose it sounds good to them.
Whatever it takes. Yep, any legal avenue used. He is a menace to the world's peace and prosperity and for nothing but fame and greed.
We are not destroying the country, we are destroying your view of it.

 

*Trump ignored the law.
Trump ignored the constitution.
Trump defecated on democracy.

That sounds a lot more like destroying the country, to me.

Good reason to get Trump and SAVE the country.

*substantiation provided on request

 

yeah, 'freedom', a concept that a number or republicans pay lip service to.

https://news.yahoo.com/texas-gop-wants-horrifying-punishment-152830665.html

 

Past tense?

 

Considering how little Biden speaks publicly and when he does he doesn't speak very long, 148 mistakes is a lot. And when we take into account what Charlie Hurt once said, and that's Biden's gaffs per spoken word ratio, it's obvious Biden's brain is malfunctioning.

Biden has made 148 mistakes in public remarks so far this year: report

President Biden has committed 148 gaffes and verbal stumbles in public comments so far this year, which White House staff have scrambled to fix in official transcripts.

Biden, 81, tripped over his tongue in at least 118 statements, speeches or comments between Jan. 1 and April 24, according to an analysis of White House records reviewed by the Daily Caller — meaning there were more glaring errors to correct than official announcements.

The belated changes have been made either to keep the president’s words in line with public policy stances or change the meaning of his statements entirely.

https://nypost.com/2024/04/30/us-ne...es-in-public-remarks-so-far-this-year-report/

 

Was an oversight, touché!

 

Debate is your purpose. Mine is entertainment. I only delve into posting where I find entertainment. I find responding to your posts to be entertaining. I challenge things whenever I consider it entertaining to do so.

 

If you are not willing to substantiate any claim, (write 'imo', or 'imho' before the comment) mention that fact, and I'll just leave it alone as 'your opinion', noting that I do not find opinions 'entertaining', I find debate entertaining. I can chit chat with my GF and friends any time, I don't need the internet for that.

But let's define 'substantiation', which, at the minimum, requires item #1, and the rest are on a 'and/or' basis, if possible, any or more of the following will improve your argument, where #1 is mandatory for a 'substantive comment'.

1. Stating your case, providing a solid path of reasoning and logic.
2. Offering well known examples, (and linking, if desired) if any.
3. Linking to lesser known examples, if any.
4. Linking to authoritative articles, if any..
5. Linking to court testimony, and/or documents that are substantive, if any
6. Linking to photographs that support your argument, if any
7. Linking to studies and research that support your argument, if any.
8. Anything else I haven't thought of, add here.

What doesn't equal substantive rebuttals are comments in which the bulk of the rebuttal consist(s) of vacuous declarations, posturing/self-puffery/patronizing, cheap shots, failure to substantiate claims, rant words, grandiose assumptions, weasel words (vagueness that cannot be substantiated), cavalier broad swipes, hyperbolic characterizations, snarky and/or mindless one liners/comments, useless hypotheticals, sarcastic retorts, loaded terms, biased nicknaming, thought-terminating cliches, tired tropes, strawman arguments, questions with assumed premises, things of this nature. All of these fall under a category which I call 'non arguments'. I enjoy responding to weak to strong arguments, but non arguments are a waste of time.

I hear this all the time, 'I won't respond to your post because it's 'leftist'.

This is an absurd rebuttal. It's really a cop out. Of course my points of view are on the left. So what? I post things in which I seek debate on. Of course it's going to have a view point, how is that an argument not to debate? No, it's not, it's a cop out. What, I have to post a centrist or right leaning argument in order for some to want to engage? What kind of criterion is that? You'll only live in an echo chamber if that is your criterion.

That's my view on the matter, other opinions may vary.

Does that mean I won't offer a non substantive post? No, because sometimes I might agree and comment on it, but, no it doesn't, because often I find myself asking people to substantiate, and often they reply with a lame excuse not to, in which I indicate what they are doing, (usually they are offering a cop out) and the conversation devolves into uselessness. This happens often, very frustrating, of course, for me, anyway. There are a few posters on this forum who are serious about engaging/exploring the subject and do substantiate their positions. They are the only reason i continue to post. If everyone posted non arguments, with no possibility of serious engagement, I would not be here, but, that's' just me, other's mileage may vary.

Why do a approach it this way? To find if there are more compelling positions than my own, or to find out if there are any which, though complimentary, augment my own position. Also, to get a sense of where the right is, substantively. Rhetorically, not interested, we get that every day from Trump, et al.

 

Thanks for the primer. But, as I said, I'm not here for debate. I'll leave that up to you. I'm here for entertainment.

 

As has been mentioned several times before: He has arthitis. ( back, hips ). Anyone familiar with how Arthritis affects the skeletal system, knows that the pain can be excruciating. but it is not consistent. Some days, mobility is easier and others it is very difficult. It seems that far too many assumptions are being made about Biden , based on the "image" he presents. (which varies , with his discomfort level). Far to many see what they WANT to see and what they WANT to see is the most negative posible status , but don't have the medical experience or evidence to substantiate their superficial observations. May WANT to see him removed from the election for their own biased reasons. His mental status is healthier than Trumps by a long way. He is not controlled by anger , revenge and playing the victim. His level of conceptualization is far better than Trump. He is mentally alert, and still has a quick retort when called for. Until we hear an assessment by a professional that he is unfit for the job , all we have is amateur assumptions . Biden has NO signs of a personality disorder ., while Trump is a textbook version of such. (narcissistic sociopath) If he had not been rich........ he would have ended up in prison a long time ago.

 

Yes, it can.

He's also being trashed for his speech problems.

Trump is a sicko--"narcissistic sociopath" works for me.

I feel sorry for the folks who see Trump as a chance to save their place in the middle class. It's disappointing to see Democrats abandoning these people as they have since the mid-1970s.

 

He's a diagnosed "malignant narcissist". If you want to see highly qualified professionals make this diagnosis, look at the documentary "#unfit". It's complete.

Link,
https://www.google.com/search?q=wat...pQMHWJdZzbHzmHUZXAHPoIHetdJ4etrxaayMvMmtqwg==

 

I do too. And just as concerning is the thought of Trump ( the "sicko) at the controls in the Oval Office. I just don't know if there are enough built in boundaries to keep him in check. (should he get in)

 

Yes. A good primer on Trump.

https://www.choosingtherapy.com/malignant-narcissist/

 

We're playing with fire if we elect Trump.

 

Absolutely !!! He is unpredictable, unstable and yes... a "clear and present danger: to the nation.( and the world , for that matter)

 

Geezuz. He's at least half as bad as Trump, and Trump doesn't have a speech impediment.

 

We were lucky the first time.

 

indeed. And Trump has psychological "impediments' which is far more serious.

 

wrong-Trump's policies and judicial picks are far better than those of Soros, Bloomberg and the other people pulling the puppet strings on the mental midget marionette Joetato

 

Axiom #11 - Anytime a rightie posts Soros's name, they've lost all credibility. So glad you got that out of the way.

 

Axiom #12 Lefties are clueless fools subject to the whims and desires of the LW hierarchy

 

So he's just stupid? There are hours upon hours of him mispeaking. Cofefe to the airport said George Washington.

 

His life cycles on him. If it makes money for him it's good if not it's at best not worthwhile. If it makes him look good it's as well worthwhile, anyone else irrelevant.
Don't ever count on him to do what is right for the nation unless it is right for him.

 

That sums it up and spot on!!