Is this the end of Democrat front runner Joe Biden?

This is really bad for Biden. The fact he is the frontrunner says a lot about the state of the Democrats. Sanders is too old and too far left. Harris was destroyed in the last debate. The only one who looks half decent is Elizabeth Warren.

Trump will easily beat "Sleepy Joe" now in 2020.

After a pause, during which a few people clapped, Mr Biden added: “Wealthy kids, black kids, Asian kids....think how we think about it.”

The 76-year-old is currently the Democratic frontrunner but has a history of making distracting gaffes.

In the last few months he has come under scrutiny for allegedly hugging and touching women in an inappropriate manner.

He has also been criticised for joking about the controversy.

The former vice president has since been attacked for suggesting it was acceptable to mock a “gay waiter” five years ago and for fondly recalling his friendly relationship with a segregationist former senator.

The latter remarks, in which Mr Biden discussed working with James O Eastland, prompted fury in Democratic ranks.

Kamala Harris and Cory Booker were among those who criticised the 76-year-old’s comments about Mr Eastland.

“I do not believe you are a racist. And I agree with you when you commit yourself to the importance of finding common ground,” Ms Harris said to the former vice president, during the second Democratic debate.

“But I also believe – and it’s personal, and it was hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and careers on the segregation of race in this country.”

A wave of Democratic candidates are scheduled to visit the Iowa State Fair this weekend.

The crucial Iowa caucuses, the first contest of the campaign trail, will be held in February 2020.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/joe-biden-iowa-democratic-primary-gaffes-race-campaign-us-election-a9047856.html

Hande hoche!

Hard to decide if he is this election's Jeb Bush or John Kerry.

jimmycrackcorm

Trump has set the bar very low given his pussy and other comments.

Biden seems very acceptable in comparison.

Harvey Weinstein

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Trump has set the bar very low given his pussy and other comments.

Biden seems very acceptable in comparison.

Are you sure about that? Check up 'Creepy Uncle Joe' on YouTube.

TheValeyard

Sure Elizabeth Warren can claim to be the first Native American President.

14dMoney

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Trump has set the bar very low given his pussy and other comments.

Biden seems very acceptable in comparison.

Not really. People expect it from Trump, not from a career politician.

is_that_so

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Are you sure about that? Check up 'Creepy Uncle Joe' on YouTube.

No great shining stars on the Dem's side this time out and if YouTube is the extent of your view of the world I'd say you really need to find a new source.

Vince135792003

He made a speech following the shootings which I thought was very strong and it got alot of coverage. He came across presidential but November 2020 is a long way away yet. I think he does have a likeability factor and seems very genuine when speaking about loss.

But, in debate situations and discussing policy detail he is below par.

Along with his verbal gaffes and his long political record that is open for scrutiny though he's far from a sure thing.

is_that_so

14dMoney wrote: »

Not really. People expect it from Trump, not from a career politician.

That all depends on the US voters and in a Biden-Trump race he'd still be in with a decent shout.

Throwing out labels like "Sleepy Joe" reminds one of a belligerent in a playground. If this coarse piffle doesn't galvanise his voter base, then victimhood isn't far behind.

BloodBath

I know Sanders is an old man at this stage but surely he's the best thing the Dems have to offer and has been for a long time.

An imbecile could fix the US problems. Cut military spending by at least 50%, put the money into health and education and anything else that needs more funds.

It's amazing how many Americans would be against this though. The level of brainwashing is up there with North Korea. Against spending their tax dollars for socialist programs that benefit society massively but are fine with blowing it on the military.

What benefit to society is all of this military spending?, outside of job creation, which would also happen by putting the funds into other areas. At least they got to blow up a few hundred nukes in the 50's which increased the radiation levels in every living organism on the planet by 30%. USA USA USA!!!

James Brown

It's hard to say. They'll accept the likes of Trump but hold the like of Biden to a higher bar. Trump's advantage is he can be as dirty and crooked as he likes. It's almost accepted at this stage, whereas every other candidate is held to a higher level. Basically they all need play by a different rule book than Trump, who's separated children from parents, caged children, the pussy comments, the racism, the divisive rhetoric etc. And what, Biden might be racially incentive? Saunders wanting to give too much to the American people?

notobtuse

End of Biden? Nah. This is ‘we’ll have to settle election” for Democrats… like Kerry was in 2004 and McCain was for the GOP in 2008. Sadly, crazy uncle Joe just comes off as too old and hasn’t been able to shine in live debates anymore. It will be a close election regardless as the democrats could run a sack of potatoes and start off with 212 electoral college votes in the election [California (55), New York (29), Illinois (20), Michigan (16), New Jersey (14), Washington (12), Massachusetts (11), Maryland (10), Minnesota (10), Oregon (7), Connecticut (7), Hawaii (4), Maine (4), Rhode Island (4), Delaware (3), Vermont (3), as well as Washington, D.C. (3)]. 270 votes is need to win. If the economy stays relatively strong and unemployment low Trump should win reelection by a narrow margin... but as 2016 has proven anything is possible and age old formulas don't always count.

I still can't wrap my head around who he would pick as a running mate but it is sure to be a woman to counter his 'creepy' image.

odyssey06

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's hard to say. They'll accept the likes of Trump but hold the like of Biden to a higher bar. Trump's advantage is he can be as dirty and crooked as he likes...

I don't think Trump would have won the Democratic nomination though, which is what Biden is chasing! And you'd have to be lacking some sort of base radar to think that now is a good time to make comments about good times with a segregationist senator.

If a Republican candidate made same comments, probably wouldn't even raise a headline.
Republicans would have different tripwires, e.g. Trump pivoting to pro-life.

Are they holding Biden to a higher bar than Bill Clinton? The 'Creepy Uncle Joe' thing seems to pale in comparison... so it could be just mud slinging by rivals for the democratic nomination trying to use any angle to gain an advantage.

odyssey06

notobtuse wrote: »

End of Biden? Nah. This is ‘we’ll have to settle election” for Democrats… like Kerry was in 2004 and McCain was for the GOP in 2008. Sadly, crazy uncle Joe just comes off as too old and hasn’t been able to shine in live debates anymore. It will be a close election regardless as the democrats could run a sack of potatoes and start off with 212 electoral college votes in the election [California (55), New York (29), Illinois (20), Michigan (16), New Jersey (14), Washington (12), Massachusetts (11), Maryland (10), Minnesota (10), Oregon (7), Connecticut (7), Hawaii (4), Maine (4), Rhode Island (4), Delaware (3), Vermont (3), as well as Washington, D.C. (3)]. 270 votes is need to win. If the economy stays relatively strong and unemployment low Trump should win reelection by a narrow margin... but as 2016 has proven anything is possible and age old formulas don't always count.

Just curious, what would say is the Republican starting position with regard to electoral college votes?

James Brown

I think Trump will go low with the nicknames and such who ever the Dems pick. It's like dealing with a brat, you need be the adult. I think Biden has the best chance but again, he doesn't instill any sense of progress or a better U.S.. Just another old school Dem. The U.S. really needs some fresh minds. Bernie is already labelled as too socialist. The greatest achievement of the American right was making looking after the working man seem like a bad thing.

4068ac1elhodqr

Thread pretty much already exists, with mentions of Creepy Joe galore.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057893861

Another 4yr of the Donald is the most likely scenario anyway,
Yang (outsider) is the only quality contendor, but too many egos block the way.

notobtuse

odyssey06 wrote: »

Just curious, what would say is the Republican starting position with regard to electoral college votes?

I’d guess 101-157. For sure Texas (38), Alabama (9), South Carolina (9), Oklahoma (7), Mississippi (6), Utah (6), Kansas (6), Nebraska (4), Idaho (4), South Dakota (3), North Dakota (3), Alaska (3), and Wyoming (3). On the fence with Georgia (16), North Carolina (15), Arizona (11), Indiana (11), and Montana (3).

The real battlegrounds will be Pennsylvania (my state), Florida and Wisconsin. In Pennsylvania, if it wasn't for Philadelphia and Pittsburgh the state would be solid Trump.

Harvey Weinstein

is_that_so wrote: »

No great shining stars on the Dem's side this time out and if YouTube is the extent of your view of the world I'd say you really need to find a new source.

I've been long aware of Bidens proclivities for touching up and feeling up very young children as well as adults.
It's been common knowledge for many years

Harvey Weinstein

What's most telling about creepy uncle Joe is the fact that some liberals are perfectly willing to let such disturbing behaviour around children slide which says it all about their supposed moral compass

notobtuse

The stupidsphere makes far too much over Biden’s supposed creepiness. He’s old school and originally from my parts (and hour up the pike). Everyone of that age had a relative who was know for touching and affection in a innocent and non-threatening way. Yeah, times change and Biden has a problem with letting go of the past, but I really believe he means nothing by it.

odyssey06

odyssey06 wrote: »

Are they holding Biden to a higher bar than Bill Clinton? The 'Creepy Uncle Joe' thing seems to pale in comparison... so it could be just mud slinging by rivals for the democratic nomination trying to use any angle to gain an advantage.

The Clinton stuff came out after he was elected.

notobtuse

notobtuse wrote: »

The stupidsphere makes far too much over Biden’s supposed creepiness. He’s old school and originally from my parts (and hour up the pike). Everyone of that age had a relative who was know for touching and affection in a innocent and non-threatening way. Yeah, times change and Biden has a problem with letting go of the past, but I really believe he means nothing by it.

You can make the exact same argument about Trump's Grab em by the pussy comment... Clearly a joke comment about how some women will let rich men do anything they want to them, which is objectively true. 50 shades of grey is basically a book about this.

Always surprises me how people hold people to different standards if they are on their side or not.

notobtuse

Deleted User wrote: »

You can make the exact same argument about Trump's Grab em by the pussy comment... Clearly a joke comment about how some women will let rich men do anything they want to them, which is objectively true. 50 shades of grey is basically a book about this.

Always surprises me how people hold people to different standards if they are on their side or not.

I'm hardcore Republican.

tipptom

Ive seen the montage of videos a while back of Biden and the photo opps.
Not sure what to make of it,is it an old man just been like an old person with kids like they use to be able to be with kids or is it more sinister.

If its the latter then you have a paedophile running for POTUS?

Faugheen

Sanders/Warren is the best ticket by a country mile, and if either of them win the Democrat nomination I can absolutely see the other being the running mate because they're close friends.

You can even see it in the last debate. Neither were interested in slinging mud against the other.

Wouldn't be at all surprised if Trump won against them, but he'd definitely beat Biden in my opinion.

odyssey06

Deleted User wrote: »

The Clinton stuff came out after he was elected.

After he was elected President yes but his approval ratings on leaving office suggest Democrats (and much of the wider country) didn't care about it one way or another.
Even as far out as 2012 he was still being feted at Democratic National Convention. It's only lately he is being distanced.

Yurt2

BloodBath wrote: »

I know Sanders is an old man at this stage but surely he's the best thing the Dems have to offer and has been for a long time.

An imbecile could fix the US problems. Cut military spending by at least 50%, put the money into health and education and anything else that needs more funds.

It's amazing how many Americans would be against this though. The level of brainwashing is up there with North Korea. Against spending their tax dollars for socialist programs that benefit society massively but are fine with blowing it on the military.

What benefit to society is all of this military spending?, outside of job creation, which would also happen by putting the funds into other areas. At least they got to blow up a few hundred nukes in the 50's which increased the radiation levels in every living organism on the planet by 30%. USA USA USA!!!

I'd tend towards agreeing with you but the US military is a major employer of poorer demographics and minorities in America. If there was swinging cuts to the military budget, the cuts will come on the manpower end of things. Lockheed Martin and BAE systems' lobbyists will still ensure they get their lucrative contracts. There probably isn't enough Taco Bell and Walmart jobs to go around for those that would be made redundant.

These folks get extremely good training while in uniform and an education via the GI Bill.

There is also the unfortunate reality that the US military maintains the peace and balance of power in critical areas of the world, most particularly East-Asia.

Pa ElGrande

BloodBath wrote: »

. . . .An imbecile could fix the US problems. Cut military spending by at least 50%, put the money into health and education and anything else that . . .

Only someone willing to die for their cause would dare cut the military industrial complex (MIC), the last time there was significant resistance against that military was doing the 1960s and 70s over the Vietnam war compulsory draft. My own pet theory is the 9/11 attacks in 2001 were permitted (not planned) by the MIC in response to the post cold war cutbacks, the Anthrax attacks definitely originated from within MIC and seemed to have been aimed at silencing any opposition to the Patriot act. If you ask the question Cui bono? from the events of 2001 - clearly the MIC did.


The MIC is embedded within the media and various "think tanks" so any American president (or presidential candidate) who wants to take this on will need the support of the population at large. The current anti-war candidate is Tulsi Gabbard, in previous years Ron Paul on the Republican got pushed down the memory hole where he started getting any traction.


The Empire Is Coming for Tulsi Gabbard

Tulsi Gabbard Pushes No War Agenda – and the Media Is out to Kill Her Chances


Colbert Smears Tulsi Gabbard To Her Face While Telling Zero Jokes

Hawaii Congresswoman and Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard recently appeared on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, where instead of the light, jokey banter about politics and who she is as a person that Democratic presidential candidates normally encounter on late night comedy programs, the show’s host solemnly ran down a list of textbook beltway smears against Gabbard and made her defend them in front of his audience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0jnKb8MDks

source

odyssey06

I think that chart on spending priorities is a bit of a distortion of what tax dollars are spent where. It looks like 54% of US tax spend is on military.
But the spending on healthcare by US states is larger than the federal government military budget... The US spends 3.2% of GDP on military, which does not seem an unreasonable amount.

Even the figures for Federal spending look dodgy:
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-much-does-federal-government-spend-health-care
The federal government spent nearly $1.1 trillion on health care in fiscal year 2018. Of that, Medicare claimed roughly $583 billion, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) about $399 billion, and veterans’ medical care about $70 billion.

Harvey Weinstein

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Only someone willing to die for their cause would dare cut the military industrial complex (MIC), the last time there was significant resistance against that military was doing the 1960s and 70s over the Vietnam war compulsory draft. My own pet theory is the 9/11 attacks in 2001 were permitted (not planned) by the MIC in response to the post cold war cutbacks, the Anthrax attacks definitely originated from within MIC and seemed to have been aimed at silencing any opposition to the Patriot act. If you ask the question Cui bono? from the events of 2001 - clearly the MIC did.


The MIC is embedded within the media and various "think tanks" so any American president (or presidential candidate) who wants to take this on will need the support of the population at large. The current anti-war candidate is Tulsi Gabbard, in previous years Ron Paul on the Republican got pushed down the memory hole where he started getting any traction.


The Empire Is Coming for Tulsi Gabbard

Tulsi Gabbard Pushes No War Agenda – and the Media Is out to Kill Her Chances


Colbert Smears Tulsi Gabbard To Her Face While Telling Zero Jokes

Gabbard seems far and away the best and sanest candidate for the Democrats, which is why there's no chance of her getting the nomination. Same with Sanders last time, whom had to be shafted in order to get him off the ticket.
The irony being that Sanders in 2016 and Gabbard in 2020 would be most likely to beat Trump and most likely to siphon a large proportion of Trump voters.