Is this the end of Democrat front runner Joe Biden?

notobtuse

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Thanks for the answer

So he literally has to be stupid enough to directly say in a recorded phone call, listened in by a dozen officials, that he is withholding military aid in exchange for dirt on a political opponent

Okay.

If Clinton were in the same position, holding up military aid to Ukraine, discussing corruption on the phone, but evidence was emerging of all sorts of back-channel pressure on Ukraine to dig dirt on Republicans - you would completely vindicate her because she didn't directly say it on the phone?

Seems Clinton was happy with them involved in making up lies about Trump in order to destroy his campaign.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Seems Clinton was happy with them involved in making up lies about Trump in order to destroy his campaign.

But you’re arguing that behavior is legal

Dohnjoe

notobtuse wrote: »

Seems Clinton was happy with them involved in making up lies about Trump in order to destroy his campaign.

Indeed. So just to clarify, according to you, unless Clinton/Trump directly admitted quid pro quo via recorded phone, they wouldn't be involved on it?

notobtuse

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Indeed. So just to clarify, according to you, unless Clinton/Trump directly admitted quid pro quo via recorded phone, they wouldn't be involved on it?

Without either them directly admitting to it, having quid pro quo (or in Biden's case... a kid pro quo) actual direct evidence, or having someone with first hand knowledge to it, it wouldn't be able to be proven. We know what was done with the bogus information paid for and dug up on Trump... it was used to deceive a FISA court. Biden is the one really looking bad in all this, regardless of how the democrat media handmaidens try to spin it.

rossie1977

notobtuse wrote: »

Without either them directly admitting to it, having quid pro quo (or in Biden's case... a kid pro quo) actual direct evidence, or having someone with first hand knowledge to it, it wouldn't be able to be proven. We know what was done with the bogus information paid for and dug up on Trump... it was used to deceive a FISA court. Biden is the one really looking bad in all this, regardless of how the democrat media handmaidens try to spin it.

How is Biden looking bad?

Democrat media handmaidens is weak argument too. The media including CNN, NY Times, Washington Post spent hundreds of hours discussing Clinton's emails, in fact NY Times had that as their front page story 16 times in the lead up to 2016 election and when she was cleared by Republican led panel the other week the Times buried the story on like page 13.

Hillary Clinton also had far more negative articles in run up to 2016 election than Trump, Cruz or Sanders. You would think being the only actual Democrat in the race the supposed Democratic media would have gone easier on her..https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/

notobtuse

rossie1977 wrote: »

How is Biden looking bad?

Democrat media handmaidens is weak argument too. The media including CNN, NY Times, Washington Post spent hundreds of hours discussing Clinton's emails, in fact NY Times had that as their front page story 16 times in the lead up to 2016 election and when she was cleared by Republican led panel the other week the Times buried the story on like page 13.

Hillary Clinton also had far more negative articles in run up to 2016 election than Trump, Cruz or Sanders.

Did you know Trump is receiving 96% negative coverage from those media handmaidens since the impeachment witch-hunt started? By the end of today it might be 97% negative.

Seems to me the media have taken their marching orders from the DNC. Unfortunately Democratic Representative, Mike Quigley, let the cat out of the bag when he claimed… Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct evidence. You can't make this stuff up.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Did you know Trump is receiving 96% negative coverage from those media handmaidens since the impeachment witch-hunt started? By the end of today it might be 97% negative.

Seems to me the media have taken their marching orders from the DNC. Unfortunately Democratic Representative, Mike Quigley, let the cat out of the bag when he claimed… Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct evidence. You can't make this stuff up.

Is coverage of the Presidents real-time witness intimidation meant to be... positive?

Dohnjoe

notobtuse wrote: »

Did you know Trump is receiving 96% negative coverage from those media handmaidens since the impeachment witch-hunt started? By the end of today it might be 97% negative.

How is global media coverage of Trump?

Would you say that media coverage of leaders like Maduro and Duterte is also unfair?

Overheal

“The problem with North Korea is the lame stream media reporting all the atrocities, focus on the positive things god.”

notobtuse

Dohnjoe wrote: »

How is global media coverage of Trump?

Would you say that media coverage of leaders like Maduro and Duterte is also unfair?

I don’t give much never mind to global coverage of Trump. The media in other nations have their national interest as a priority and that is the way is should be.

Don’t follow international media coverage of Maduro and Duterte. I think the coverage here of them isn’t too bad at times because it mostly reflects our values. I think Biden is the only democrat candidate now wanting to turn us into Venezuela.

marieholmfan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Thanks for the answer

So he literally has to be stupid enough to directly say in a recorded phone call, listened in by a dozen officials, that he is withholding military aid in exchange for dirt on a political opponent

Okay.

If Clinton were in the same position, holding up military aid to Ukraine, discussing corruption on the phone, but evidence was emerging of all sorts of back-channel pressure on Ukraine to dig dirt on Republicans - you would completely vindicate her because she didn't directly say it on the phone?

So what's the flip side?


What would Biden have to be caught doing for you to accept that Sleepy Joe is corrupt?

marieholmfan

rossie1977 wrote: »

How is Biden looking bad?

Democrat media handmaidens is weak argument too. The media including CNN, NY Times, Washington Post spent hundreds of hours discussing Clinton's emails, in fact NY Times had that as their front page story 16 times in the lead up to 2016 election and when she was cleared by Republican led panel the other week the Times buried the story on like page 13.

Hillary Clinton also had far more negative articles in run up to 2016 election than Trump, Cruz or Sanders. You would think being the only actual Democrat in the race the supposed Democratic media would have gone easier on her..https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/

His son worked for one of the most evil men in the world for a million a year with no relevant experience.

Overheal

marieholmfan wrote: »

So what's the flip side?


What would Biden have to be caught doing for you to accept that Sleepy Joe is corrupt?

Evidence of a crime would help.

Dohnjoe

marieholmfan wrote: »

What would Biden have to be caught doing for you to accept that Sleepy Joe is corrupt?

Why the denigrating childish nickname? It looks and sounds completely absurd.

Every situation needs to be judged on it's own facts and merit, objectively. If there is a valid suspicion of corruption, it should be investigated as such.

The problem is that this is all sports teams to some people. They are too far gone to see any of it impartially.

notobtuse

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Why the denigrating childish nickname? It looks and sounds completely absurd.

Every situation needs to be judged on it's own facts and merit, objectively. If there is a valid suspicion of corruption, it should be investigated as such.

The problem is that this is all sports teams to some people. They are too far gone to see any of it impartially.

Except maybe for Joe Biden and his son who seemingly are off limits to being investigated.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Except maybe for Joe Biden and his son who seemingly are off limits to being investigated.

How’s that, Not Obtuse?

Dohnjoe

notobtuse wrote: »

Except maybe for Joe Biden and his son who seemingly are off limits to being investigated.

No one is off-limits. However the conditions for opening an investigation into a politician shouldn't be based on spurious claims/unfounded conspiracies

A good populist knows how to fuel those conspiracies/claims against opponents, how to play it to their base in order to instill suspicion and deflect from claims (no matter how valid) against themselves or their party. Trump is exceptional at doing this, in 30 years of following US politics I haven't seen anyone come close to him on that level.

marieholmfan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No one is off-limits. However the conditions for opening an investigation into a politician shouldn't be based on spurious claims/unfounded conspiracies

A good populist knows how to fuel those conspiracies/claims against opponents, how to play it to their base in order to instill suspicion and deflect from claims (no matter how valid) against themselves or their party. Trump is exceptional at doing this, in 30 years of following US politics I haven't seen anyone come close to him on that level.

Trump is a moron.

Only a moron would have asked Zelensky who is the bought and paid for property of Kolomoisky for dirt on plagiarist Biden whose family got millions from Kolomoisky.

It is moronic.


Zelensky would have been onto his master immediately.

notobtuse

'Hope I made you proud'

Apparently Joe Biden's campaign sent out a post-debate fundraising email several hours before the debate is set to begin.

Reason...



How long does Joe have before people realize he and his campaign’s “Best Used By...” date has expired?

Dohnjoe

notobtuse wrote: »

'Hope I made you proud'

Apparently Joe Biden's campaign sent out a post-debate fundraising email several hours before the debate is set to begin.

You do realise it's probably not him, literally sitting there on AOL dialup, sending out the mails..

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

'Hope I made you proud'

Apparently Joe Biden's campaign sent out a post-debate fundraising email several hours before the debate is set to begin.

Reason...



How long does Joe have before people realize he and his campaign’s “Best Used By...” date has expired?

“Campaign sends email in wet water shocker”

I must get 2 dozen emails per day for donations - Republicans too.

randomspud

Biden was always terrible.

The reason this wasn't evident during his vice presidential term was because most of the media wouldn't dare criticise any part of the Obama administration.

ohnonotgmail

randomspud wrote: »

Biden was always terrible.

The reason this wasn't evident during his vice presidential term was because most of the media wouldn't dare criticise any part of the Obama administration.

LOL

Dohnjoe

"The world's media doesn't validate my world views, therefore the world is wrong not me"

silverharp

The best argument Ive come across as to why Biden’s support is still high is that Dem supporters are remembering him from 5 years ago and havnt taken on board his cognitive decline since. Cant see him being their final choice

Loafing Oaf

silverharp wrote: »

and havnt taken on board his cognitive decline since.

Or maybe this actually plays well with nostalgic 'Reagan Democrats':P

Dohnjoe

He wouldn't be my first choice at all, but sadly there's still a percentage of voters who wouldn't vote for a female president, and I think deep down, many dems are still scared of the risk of running another woman against Trump

notobtuse

Joe Biden's performance in the democrat's debate was terrible and painful to watch. One almost feels sorry for him.

Overheal

Don’t expect Biden was in a fair place to stand in a debate while Republicans staged a mock trial of him on C-SPAN3 without their star witness.

notobtuse

Poor Joe... It just keeps getting worse. At a rally Joe Biden was asked about putting a woman on the ticket as his VP. He said he had at least four women in mind as potential running mates, but had a hard time remembering their names.

Perhaps if he had a binder... Oh, wait!