Biden's "No Scandals"...yeah, right(?)

[jakee 1,608]

1 minute ago, markharju said:

I don't disagree on any particular topic. Your points are all valid; yet I find it disquieting that one can so easily and offhandedly defend one person and pillory another.

I can so easily defend Biden because your accusations are so obviously unfounded. Again, that's cause and effect.

Quote

I'm being critical of where Biden got his dough,

Why?

Quote

yet I do think he can give the Trumpster a real contest (and win) if he can just be a little more careful. Let the other guy be as bombastic as he likes; Biden can still appeal to the middle class (what's left of it) by being the better man. You've got to admit that with an opponent like Trump, that's not too difficult.

Sure, and that should be what he does. OTOH it's also what Hillary did. 

 

To be honest I don't think it matters too much. I'll stick my neck out and say the thing that will beat Trump is the last 4 years of Trump. Biden just has to not implode. 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, jakee said:

I can so easily defend Biden because your accusations are so obviously unfounded. Again, that's cause and effect.

Why?

>I would disagree that they are obviously/totally unfounded. I think it's only proper to be somewhat suspicious and mistrusting of someone who prospers solely by virtue of having held public office; there's something unseemly about it. (I think of the Harry Truman remark).  Another part of it is an instinctive dislike of someone who comes across as being so smooth, and yet commits such cringey gaffs. And this is with a sycophantic media helping him, too.

Sure, and that should be what he does. OTOH it's also what Hillary did. 

> Yeah, she saved HER contempt for the voters.

To be honest I don't think it matters too much. I'll stick my neck out and say the thing that will beat Trump is the last 4 years of Trump. Biden just has to not implode. 

Agreed.

 

Edited May 27, 2020 by Guest

[jakee 1,608]

10 minutes ago, markharju said:

I would disagree that they are obviously/totally unfounded. I think it's only proper to be somewhat suspicious and mistrusting of someone who prospers solely by virtue of having held public office; 

Why? He worked for the country for 40 years without prospering in any form beyond taking his salary. Then, after leaving leaving office he made money because he had marketable experience. Why do you think that's a bad thing?

 

And again, in the upcoming election you do have a choice between one candidate who has spent his life in the political establishment and one candidate who has not. If you genuinely make your choice in that election based on who is more honest and trustworthy then you will vote for the establishment candidate without a moment's hesitation.

 

(BTW, who do you think the last US president was who hasn't made millions of dollars in book deals? Pretty sure it was Gerald Ford, and even Nixon before him got rich through that route. Why wouldn't you? Why shouldn't you?)

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, jakee said:

Why? He worked for the country for 40 years without prospering in any form beyond taking his salary. Then, after leaving leaving office he made money because he had marketable experience. Why do you think that's a bad thing?

 

And again, in the upcoming election you do have a choice between one candidate who has spent his life in the political establishment and one candidate who has not. If you genuinely make your choice in that election based on who is more honest and trustworthy then you will vote for the establishment candidate without a moment's hesitation.

 

(BTW, who do you think the last US president was who hasn't made millions of dollars in book deals? Pretty sure it was Gerald Ford, and even Nixon before him got rich through that route. Why wouldn't you? Why shouldn't you?)

Once again, no real disagreement. Thank you for an interesting and engaging discussion. I want what's best for my country, I really do. But given the world situation and the scary things that are happening in the US right now (like the C19 crisis causing huge economic upheavals and that the debt is projected to exceed GDP before the end of this year), it feels as though we're peeing on a forest fire.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

23 minutes ago, markharju said:

and that the debt is projected to exceed GDP before the end of this year), it feels as though we're peeing on a forest fire.

Stop electing Republicans. It really is a simple solution. Your economy does better under Democrats, the historical evidence is so overwhelming it is pretty much a guarantee.

 

[JerryBaumchen 1,471]

Hi Mark,

Say what you want.  IMO this election will be one thing:  A referendum on Trump

Nothing less.

When all of those D's wanting the nomination began their efforts, Joe B was not 'my guy.'  But, he is the one still standing => He's my guy now.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  You seem to have a lot of negativity about this country; ever consider changing citizenship?

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Stop electing Republicans. It really is a simple solution. Your economy does better under Democrats, the historical evidence is so overwhelming it is pretty much a guarantee.

 

Sorry, Dek, have to disagree. Nothing is simple in politics.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Mark,

Say what you want.  IMO this election will be one thing:  A referendum on Trump

>Agreed.

 

 

[jakee 1,608]

1 hour ago, markharju said:

Once again, no real disagreement. Thank you for an interesting and engaging discussion. I want what's best for my country, I really do. 

Ok sure. But if there's no real disagreement then there's no reason (at least related to this) for you to mistrust Biden or think he's done anything wrong, right?

A final thought on that - if I've understood some of your other posts properly you spent a bunch of time in the US military with your salary paid by the taxpayer, then after that took your government funded skills and experience and got some very well paid contracts in either the private security or defence consulting worlds, is that close? If that's the case (and I'll be very clear in stating that I don't think there is anything at all wrong with that) what is the fundamental difference between doing that and doing what Biden has?

[billvon 3,131]

8 hours ago, markharju said:

Anywhere you sit on the political spectrum, one must in my opinion consider this remark in its proper context.

"Not one single whisper of scandal."

I think we cannot call it a bald-faced lie.

?? That's like saying that there's not one whisper of scandal associated with you, except for that assault you were accused of in 2002.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, jakee said:

Ok sure. But if there's no real disagreement then there's no reason (at least related to this) for you to mistrust Biden or think he's done anything wrong, right?

A final thought on that - if I've understood some of your other posts properly you spent a bunch of time in the US military with your salary paid by the taxpayer, then after that took your government funded skills and experience and got some very well paid contracts in either the private security or defence consulting worlds, is that close? If that's the case (and I'll be very clear in stating that I don't think there is anything at all wrong with that) what is the fundamental difference between doing that and doing what Biden has?

...simple...I'm not the one running for president. Meaning, his credentials and  financials should be scrutinized as much as those of his opponent - fair is fair, right? BTW You're mostly correct about my various gigs except one: I made a total career change after I left the service; there were no skills acquired at taxpayer expense which I applied to the private sector - had to start over from scratch. At the bottom. Just like everyone else, and it was all on my own dime (no GI Bill for my era). Further, I left before I was eligible for a pension. Had to cash out what was left to pay the bills, what little of it there was (E6s didn't get a lot back in the day) I worked private from then on, at Boeing Commercial Airplanes, among other places.

[Phil1111 1,192]

33 minutes ago, markharju said:

Sorry, Dek, have to disagree. Nothing is simple in politics.

Like a quarter that after 10,000 tosses lands and stands on its edge. It had to happen eventually. You and I agree on something.

First of all trump isn't a republican in any traditional sense. Eventually the republicans will put forth a presidential candidate with a brain and a willingness to compromise.They are out there.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, billvon said:

?? That's like saying that there's not one whisper of scandal associated with you, except for that assault you were accused of in 2002.

You're so mean, Bill. And did you read all of what I wrote? I'm just remarking on the idea that Biden needs to get smarter, and soon. Why is that cause for personal attack?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

Like a quarter that after 10,000 tosses lands and stands on its edge. It had to happen eventually. You and I agree on something.

First of all trump isn't a republican in any traditional sense. Eventually the republicans will put forth a presidential candidate with a brain and a willingness to compromise.They are out there.

Frankly I don't think anyone in their right mind would want to play at this table. Edit to add: a few weeks ago I came in here guns blazing, throwing grenades and generally behaving like some kind of old, washed-up Rambo wannabe. I'm not so self unaware not to know that it isn't the right way to influence anyone. Further (and billvon can confirm this because we've known one another for decades),  that I'm an insecure and highly outspoken arch-conservative who from time to time is given to outbursts of moral panic. Otherwise I'm a pretty funny guy (at least my SO thinks anyway). And I can reason, and debate, which is why I wanted to keep this discussion about the RNC job on Biden civil.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Guest

[billvon 3,131]

17 minutes ago, markharju said:

You're so mean, Bill. And did you read all of what I wrote? I'm just remarking on the idea that Biden needs to get smarter, and soon. Why is that cause for personal attack?

No personal attack intended.  I don't know anything about the assault in 2002.  It may never have happened.

Of course, now people are talking about it.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, billvon said:

No personal attack intended.  I don't know anything about the assault in 2002.  It may never have happened.

Of course, now people are talking about it.

Let them. I'm not running for president. And I'm out to pasture. And since we're well beyond the statute of limitations, I won't tell you the exact number of times I sold dope while disguised as a nun...

Edited May 27, 2020 by Guest

[jakee 1,608]

1 hour ago, markharju said:

...simple...I'm not the one running for president. 

Sure, but that only has a bearing on whether the actions in question are matter of national interest, not about whether they are suspicious or untrustworthy.

 

Quote

Meaning, his credentials and  financials should be scrutinized as much as those of his opponent - fair is fair, right? 

Absoutely right. I'm sure he'll co-operate with that just like every other candidate (except his opponent) has in recent times. But so far there are no indications (unlike his opponent) that he's had any remotely shady or unscrupulous financial dealings or misused his office for personal profit in any way.

Quote

BTW You're mostly correct about my various gigs except one: I made a total career change after I left the service; there were no skills acquired at taxpayer expense which I applied to the private sector - had to start over from scratch. 

Ok cool, no worries. Well, I know plenty of people who did get well paying private gigs using their military skills and I'm sure you do to. Are they all suspicious because of it?

Edited May 27, 2020 by jakee

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, jakee said:

Sure, but that only has a bearing on whether the actions in question are matter of national interest, not about whether they are suspicious or untrustworthy.

 

Absoutely right. I'm sure he'll co-operate with that just like every other candidate (except his opponent) has in recent times. But so far there are no indications (unlike his opponent) that he's had any remotely shady or unscrupulous financial dealings or misused his office for personal profit in any way.

Ok cool, no worries. Well, I know plenty of people who did get well paying private gigs using their military skills and I'm sure you do to. Are they all suspicious because of it?

I've known a few dodgy types in my day, and I sure wondered. But I wish I'd been one of them (I mean being able to parlay military experience into a cushy civil service or contracting gig. I eventually got into the contracting side of it but it took a LONG, LONG time, as in I was already in my late 40s), or at least had the GI Bill, but I was Carter/Reagan-era, post Vietnam. There were two benefits for vets of my time: jack and sh**. No regrets for the time I spent, just ashamed that I wasn't able to go the distance. The overwhelming majority of officers who serve in the US military never make it past O3. Color me astonished - I was surprised to find that out. As a junior NCO I was oblivious.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Guest

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

5 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

First of all trump isn't a republican in any traditional sense. Eventually the republicans will put forth a presidential candidate with a brain and a willingness to compromise.They are out there.

Don't bet on it.

The R base has gone 'full tilt Alt-Right.'

 

Look at who else they have put up as candidates.

Rey Moore is probably the worst/best example  but he's only one of a lot of extreme right wing candidates to have made it through the primary process.

McConnell has pretty much sold the R party to the Alt right for the power to control the country. And so far, he's done a damned good job of it.

Short of a full on revolt (which there are whispers of), there will not be any major R candidates with 'a brain and a willingness to compromise'.

[billvon 3,131]

7 hours ago, markharju said:

Let them. I'm not running for president. 

OK.  But keep in mind that you are now in the same boat as Biden, in terms of whether there is a hint of scandal in your background.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, billvon said:

OK.  But keep in mind that you are now in the same boat as Biden, in terms of whether there is a hint of scandal in your background.

Not really. He'll get a pass (and he already has) for any personal scandals which he may or may not have because he's a member of the privileged and protected class (read: wealthy Democrat), whereas I'm of the RAMs (Raggedy-Assed Masses) and thus enjoy neither. BTW this thread wasn't about any of Joe Biden's personal issues, it was about how the RNC has just tarred him over his claim of "no scandals" in the Obama administration. I thought that unfair (honest), and commented on the need for him to be smarter if he's going to get elected. He really needs James Carville IMO, if Carville is still acting as a kingmaker, that is.

Edited May 28, 2020 by Guest

[nigel99 644]

20 hours ago, jakee said:

Then what does it matter what he said? Might as well follow the Trump MO, continuously make false, absurdly overblown self-aggrandising statements and whenever challenged just double down.

I was reading a BBC article on the US senate elections and it struck me that the measure of likelihood of winning was the size of the funds raised. 
 

It’s probably too broken to fix, but I’d imagine if you could move from money to policy it would be a big step forward. Also in this day and age of social media I imagine a clever and savvy person could get a groundswell of support with very little cost

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

I was reading a BBC article on the US senate elections and it struck me that the measure of likelihood of winning was the size of the funds raised. 
 

It’s probably too broken to fix, but I’d imagine if you could move from money to policy it would be a big step forward. Also in this day and age of social media I imagine a clever and savvy person could get a groundswell of support with very little cost

You speak truth here and make a valid point but in my opinion this (social media) also runs the risk of fraud; id est - astroturfing. It also delineates between the techno-haves and have-nots. <sigh> It seems as though the only easy day was yesterday. I still think term limits on Congress would help. The Swiss Confederation has no true central government at all. Would that the US was more like this model...we wouldn't have this sh**-show every four years and the money angle would still be a factor but would not make or break a candidate for high office. Once again, JMHO.

Edited May 28, 2020 by Guest

[kallend 2,174]

What exactly are these "scandals", and how do they compare with Trump's?

 

Biden certainly isn't my preference for president, but he's so far above the alternate that there really is no contest in my mind.

[billvon 3,131]

8 hours ago, markharju said:

Not really. He'll get a pass (and he already has) for any personal scandals which he may or may not have because he's a member of the privileged and protected class

Given that several trumped-up scandals have already made headlines that is demonstrably false.