Joe Biden 2020 campaign megathread v2

[GeneralMacArthur]

Biden suffers a burst blood vessel in his left eye during CNN climate town hall:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/bidens-eye-fills-with-blood-during-cnn-climate-town-hall

damn, some of you guys are all like "i hope y'all vote for him in november." i don't think he's going to live till next november

Just wait until November when he catches a cold and starts sneezing on the campaign trail.  Hope his will is up-to-date.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Biden suffers a burst blood vessel in his left eye during CNN climate town hall:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/bidens-eye-fills-with-blood-during-cnn-climate-town-hall

damn, some of you guys are all like "i hope y'all vote for him in november." i don't think he's going to live till next november

Just wait until November when he catches a cold and starts sneezing on the campaign trail.  Hope his will is up-to-date.

Is some of the Biden criticism over the top? Sure, but your penchant for hand waving every criticism even ones that are fact based and not cynical is interesting. Biden is a human being. A 76 year old one. Concern about his age and ability to do the job is not being pulled from thin air.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Biden suffers a burst blood vessel in his left eye during CNN climate town hall:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/bidens-eye-fills-with-blood-during-cnn-climate-town-hall

damn, some of you guys are all like "i hope y'all vote for him in november." i don't think he's going to live till next november

Just wait until November when he catches a cold and starts sneezing on the campaign trail.  Hope his will is up-to-date.

Is some of the Biden criticism over the top? Sure, but your penchant for hand waving every criticism even ones that are fact based and not cynical is interesting. Biden is a human being. A 76 year old one. Concern about his age and ability to do the job is not being pulled from thin air.

It's that people keep taking every single little thing that happens as further evidence that he's on death's door and his brain and sanity are deteriorating.  Or even if they don't believe it, they'll say "it contributes to the narrative", which is just a revamped version of the Clinton "optics" BS.

Is Biden the most agile and healthy candidate?  No.  Do I wish he was 20 years younger?  Yeah I do.  But there's a tradeoff.  Biden's experience, deep knowledge and trustworthiness are a big part of his appeal.  You won't get that from someone in their 40s or 50s.

Just because Biden isn't agile or healthy doesn't mean he's dying or insane, though.  Biden made it through the town hall just fine other than his eye bleeding.  He made it through the debates just fine despite being attacked relentlessly.  He's been doing plenty of events and fundraising aggressively.  He's put out detailed proposals and, unlike certain candidates, seems to be intimately familiar with all the details and reasoning backing those proposals.  He's done some fantastic interviews.  Just the other day he did a 90-minute Q&A.

There's no genuine evidence that his health is actually failing, so people constantly latch onto minor events and either blow them out of proportion or completely misrepresent them.  The eye bleeding thing isn't great but it's just a random event that could just as easily happen to Warren or Trump or Sanders.  Stupid sh*t like him "forgetting Obama's name" is so dramatically misrepresented that it's essentially fake news.

Come up with a real criticism and I'll be fine with it.  But when people keep throwing weak sh*t out there, like that he burst a blood vessel in his eye so he's clearly a weak, dying old man who won't make it to 2024, I'm gonna keep slapping it down.

[Bidenworth2020]

It is a burst blood vessel. It happens to all of us. Just because it happens to Biden does not make his health deteriorating.

[JG]

Biden suffers a burst blood vessel in his left eye during CNN climate town hall:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/bidens-eye-fills-with-blood-during-cnn-climate-town-hall

damn, some of you guys are all like "i hope y'all vote for him in november." i don't think he's going to live till next november

Just wait until November when he catches a cold and starts sneezing on the campaign trail.  Hope his will is up-to-date.

Is some of the Biden criticism over the top? Sure, but your penchant for hand waving every criticism even ones that are fact based and not cynical is interesting. Biden is a human being. A 76 year old one. Concern about his age and ability to do the job is not being pulled from thin air.

It's that people keep taking every single little thing that happens as further evidence that he's on death's door and his brain and sanity are deteriorating.  Or even if they don't believe it, they'll say "it contributes to the narrative", which is just a revamped version of the Clinton "optics" BS.

Is Biden the most agile and healthy candidate?  No.  Do I wish he was 20 years younger?  Yeah I do.  But there's a tradeoff.  Biden's experience, deep knowledge and trustworthiness are a big part of his appeal.  You won't get that from someone in their 40s or 50s.

Just because Biden isn't agile or healthy doesn't mean he's dying or insane, though.  Biden made it through the town hall just fine other than his eye bleeding.  He made it through the debates just fine despite being attacked relentlessly.  He's been doing plenty of events and fundraising aggressively.  He's put out detailed proposals and, unlike certain candidates, seems to be intimately familiar with all the details and reasoning backing those proposals.  He's done some fantastic interviews.  Just the other day he did a 90-minute Q&A.

There's no genuine evidence that his health is actually failing, so people constantly latch onto minor events and either blow them out of proportion or completely misrepresent them.  The eye bleeding thing isn't great but it's just a random event that could just as easily happen to Warren or Trump or Sanders.  Stupid sh*t like him "forgetting Obama's name" is so dramatically misrepresented that it's essentially fake news.

Come up with a real criticism and I'll be fine with it.  But when people keep throwing weak sh*t out there, like that he burst a blood vessel in his eye so he's clearly a weak, dying old man who won't make it to 2024, I'm gonna keep slapping it down.

What about him misrepresenting his record when it comes to the Iraq war? Is that a legitimate criticism? Or ''it's another slip of the toungue, that's not what he meant'' or ''he was actually being facetious''?

[Sir Mohamed]

It is a burst blood vessel. It happens to all of us. Just because it happens to Biden does not make his health deteriorating.

What really concerns me is that there is almost no complete phrase coming out of Biden's mouth. He constantly stumbles, interrupts himself and frequently seems to have difficulty to find the right words. For sure, we all stumble at times no matter of age, but this concerns me. I'm afraid Joe Biden has, unfortunately, some cognitive problems. I don't know that of course, as I'm no doctor, but worries me regardless. To hit and take Trump down on a debate stage, we need someone with a very sharp mind.

[Da2017]

It is a burst blood vessel. It happens to all of us. Just because it happens to Biden does not make his health deteriorating.

What really concerns me is that there is almost no complete phrase coming out of Biden's mouth. He constantly stumbles, interrupts himself and frequently seems to have difficulty to find the right words. For sure, we all stumble at times no matter of age, but this concerns me. I'm afraid Joe Biden has, unfortunately, some cognitive problems. I don't know that of course, as I'm no doctor, but worries me regardless. To hit and take Trump down on a debate stage, we need someone with a very sharp mind.

I already ruled out considering him, but this is the last straw.

[Sir Mohamed]

It is a burst blood vessel. It happens to all of us. Just because it happens to Biden does not make his health deteriorating.

What really concerns me is that there is almost no complete phrase coming out of Biden's mouth. He constantly stumbles, interrupts himself and frequently seems to have difficulty to find the right words. For sure, we all stumble at times no matter of age, but this concerns me. I'm afraid Joe Biden has, unfortunately, some cognitive problems. I don't know that of course, as I'm no doctor, but worries me regardless. To hit and take Trump down on a debate stage, we need someone with a very sharp mind.

I already ruled out considering him, but this is the last straw.

I will definitely vote for him in the GE if nominated and would do everything to get him elected. But he's not even my 2nd choice for the primary. If Harris flops I'll probably go for Warren for this and the enthusiasm reason.

To be clear: I like Joe Biden and respect him both as public servant and human being. He had a distinguished senate career and was an excellent VP for Obama. Therefore don't want him to be embarrassed in the GE. To be honest, I wish he stepped aside and remains an elder statesman. In his very own interest.

[GeneralMacArthur]

What about him misrepresenting his record when it comes to the Iraq war? Is that a legitimate criticism? Or ''it's another slip of the toungue, that's not what he meant'' or ''he was actually being facetious''?

Biden's actual position on the Iraq War after the invasion in March 2003 war pretty nuanced.

Biden's primary concern was getting the WMDs, and he spent a lot of time before the invasion trying to prevent it and work with the UN or Iraq to get a thorough inspection or better intel and find a diplomatic solution.

By early 2003, with Iraq not cooperating and the Bush administration leaning more and more towards war, Biden was tentatively supportive, based on the intel available, but still preferred diplomacy:

Saddam Hussein is relentlessly pursuing weapons of mass destruction, abusing his own people and making a mockery of the United Nations," Biden wrote. "With or without a second U.N. resolution, and barring a coup or last-minute conversion by Hussein, the United States will act to disarm him. But we will be infinitely better off if we act with the United Nations and with as many friends as possible -- not in spite of them.

Once the war began, Biden was highly supportive of the troops and their mission.  Which pretty much everybody was.  We were at war, we supported our forces, end of story.

I support the president. I support the troops. We should make no distinction. We should have one voice going out to the whole world that we're together," Biden said. "We should be on the floor of the United States Senate and every capital in the world hear one voice from both parties, saying, we support the troops. We support the president.

Within a few months it became apparent that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and Biden turned on the administration, accusing them of falsifying the evidence both to the public and to the Senate.  However, Biden was still optimistic that the war could be a net positive, because at least we got rid of Saddam.  So this is where the nuance is required.  And this apparent contradiction is where you get quotes like:

"Nine months ago, I voted with my colleagues to give the president of the United States of America the authority to use force, and I would vote that way again today," Biden said in a speech at the Brookings Institution on July 31, 2003. "It was a right vote then, and it'll be a correct vote today."

or

"Some of my own party have said that it was a mistake to go to Iraq in the first place and believe that it's not worth the cost, whatever benefit may flow from our engagement in Iraq," Biden said in a July 2003 speech at the Brookings Institution. "But the cost of not acting against Saddam I think would have been much greater and so will be the cost of not finishing this job."

and this continued to be Biden's position for another year or two, as well as the position of much of the Democratic Party -- that the war could be a success and taking out Saddam Hussein was a good thing, but that the administration lied and distorted to get us into it, and that was very bad.

So how do you describe that position?  You are against the decision to go to war, and the process by which the administration lied to America to get us into it, and believe Saddam could have been removed another way or via diplomacy, but now that we're in it you support the war itself and its objectives and the troops and are glad Saddam is gone.

Well, it's tricky.  It doesn't work as a soundbite.  And after describing it again and again and again and again for 17 years, you're bound to slip up.

[Higgins]

Biden suffers a burst blood vessel in his left eye during CNN climate town hall:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/bidens-eye-fills-with-blood-during-cnn-climate-town-hall

damn, some of you guys are all like "i hope y'all vote for him in november." i don't think he's going to live till next november

Comrade, we know you hope he dies. We get it. Because he represents a threat to radically transforming America and getting reparations. But calm down comrade, comrade, calm down.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Biden suffers a burst blood vessel in his left eye during CNN climate town hall:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/bidens-eye-fills-with-blood-during-cnn-climate-town-hall

damn, some of you guys are all like "i hope y'all vote for him in november." i don't think he's going to live till next november

Comrade, we know you hope he dies. We get it. Because he represents a threat to radically transforming America and getting reparations. But calm down comrade, comrade, calm down.

Paying a debt that is owed is radically transforming America? K.

[President Johnson]

Uncle Joe just was on Stephen Colbert. I don't know, but this doesn't make the impression something is wrong. He talked in a pretty clear way and made a very human impression. You may dislike his policy positions, but I don't know how someone can't like the person. And this is why he's a much better candidate than Hillary was.

He's definitely much better in these interviews than on the debate stage with nine other people.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Uncle Joe just was on Stephen Colbert. I don't know, but this doesn't make the impression something is wrong. He talked in a pretty clear way and made a very human impression. You may dislike his policy positions, but I don't know how someone can't like the person. And this is why he's a much better candidate than Hillary was.

He's definitely much better in these interviews than on the debate stage with nine other people.

TBH the climate debate was pretty weak.  He sounded really aggravated the whole time and was very word-salady and dodged a few questions.  Don't know what went wrong, it wasn't a typical Biden performance

[President Johnson]

Uncle Joe just was on Stephen Colbert. I don't know, but this doesn't make the impression something is wrong. He talked in a pretty clear way and made a very human impression. You may dislike his policy positions, but I don't know how someone can't like the person. And this is why he's a much better candidate than Hillary was.

He's definitely much better in these interviews than on the debate stage with nine other people.

TBH the climate debate was pretty weak.  He sounded really aggravated the whole time and was very word-salady and dodged a few questions.  Don't know what went wrong, it wasn't a typical Biden performance

Agree, I've seen parts of it. Wasn't that good. But the Colbert appearance was very fine.

[Donerail]

First of all, what he have to do is go back and turn back all the changes that in fact the president has made, from CAFE standards to moving in the direction that we in fact deal with providing people who get displaced opportunities to have jobs by sending them back to school, by doing continuing education, whole range of things. I would see to it in the first, immediately, moving toward, you know we're in fact in a position now that if in fact we dealt with mitigation across the board, just what we did in the last administration and before, leading to a standard that we provide efficiency for appliances.

[Pyro]

First of all, what he have to do is go back and turn back all the changes that in fact the president has made, from CAFE standards to moving in the direction that we in fact deal with providing people who get displaced opportunities to have jobs by sending them back to school, by doing continuing education, whole range of things. I would see to it in the first, immediately, moving toward, you know we're in fact in a position now that if in fact we dealt with mitigation across the board, just what we did in the last administration and before, leading to a standard that we provide efficiency for appliances.

I think I just had a stroke.

[GeneralMacArthur]

First of all, what he have to do is go back and turn back all the changes that in fact the president has made, from CAFE standards to moving in the direction that we in fact deal with providing people who get displaced opportunities to have jobs by sending them back to school, by doing continuing education, whole range of things. I would see to it in the first, immediately, moving toward, you know we're in fact in a position now that if in fact we dealt with mitigation across the board, just what we did in the last administration and before, leading to a standard that we provide efficiency for appliances.

I think I just had a stroke.

It's like one of those Hidden Markov Model machine learning programs that generates sports articles or political articles or political speeches based on an existing dataset.  In isolation all the phrases sound like sensible Biden things, but as a whole it's just a mess, it's all over the place.  Like I said, total word salad.

One thing I've noticed from watching him, Biden's campaign staff told him to stop saying "the fact of the matter is" and he's just replaced it with the shorter "in fact" which is worse because the entire point of these little phrases is to stall until you figure out what you want to say next, and he's giving himself less stalling time.

[President Johnson]

First of all, what he have to do is go back and turn back all the changes that in fact the president has made, from CAFE standards to moving in the direction that we in fact deal with providing people who get displaced opportunities to have jobs by sending them back to school, by doing continuing education, whole range of things. I would see to it in the first, immediately, moving toward, you know we're in fact in a position now that if in fact we dealt with mitigation across the board, just what we did in the last administration and before, leading to a standard that we provide efficiency for appliances.

I think I just had a stroke.

It's like one of those Hidden Markov Model machine learning programs that generates sports articles or political articles or political speeches based on an existing dataset.  In isolation all the phrases sound like sensible Biden things, but as a whole it's just a mess, it's all over the place.  Like I said, total word salad.

One thing I've noticed from watching him, Biden's campaign staff told him to stop saying "the fact of the matter is" and he's just replaced it with the shorter "in fact" which is worse because the entire point of these little phrases is to stall until you figure out what you want to say next, and he's giving himself less stalling time.

Perhaps, but I've noticed that he very often used the expression "the fact of the matter is", dating back to 1980s. Everyone has certain favorite words or phrases to use.

[Bidenworth2020]

Was disappointed in Biden's climate town hall, and not because of the burst blood vessel. All of Biden's flaws without the charm.

[ElectionsGuy]

First of all, what he have to do is go back and turn back all the changes that in fact the president has made, from CAFE standards to moving in the direction that we in fact deal with providing people who get displaced opportunities to have jobs by sending them back to school, by doing continuing education, whole range of things. I would see to it in the first, immediately, moving toward, you know we're in fact in a position now that if in fact we dealt with mitigation across the board, just what we did in the last administration and before, leading to a standard that we provide efficiency for appliances.

Does anybody think he's actually very unprepared to answer many of these questions so he constructs his sentences in long, drawn-out ways which sounds like a legitimate answer in hearing but the comprehension and take away from his answer is difficult and devoid of any real meaning? Another way of putting it is he sounds like he knows what he's talking about but nobody else really knows what he's talking about.

This is actually pretty similar to Trump. Put his statements on a piece of paper and you will realize how unbelievably nonsensical they are, but his supporters hear him and they go 'ok, sounds good'. I don't understand how people get duped by this crap.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

First of all, what he have to do is go back and turn back all the changes that in fact the president has made, from CAFE standards to moving in the direction that we in fact deal with providing people who get displaced opportunities to have jobs by sending them back to school, by doing continuing education, whole range of things. I would see to it in the first, immediately, moving toward, you know we're in fact in a position now that if in fact we dealt with mitigation across the board, just what we did in the last administration and before, leading to a standard that we provide efficiency for appliances.

I think I just had a stroke.

It's like one of those Hidden Markov Model machine learning programs that generates sports articles or political articles or political speeches based on an existing dataset.  In isolation all the phrases sound like sensible Biden things, but as a whole it's just a mess, it's all over the place.  Like I said, total word salad.

pedantic point what you're describing is simply a markov chain (not a hidden markov model) and is not considered machine learning

[Biden Stans Are Cringelords]

What about him misrepresenting his record when it comes to the Iraq war? Is that a legitimate criticism? Or ''it's another slip of the toungue, that's not what he meant'' or ''he was actually being facetious''?

Biden's actual position on the Iraq War after the invasion in March 2003 war pretty nuanced.

Biden's primary concern was getting the WMDs, and he spent a lot of time before the invasion trying to prevent it and work with the UN or Iraq to get a thorough inspection or better intel and find a diplomatic solution.

By early 2003, with Iraq not cooperating and the Bush administration leaning more and more towards war, Biden was tentatively supportive, based on the intel available, but still preferred diplomacy:

Saddam Hussein is relentlessly pursuing weapons of mass destruction, abusing his own people and making a mockery of the United Nations," Biden wrote. "With or without a second U.N. resolution, and barring a coup or last-minute conversion by Hussein, the United States will act to disarm him. But we will be infinitely better off if we act with the United Nations and with as many friends as possible -- not in spite of them.

Once the war began, Biden was highly supportive of the troops and their mission.  Which pretty much everybody was.  We were at war, we supported our forces, end of story.

I support the president. I support the troops. We should make no distinction. We should have one voice going out to the whole world that we're together," Biden said. "We should be on the floor of the United States Senate and every capital in the world hear one voice from both parties, saying, we support the troops. We support the president.

Within a few months it became apparent that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and Biden turned on the administration, accusing them of falsifying the evidence both to the public and to the Senate.  However, Biden was still optimistic that the war could be a net positive, because at least we got rid of Saddam.  So this is where the nuance is required.  And this apparent contradiction is where you get quotes like:

"Nine months ago, I voted with my colleagues to give the president of the United States of America the authority to use force, and I would vote that way again today," Biden said in a speech at the Brookings Institution on July 31, 2003. "It was a right vote then, and it'll be a correct vote today."

or

"Some of my own party have said that it was a mistake to go to Iraq in the first place and believe that it's not worth the cost, whatever benefit may flow from our engagement in Iraq," Biden said in a July 2003 speech at the Brookings Institution. "But the cost of not acting against Saddam I think would have been much greater and so will be the cost of not finishing this job."

and this continued to be Biden's position for another year or two, as well as the position of much of the Democratic Party -- that the war could be a success and taking out Saddam Hussein was a good thing, but that the administration lied and distorted to get us into it, and that was very bad.

So how do you describe that position?  You are against the decision to go to war, and the process by which the administration lied to America to get us into it, and believe Saddam could have been removed another way or via diplomacy, but now that we're in it you support the war itself and its objectives and the troops and are glad Saddam is gone.

Well, it's tricky.  It doesn't work as a soundbite.  And after describing it again and again and again and again for 17 years, you're bound to slip up.

This is a disgusting lie. The Bush administration had decided upon war long before it was even voted on in the Congress, they only decided to send in inspectors to appease the UN. Why do you think they had Congress vote on giving Bush war authority in October, a month before inspectors returned?

Iraq could not "cooperate" because they did not have the weapons the Bush admin claimed they possessed. Up to the week before the invasion, Iraq was destroying hundreds of missiles (were absolutely not WMD but allegedly were able to fly farther than was allowed) to save itself from attack, but Bush said this was "deception".

[GeneralMacArthur]

This is a disgusting lie. The Bush administration had decided upon war long before it was even voted on in the Congress, they only decided to send in inspectors to appease the UN. Why do you think they had Congress vote on giving Bush war authority in October, a month before inspectors returned?

Iraq could not "cooperate" because they did not have the weapons the Bush admin claimed they possessed. Up to the week before the invasion, Iraq was destroying hundreds of missiles (were absolutely not WMD but allegedly were able to fly farther than was allowed) to save itself from attack, but Bush said this was "deception".

I agree with everything you said so I'm not sure why you're yelling at me lol.  I'm not defending the Bush administration.  It's obvious from Biden's public statements that he believed the Bush administration genuinely wanted to pursue a diplomatic solution, and was angry about the administration's duplicity.

Biden never supported the administration's actions, but once it was too late to undo Iraq, he did support the goals of the mission.  It's like if Trump were to make up some reason to invade North Korea, free the prisoners, confiscate the nukes and depose Kim Jong Un.  Those are all noble goals that we would support once the invasion had begun, even though we may wish it had never happened in the first place, or at least that the administration hadn't lied and cajoled us into invading.

[S019]

First of all, what he have to do is go back and turn back all the changes that in fact the president has made, from CAFE standards to moving in the direction that we in fact deal with providing people who get displaced opportunities to have jobs by sending them back to school, by doing continuing education, whole range of things. I would see to it in the first, immediately, moving toward, you know we're in fact in a position now that if in fact we dealt with mitigation across the board, just what we did in the last administration and before, leading to a standard that we provide efficiency for appliances.

Does anybody think he's actually very unprepared to answer many of these questions so he constructs his sentences in long, drawn-out ways which sounds like a legitimate answer in hearing but the comprehension and take away from his answer is difficult and devoid of any real meaning? Another way of putting it is he sounds like he knows what he's talking about but nobody else really knows what he's talking about.

This is actually pretty similar to Trump. Put his statements on a piece of paper and you will realize how unbelievably nonsensical they are, but his supporters hear him and they go 'ok, sounds good'. I don't understand how people get duped by this crap.

Why would he be unprepared to answer these questions. He's running for President, of course, he is prepared. His answers do not sound incoherent, just stop.

[Mr. Smith]

First of all, what he have to do is go back and turn back all the changes that in fact the president has made, from CAFE standards to moving in the direction that we in fact deal with providing people who get displaced opportunities to have jobs by sending them back to school, by doing continuing education, whole range of things. I would see to it in the first, immediately, moving toward, you know we're in fact in a position now that if in fact we dealt with mitigation across the board, just what we did in the last administration and before, leading to a standard that we provide efficiency for appliances.

Does anybody think he's actually very unprepared to answer many of these questions so he constructs his sentences in long, drawn-out ways which sounds like a legitimate answer in hearing but the comprehension and take away from his answer is difficult and devoid of any real meaning? Another way of putting it is he sounds like he knows what he's talking about but nobody else really knows what he's talking about.

This is actually pretty similar to Trump. Put his statements on a piece of paper and you will realize how unbelievably nonsensical they are, but his supporters hear him and they go 'ok, sounds good'. I don't understand how people get duped by this crap.

Why would he be unprepared to answer these questions. He's running for President, of course, he is prepared. His answers do not sound incoherent, just stop.

Plenty of people with no kind of preparation for anything run for POTUS, you only have to be an American over 35 and file with FEC.

Also you're right, this is beyond incoherent.