Biden's Speech at Philadelphia about the Supreme Court (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 29, 2024, 08:05:19 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2020 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: Likely Voter, YE)
  Biden's Speech at Philadelphia about the Supreme Court (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Biden's Speech at Philadelphia about the Supreme Court  (Read 2081 times)
wbrocks67
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,264


« on: September 20, 2020, 03:06:59 PM »

and how much you wanna bet that he corrected himself and said 200,000 right after, yet of course the disingenuous tweets won't include that. Ugh, Right Wing Twitter trash is so horrible.
Logged
wbrocks67
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,264


« Reply #1 on: September 20, 2020, 03:39:20 PM »






This guy is definitely senile.

You do realize the only thing Biden did was flub a line here which means... even in the worst case, he's just a bad teleprompter reading? Sometimes messing up words while reading from a prompter makes you senile? Guess many Americans are senile!
Logged
wbrocks67
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,264


« Reply #2 on: September 20, 2020, 04:37:06 PM »

At 12:30 he says "200,000 people have died."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml5-xY3P8L4

it's obviously a mis-speak.

In other news, I'm honestly not that satisfied with this speech.  I don't think he makes a compelling case for his position.  Biden's people need to sharpen the language and work some focus groups.

According to Ipsos, 62% of the public agrees with his position, so.
Logged
wbrocks67
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,264


« Reply #3 on: September 20, 2020, 05:47:01 PM »

In this speech, Biden said that he would "consult" with Republicans about his Supreme Court pick. I hope that was just a "diplomatic" answer for the cameras because there is no reason for him to be "consulting" with Senate Republicans about his Supreme Court pick or picks.

That line will further frustrate some progressives who feel that Biden "will just nominate some right-wing or centrist judge. Why should I vote?". I'm voting for Biden but sometimes he's a bit too "diplomatic" and "nice".

This is 100% Biden.  Biden is an old school, Senate institutionalist.  He believes that the Obama-Trump era of partisanship is a aberration that he is morally and personally prepared to correct.  This is a major theme that Biden stresses in his campaign.  His politics are straight out of the 1980s.  He is not a candidate for our time. 

Which is exactly why he appeals to people during a time of crisis. He is calming and comforting in a way none of the other candidates were. I think it's an underrated reason for his Super Tuesday surge.

I don’t think so.  Democratic primary voters got Biden in because he won the electability argument, nothing more.  The anti-Bernie vote consolidated so quickly because most Dems thought Sanders would blow an election vs Trump.

This aspect of Biden’s politics makes him a fish out of water in 2020.  Both bases see the other as moral opponents, not reluctant partners in governing.  Biden’s propensity to play with McConnell and McCarthy could hamstring his own ability to command his party in Congress. . 

Yeah you are trying really way too hard to bend yourself into a pretzel to make this out to be something bad for Biden when it's clearly not.

Trying to be bipartisan is never a bad thing in voters eyes.
Logged
wbrocks67
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,264


« Reply #4 on: September 20, 2020, 05:52:21 PM »

At 12:30 he says "200,000 people have died."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml5-xY3P8L4

it's obviously a mis-speak.

In other news, I'm honestly not that satisfied with this speech.  I don't think he makes a compelling case for his position.  Biden's people need to sharpen the language and work some focus groups.

According to Ipsos, 62% of the public agrees with his position, so.

He just needs to make it more clear what his position is.

He said early in the speech that the only "rule" he cares about is the rule of the constitution -- that the president gets to appoint a nominee, and the Senate must advise and consent.  That's a pretty clear argument that what the Republicans did in 2016 was wrong.

But then later on he says that the nomination hearings should be delayed until after the election, and that if he is elected then he should be allowed to pick the nominee.

The two seem contradictory.  He doesn't clearly explain how they're not.

That doesn't sound contradictory to me. The nomination hearing for whoever wins the president SHOULD be delayed until after the election
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.025 seconds with 12 queries.