The Joe Biden 2020 tracker thread (1 Viewer)

[Intensesaint]

A place for all the gaffs, slip-ups and overall outlandish things Democratic candidates will say or do in lead up to the 2020 Election.

 

[samiam5211]

It doesn't matter how large you make the font, you are wrong. Not only is she involved in the Democratic nomination process in 2020, she provided very good examples of pandering through linguistics which was the reason she was brought up in this instance.

Pathetic. Just pathetic.

 

[Farb]

Pathetic. Just pathetic.

I agree. Obama, Trump, Bush...all of these names came up at one point in this thread and not a big deal, throw in Hillary and people lose their collective minds. I guess it just too soon for some.

 

[coldseat]

Just let the talk about Hillary until they're blue in the faces and they turn into Democratic.

Ignore the Hillary post and don't respond to them. It's rarely worth your time to argue over things that are irrelevant.

 

[JimEverett]

LOL. So a guy who has shot up to 3rd and 2nd in Democratic national polls mentions Hillary Clinton as his potential running mate but it is people on this board that are obsessed with Clinton.

 

[insidejob]

LOL. So a guy who has shot up to 3rd and 2nd in Democratic national polls mentions Hillary Clinton as his potential running mate but it is people on this board that are obsessed with Clinton.

Since y'all haven't stopped talking about her since the election ended, yeah.

 

[samiam5211]

LOL. So a guy who has shot up to 3rd and 2nd in Democratic national polls mentions Hillary Clinton as his potential running mate but it is people on this board that are obsessed with Clinton.

Is there any evidence to suggest he was considering Hillary other than the drudgereport story?

 

[JimEverett]

Is there any evidence to suggest he was considering Hillary other than the drudgereport story?

Yes. The non-denial from the Bloomberg camp and the fact that the Drudge "bombshell" was delivered right after the NYT and Post had articles detailing Bloomberg's sexist comments and shady philanthropy network.

 

[samiam5211]

Yes. The non-denial from the Bloomberg camp and the fact that the Drudge "bombshell" was delivered right after the NYT and Post had articles detailing Bloomberg's sexist comments and shady philanthropy network.

A story from a source that liberals hate got a scoop from a source inside a democratic campaign, that has yet to be confirmed by any other source is evidence? Because of the timing? That’s enough for you to state something as fact?

Yet you don’t think there was evidence of collusion?

 

[JimEverett]

A story from a source that liberals hate got a scoop from a source inside a democratic campaign, that has yet to be confirmed by any other source is evidence? Because of the timing? That’s enough for you to state something as fact?

Yet you don’t think there was evidence of collusion?

Well I am not calling a PResidential election illegitimate and demanding a 15 month investigation into the sources of the story largely developed through "unnamed sources" - but beyond that, I guess I see the comparison.

 

[samiam5211]

Well I am not calling a PResidential election illegitimate and demanding a 15 month investigation into the sources of the story largely developed through "unnamed sources" - but beyond that, I guess I see the comparison.

No, you said there wasn’t evidence of collusion.

You are comparing a reaction to a conclusion to reaching the conclusion.

Sentencing and verdict are entirely different. Have you ever heard a judge instruct a jury to think about what could happen to the defendant when deliberating guilt or innocence?

If you believed there was evidence of collusion, I would hope that your reaction would have been to call for an investigation and for there to be consequences for those involved.

Can you just admit that you don’t always believe what you post?

 

[JimEverett]

No, you said there wasn’t evidence of collusion.

You are comparing a reaction to a conclusion to reaching the conclusion.

Sentencing and verdict are entirely different. Have you ever heard a judge instruct a jury to think about what could happen to the defendant when deliberating guilt or innocence?

If you believed there was evidence of collusion, I would hope that your reaction would have been to call for an investigation and for there to be consequences for those involved.

Can you just admit that you don’t always believe what you post?

There is not any evidence of collusion. Have you read the Mueller Report? If not, you should.

Why, in the context of collusion, are you talking about sentencing and verdicts, and (in the past) the OJ case? In such situations, there is evidence to begin an actual criminal case. That did not happen with "collusion" so the comparisons are very uninformed. Can you just admit that you are uninformed?

 

[Beach Friends]

Pathetic. Just pathetic.

Look, the 2020 campaign is going to bring up a lot of issues that you would prefer not to face. Hillary is involved in this race whether you like it or not.

Her name will come up on this forum and you are not going to stop that by being rude.

 

[samiam5211]

There is not any evidence of collusion. Have you read the Mueller Report? If not, you should.

Why, in the context of collusion, are you talking about sentencing and verdicts, and (in the past) the OJ case? In such situations, there is evidence to begin an actual criminal case. That did not happen with "collusion" so the comparisons are very uninformed. Can you just admit that you are uninformed?

Look, you concluded there was evidence that Bloomberg was considering Hillary as his running mate based on the evidence available to you.

You’ve also concluded that there was no evidence of collusion based on the information available to you.

You keep trying to avoid equivocating the two conclusions by suggesting that the rules are different because of the setting.

We’re not in a courtroom. The setting is our own mind. You can’t switch back and forth when it’s convenient to your argument.

 

[JimEverett]

Look, you concluded there was evidence that Bloomberg was considering Hillary as his running mate based on the evidence available to you.

You’ve also concluded that there was no evidence of collusion based on the information available to you.

You keep trying to avoid equivocating the two conclusions by suggesting that the rules are different because of the setting.

We’re not in a courtroom. The setting is our own mind. You can’t switch back and forth when it’s convenient to your argument.

This is laughable. Really? You might have a point if there was a 15 month investigation - or really any investigation at all - into whether the Bloomberg camp leaked the Clinton story. Otherwise, the comparison is silly, but keep trying to circle a square in an effort to prove something.

 

[BobE]

oh he got jokes

 

[zztop]

It doesn't matter how large you make the font, you are wrong. Not only is she involved in the Democratic nomination process in 2020, she provided very good examples of pandering through linguistics which was the reason she was brought up in this instance.

Is she running for president in 2020? yes or no ?

 

[Beach Friends]

Is she running for president in 2020? yes or no ?

Her relevance has already been explained in multiple posts. BTW, I have a feeling you are going to see a LOT of posts about Hillary during this election season. Might as well get used to it.

 

[zztop]

Her relevance has already been explained in multiple posts. BTW, I have a feeling you are going to see a LOT of posts about Hillary during this election season. Might as well get used to it.

Thats not relevant to this topic. Is she (yes or no) running for president in 2020? People can make a separate topic but it literally has nothing to do with who is running in 2020, which this topic is about