Joe Biden defense thread

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

An accuser should not have the benefit of the doubt. The mere act of accusing someone of something, is not a proof for that ever having happened. The accusation must be investigated, but the credibility comes solely through the evidence gathered, not by the accusation itself and until evidence supporting the accusation can be found, the accuser needs to be investigated as well as the accused.

What victim? Has Biden been conclusively proven to have done something now, all of a sudden? Did I miss the news?

I don't have any issues as far as trying to predetermine her credibility.

I'm sorry, what? Disregarding what J!! just posted, am I correctly reading you as she's credible solely based on the fact, that you don't know her?

I did ctrl F to find where anybody mentioned victim and your and my posts were only ones on page with the word lol.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I think it's important to treat the allegation consciously and as a sensitive issue, especially for the sake of the claimant for obvious reasons. But at this point, is this really the only issue to talk about with concern for voting.

On a certain level it feels like people's logic are passively structured as "someone got abused, and what that means for me is that I have to vote for the guy that did it because of the US political system." I mean personally I feel like asking why the DNC has no provision in place for a circumstance like this

Because they have no need to. One party is trying to kill us, so the Democrats can just coast by on the branding of "we're not the party actively trying to kill you."

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I think it's important to treat the allegation consciously and as a sensitive issue, especially for the sake of the claimant for obvious reasons. But at this point, is this really the only issue to talk about with concern for voting.

On a certain level it feels like people's logic are passively structured as "someone got abused, and what that means for me is that I have to vote for the guy that did it because of the US political system." I mean personally I feel like asking why the DNC has no provision in place for a circumstance like this

Because they have no need to. One party is trying to kill us, so the Democrats can just coast by on the branding of "we're not the party actively trying to kill you."

Strong underlying point there, but realistically this kind of attention will eventually have provision within the DNC.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Will it, tho?

Where's the incentive for them to do it, especially when they make it clear they'd rather lose the election and blame it on the far left than be even moderately progressive.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Will it, tho?

Where's the incentive for them to do it, especially when they make it clear they'd rather lose the election and blame it on the far left than be even moderately progressive.

As far as incentive, they're the main organization that brings reformative standards to the government. It's the brand itself that holds them accountable to some capacity with voters, though the DNC itself as an administration is behind close doors yes. That being said, blaming the new left is frivolous from them for the same reason. It's mainly the top elected dogs I'd say that have influence on party matters, not by any public/government capacity, just that their face becomes more unilateral with DNC brand appeal.

How it'd work into intra-electoral matters I don't know, but there's also the degree to which letting this stuff circle around the drain is partly our faults as people, so consider that maybe.

[Captain Crimson]

Here's another political joke.



I think it's all in good fun if you're an equal-opportunity satirist.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Also a fitting metaphor for the parties. One is much, much worse.

Whether allegations are true or not, I would still prefer to be voting for a man who can be photographed with a young woman without looking like he's trying to steal her life force. -__- Most of the policies he outlined are good, but dangit he better choose a good running mate.

[Darth Wedgius]

This seems apropos to the thread topic.

The Nation columnist Katha Pollitt has come under criticism for a column in which she wrote that she would "vote for Joe Biden if he boiled babies and ate them" given the importance of ending President Trump's White House tenure.

"I would vote for Joe Biden if he boiled babies and ate them. He wasn't my candidate, but taking back the White House is that important," Pollitt wrote.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/499057-nation-columnist-criticized-for-writing-shed-vote-for-biden-if-he-boiled

Personally, I find that incredibly disgusting. For one thing, you never know where they've been.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I heard tell Klobuchar is the VP. Is that forreal now?

[CmdrKing]

She’s being vetted by Biden’s folk, but basically everyone is. News outlets decided to lead with her for whatever reason but nothing more substantive has come down the pipe.