The fake Presidential Election is a popularity contest, not a democratic election.
If you don’t live in a so-called “swing state,” it doesn’t really matter who you vote for for President, but the down-ballot races are important.
The important thing is to vote. At least then we can claim that we won the popularity contest even if we lose the Presidency again.
Biden could have apologized. He didn’t. The Anita Hill testimony was so disturbing for any woman living thru it.
Then she’ll vote for him. As will I.
Being Chairman is not magic.
I have not yet been in this country yet at the time of the hearing, so I do not have direct knowledge. Therefore, I am curious – is Eichenwald wrong on the facts? Not on your recollections, but on the facts? And if so – which facts did he get wrong?
Good on her, because Biden REALLY flubbed it. Like Josh said, he’s a good candidate but he has WAY too much baggage
Yeah, and he didn’t, which means if he was smart, he’d have ignored all the hyperbolic opportunistic suddenly-out-of-nowhere politically convenient attacks from people who support other candidates, including accusers who work or worked for other candidates and previously touched him in friendly ways, as friends do. He never should have called her, because all he did was hand you people more nonsense to spin.and he should have known better and foreseen that that is ALL it would amount to. He was wrong to have not apologized, but your asinine exaggerations and weaponization of this shit was only ever going to result in MORE attacks on him for bowing to your demands and actually doing it.
None of it is honest and none of you are honest enough to admit that precisely NOTHING he did or said would satisfy you, because the reality is that you’re just looking for him do or say ANYTHING and thereby help you perpetuate your ability to throw exaggerated fits and feign outrage over it, so you can continue criticizing him for it in hopes of maximum self-serving damage to him, because really, the ONLY thing that matters to you is your candidate winning, not that he somehow offended Anita Hill. She’s just your cynical and very willing prop.
The only thing he did wrong here is let you bully him and cave to it.
Though he’d have to ante up that answer, I’m presuming that part of his post is predicated on a guess (hypothetical, etc.).
Well, your argument is with Maximus…
I didn’t say that you misunderstood, but I apologise if it seemed that way.
Have I ever gone into the voting booth and cast a ballot for someone I’d rather hadn’t gotten the nomination and whom I’d rather not vote for?? Hell, yes!
Good for her. Biden has no business running. He’s the candidate of teh Sunday chat show hosts and beyond name recognition, there is no reason fo him to anywhere but down at this point.
The stock market doesn’t represent the entire economy. And Trump can’t do much to actually become more popular.
[quote=“korvu, post:23, topic:87285, full:true”]
Problem once again is no good candidates. Add that to strong economy and overwhelming money and the odds are pretty grim for the Democrats.
[/quote] No good candidates? Are you kidding? Democrats have an array of great candidates to choose from.
And high deficit plus an iffy tax cut that tends to benefit the top 1%, a shitty foreign policy, trump fatigue plus 2 long years ahead…I wouldn’t put too much weight into your claim of things looking grim for Democrats. If it were all about the economy, trumps numbers would be way stronger than they are now. I don’t think even throwing large money can put lipstick on that pig.
Well…for me, my recollections of Chairman Biden bending over backwards to let Anita Hill be called a crazed bitch who probably actually believed her delusional allegations against Clarence Thomas, all of which were probably the product, most likely, of her needing a roll in the hay with a real man, by one Elder of His Religious Cult, Orrin Hatch, and letting her hang out to dry like a human pinyata, are the facts.
9…Biden also made clear - he had consulted Senate counsel about the limits of what he could do as chairman, found means by which he could prevent certain lines of questioning, but was not allowed under Senate rules to block questions on credibility, etc…
How so? Every candidate so far who has come forward out of the pack and made a splash or who announces goes through a trial by fire like this - shit starts flying. It isn’t just Joe who has gone through this.
Kamala Harris and her record as a DA - that hit her right after she announced. And so on.
13…there was one witness who was clearly inappropriate, ranting about what she believed about Hill, and saying the reason she did it was political. Biden eviscerated that argument with just a few questions…
14…he equally eviscerated a Republican witness who testified he didn’t find Hill credible because they had run a sexual harassment seminar together and Hill never said anything about Thomas…
16…and the second biggest allegation: That he allowed Republicans to say that Hill’s statements about Thomas were a “fantasy.” Never happened. A witness, discussing an experience with Hill, used word “fantasy” in a sworn statement about something that happened between THEM…
17…and Biden managed to get him to drop the word, saying he regretted saying it, essentially reverse himself. And then, Biden turned around and started using the dropped word to attack the man’s credibility…
Speaking of evisceration, Kurt Eichenwald’s thread is completely eviscerating all of this bullshit. BUT YOU’RE GOING TO KEEP SAYING IT ANYWAY, AREN’T YOU, BECAUSE FUCK REALITY, FUCK HISTORICAL ACCURACY, FUCK THE TRANSCRIPT AND FUCK TRUTH AND JOE BIDEN FOR STANDING IN THE WAY OF YOUR CANDIDATE, RIGHT?
Did anyone expect her to?
