Biden

[theDoctorisIn]

"Gaffes" of Biden's sort aren't really a negative, just like W. Bush's weren't really a negative.

As for intelligence and policy experience - particularly foreign policy - Biden has more of it than any other candidate on either side.

I like Joe Biden and would vote for him in a heartbeat. But I don't know if he wants to be President.

Doesn't that last statement bother you? For the leader of the free world, there shouldn't be any doubts.

I'd trust someone who doesn't really want to be President a lot more than I'd trust someone who really wanted to be President.

That's a real problem. You would prefer someone who's heart is not into the job as a opposed to someone who is competent and really wants to make the country great again.

That's not what I said. What makes you think that someone who really wants to be President is "competent and really wants to make the country great again"?

You seem to have a very optimistic and naive view of the motivations of politicians.

Number one, he's not a politician. Two, he gives a damn what others think when he knows hes right. Three he is starting to get experts lined up for possible cabinet members in the WH. Fourth, He listens to the people and they in return listen to him.

You're kidding, right?

Does he fart rainbows too?

 

[Jackson]

Did W's "gaffes" harm his approval ratings, or cause him to lose the election? The answer is No.

No, because it turned out his college grades were better than Lurch Kerry's.

The point is the lib media gave it their all to paint W as an idiot, yet here we have a moonbat messiah and Plugs Biden who say something insanely idiotic almost every time they speak, but the libtard media responds with:

No, that's not why.

The reason is because "gaffes" are human and relatable.

Actually, I agree with you. After the two terms of Obama, gaffes are not the touch of death. But ads will have people laughing at him and that is or is not fair. Don't know.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"Gaffes" of Biden's sort aren't really a negative, just like W. Bush's weren't really a negative.

As for intelligence and policy experience - particularly foreign policy - Biden has more of it than any other candidate on either side.

I like Joe Biden and would vote for him in a heartbeat. But I don't know if he wants to be President.

Doesn't that last statement bother you? For the leader of the free world, there shouldn't be any doubts.

I'd trust someone who doesn't really want to be President a lot more than I'd trust someone who really wanted to be President.

That's a real problem. You would prefer someone who's heart is not into the job as a opposed to someone who is competent and really wants to make the country great again.

That's not what I said. What makes you think that someone who really wants to be President is "competent and really wants to make the country great again"?

You seem to have a very optimistic and naive view of the motivations of politicians.

I'm going by the statements of two candidates. Biden: "I don't know if I am emotionally ready." and Trump: I want to make America great again! and he has gone into detail of illegals, PC, returning jobs to the US, negotiating trade deals to do just that.

When it comes to Biden, I haven't lost a child. Have you? Could it be that the grief is so overwhelming that it takes your focus away? I belief the experts say 'yes'.

Because we all know how well going by campaign rhetoric works out in the end, right?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Did W's "gaffes" harm his approval ratings, or cause him to lose the election? The answer is No.

No, because it turned out his college grades were better than Lurch Kerry's.

The point is the lib media gave it their all to paint W as an idiot, yet here we have a moonbat messiah and Plugs Biden who say something insanely idiotic almost every time they speak, but the libtard media responds with:

No, that's not why.

The reason is because "gaffes" are human and relatable.

Actually, I agree with you. After the two terms of Obama, gaffes are not the touch of death. But ads will have people laughing at him and that is or is not fair. Don't know.

People who would never have voted for him anyway will laugh, and post threads about it, and whine about it on talk radio.

It won't matter to people who are actually "swing voters".

 

[Jackson]

Doesn't that last statement bother you? For the leader of the free world, there shouldn't be any doubts.

I'd trust someone who doesn't really want to be President a lot more than I'd trust someone who really wanted to be President.

That's a real problem. You would prefer someone who's heart is not into the job as a opposed to someone who is competent and really wants to make the country great again.

That's not what I said. What makes you think that someone who really wants to be President is "competent and really wants to make the country great again"?

You seem to have a very optimistic and naive view of the motivations of politicians.

Number one, he's not a politician. Two, he gives a damn what others think when he knows hes right. Three he is starting to get experts lined up for possible cabinet members in the WH. Fourth, He listens to the people and they in return listen to him.

You're kidding, right?

Does he fart rainbows too?

I know his downfalls. He speaks very simple English, not usually and intelligence indicator. He has an easy button to push. He could be manipulated to say something undignified. He's a narcissist but then most politicians are. I'm not rooting for him on the basis of Mr. Personality. I'm not even sure if I will vote for him. But when posters put up negatives that don't actually matter, I have to defend that. He has the 'right stuff' to make a difference. If we could find another candidate who has the 'right stuff' and is diplomatic, I'll vote for him.

 

[Jackson]

Doesn't that last statement bother you? For the leader of the free world, there shouldn't be any doubts.

I'd trust someone who doesn't really want to be President a lot more than I'd trust someone who really wanted to be President.

That's a real problem. You would prefer someone who's heart is not into the job as a opposed to someone who is competent and really wants to make the country great again.

That's not what I said. What makes you think that someone who really wants to be President is "competent and really wants to make the country great again"?

You seem to have a very optimistic and naive view of the motivations of politicians.

I'm going by the statements of two candidates. Biden: "I don't know if I am emotionally ready." and Trump: I want to make America great again! and he has gone into detail of illegals, PC, returning jobs to the US, negotiating trade deals to do just that.

When it comes to Biden, I haven't lost a child. Have you? Could it be that the grief is so overwhelming that it takes your focus away? I belief the experts say 'yes'.

Because we all know how well going by campaign rhetoric works out in the end, right?

What do you say about Biden and the problem of grief and family not supporting him?

 

[Jackson]

Did W's "gaffes" harm his approval ratings, or cause him to lose the election? The answer is No.

No, because it turned out his college grades were better than Lurch Kerry's.

The point is the lib media gave it their all to paint W as an idiot, yet here we have a moonbat messiah and Plugs Biden who say something insanely idiotic almost every time they speak, but the libtard media responds with:

No, that's not why.

The reason is because "gaffes" are human and relatable.

Actually, I agree with you. After the two terms of Obama, gaffes are not the touch of death. But ads will have people laughing at him and that is or is not fair. Don't know.

People who would never have voted for him anyway will laugh, and post threads about it, and whine about it on talk radio.

It won't matter to people who are actually "swing voters".

He never had the idea of running for president until his son told him to do so before he died. Biden is taking his death poorly. His wife doesn't want him to run.

The fact that he would run again is in honor of his son. Is that a good reason?

Let's face facts. The only reason people are looking to Biden is that Clinton is in so much trouble. No one would have whispered his name if her coronation was on target.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'd trust someone who doesn't really want to be President a lot more than I'd trust someone who really wanted to be President.

That's a real problem. You would prefer someone who's heart is not into the job as a opposed to someone who is competent and really wants to make the country great again.

That's not what I said. What makes you think that someone who really wants to be President is "competent and really wants to make the country great again"?

You seem to have a very optimistic and naive view of the motivations of politicians.

I'm going by the statements of two candidates. Biden: "I don't know if I am emotionally ready." and Trump: I want to make America great again! and he has gone into detail of illegals, PC, returning jobs to the US, negotiating trade deals to do just that.

When it comes to Biden, I haven't lost a child. Have you? Could it be that the grief is so overwhelming that it takes your focus away? I belief the experts say 'yes'.

Because we all know how well going by campaign rhetoric works out in the end, right?

What do you say about Biden and the problem of grief and family not supporting him?

If Biden were to run and win, nearly two years would have passed since Beau's death. I don't expect that Biden would be so paralyzed with grief that he'd be unable to govern after that amount of time.

Nor do I think that his family would not support him, should he choose to run.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Did W's "gaffes" harm his approval ratings, or cause him to lose the election? The answer is No.

No, because it turned out his college grades were better than Lurch Kerry's.

The point is the lib media gave it their all to paint W as an idiot, yet here we have a moonbat messiah and Plugs Biden who say something insanely idiotic almost every time they speak, but the libtard media responds with:

No, that's not why.

The reason is because "gaffes" are human and relatable.

Actually, I agree with you. After the two terms of Obama, gaffes are not the touch of death. But ads will have people laughing at him and that is or is not fair. Don't know.

People who would never have voted for him anyway will laugh, and post threads about it, and whine about it on talk radio.

It won't matter to people who are actually "swing voters".

He never had the idea of running for president until his son told him to do so before he died. Biden is taking his death poorly. His wife doesn't want him to run.

The fact that he would run again is in honor of his son. Is that a good reason?

Let's face facts. The only reason people are looking to Biden is that Clinton is in so much trouble. No one would have whispered his name if her coronation was on target.

A candidate's "reason" for running is irrelevant, since we can't know what it actually is without reading their minds.

 

[Jackson]

That's a real problem. You would prefer someone who's heart is not into the job as a opposed to someone who is competent and really wants to make the country great again.

That's not what I said. What makes you think that someone who really wants to be President is "competent and really wants to make the country great again"?

You seem to have a very optimistic and naive view of the motivations of politicians.

I'm going by the statements of two candidates. Biden: "I don't know if I am emotionally ready." and Trump: I want to make America great again! and he has gone into detail of illegals, PC, returning jobs to the US, negotiating trade deals to do just that.

When it comes to Biden, I haven't lost a child. Have you? Could it be that the grief is so overwhelming that it takes your focus away? I belief the experts say 'yes'.

Because we all know how well going by campaign rhetoric works out in the end, right?

What do you say about Biden and the problem of grief and family not supporting him?

If Biden were to run and win, nearly two years would have passed since Beau's death. I don't expect that Biden would be so paralyzed with grief that he'd be unable to govern after that amount of time.

Nor do I think that his family would not support him, should he choose to run.

I'm just going by what he has said the past month. It appears it is affecting him more than you think. When someone in the crowd call out for him to run, he said they'd 'have to talk to his wife about that.'

I believe he lost his son in May of this year.
Vice President Joe Biden Loses His Son to Terminal Brain Cancer

There are certain steps to the grieving process. It takes time and you can't skip over any of the stages.

 

[Jackson]

No, because it turned out his college grades were better than Lurch Kerry's.

The point is the lib media gave it their all to paint W as an idiot, yet here we have a moonbat messiah and Plugs Biden who say something insanely idiotic almost every time they speak, but the libtard media responds with:

No, that's not why.

The reason is because "gaffes" are human and relatable.

Actually, I agree with you. After the two terms of Obama, gaffes are not the touch of death. But ads will have people laughing at him and that is or is not fair. Don't know.

People who would never have voted for him anyway will laugh, and post threads about it, and whine about it on talk radio.

It won't matter to people who are actually "swing voters".

He never had the idea of running for president until his son told him to do so before he died. Biden is taking his death poorly. His wife doesn't want him to run.

The fact that he would run again is in honor of his son. Is that a good reason?

Let's face facts. The only reason people are looking to Biden is that Clinton is in so much trouble. No one would have whispered his name if her coronation was on target.

A candidate's "reason" for running is irrelevant, since we can't know what it actually is without reading their minds.

We don't have to read Joe's mind. He's been very candid on the recent death of his son.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No, that's not why.

The reason is because "gaffes" are human and relatable.

Actually, I agree with you. After the two terms of Obama, gaffes are not the touch of death. But ads will have people laughing at him and that is or is not fair. Don't know.

People who would never have voted for him anyway will laugh, and post threads about it, and whine about it on talk radio.

It won't matter to people who are actually "swing voters".

He never had the idea of running for president until his son told him to do so before he died. Biden is taking his death poorly. His wife doesn't want him to run.

The fact that he would run again is in honor of his son. Is that a good reason?

Let's face facts. The only reason people are looking to Biden is that Clinton is in so much trouble. No one would have whispered his name if her coronation was on target.

A candidate's "reason" for running is irrelevant, since we can't know what it actually is without reading their minds.

We don't have to read Joe's mind. He's been very candid on the recent death of his son.

A few years ago, Hilary spoke very "candidly" about how she wasn't going to run for President because she was too tired.

Things change.

 

[Jackson]

Actually, I agree with you. After the two terms of Obama, gaffes are not the touch of death. But ads will have people laughing at him and that is or is not fair. Don't know.

People who would never have voted for him anyway will laugh, and post threads about it, and whine about it on talk radio.

It won't matter to people who are actually "swing voters".

He never had the idea of running for president until his son told him to do so before he died. Biden is taking his death poorly. His wife doesn't want him to run.

The fact that he would run again is in honor of his son. Is that a good reason?

Let's face facts. The only reason people are looking to Biden is that Clinton is in so much trouble. No one would have whispered his name if her coronation was on target.

A candidate's "reason" for running is irrelevant, since we can't know what it actually is without reading their minds.

We don't have to read Joe's mind. He's been very candid on the recent death of his son.

A few years ago, Hilary spoke very "candidly" about how she wasn't going to run for President because she was too tired.

Things change.

She should have kept with that mindset. She obviously was too tired to be SoS.

 

[RedTeamTex]

Jackson, I'd agree with you if we weren't talking about politics. Biden won't be the first pol who demurely says he has to consult with his family. Call me a cynic, but I think it's "part of the script" painting a family-man image--and very much a campaign ritual in itself. The gravity of his son's death in the public eye as it relates to his decision whether or not to run is (I believe) more of the same: pageantry.

If he declares, his first hurdle is already set up--convincing the skeptics of his fitness, desire, and resolve. The media is his willing Hollywood film crew: his energy and resolve will be 'convincing.' The drama of it all directly targeted to the big hearts of the swing voting electorate.

I don't mean to imply he or his family don't have genuine grief for his son's passing. But it's in public discourse in political theatre, so it is a part of the campaign whether they like it or not (even assuming the family didn't originally put the meme out there that his son wanted him to run.) I don't accuse them of being opportunistic. It's just something that has to be handled the best way it can--and I don't fault them for trying to convert it to a positive.

All that's to say, recent comments don't necessarily indicate actual ambivalence. If I were strategizing for Biden's presidential ambitions, I'd have him do and say exactly as he's done so far.

A nice, grandfatherly one-term "place holder" might be sellable to an electorate still inclined to divided government, especially if Republicans have some kind of O'Donnel/Angle/Akin nomination meltdown at the national level.

Skipping Confucius' rules for public mourning, I'll instead reference a parable by Zhangzi about a sage who fled and hid rather than be forced to leadership, but the village found him, abducted him, and carried him back to his throne as he wailed...

 

[Jackson]

Thank you RTT. Just the same, I hope he picks a good vp.

 

[RedTeamTex]

Thank you RTT. Just the same, I hope he picks a good vp.

Better yet, I hope he picks a bad one and they both get beaten in the general! (Senator Warren will do just fine....)

 

[Jackson]

Thank you RTT. Just the same, I hope he picks a good vp.

Better yet, I hope he picks a bad one and they both get beaten in the general! (Senator Warren will do just fine....)

Do you see how well he's doing in the polls and he hasn't even announced yet. Sympathy support? I don't think so. Warren isn't even in the polls.

 

[longknife]

Biden is Going to Run?



There are lots of sources out there making all sorts of predictions. Could Uncle Joe decide to run because Barrack doesn't want the Hildabeast to have a chance? Here's yet another article about it @ BREAKING: Joe Biden Is Running For President... Here's What It Means For Hillary's Chances

 

[sealybobo]

I think it'll be Biden for the Blue Team.

As bad as Clinton is at retail politics, Joe really isn't much better at the national level. He's his own worst enemy when a camera is rolling. I think he has as much talent to defeat himself as Clinton does.

Still, underestimating him would be a mistake. The swing vote will like his charm more than they want to hold his gaffes against him. And the fact that he's a "loveable" mouth gives him more room to break from Obama than he'd deserve. We live in an age of titillating, visceral, stream-of-consciousness social media--and if the Trump phenomenon proves anything, it's that the standard of popular support has fallen far. This works in Biden's favor. The recent loss of his son will garner him popular sympathy and helps weave a personal story that people like.

He's versed in policy, if not inspired to formulate it. Lack of video evidence notwithstanding, he can work a room where policy is getting decided--albeit more with a knack for acoustic consensus building than inherent conviction. (Perhaps this would be a dramatic improvement over the current president.) Still, it doesn't take much looking to see his relish and zeal in whipping up the wing.

I'm hoping he's a better candidate in the distance than he is when he's actually running, and I don't think Democrats will have any choice but to go cringingly negative regardless of whom they nominate.

How do you see a Biden candidacy?

What is funny is I/We wanted Joe to run in 2016 but we don't want him now. Interesting that he didn't care to do what we wanted back then and he doesn't care now that he's not that popular. He's probably the one the DNC wants to be the nominee. We have to convince them that we want Kamala.

 

[longknife]