Biden's "No Scandals"...yeah, right(?)

[Guest]

Anywhere you sit on the political spectrum, one must in my opinion consider this remark in its proper context.

"Not one single whisper of scandal."

I think we cannot call it a bald-faced lie. I know billvon will point out all the scandals in the current administration as well as those before Obama - please...feel free to GO AHEAD, but before you do, consider this:

Who is Biden speaking to with this comment? Is it voters? His peers? The media sycophants? Why would he say this, and thus knowingly expose himself to criticism from the right? Is it a kind of reverse strategy? I mean he had to know that the RNC would be on this like flies on shit, right? RIGHT?

Or is it more like what I tend to believe: that as a career politician he's so disconnected that it somehow doesn't apply to him (see below)?

It would have better in my opinion if he'd said something like "No, not scandal-free. Some mistakes were made, but we're all human and sometimes bad things happen despite all of our good intentions. Still, we always did our best to uphold our respective oaths of office and acted in what we thought were the best interests of those who voted to put us there."

Wouldn't it tend to humanize his association with the previous administration and thus appeal to voters? Or would such an admission be considered an unacceptable show of weakness?

So I think what he means by "Not one single whisper of scandal", he means - "not to me - not that I had any direct involvement with; I was just the VP after all..I didn't make those decisions." Which is in fact true, he didn't. Yet because he served as VP in the Obama administration, he's not really in a position to make such a blanket statement.

I don't get it. (but I want to and that's why I put it here). You may now commence stooling.

 

[jakee 1,255]

2 hours ago, markharju said:

Or is it more like what I tend to believe: that as a career politician he's so disconnected that it somehow doesn't apply to him (see below)?

It's lazy to characterise this kind of thing as a 'career politician' symptom, as if the fix is to go to people outside the system.

 

Trump is not a career politician, yet rarely a day of his presidency goes by that he doesn't spout multiple whoppers of this magnitude or greater.

[DJL 232]

3 hours ago, markharju said:

So I think what he means by "Not one single whisper of scandal", he means - "not to me - not that I had any direct involvement with; I was just the VP after all..I didn't make those decisions." Which is in fact true, he didn't. Yet because he served as VP in the Obama administration, he's not really in a position to make such a blanket statement.

Your validation that he isn't scandal free is that he was a member of an administration in which another member is accused of scandal?

Really, that's your one thing?

Edit:  Also, the video is lightweight.  Really?  58 seconds of newscasters making vague "headline" accusations?

Edited May 27, 2020 by DJL

[Guest]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

It's lazy to characterise this kind of thing as a 'career politician' symptom, as if the fix is to go to people outside the system.

Not necessarily - it could be improved IMO by having those who haven't slopped at the public trough for decades have a go at it. HRC herself admitted that she was "out of touch" in one of her leaked emails. I think it's human nature in a way: what tends to happen to people in positions of power and privilege is that they become insulated and lose contact (as in, "You don't say 'no' to the king", which is pretty much why Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson consumed themselves; not just because of the toll of their respective careers, but because they surrounded themselves with sycophants and were likely quick to dismiss anyone who disagreed with them or otherwise kept them from doing what they wanted. So when it  comes to career politicians, I see the US constitution acting somewhat in loco parentis), in the same way that privileged CEOs with their huge failure bonuses and golden parachutes do. Just a (very) generalized (and of course, highly opinionated) observation. I think this was the real basis for the separation of powers in the US constitution; not just to keep power from corrupting by accumulation, but to keep those in power from thinking that they are gods, and somehow above it all. Biden's been riding the public gravy train for almost fifty years now (estimated net worth ~US$18m - what's yours?). Think about that. The founders didn't want career politicians, yet here we are.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Guest

[Guest]

1 hour ago, DJL said:

Your validation that he isn't scandal free is that he was a member of an administration in which another member is accused of scandal?

Really, that's your one thing?

Edit:  Also, the video is lightweight.  Really?  58 seconds of newscasters making vague "headline" accusations?

> Nothing vague about the BS surrounding Benghazi. Or Fast & Furious. Shall I continue?

I'm saying that as a prominent member of a previous administration (and because his opponents won't hesitate to tar him in the way that they have), he shouldn't have given them such an opening this way and that he'd be better off meeting it head-on. But that's just me. I'll never be a celebrity, nor will I ever run for public office, mostly because I have some self-respect and I'm not a whore, attention- or otherwise.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Guest

[DJL 232]

4 minutes ago, markharju said:

I'm saying that as a prominent member of a previous administration (and because his opponents won't hesitate to tar him in the way that they have), he shouldn't have given them such an opening this way and that he'd be better off meeting it head-on. But that's just me. I'll never be a celebrity, nor will I ever run for public office. I'm not a whore, attention- or otherwise.

> Nothing vague about the BS surrounding Benghazi. Or Fast & Furious. Shall I continue?

Trying to figure out if I'm the mood for another Benghazi conversation with someone who isn't up to speed on the many investigations that found no wrongdoing by all parties involved and has no idea what happened to the ACTUAL perpetrators of the attack.  Ok, sure, what was Biden's roll in Bengazhi, what was Biden'ts roll in Fast and Furious?

Edited May 27, 2020 by DJL

[JoeWeber 2,299]

8 minutes ago, markharju said:

nor will I ever run for public office, mostly because I have some self-respect and I'm not a whore, attention- or otherwise.

Don't forget you would need to answer for what you've posted online.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, DJL said:

Trying to figure out if I'm the mood for another Benghazi conversation with someone who isn't up to speed on the many investigations that found no wrongdoing by all parties involved and has no idea what happened to the ACTUAL perpetrators of the attack.  Ok, sure, what was Biden's roll in Bengazhi, what was Biden'ts roll in Fast and Furious?

I mean no disrespect but I think you may have missed the meaning I was trying to get across. I'll admit I was vague. I was remarking about the Obama administration's spin on the embassy attack (as being some kind of domestic, spontaneous uprising over an anti-islamic video instead of a planned and orchestrated attack on 9/11). I too read the commission's report on the attack.

And as for Biden's role, I'm not trying to make hay over that - I submit that his political opponents will and that he'd be better off owning it than disavowing it. Nothing more.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Guest

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Don't forget you would need to answer for what you've posted online.

Well, there's that

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 minute ago, markharju said:

Well, there's that

And it would just get worse from there. Just wait until the #metoo movement finds skydiving.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, JoeWeber said:

And it would just get worse from there. Just wait until the #metoo movement finds skydiving.

In which case we're ALL screwed...! Imagine being banned from a DZ for the mortal sin of being politically incorrect. I can. Fortunately there are lots of DZs in the world.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

2 minutes ago, markharju said:

In which case we're ALL screwed...! Imagine being banned from a DZ for the mortal sin of being politically incorrect. I can. Fortunately there are lots of DZs in the world.

The only saving grace will be that a lot of the ladies will be no safer than you. We're special that way.

[DJL 232]

3 minutes ago, markharju said:

I mean no disrespect but I think you may have missed the meaning I was trying to get across. I'll admit I was vague. I was remarking about the Obama administration's spin on the embassy attack (as being some kind of domestic, spontaneous uprising over an anti-islamic video instead of a planned and orchestrated attack on 9/11). I too read the commission's report on the attack.

And as for Biden's role, I'm not trying to make hay over that - I submit that his political opponents will and that he'd be better off owning it than disavowing it.

Got it.  More emphasis on what people could make of Biden's statement.  I think there's more meat on the "You ain't black" statement then saying he's free of scandal.  I don't think any of the examples in the video were very strong examples of scandals that Biden was a part of.

[Guest]

Just now, DJL said:

Got it.  More emphasis on what people could make of Biden's statement.  I think there's more meat on the "You ain't black" statement then saying he's free of scandal.  I don't think any of the examples in the video were very strong examples of scandals that Biden was a part of.

No, but that's the ball he gave the RNC, and they ran with it. Truth doesn't matter, winning does.

[jakee 1,255]

14 minutes ago, markharju said:

Not necessarily - it could be improved IMO by having those who haven't slopped at the public trough for decades have a go at it. 

I do believe I just pointed out that this what is happening now. The current president is not a career politician and has the worst honesty rating you'll find in any functioning democracy.

 

Quote

Biden's been riding the public gravy train for almost fifty years now (estimated net worth ~US$18m - what's yours?). Think about that.

You think about it. According to available information Biden's wealth has all been gained via book deals, speaking fees and teaching positions since being VP. The near 40 years of being on the 'public gravy train' before that and he was not a millionaire. 

 

Middle class Joe really was middle class Joe for the entirety of his political career in office. To characterise him as having enriched himself by slopping at the public trough is so untrue as to be practically slander. Perhaps you could show that you are not as out of touch as you believe all career politicians to be and reconsider your accusations?

[jakee 1,255]

5 minutes ago, markharju said:

No, but that's the ball he gave the RNC, and they ran with it. Truth doesn't matter, winning does.

Then what does it matter what he said? Might as well follow the Trump MO, continuously make false, absurdly overblown self-aggrandising statements and whenever challenged just double down.

[Guest]

I'll answer your question with questions: Why are you defending him? Is it because he's a public servant? Why is it that no one cares if politicians, Hollyweird celebs or athletes become so filthy rich, but scream if people in business do, and demand that they pay "their fair share"? Who gets to decide such things? Not us at the bottom.

Biden has been a career politician his entire adult life and has parlayed his celebrity into wealth (tell me they don't get sweetheart business deals - like his speaking engagements and his books, lectures, etc. - would he get them were it not for the fact that he is/was a Senator, and was VP? C'mon, get real!) Do you think he gives a damn about the raggedy-assed masses? ANSWER: NONE OF THEM DO. NONE.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Guest

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, jakee said:

Then what does it matter what he said? Might as well follow the Trump MO, continuously make false, absurdly overblown self-aggrandising statements and whenever challenged just double down.

Because instead of playing the question smartly, he made himself wide-open for a carpet-bombing guilt-by-association attack. if he wants to win this November, he's got to improve his game. That starts with not making blanket statements like that one. I KNOW it's just guilt by association, but he's got to be quicker and smarter than that if he's going to succeed.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Guest

[DJL 232]

4 minutes ago, markharju said:

Because if he wants to win this November, he's got to improve his game. That starts with not making blanket statements like that one. I KNOW it's just guilt by association, but he's got to be quicker and smarter than that if he's going to succeed.

His game is terrible.  I'm not looking forward to a debate between him and Trump for the pure cringe-worthiness of the two of them arguing like a bunch of geriatric neighbors.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, jakee said:

I do believe I just pointed out that this what is happening now. The current president is not a career politician and has the worst honesty rating you'll find in any functioning democracy.

> Actually, my thoughts were more towards having those who've been in the pipeline long enough to know how to make cross-aisle deals to get things done, but not so long as to become Olympians (corrupted) themselves. And certainly not the bull-in-a-china-shop we currently see. I think term limits on Congress would help somewhat.

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, DJL said:

His game is terrible.  I'm not looking forward to a debate between him and Trump for the pure cringe-worthiness of the two of them arguing like a bunch of geriatric neighbors.

Under normal circumstances I would rather chew my own arm off than watch debates, but I may just get out the popcorn for this one. It's going to be cringeworthy fun. Years ago, Collegehumor.com had a presidential-debate bingo game online, where if a candidate made a certain remark, you had to take a shot of liquor. The one I remember most is "if any candidate says 'richest one percent...'"

Edited May 27, 2020 by Guest

[jakee 1,255]

7 minutes ago, markharju said:

I'll answer your question with questions: Why are you defending him?

Why are you doubling down on unfounded accusations instead of being interested in the truth?

Quote

Why is it that no one cares if politicians, Hollyweird celebs or athletes become so filthy rich, but scream if people in business do, and demand that they pay "their fair share"? Who gets to decide such things? Not us at the bottom.

Don't be silly. No-one is screaming about big business execs who are worth $18M. That's chump change in the world of golden parachutes and failure bonuses as you damn well know. Even now Biden is far closer in wealth to a beggar on the street than to the businessmen being complained about. Come on man, let's have this conversation in reality and not fantasy, yeah?

Quote

Biden has been a career politician his entire adult life and has parlayed his celebrity into wealth (tell me they don't get sweetheart business deals - like his speaking engagements and his books, lectures, etc. - would he get them were it not for the fact that he is/was a Senator, and was VP? C'mon, get real!) 

And he did it all after leaving office. He did not feed at the public trough. He did not get rich on the public gravy train. After spending a life in high level politics and 8 years in the heart of the Executive branch people wanted to hear what he had to say and he was paid accordingly. Does the bit you have in brackets make any sense to you?  He probably wouldn't get speaking engagements if he hadn't been VP - there'd be no reason for people to be interested in what he had to say. But so what? He was, and so they are. That's not a sweetheart deal, it's cause and effect. Like, would people buy Ranulph Fiennes' autobiographies if he wasn't a famous and accomplished explorer? No, but so what? He is and they do.

 

I find it mind boggling that in one post you both whine about people you think complain about success, and seemingly make the claim that politicians shouldn't be allowed to be successful at anything, even after they've left office. It's absurd.

 

Quote

Do you think he gives a damn about the raggedy-assed masses? ANSWER: NONE OF THEM DO. NONE.

That is a complete non-sequitur. Even if you were right about anything else to do with Biden I have no idea why you are presenting this statement as if it is remotely connected.  And again I point out that there is a (former) political outsider in the White House right now and he gives every appearance of caring less about the public good than anyone before him.

[jakee 1,255]

29 minutes ago, markharju said:

Because instead of playing the question smartly, he made himself wide-open for a carpet-bombing guilt-by-association attack. if he wants to win this November, he's got to improve his game. That starts with not making blanket statements like that one. I KNOW it's just guilt by association, but he's got to be quicker and smarter than that if he's going to succeed.

But why? Trump wasn't. He made crazy blanket statements about himself left right and centre. He opened himself up to attacks from every direction. Even the laziest of fact checkers could rip his every speech to shreds. But it didn't matter. He didn't win by becoming more humble, he won by becoming even more brazen. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, jakee said:

But why? Trump wasn't. He made crazy blanket statements about himself left right and centre. He opened himself up to attacks from every direction. Even the laziest of fact checkers could rip his every speech to shreds. But it didn't matter. He didn't win by becoming more humble, he won by becoming even more brazen. 

Biden can't play that game and expect to win. It won't work for him. He's got to be smarter than that because he's going up against the best BS artist on the planet. I haven't looked but I hope Biden's got James Carville working for him. Now THAT son of a bitch knows how to campaign.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Guest

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, jakee said:

Why are you doubling down on unfounded accusations instead of being interested in the truth?

Don't be silly. No-one is screaming about big business execs who are worth $18M. That's chump change in the world of golden parachutes and failure bonuses as you damn well know. Even now Biden is far closer in wealth to a beggar on the street than to the businessmen being complained about. Come on man, let's have this conversation in reality and not fantasy, yeah?

And he did it all after leaving office. He did not feed at the public trough. He did not get rich on the public gravy train. After spending a life in high level politics and 8 years in the heart of the Executive branch people wanted to hear what he had to say and he was paid accordingly. Does the bit you have in brackets make any sense to you?  He probably wouldn't get speaking engagements if he hadn't been VP - there'd be no reason for people to be interested in what he had to say. But so what? He was, and so they are. That's not a sweetheart deal, it's cause and effect. Like, would people buy Ranulph Fiennes' autobiographies if he wasn't a famous and accomplished explorer? No, but so what? He is and they do.

 

I find it mind boggling that in one post you both whine about people you think complain about success, and seemingly make the claim that politicians shouldn't be allowed to be successful at anything, even after they've left office. It's absurd.

 

That is a complete non-sequitur. Even if you were right about anything else to do with Biden I have no idea why you are presenting this statement as if it is remotely connected.  And again I point out that there is a (former) political outsider in the White House right now and he gives every appearance of caring less about the public good than anyone before him.

I don't disagree on any particular topic. Your points are all valid; yet I find it disquieting that one can so easily and offhandedly defend one person and pillory another. I'm being critical of where Biden got his dough, yet I do think he can give the Trumpster a real contest (and win) if he can just be a little more careful. Let the other guy be as bombastic as he likes; Biden can still appeal to the middle class (what's left of it) by being the better man. You've got to admit that with an opponent like Trump, that's not too difficult.