Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 45.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    6818

  • DRW50

    5991

  • DramatistDreamer

    5521

  • Khan

    3465

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

That's just more anonymously sourced nonsense. If nobody cite a source by name, then there's no reason to trust what's being reported. For 3.5 years these reporters have been complaining about how boring the Biden White House is because nobody leaks now suddenly they all have "anonymous" sources telling them exactly the narrative they want to spread. You'd rather trust the unnamed source spinning tales of doom than the head of the DNC telling us a concrete number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I believe both. One was from weeks ago and one from yesterday. I believe what he said, and I believe donations are down in the pretty rough period that has followed. A number of huge donors said they were done for the time being. James Carville, who is sadly still very well connected in the party, was also urging people to stop donating. I think that's going to have an effect. Yes, smaller donors will still help, but they've already given a great deal and even some of them are probably confused about what is going on.

Edited by DRW50
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's funny when Trump wasn't getting big money donations not a peep. Biden has big donors pulling out and it's catastrophic, forgetting that most of his campaign money is from grassroots donors, for which he has gotten the most grassroots donations, 38 million since the debate.

What is this about?  The fear that Kamala Harris might at some point be president.  That's the case with any Vice President-why now.  I am looking at who are the ones calling for him to get out of the race. They all fit a certain demographic. Heck even the squad members who have been adamantly opposed to his policies in Israel have backed him - all women of color by the way while, the congressional black caucus has, do we see a pattern here?  There might be pragmatic reasons for Biden to get out. When people put their names in and stop being anonymous sources with concrete information then we can pay attention more. 

If Biden were to step down, the next would be how VP Harris cannot be the nominee because she's linked to Biden and her poll numbers are bad. Because it's no longer about the debate it's about poll numbers. It's valid to ask what their plans are for the remainder of the campaign, what everyone should be doing period, it's not valid to anonymously leak based on vibes. 

Edited by JaneAusten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's true, but it is also part of the peril of Biden having the debate so early and when he clearly wasn't in the right condition (I'm not even talking about cognitive issues, more what his people said about his travel, having a cold, etc.). Biden has never had the media or money advantages Trump has had. They set a trap and then walked right into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Who set a trap his campaign?  I don't think the campaign would have done it if they had thought Biden would not come out ahead. But the fact is debates rarely matter. Look at Hillary who won all 3.  The fact that the story has gone on for weeks now is due to the democrats and the Biden campaign.  The dems because most are too cowardly to go on record if they are opposed. The campaign because they have been unable to ease those fears.  Frankly those on the campaign who are leaking should be axed. And no comment on the few primarily white male "unnamed sources" in congress who have called for Biden to step down publicly . I don't have to know them by name since I have seen who has publicly come out in support of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There was no trap. Biden did what millions of people do every day: he went to work sick. That's it. That was his big strategic error. He needed a sick day and didn't take one. The rest is all opportunism by the Beltway press and it's already started to backfire.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

His campaign presumably thought they were setting a trap for Trump. I agree with you that debates generally don't matter, but they likely thought by moving the debate earlier than normal, they would allow him to be more defined in the public eye (as the media isn't going to be honest about him) as well as reassure voters who didn't think Biden was up to running for office again. Instead, Trump ended up skating as all the negativity and fears about Biden's age were turbocharged by his performance. In that sense I think it backfired a great deal. Maybe not because of the public, who if polling is accurate (whatever that's worth) have not changed a great deal from where they were before (tied or slowly drifting toward Trump), but because it gave the media and those in the party who have never cared for Biden and/or his team and stayed quiet the chance to go hog-wild for weeks and weeks, and probably for a while longer.

I agree that the main blame goes to the campaign and to the party. Many of those in the party who are now leaking have likely been uneasy about Biden for a long time but feared repercussions. So now because the media has given them permission, they are just leaking and leaking and leaking because they are cowards. So they keep leaking and the campaign keeps giving them reasons to do so, the latest being overselling this press conference as key to Biden's fate, going on about how it was a "big boy" press conference, then Biden goes out there and makes two gaffes that are absolute catnip for Trump and overshadow any positive coverage the conference could have had. 

One of the Congressmen who said he should drop out said their being in a position where these "moments" are so do or die is a reason for his call. I think it's too little, too late, he should have said all this last year, but I don't think he's wrong about the damage they are doing to themselves with their approach. Not to mention other decisions like picking untrustworthy George Stephanopoulos for their first interview post-debate. None of this should matter, but I think it does, and these drip drip drip mistakes are the last thing the party needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The corrupt media is ignoring the reality - the choice is clear - you either pick a smart, good-natured, respectful, philanthrope who stutters from time to time and messes up names (who doesn't?), but tells the truth and fights for people's rights, a person who can help maintain peace in the world... OR someone who doesn't stutter or mess up names, but LIES, cheats and is a sociopath who is in it for his EGO and money. 

He said 2 names wrong - so what? Does this make him demented - ABSOLUTELY NOT. He has been like this for years and I don't get why ALL of a sudden it's so SHOCKING and so NEWS-worthy. He is also CLEARLY VERY sick with some sort of chest and head-cold. To me it's evident that a part of the democratic party is trying to attack and undermine Biden, these people are trying to push him out. They are traitors who just couple of weeks were kissing his cheek. It's like history repeating itself.  We all know how Judas looked like to Jesus, right.

They are trying to crucify this NICE, honorable man. AND we as public and people... I am not even American, I live in Europe, but I don't care - Biden IS the one force that is keeping us from World War Three as A WORLD and I will SUPPORT him with every breath I have.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

^^ Just this morning, I was thinking about this. I was wondering, what if Biden just said “yes, I have been known to make gaffes on occasion, or the odd misstatement but it was never my intention to mislead while my opponent has been known to lie, and to deliberately mislead)”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

He's already said that or something to that effect multiple times. The press refuses to cover it. There's nothing Biden can do to change the coverage of him because the objective of that coverage is to damage him. Meanwhile it's clearly backfired. Joe is standing up to bullies. The Dem base has been craving that. While white liberals have shown us nothing but weakness and betrayal.

 

Edited by marceline
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Jean Hackney was awful and that lead to Ben's exit story which sucked. I liked Ben/Val together. Val's love for Ben was that of a grown woman moving on with her life and Ben's love for Val made him willingly decide to raise another man's children as his own.
    • It wasn't just a GL thing, it was an 80s thing. Opulent party scenes on soaps were very big back then. Even in regular episodes where people are just going to dinner they're dressed up like they're going to see royalty.
    • Just started the May 27 episode and first thing I see is that Willow got an ugly haircut since hte last time i watched   I dont have the context for how everthing went down but I know its all Lulu's fault which make her a bish for what she did to Gio
    • I'm pretty sure he was. But point taken. GL really had a thing for masked and costumed balls/parties in the '80's. Everyone looks fabulous, but those poor costume designers.
    • Still here ^^ Come on Prime Video, it's due to bring it back!
    • Got through the eighth season, and it was... painful. 

      Please register in order to view this content

    • I agree 100% with both you and Mitch64.  Soaps have been going further and further off-course since 1981. TPTB just don't have a fundamental understanding of what makes soap fans so loyal. I'd love to be on a writing team with both of you.  Maybe we could put together a real soap opera, and show people what its all about...  
    • They weren't in town, but Fletcher worked at the paper (and we saw anniversary Journal headlines for the 50th, although I don't remember if Roger was one of them), and I'd think Alex would have at least heard of him due to the damage he did to Spaulding only a few years before her return to the fold. I know I have to remember it's not real life, of course.
    • YES. The videos being uploaded to Spauldingfield are almost to the point where Alan is reintroduced. They're already talking about the guy he pretends to be, and yes, he returns at a masked ball. In fact, that masked ball is almost beat for beat the same as the masked ball where Alex was introduced! Get a new schtick. Before the Kobe era, that's pretty much what they did. Characters would just show up. Maybe other characters would talk about them for a while--the Chamberlains, Tony, Maureen, Andy, Kelly, Carrie--but then they would just appear. When Hope came back, she simply knocked on Bert's door and said something like, "Hi, Grandma, I'm home again." No particular fanfare. Sometimes it would be a bit dramatic--Jennifer and Morgan were introduced when Mike accidentally crashed into their car, for instance, and Alan and Elizabeth were introduced through Jackie's flashbacks when she was remembering giving up Phillip for adoption. Nola was involved in the Roger return. Roger's return in 1980 was very dramatic, but in a way that made total sense. He was trying to kidnap a child, so dressing up as a clown did not seem crazy. The mask bit was not only silly, it didn't even make sense. Alex never knew him, so there was no reason for him to be masked in front of her. Yeah, she knew OF him, but there's that phenomenon called cognetive dissonance. If you see someone outside of an expected situation, you probably won't recognize them, especially if you never met them in person and think they're dead. I bet a CIA spook like Roger would be familiar with that concept. And he didn't have to be skulking around SF for months. Again, I will cut Long a little slack--it was not her idea to bring back Roger, she was told to do it. She never wrote for the character. It was something that was not planned. They originally went to Zaslow to offer him the role of Alan. He, of course, turned them down because that was a ridiculous idea, but then he suggested coming back as Roger. At such short notice, it's not strange his return was not handled well.
    • Eh...but neither had been in town. Know the name Roger Thorpe? Sure. But Alex would have gone crazy trying to memorize all of Alan's co-conspirators/lovers/wives and Fletch didn't even know Roger/Adam was on the island, IIRC. But who knew or should've known each other is always a little dicey when people come back to town. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy