The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

You're using the word "equating" not me. Are you honestly arguing that Repubs don't overlook issues with their own candidates? Or are you arguing against your own post where you said Dems do that?

You're saying Republicans do it. Democrats do it. This is an equation - they all do it.

 

I'm saying sure, Progressives, Dems, Republicans, everyone overlooks flaws in their candidates. The flaws are not equal and should not be grouped into the same/similar statements.

[Notre Dame Joe]

2 hours ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

 

Almost only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades. 

 

He's not scared of a Gaffe machine that lies constantly and that is running on the platform of "I'm not Donald Trump"

 

The minute Trump points out that Biden lies just like he does...Biden loses the ability to say he's not like him.

 

If he want's to win, he has to appeal to independent voters and excite his base.  Running on "I'm not Trump" will, in my opinion, backfire splendidly.

 

Of course we'd prefer that the Ds nominate some easier to beat just as we check the scores on Saturday to see if Bama was in danger of an upset.  (Or we did before the CFP gave the SEC a guaranteed mulligan loss).  Most of the field were jokes.  But that's not the same being "scared."  The only scary candidate was Bernie Sanders because him being viable shows the youngs were being seduced by the ancient error of socialism.  We've survived business-as-usual Biden types many times before.  But the subversion of a socialist government may just well be permanent. 

[BigRedBuster]

11 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

We don't have to talk about "should be" because there won't be an investigation.  Washington DC closely investigates the slightly anti-Washington party, regardless of the absurdity.  The only scrutiny Biden will face will come from scripted media and ultimately the voters.

That's right. That's why Bill and Hillary have NEVER been investigated.

[FrantzHardySwag]

18 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

You literally told people not to do something that you did within the same sentence.

 

Other people use evidence to justify their position too. But that's beside the point because according to you they can't project onto Trump but you can. Both the original statement and then the defense of that statement are laughable.

"He's not scared of a Gaffe machine that lies constantly and that is running on the platform of "I'm not Donald Trump"

 

---Looked back at it, you're right - how can I refute this strong, strong evidence. It shocks me you think someone saying "I think Biden sucks, so Trump isn't scared of him" is the same as "Trump has gone to great lengths, to the point of almost losing his presidency, to try and dig up dirt on Biden, as well as his Super PACs have only targeting one person in their ads to attack (when they're were many people still left in the race), as well as posting multiple articles from multiple platforms stating the same thing". It's not the same thing. I feel like I'm arguing with anti-vaxxer. I have evidence to support my claim. 

[RedDenver]

4 minutes ago, knapplc said:

You're saying Republicans do it. Democrats do it. This is an equation - they all do it.

 

I'm saying sure, Progressives, Dems, Republicans, everyone overlooks flaws in their candidates. The flaws are not equal and should not be grouped into the same/similar statements.

From the Oxford dictionary:

similar: resembling without being identical

 

I'm saying the behavior of the voters of each party is similar to (resembling but not the same as) the other party.

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

"He's not scared of a Gaffe machine that lies constantly and that is running on the platform of "I'm not Donald Trump"

 

---Looked back at it, you're right - how can I refute this strong, strong evidence. It shocks me you think someone saying "I think Biden sucks, so Trump isn't scared of him" is the same as "Trump has gone to great lengths, to the point of almost losing his presidency, to try and dig up dirt on Biden, as well as his Super PACs have only targeting one person in their ads to attack (when they're were many people still left in the race), as well as posting multiple articles from multiple platforms stating the same thing". It's not the same thing. I feel like I'm arguing with anti-vaxxer. I have evidence to support my claim. 

You're confusing two issues: 1) You claiming that others can't project while you can. 2) You have better evidence for your projection than someone else.

 

I'm saying 1) is a laughable statement that's clearly wrong right on the face of it. You are defending 2), which is not what I'm talking about.

[FrantzHardySwag]

6 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

You're confusing two issues: 1) You claiming that others can't project while you can. 2) You have better evidence for your projection than someone else.

 

I'm saying 1) is a laughable statement that's clearly wrong right on the face of it. You are defending 2), which is not what I'm talking about.

There isn't a difference in quality of evidence, there is complete lack of evidence from one side of the argument. I'm done with this, there literally is no point to arguing it anymore. 

[RedDenver]

22 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

There isn't a difference in quality of evidence, there is complete lack of evidence from one side of the argument. I'm done with this, there literally is no point to arguing it anymore. 

You're still caught up in arguments about the evidence, which I'm not talking about at all. Whether there is or isn't evidence or whether the evidence is convincing or not has no bearing at all on you claiming you're allowed to do something while another person is not allowed to do that same thing. The amazing part that makes me laugh is that you did it within a single sentence:

2 hours ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

But you can't project that onto Trump, he has already proven through his actions, he is indeed scared of Biden.

You can't tell me how Trump feels, but I'll tell you how Trump feels.

[knapplc]

Man, we all need to stop parsing words so much. I'm as guilty as anyone, so I'm pointing the thumb first.

 

We all like message boards and we're all clearly interested in politics. But sometimes maybe we chew on this stuff too much.

[RedDenver]

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Man, we all need to stop parsing words so much. I'm as guilty as anyone, so I'm pointing the thumb first.

 

We all like message boards and we're all clearly interested in politics. But sometimes maybe we chew on this stuff too much.

True. Plus many of us have been inside our homes for weeks. Almost two months for me. Little bit of cabin fever setting in for me and probably others as well.

[Notre Dame Joe]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

That's right. That's why Bill and Hillary have NEVER been investigated.

I expected someone to mention Hilary's emails again.  She was investigated and the fix was in.  Compare Comey's method for 'investigating' her with how he went after Michael Flynn.

 

I don't know how you seriously argue about "overlooking" Biden's shortcomings if you already overlooked Bill's women and Hilary's everything. 

 

1 hour ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

There isn't a difference in quality of evidence, there is complete lack of evidence from one side of the argument. I'm done with this, there literally is no point to arguing it anymore. 

 

The nature of the argument dictates what will be accepted as evidence. 

[teachercd]

Just toss a +1 here if you realize that @RedDenver dominates this thread.  It is like he is playing chess and most everyone else is also playing chess but they don't know any of the rules of movement for the pieces.

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

I expected someone to mention Hilary's emails again.  She was investigated and the fix was in.  Compare Comey's method for 'investigating' her with how he went after Michael Flynn.

 

I don't know how you seriously argue about "overlooking" Biden's shortcomings if you already overlooked Bill's women and Hilary's everything. 

 

 

The nature of the argument dictates what will be accepted as evidence. 

Ummmm....you think she was just investigated for emails. How old are you?

[teachercd]

Hey...stop trying to get people to dox themselves!  ha

[TGHusker]

16 hours ago, knapplc said:

But sometimes maybe we chew on this stuff too much.