dkp993
Footballguy
Standing in the same spot as the party over Trump people, off to the side disgusted with the state of politics today.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The Biden Years - Every day something more shocking than the last!! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter knowledge dropper
- Start date
- Status
Chaz McNulty
Footballguy
I think Joe should look incredulous and ask him what he's talking about. Then say, "This is the first I ever heard of this", followed by "Sorry, I don't get my News from Fox opinion pieces". This would trigger Trump for sure.
Chaz McNulty
Footballguy
I don't think it has anything to do with this. I think it has to do with answering the moderator's questions and topics and not getting sidetracked into something your opponent is trying to steer you into. Biden acknowledging this with a response is a win for Trump. Biden staying on topic and ignoring this is a win for Biden. This is why Trump should move on if Biden doesn't take the bait.
moleculo
Footballguy
there is some truth to this, but responding in that way is an emotional outbreak. The rational response, especially given today's circumstances, is to ignore and downplay.
This is a professional campaign managed by professional advisers. They know that speaking about this (1) breathes air into the claim (2) turns the campaign into Trump vs Biden, when they know full well it's better as Trump vs not-Trump.
Summer Wheat
Footballguy
So bizarre but somewhat understandable. I truly believe in 16-17 Joe Biden never thought he would end up as the Dem nominee for POTUS, nobody did. Joe might have thought he was pretty much done. Then it comes down to "Why not get while the getting is good?" and make a ton of cash for himself and his family. Lobbyist`s do this all the time.
Last edited by a moderator:
Shutout
Footballguy
I would be perfectly fine leaving it out even though it might (might?) be significant. But since there are other pressing topics we can't cover them all. But in saying that, I would expect that there wouldn't be anyone wanting to bring up taxes and beating a dead horse about denouncing white supremacy which has been covered ad naseum.Godsbrother said:
But the topics set do not align with what Americans are interested in.
"Fighting COVID-19," "American Families," "Race in America," "Climate Change," "National Security" and "Leadership."
According to Polling, the top issues are, in order:
1. Economy
2. Health Care
3.Supreme Court
4. Coronavirus
5.Violent Crime
6.Foreign Policy
So, only 1, maybe two topics depending on how it unravels, really hits on what people want to listen to positions on as they decide and foreign policy, which has always been significant and is usually covered in the last debate is left off completely? We couldn't find a home for that? Not only did we include climate change, which nobody is asking about, we went out of our way to actually remove it.
Can't cover it all but I think if the idea is to benefit the voting public we should cover topics voters want to discuss and we should give a baseline for the challenger to review the sitting president's work but as we can see, there are really no clear topics that would allow good conversation about actual policies implemented or avoided during the administration unless a candidate goes off path to bring it up. For example, Instead of saying "what have you done regarding foreign policy?, it won't be a topic.
Instead of asking "what measures did you enact re: healthcare, it will instead be rolled into Trump saying he helped American Families with tax cuts to afford health cut and he's doing deals to lower med costs and Biden will say something like "You want to repeal healthcare during a pandemic". And then Trump might say "and you want to tax people more during a pandemic and they won't be able to afford the healthcare". It doesn't help us.
I truly believe an old school debate is more practical. Let each man look at the other and say "what did you do or not do about this specific policy or action taken?" and let the other defend their position and let the people decide who makes more sense.
Thunderlips
Footballguy
When given the choice of Biden or Trump....... it's still an easy choice. Biden all the way.
Shutout
Footballguy
I believe you are missing the point of a debate. It is a debate to defend and announce your position, not an interview.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
There are any number of zingers that Joe can come back with. "Sorry, I have been too busy trying to come up with a strategy to tackle a pandemic that has killed 225,000 people and has the country down 10 million jobs. Something the President has failed at and chosen to ignore. But the President doesn't care about that and doesn't care about the American people. He only cares about getting reelected."
If Biden is prepped, he can get in some good body blows. "Again, Mr. President, we as a nation have just passed the total number of fatalities incurred during the Civil War and we are are going full speed ahead to surpass the total fatalities from World War II by the end of the year. Yet you choose to take your focus away from the American people and instead have spent the entire pandemic combing the Ukraine digging up dirt on me and my family and engaging with Russian operatives. This has already been investigated and they concluded nothing illegal went on. I am here to discuss plans, policies, and the future of this great country and that's the last I will talk about anything involving my son."
Shutout
Footballguy
I hear what you are saying and there is definitely strategy for each side that is best left served or not but on the one item bolded I think one of the first things we all learn in any law class is "the truth is always a solid defense" so there are many cases with all sorts of things where addressing something with the truth is the most effective way to address something AND also at the same time put it to bed. Ignoring it and, certainly not disavowing it, in this case, is what fans the embers and leads some to think "maybe there is something to this".
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Oh, I get it. There were just plenty of loud folks here screaming "Party over Country" at any support of Trump for years. Now those same folks are supporting Biden no matter what. Two peas in a pod
Shutout
Footballguy
They already did that and we actually got a clear answer so we don't need to ask that again.
Chaz McNulty
Footballguy
It's also about strategy. If the topic is American families and Biden brings up Stormy and the 130K payment made to her, do you think Trump goes on defense? He would barely acknowledge this. The less time he spends on defense, the better.
moleculo
Footballguy
disavowing has other implications. What if some of it is true, some of it is fabrication?
If you deny, the other side will point to something irrelevant that happens to be demonstrably true and say, "Aha! you said this was not true but here's evidence that it is!"
the current news environment is a black-and-white world. There isn't room for nuance with soundbites or 280 characters. Any defense that requires nuance will not be understood. Avoiding nuance and getting right to the hart of the point is something that Republicans have absolutely mastered over the past 40 years.
Shutout
Footballguy
Interesting fact that probably nobody knows, the drug addiction rate in America decreased during the Trump administration and it is the first time it has in this country in over 30 years.
Not really tied to what you guys are talking about but I just wanted to PSA that.
Shutout
Footballguy
To be fair, all presidents pardon people that people have issue with.
Bill Clinton pardoned his brother Robert who went to jail for Cocaine charges. If that isn't skeptical, then what? Or better yet, In 1868, President Andrew Johnson fully pardoned every soldier who fought for the Confederate Army. So here is president who pardoned thousands of traitors to the country. This is NOT something "only one president does". Contrary to popular opinion, history doesn't begin when the democratic party wants it to.
apalmer
Footballguy
Definition of smear campaign from Oxford Languages:Shutout said:
Oxford Languages is the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages.
What is included in this English dictionary?
Oxford’s English dictionaries are widely regarded as the world’s most authoritative sources on current English.
HellToupee
Footballguy
Is never ending or the juice from the grift is never ending
Shutout
Footballguy
Here is the definition I see but I have no problem accepting the Oxford Language definition. A smear campaign is an intentional, premeditated effort to undermine an individual's or group's reputation, credibility, and character.
I can think of examples where candidates were "smeared" with the truth but I suppose it has become like "Velcro". Velcro, in itself, is simply a brand of hook and loop fasteners but have become synonymous for a specific thing.
So, I happily retract my statement and accept that people see it as always being false and dubious. Thanks for pointing it out.
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
If pressed on Hunter tonight, Joe could give us a Colonel Jessup moment. He gets that unhinged.
I don't get how people don't get this. They ought to each be able to ask their own questions of the other. Not reporter hacks setting it up for their favorite candidate. People want Joe to respond to packing the court and the money he's received from China. Two topics that will be completely ignored tonight by the "moderators". Moderators should moderate, not develop and ask softball questions.
HellToupee
Footballguy
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
I don't get how Trump would agree to a format that costs him votes. Is it because he is desperate or is it because he simply doesn't know any better?
If it's such a bad deal, he should back out and do another town hall. I'm sure NBC would be more than happy to host it.......
[scooter]
Footballguy
You complained about the debate format, did you not?
(e.g., "they ought to be able to ask their own questions", "not reporter hacks", "topics will be ignored by the moderators", "moderators should not ask softball questions". Those are complaints, are they not?)
I then asked why Trump would agree to such a disadvantageous arrangement in the first place.
If you don't want to answer, or are unable to provide one, that's fine.
We were taking about how Biden will continue to avoid the issues people care about hearing from him. You can't stop fixating over Trump for some reason.
That may help Trump, I don't know. I don't think it hurts him, smart people see if for what it is.
[scooter]
Footballguy
Oh, okay.
Then my response to that is: because it's a winning strategy that is supported by the majority of candidates, press, and the electorate.
Biden is being quite savvy, forcing his opponent to agree to terms that are more likely to benefit Biden. It's really an alpha move on Joe's part: he sets the terms, and everyone else either has to agree or they'll look like a whiny pouter. I love it.
Widbil83
Footballguy
Michale Moore is going wild and is correct. What kind of campaign has their candidate turtle up in the basement for four straight days two weeks before an election while the opponent holds multiple events around the country every day?
“Debate prep” is the excuse, but something is way off here. Biden better have the performance of his life tonight after all the hiding this week.
“Debate prep” is the excuse, but something is way off here. Biden better have the performance of his life tonight after all the hiding this week.
[scooter]
Footballguy
moleculo
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
No it isn't. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Debate prep is what it is and makes more sense than holding super spreader rallies as the pandemic is peaking or hitting new highs again in several states.
Summer Wheat
Footballguy
So listening to a talk show today it seems Russia wants Trump, China and Iran want Biden. Any other major players involved with our election?
Oh, okay.
Then my response to that is: because it's a winning strategy that is supported by the majority of candidates, press, and the electorate.
Biden is being quite savvy, forcing his opponent to agree to terms that are more likely to benefit Biden. It's really an alpha move on Joe's part: he sets the terms, and everyone else either has to agree or they'll look like a whiny pouter. I love it.
You can't use "savvy" or "alpha" to describe sleepy Joe.Debate prep.
He's memorizing things given to him. He has to do it over, and over, to keep from getting it mixed up. He even had a sheet of paper in the town hall and still messed up the numbers.Don't mention that Joe is involved.
What's to be paranoid about, just an old ex-VP signing up to make a bunch of money from China.
What's to be paranoid about, just an old ex-VP signing up to make a bunch of money from China.
BroadwayG
Footballguy
Is making a bunch of money from China off limits for an old ex-VP?Don't mention that Joe is involved.
Mookie
Footballguy
BroadwayG
Footballguy
I predicted you would simply lol at my response. We are en fuego on being Nostradamuses.
Link?I predicted you would simply lol at my response. We are en fuego on being Nostradamuses.
BroadwayG
Footballguy
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
And that is what voters will look at first and foremost. Or should I say did, since so many votes are already in and all this current noise becomes fairly non important.
BroadwayG
Footballguy
Simple question. Thanks for the answer, you're not 5, you're acting like it because you are trolling. Do you have anything on the topic or shall we move on?There's the personal dig we all know and love
- Status
Similar threads
