Biden Out of Race

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I’m sorry. I thought you were the one who introduced it into the conversation as what you hoped to be the “final nail in the coffin.” Now, when it’s shown that Biden did the exact same thing a few years ago, no big deal. Well, carry on, then.

So of course, as typical, that they both were in photos at Arlington is all you care about. Equivalence. Never mind that Trump and co had an altercation with a staffer over photos being taken, that he and others in the photo give a big ole **** eating grin and MAGA thumbs up over a gravesite. And that they clumsily included other headstones without familial consent. And of course JD Vance says a photographer just so happened to be around when Trump visited. And of course the US Army has given a rebuke of the Trump photo op.

Do I approve of Biden using that photo in campaign material? No. Are the situations equivalent, or put another way, does your X link give Trump a free pass to fubar yet one more situation he’s involved with? No.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Not surprising.
More of the same double standards.
I guess calling the Trump video to be Biden-level stupidity was indeed highly accurate.
C’mon, enough with the false equivalences.

The Biden pboto was taken by an Arlington Cemetery photographer and was not part of a campaign event.

Pictures get taken of politicians at events at cemetaries all the time and that's OK. Trump did the same in 2017 and it wasn't and isn't an issue.

Trying to equate that to what Trump just did (illegally) is ridiculous.


Same recycled talking points from Fox N Friends.

Trump didn't do anything wrong! Biased media is making a big deal out of nothing!

Even if it was wrong or illegal, it's not a big deal.

OK it's a big deal b-b-b-but Biden [dredge up false equivalence] did it too! B-b-b-bothsidesbad!

Let's talk about the POLICIES our serial liar and bull****ter cult leader pinky-swears he'll champion for us!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Members don't see this ad :)
I’m sorry. I thought you were the one who introduced it into the conversation as what you hoped to be the “final nail in the coffin.” Now, when it’s shown that Biden did the exact same thing a few years ago, no big deal. Well, carry on, then.
No dude, you got it wrong. As I said before, the photo isn't a problem for me. I could give two ****s if both Biden and Trump were caught speeding down the highway, cause I've sped in the past plenty of times. I've also taken pics (against my will, thanks to the wife) at places where pics aren't supposed to be taken. But you know what I haven't done? Accosted the staff who came over and told me "no pictures" and I subsequently haven't doubled down and insinuated that there was something wrong mentally with the staff who told me so. And I subsequently haven't antagonized the military division that backed up said staff. THAT is what I mean by nail in the coffin. Every veteran out there should be thinking "well **** this guy!" (in regards to Trump). Because, by and large, when you are a leader (whether you or Trump like it or not), your campaign is a reflection of you and you WILL take the blame for the ****ty actions of your staff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

I will be having my popcorn...
It's at the point that I expect the supreme court to overturn the election in trump's favor. That's how little faith I have in the system at this point.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: 1 users
It's at the point that I expect the supreme court to overturn the election in trump's favor. That's how little faith I have in the system at this point.
Don't be so dramatic.

The supreme court has become a partisan institution but the justices are not crazy except for Clarence Thomas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Don't be so dramatic.

The supreme court has become a partisan institution but the justices are not crazy except for Clarence Thomas.

Two words for you: Bush v Gore.

Supreme Court basically gave the election to Bush. Bush's lawyers were....wait for it.....Amy Barrett, John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh. All SC justices now. Thomas voted against Gore in the original decision. All you need is one more vote for a 5-4 decision. Alito and his crazy MAGA flag-flying wife would gladly cast that deciding vote.

So if the election comes down to one state. Trump could win regardless of who actually won the state.
 
Then, when the left finally decided they had backed themselves into a corner, it became okay for them to suddenly “see” the cognitive impairment. And, with a shrug of the shoulders, it was suddenly, okay, now he suddenly IS cognitively impaired but he certainly wasn’t before. Something happened all of a sudden and we weren’t wrong. The situation just changed. That’s all.
Just say what the party line is. Forget the video evidence of what everyone else saw. That never happened. Somehow, Kamala does an interview with CNN and says her views have never changed. But clearly, the views she espouses now are 180 degrees different from her views in 2020 and in the past 3.5 years. She just keeps saying, “My values haven’t changed.” When pressed on how to reconcile statements made in the past 4 years that are different than her stated view today. She just repeats, “my values haven’t changed.” The CNN reporter never presses for any follow up. She just lets it stand as assumed fact that she has always endorsed these views. And there will be the rowsdowers who will carry the water for her and say, yep, she’s right. Completely ignoring all previous statements by her. It’s comical and scary at the same time. Because these are the quotes that get picked up by the media and go unchallenged. So the uninformed voter thinks she’s telling the truth and that she’s always stated these current positions.
Then Walz just had a grammar slip up…that lasted forty years. But “shucks, people know who I am.” No harm, no foul.

You made a very similar post about being right about Biden all the way back at post 79 (and prior). I thought I responded to it then. @vector2 responded to this argument better than I did at some point describing how Biden's inner circle deserves most of the blame. Whenever I commented in the past on Biden's mental fitness I tried to cite a recent interview or State of the Union. I took his hour long speech where he fought with the audience and his talk show appearance as better evidence than selected clips at the time. You can say I was just ignoring some damning evidence, that's true. There was significant room for doubt. I'm of the opinion that if Biden had performed at the debate as well as he had at his previous State of the Union then he would still be in the race. He didn't though and here we are. I don't begrudge you for being wrong about Harris being the most obvious candidate to assume the D nomination and that a contested convention was unlikely, so maybe someday you'll get past my views on Biden's fitness.

I don't particularly care about fracking, but that sounds like something Harris has changed her mind on in the last 5 years. I think she has reversed her position on illegal border crossings as well. Both of these policy changes would be shifts to more conservative positions, so shouldn't you see this as positive change? Couldn't you see this interview as Harris "coming to her senses" if you see her new policy preferences as preferable? I dunno, seems like you're more concerned about her consistency over half a decade than you are about the actual policy she is advocating for. I'm not saying that consistency doesn't matter, just that you're perpetually a 'glass half empty' guy. If you want to point to other things in the interview that she has changed on go ahead. Is this enough to disprove your accusation: "Completely ignoring all previous statements by her"?

You're being pretty vague in this post on specific policies, so it's hard for me to carry water for her when I don't know what you're talking about. /s

It looks like left of center media is focusing on the policy shifts too. Can't really help it if certain quotes get more traction than others though, that's a big ask on your part. I did think her dismissive response when asked about Trump's interview with black journalists was great. "Same old, tired playbook. Next question, please."

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
You made a very similar post about being right about Biden all the way back at post 79 (and prior). I thought I responded to it then. @vector2

It looks like left of center media is focusing on the policy shifts too. Can't really help it if certain quotes get more traction than others though, that's a big ask on your part. I did think her dismissive response when asked about Trump's interview with black journalists was great. "Same old, tired playbook. Next question, please."

I kind of agree with that response... Don't feed the troll
 
You made a very similar post about being right about Biden all the way back at post 79 (and prior). I thought I responded to it then. @vector2 responded to this argument better than I did at some point describing how Biden's inner circle deserves most of the blame. Whenever I commented in the past on Biden's mental fitness I tried to cite a recent interview or State of the Union. I took his hour long speech where he fought with the audience and his talk show appearance as better evidence than selected clips at the time. You can say I was just ignoring some damning evidence, that's true. There was significant room for doubt. I'm of the opinion that if Biden had performed at the debate as well as he had at his previous State of the Union then he would still be in the race. He didn't though and here we are. I don't begrudge you for being wrong about Harris being the most obvious candidate to assume the D nomination and that a contested convention was unlikely, so maybe someday you'll get past my views on Biden's fitness.

I don't particularly care about fracking, but that sounds like something Harris has changed her mind on in the last 5 years. I think she has reversed her position on illegal border crossings as well. Both of these policy changes would be shifts to more conservative positions, so shouldn't you see this as positive change? Couldn't you see this interview as Harris "coming to her senses" if you see her new policy preferences as preferable? I dunno, seems like you're more concerned about her consistency over half a decade than you are about the actual policy she is advocating for. I'm not saying that consistency doesn't matter, just that you're perpetually a 'glass half empty' guy. If you want to point to other things in the interview that she has changed on go ahead. Is this enough to disprove your accusation: "Completely ignoring all previous statements by her"?

You're being pretty vague in this post on specific policies, so it's hard for me to carry water for her when I don't know what you're talking about. /s

It looks like left of center media is focusing on the policy shifts too. Can't really help it if certain quotes get more traction than others though, that's a big ask on your part. I did think her dismissive response when asked about Trump's interview with black journalists was great. "Same old, tired playbook. Next question, please."

Good response. I do hope she is coming to her senses. My main takeaway, though, is that she is just blowing which ever way the wind takes her at the time with no intention of following through. If she just admitted she had changed her viewpoint, it would be more believable. It’s the fact that she states she has always had these views and they remain unchanged that really gets old. Why lie about something that is so obviously a lie?
 
No, pretty sure you’re guy who said you have no concerns of a J6 repeat given all of the checks and balances in place this time. Surely a deep rooted plot to set aside the results of our election is a one off event and not a sign of more concerning issues regarding your guy. But then again your concern alarm only seems to go off when the other side does something you don’t agree with.
Thanks. I do recall saying I wasn’t very concerned with the Jan 6th issues at the time or in the future because of the checks and balances that are in place. I don’t typically discuss Jan 6th stuff, because I don’t feel I have much to add. But you are correct that I have made that comment previously. I still feel that’s the case and that particular issue isn’t one I consider much. Thanks for the reminder.
 
I was kind of hyped for the first sit down interview for the Harris/Walz campaign after what, 40 days since she was crowned?

First major downer was learning that the interview would not be streamed live, but would be edited down to about 18 minutes.

I feel like Dana Bash did ask a couple of non-favorable questions to Harris, but other than that the kid gloves were very apparent. It was a pretty stark contrast between the Trump/Vance interviews where interviewers always try to repeatedly push on certain hardball topics and then move on after "correcting the record" by getting the last word.

I also found it very strange that for the majority of the event Walz just sat there. Why did she bring her VP candidate to her first televised interview? It doesn't make sense.

Overall there weren't any campaign crushing errors, but the whole thing just felt weak and disingenuous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
I was kind of hyped for the first sit down interview for the Harris/Walz campaign after what, 40 days since she was crowned?

First major downer was learning that the interview would not be streamed live, but would be edited down to about 18 minutes.

I feel like Dana Bash did ask a couple of non-favorable questions to Harris, but other than that the kid gloves were very apparent. It was a pretty stark contrast between the Trump/Vance interviews where interviewers always try to repeatedly push on certain hardball topics and then move on after "correcting the record" by getting the last word.

I also found it very strange that for the majority of the event Walz just sat there. Why did she bring her VP candidate to her first televised interview? It doesn't make sense.

Overall there weren't any campaign crushing errors, but the whole thing just felt weak and disingenuous.
She handled herself well and had well thought out answers.

The problem is, there isn't anything new or controversial about her. At least, not anything substantial (the maga folks will just make **** up). So the questions she will get asked are relatively predictable for her. Thus her responses come across as rehearsed.

But that just means she is well prepared. She is a lawyer after all.

Trump constantly says and does ridiculous stuff, so his interviews appear hostile because he keeps getting called out for stuff and he has no substantive answers so he just rambles or deflects or cries foul.

Not her fault that she has her **** together.

The same will happen during the debate. They will ask her about border, inflation, taxes, her position shift and thats it. She will have well thought out answers ready to go

Trump will just wing it and make crazy statements or promises. Like now all of a sudden insurance companies will pay for IVF? That's after years of Republicans fighting against expanding healthcare coverage, pre-existing conditions, Medicaid, etc
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Regardless of how many minutes CNN had to cut, the interview that aired is having a negative impact on her odds. It was 50 to 49 now it’s 50 to 48 after the interview

 
Regardless of how many minutes CNN had to cut, the interview that aired is having a negative impact on her odds. It was 50 to 49 now it’s 50 to 48 after the interview

Lol. Betting odds?

So now you take your news from a dude on the internet named Gunther?
 
Genuinely curious. Do you have any data to show the interview helped her?
Any post interview polls will take days to sort out. She just did the interview yesterday.

The general consensus is that she did well. And before you say (that's just the left media), the same left wing media blasted Biden after his poor debate. So it's not always positive feedback.

She did well because her answers were pretty straightforward. She didn't make any significant errors (a major win since the consensus was that this was a high stakes interview since it was her first one).

Remember, this election will be decided by the independents and through voter turnout (enthusiasm). She will maintain her momentum by taking moderate positions, as she did in the interview, and pick up some undecideds and independents.

She will never convince the voters whom already plan to vote for Trump. She just needs to convince the undecideds to vote for her or stay home


If she did poorly, it would be all over the news.
 
  • Like
  • Hmm
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
She did ok. I probably would give her a C+, but you could see her answers were rehearsed.

In any case, I don't see why republicans are making a big deal about these thing. Donald has not been able to make coherent point since he became a politician. He just says whatever comes to his mind.

JD Vance is actually very good. Tim Walz speaking ability is just natural.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
She did ok. I probably would give her a C+, but you could see her answers were rehearsed.

In any case, I don't see why republicans are making a big deal about these thing. Donald has not been able to make coherent point since he became a politician. He just says whatever comes to his brain.

JD Vance is actually very good. Tim Walz speaking ability is just natural.
All politicians rehearse and prepare. It's just that she is running against a guy who is never controlled or prepared.

So it makes her seem less spontaneous.
 
Lol. Betting odds?

So now you take your news from a dude on the internet named Gunther?


To be fair, same results published by Newsweek. Interestingly Splenda has posted some betting odds sources and out of curiosity, I’ve looked at some. You can do a deep dive on the methodology but ALL of them paint a less rosy picture than the polls for Kamala, and the polls have been off since 2016.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
She handled herself well and had well thought out answers.

The problem is, there isn't anything new or controversial about her. At least, not anything substantial (the maga folks will just make **** up). So the questions she will get asked are relatively predictable for her. Thus her responses come across as rehearsed.

But that just means she is well prepared. She is a lawyer after all.

Trump constantly says and does ridiculous stuff, so his interviews appear hostile because he keeps getting called out for stuff and he has no substantive answers so he just rambles or deflects or cries foul.

Not her fault that she has her **** together.

The same will happen during the debate. They will ask her about border, inflation, taxes, her position shift and thats it. She will have well thought out answers ready to go

Trump will just wing it and make crazy statements or promises. Like now all of a sudden insurance companies will pay for IVF? That's after years of Republicans fighting against expanding healthcare coverage, pre-existing conditions, Medicaid, etc

Your take on the interview feels very gentle.

I really don't understand how Harris could say that "my values have never changed" as a defense for her flip flopping on some very liberal major issues she has confidently supported on multiple occasions like Medicare for all, the Green New Deal, de-criminalization of illegal border crossings etc. when Dana Bash offered her a multiple choice answer: Is it: A.) Because you have more experience and learned more B.) Because you were running in a democratic primary. Harris chose C.) My Ideal have never changed (strong implication that she still will push for things like the Green New Deal, Medicare for all etc.)



Her specific answer to the Fracking question was "I changed my mind" with no justification or reasoning. What's to stop her from changing her mind the next time the political wind blows? CNN actually fact checked her statement that she denounced her original position on fracking in 2020 and couldn't any evidence of it and that it appears all Harris did was assimilate Biden's position on the matter.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/29/poli...acking-position-fact-check-daniel-dale-digvid

I agree with the poster above giving the interview a C+ and I really don't think this C+ showing is going to convince many moderates or independents that aren't forever No Trumpers to confidently vote for the Harris/Walz ticket. I'm an independent and it certainly hasn't convinced me, where some of the hostile Vance interviews have definitely shifted my opinion on him to be more favorable due to how he handled himself and the way he presents his arguements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
To be fair, same results published by Newsweek. Interestingly Splenda has posted some betting odds sources and out of curiosity, I’ve looked at some. You can do a deep dive on the methodology but ALL of them paint a less rosy picture than the polls for Kamala, and the polls have been off since 2016.

Do we know what algorithm they use? Are they going based on polls, economic data, world events, etc.

Unless they specifically say it went up or down based upon their own opinion of the interview, then we shouldn't infer a correlation.

Any change in polls would take days to materialize.
 
To be fair, same results published by Newsweek. Interestingly Splenda has posted some betting odds sources and out of curiosity, I’ve looked at some. You can do a deep dive on the methodology but ALL of them paint a less rosy picture than the polls for Kamala, and the polls have been off since 2016.

I only learned about poly market from this forum, probably Splenda
 
Do we know what algorithm they use? Are they going based on polls, economic data, world events, etc.

Unless they specifically say it went up or down based upon their own opinion of the interview, then we shouldn't infer a correlation.

Any change in polls would take days to materialize.

I’ll agree it’s probably too early to make any predictions factoring in the speech just yet. Here is an interesting video (couple weeks ago) that essentially speak as to why betting odds might be more accurate.

If you don’t want to watch, it comes down to foreign markets with no political dog in the fight with largely a monetary incentive to get the data right. Apparently, they aggregate polling data which factors into methodology as well. Just interesting.

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
To be fair, same results published by Newsweek. Interestingly Splenda has posted some betting odds sources and out of curiosity, I’ve looked at some. You can do a deep dive on the methodology but ALL of them paint a less rosy picture than the polls for Kamala, and the polls have been off since 2016.


Betting odds are just another data point to take into consideration. Who are people willing to put their money on? I would argue given the history of inaccurate polling in any election Trump has been involved in, that we should take all polls and betting odds with large grains of salt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Your take on the interview feels very gentle.

I really don't understand how Harris could say that "my values have never changed" as a defense for her flip flopping on some very liberal major issues she has confidently supported on multiple occasions like Medicare for all, the Green New Deal, de-criminalization of illegal border crossings etc. when Dana Bash offered her a multiple choice answer: Is it: A.) Because you have more experience and learned more B.) Because you were running in a democratic primary. Harris chose C.) My Ideal have never changed (strong implication that she still will push for things like the Green New Deal, Medicare for all etc.)



Her specific answer to the Fracking question was "I changed my mind" with no justification or reasoning. What's to stop her from changing her mind the next time the political wind blows? CNN actually fact checked her statement that she denounced her original position on fracking in 2020 and couldn't any evidence of it and that it appears all Harris did was assimilate Biden's position on the matter.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/29/poli...acking-position-fact-check-daniel-dale-digvid

I agree with the poster above giving the interview a C+ and I really don't think this C+ showing is going to convince many moderates or independents that aren't forever No Trumpers to confidently vote for the Harris/Walz ticket. I'm an independent and it certainly hasn't convinced me, where some of the hostile Vance interviews have definitely shifted my opinion on him to be more favorable due to how he handled himself and the way he presents his arguements.

Her values have changed because she wants more vote. Simple.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 1 users
Betting odds are just another data point to take into consideration. Who are people willing to put their money on? I would argue given the history of inaccurate polling in any election Trump has been involved in, that we should take all polls and betting odds with large grains of salt.
It's a mixed bag. There have inaccurate pollings after the Dobbs' decision. Democrats have way outperformed these as well.
 
Betting odds are just another data point to take into consideration. Who are people willing to put their money on? I would argue given the history of inaccurate polling in any election Trump has been involved in, that we should take all polls and betting odds with large grains of salt.


Absolutely, I’m not advocating anybody bet the farm based on foreign betting odds lol just interesting to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Trump didn't do anything wrong! Biased media is making a big deal out of nothing!
I called it Biden-level stupidity, which is about the highest category of general stupidity there is, and you come back claiming I'm saying Trump did nothing wrong. Joe Biden is the president that committed treason selling out the US to hostile nations through shell companies and his crackhead delinquent son. Remember him now?? If you pulled a "Biden," in no way are you being given a compliment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
But you know what I haven't done? Accosted the staff who came over and told me "no pictures" and I subsequently haven't doubled down and insinuated that there was something wrong mentally with the staff who told me so. And I subsequently haven't antagonized the military division that backed up said staff.
And you know what else you wouldn't have done? You wouldn't have said a word of it were Biden, Barrack, Hilary, or Kam. All of this fake outrage just like the Capital protest. There was a scuffle at the cemetery regarding photography. Well fug, just shoot them. But make sure you remain quiet on all friendlies committing real actual threats to Democracy which were numerous over the last decade.

What I notice are Trump voters evaluating all of the good and bad that goes with DJT and all of the woke, yourself, pgg, 100 posters I have on ignore, with enormous fake outrage over RELATIVELY molehills while you remain SILENT on some of the most corrupt political acts in our history.

Russia Hoax
Christopher Steele Dossier
FISA Court Abuse
51 Traitors and the Laptop
Influence Peddling
Government Pressure on Social Media Censorship
Using the DOJ to go after a Political Opponent

You're damn right it's a false equivalency. It's comparing breaking and entering, which is Biden level stupidity, with a friggin terrorist attack, and ALL of you remain quiet and pretend none of it happened. So righteous. Sooooo Patriotic 🙄🙄🙄
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

I will be having my popcorn...
Don't really see any cival war coming if Trump loses. He will cry about it, some legitimate complaints, some not legitimate, and life moves on. From the minute (if) Trump loses the election the Party will move on without him playing much of a part in the future. It will be more respectful than just throwing Joe Biden in the trash heap as if he never existed, but the result will be the same. New Era beginning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
It's at the point that I expect the supreme court to overturn the election in trump's favor. That's how little faith I have in the system at this point.
That would be fair payback for government interference in the last election regarding the laptop giving Biden the win. Kind of like when a ref blows one call and then intentionally blows another call in the other team's favor. Not optimal but a fair compromise we can all live with.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Good response. I do hope she is coming to her senses. My main takeaway, though, is that she is just blowing which ever way the wind takes her at the time with no intention of following through. If she just admitted she had changed her viewpoint, it would be more believable. It’s the fact that she states she has always had these views and they remain unchanged that really gets old. Why lie about something that is so obviously a lie?

Why do you care if she changes her views or they waffle with the wind? You’re not voting for her anyway. You’re voting for the guy who used to be a democrat, gave money to Hillary, likely Biden, and suddenly leads the MAGA revolution. Not like you really care if people change their minds. At least not with your vote.
 
Why do you care if she changes her views or they waffle with the wind? You’re not voting for her anyway. You’re voting for the guy who used to be a democrat, gave money to Hillary, likely Biden, and suddenly leads the MAGA revolution. Not like you really care if people change their minds. At least not with your vote.
Or how about the fact that Trump just said that the Florida ban on abortions at 6 weeks is too short all of a sudden?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Any post interview polls will take days to sort out. She just did the interview yesterday.

The general consensus is that she did well. And before you say (that's just the left media), the same left wing media blasted Biden after his poor debate. So it's not always positive feedback.

She did well because her answers were pretty straightforward. She didn't make any significant errors (a major win since the consensus was that this was a high stakes interview since it was her first one).

Remember, this election will be decided by the independents and through voter turnout (enthusiasm). She will maintain her momentum by taking moderate positions, as she did in the interview, and pick up some undecideds and independents.

She will never convince the voters whom already plan to vote for Trump. She just needs to convince the undecideds to vote for her or stay home


If she did poorly, it would be all over the news.

Kamala unfortunately needs to be perfect to even have a chance. Her opponent though can be a complete blithering idiot and say or do whatever he wants. Must be nice to live a life of complete immunity. I guess there were no guarantees the second coming of Christ would be felonious porn star rawdogging boinker with a silver spoon who’s cheated at just about every step of his life.
 
Top