Who Will be Our Next President?

As opposed to the guy whose use of adjectives can be counted with one hand?

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

ha-ha
Well said.

Yeah, I wasn't saying that last thing to take a shot at you, just to be clear. Just for others, so everyone understands that they don't usually have to invest a ton of time in sorting this stuff out. 90% of the time it takes a minute or two.

I think this should be a big red flag, personally. You should usually be able to put yourself in the other side's shoes enough to at least sort of understand how they could do it. I think the same thing about people who can't fathom anyone voting for Trump. 70+ million people voted for BOTH, so it won't do to pretend either group is just stupid or brainwashed or something. If it seems unthinkable, that means we're missing something about the other side.

This simply isn't true. As I noted earlier in the thread, if you just follow conservatives on Twitter or FB or whatever, you'll see every time he stutters or stumbles and nothing else, and it seems like he's senile. But Google his acceptance speech, or even speeches on the same day as some of those viral clips, and you'll see him speaking fine, at length. The impression you get is going to be based on which selection of things you expose yourself to.

That, and there's a weird thing going on where people think stumbling over words or using the wrong words is somehow more damning than rambling forever and changing the topic out of nowhere, as Trump obviously does all the time. It may sound better because it's energetic, but I'm not sure it's any better from a mental acuity standpoint.

Yes, this is certainly true. A lot of people aren't trying to hide it, either. But that's how it works sometimes. We have been lax, as an electorate, which means we get crappy candidates and end up voting for the Least Bad option sometimes.

Oh, I understand that. Brazil went through this for many years.
Thank you for answering, Yoda . This thread is beeing very revealing for an outsider like me to actually take a look at US politics - I try to look to both sides with bright eyes, even if I don't like Biden, (not a big fan of Trump too, I just liked how american government approached to Brazil during his time) but I don't even know Biden's history, my opinion on him is mostly based on economy articles and, the major issue: how he'll approaches to Brazil? To be more specific: Whats his interest in AMAZON? Most of brazilian doesn't like how Macron acts like if he's responsible for what happens here (also, don't trust everything DiCaprio said on his Instagram, he make a lot and a lot of mistakes, including fake news, unfortunately). Amazon is ours! Macron doesn't even take care of a small country like French Guiana and wants to take care of a big and complex country like Brazil.

Yeah yeah, no worries man. I appreciate you responding this way. Hope I didn't come off as scolding or anything. Just trying to explain. I think it's very tough these days, because we ultimately kind of control what we do or don't see, and we don't even realize it, which shows how people can come to such different conclusions sometimes. It's challenging.

I understand.

What specifically has Biden said about the Amazon region?

He is right that better forest management is needed but that's the only thing he's right about in this case.

Omg Pleasure lololol

I'm pretty sure he just means the Democrat politicians. Either way your criticisms are fair. I also think of him as a big kid.

I love his show.

Do democrats/liberals watch it? He's obviously biased but would anyone say he says a lot that's wrong? Just wondering because I normally think he makes a lot of sense.

Hi Citizen. He said that Brazil should suffer “significant economic consequences” if devastation of the Amazon rainforest continues. But I ask: What devastation? The fire? He probably never hear about Chico Mendes, a man that tried to talk about the fire... in the 80's... What I mean is that the burnings in Amazon happens for a long, long time. It's a complex theme. It's not just some dude that doesn't like the trees.

Biden: “I would be gathering up and making sure we had the countries of the world coming up with $20 billion, and say, ‘Here’s $20 billion, stop tearing down the forest. And if you don’t then you’re gonna have significant economic consequences.’” Come on...

I'll commit on that, but first do you have a link to his entire speech on the subject?

Thanks for that video link. I didn't watch it, I don't have the time right now, I'm on a short work break. So I will address your earlier quote of Bidens:
I 100% agree with Biden on that. If Brazil doesn't start protecting the Amazon from slash and burn destruction farming, and if Brazil won't accept 20 billion in exchange for preserving parts of the Amazon, then I fully support harsh economic sanctions on Brazil.

I'm no hypocrite, so if the USA doesn't rejoin the Paris Accord Agreement and start doing our part in lowering carbon emissions, I would then support other countries placing harsh economic sanctions on the USA. Earth is more important than any one country.

Turns out people are a little more careful about serious accusations when there are actual consequences for it.

A person who does that can't be in their right mind.

Yeah, probably not.

Sadly, there are tons of people in their wrong mind, and a lot of them are posting "reports" on Twitter.

Hi Yoda,
Since you're pressing me on this - yes, I was not aware of the refutations of claims that I had mentioned.

Thank you for referencing them.

I've listened to people like former candidate and Senator Ted Cruz who made comments (and I don't have them verbatim, but remember the gist of what he said on TV)... that ballots were showing up after polls closed that were all somehow for Biden and being counted after hours without oversight. Cruz has also been accused of spreading misinformation by not providing verification for his claims.

Since the time we had this discussion, a new news cycle has rolled around and there are developments coming in faster than can be followed - such as poll observers signing affidavits to their claims of voter fraud.
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/...ed-in-detroit/

Reports of computer software that changed votes from Trump to Biden,
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...en/ar-BB1aMk7c

Reports of deceased individuals still registered to vote and votes for Biden by the deceased continue to be found among other irregularities that might render votes ineligible.
https://freebeacon.com/2020-election...s-of-election/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...ly-ineligible/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...home-residents

The Supreme Court getting involved & ordering PA to segregate post-election mail-in ballots.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...regate-late-b/

P.S. I'm just posting links SIMPLY to show that these stories are out there and being reported - as to the veracity of each one, I don't have the time to do in-depth Internet investigations on every claim that is reported by alleged news sites. As we know, the Trump administration has filed suit on some of these issues and they are currently in litigation. The sites are ones that came up in searches - I neither endorse the sites nor know anything about their affiliations if any.

Thanks for responding, and saying this. I see no reason to have been cagey, since if it were otherwise anyone would have simply said "yes, I knew that." I hope it's obvious by now I don't care to do the Internet dunking thing of "if you didn't know that thing your opinion is invalid," so admissions like this only serve to move the conversation along. I have no intention of using them to end it, or try to invalidate anyone's position. I pressed the issue only because it suggests a related problem:

I think it's fine to not know these things, but I don't think it's fine to even entertain the accusations--much less repeat them, sans qualifiers initially!--without making any attempt to learn them, either. You must see the problem here, yeah? Simple facts exist, that you can find in literally seconds, but no attempt to learn them is made. I think any reasonable person has to be a little self-reflective here, because it's clearly a case of not wanting to hear any contradictions.

Unless you have another explanation I'm unaware of. Or another definition of dishonesty that doesn't accompany a total disregard for easily available facts. Maybe you can quibble with "lie," but it sure isn't honest. And neither is the hyperbole about "5,000 eyewitness accounts" in response to a simple request for any hard evidence at all.

That's fine as a disclaimer, but I'm curious as to how many of these you plan to follow up on? I'm sure it's very easy, in a giant messy election with 150+ million votes, to find plenty of run-of-the-mill typos and irregularities, most of which get explained or sorted out afterwards, and none of which suggest deliberate fraud or have the potential to change the outcome.

Think of how easy it is to notice and pass along all of these...and then never think of them again. Very easy to do that and go on believing the election was fraudulent, even creating that impression in the minds of anyone who read the things you shared, only to conveniently avoid spending a few seconds trying to invalidate them, or checking a bit later to see if any really withstood scrutiny. And if you don't do that, then what value are the reports, since they get passed along with they conform with existing beliefs, and never even get seen if they don't?

What use are facts if we never allow them to change our minds?

Tucker often plays the same games as those he accuses his competition of playing - he engages in inflammatory rhetoric, personal innuendos, plays "connect the dots," and presents completely speculative conclusions (then says things like "I'll leave it up to you to decide") - and I call him out for it when I see it, especially when it seems too far off-base.

But we have to remember (and this goes for his competition as well) that it is an editorial opinion show and not a newscast. He's very good at pointing out the hypocrisy of the other side (which, I must admit, is not hard to do).