Joe Biden Innocent or Not Guilty

Head Idiot wrote:I think one thing is blatantly clear before and after the debates- this is certainly a low, if not the lowest, point in American political history. We're getting close to someone being beaten with a cane in Congress.

Regardless of the outcome of this election, the real loser is going to be the American people.

As a Social Studies teacher and you being a former one, I couldn't agree with this more. I did suffer through the entire debate last night cause there wasn't any football on and I felt like I needed to, but man was it hard. I wondered numerous times out loud to my wife, 'this is where we are as a nation?'...how in the world can I go in front of my students today, which I'm trying to do, and talk about the foundations of our nation and government when this is where all that has gotten us? We can all agree or disagree on political issues and candidates...but even Trump and Hillary in 2016 had at least some meaningful rhetoric between the candidates as to what they were going to try to do with the country; last night, neither person had any idea what they would do when asked about specific things. Obviously Trump has never really said anything concrete as far as what his plan is or will be, but boy did Biden struggle to get anything across that was meaningful.

tps wrote:

lefty120 wrote:

tps wrote:A million is a lot to me.

To you yes, but to people who make the type of money that Trump does, it's a joke.  

tax avoidance. it is a $10 billion industry...HRBlock et al.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/06/joe-biden-used-this-strategy-to-trim-his-tax-bill-you-can-too.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-bidens-dodged-the-payroll-tax-11597083162

I understand all that...but the optics are really bad to educated people. But you know, people by in large that vehemently support Trump, do so for one reason and one reason only. The others couldn't really tell you why they support him.

tps wrote:tax avoidance. it is a $10 billion industry...HRBlock et al.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/06/joe-biden-used-this-strategy-to-trim-his-tax-bill-you-can-too.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-bidens-dodged-the-payroll-tax-11597083162

Now lets take a look at the Trump returns so we can tell if they crossed the line from the legal "avoidance" to the illegal "evasion".

BirdWatcher wrote:I dunno, but he clearly avoided taxes by taking that money thru an S-Corp.  TAX AVOIDANCE!!!

That reminds me...Trump also avoided the payroll taxes during the 15 years the NYT looked at.

When Biden was asked if he would stack the Supreme Court he wouldn't answer the question. That makes me wonder what his intentions are because if the Democrats take back the Senate there's nothing stopping him. I do feel that the Democrats are owed one pick because McConnell should never have denied Obama his opportunity to seat a Justice after Scalia died. You need an odd number of Justices though so legally Biden could expand the SCOTUS to 11.

OSUBucks wrote:When Biden was asked if he would stack the Supreme Court he wouldn't answer the question. That makes me wonder what his intentions are because if the Democrats take back the Senate there's nothing stopping him. I do feel that the Democrats are owed one pick because McConnell should never have denied Obama his opportunity to seat a Justice after Scalia died. You need an odd number of Justices though so legally Biden could expand the SCOTUS to 11.

I'll be honest...that was a HUGE telling moment for me. I agree with the Obama situation; if they didn't want his nominee, there's no way they should take Trumps. But the fact that the DNC hadn't prepped Biden for a response there, or he just forgot what he was going to say, was a really bad look.

lefty120 wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:When Biden was asked if he would stack the Supreme Court he wouldn't answer the question. That makes me wonder what his intentions are because if the Democrats take back the Senate there's nothing stopping him. I do feel that the Democrats are owed one pick because McConnell should never have denied Obama his opportunity to seat a Justice after Scalia died. You need an odd number of Justices though so legally Biden could expand the SCOTUS to 11.

I'll be honest...that was a HUGE telling moment for me.  I agree with the Obama situation; if they didn't want his nominee, there's no way they should take Trumps.  But the fact that the DNC hadn't prepped Biden for a response there, or he just forgot what he was going to say, was a really bad look.  

He didn't forget.  He just didn't respond to the question.  He specifically said he wasn't going to respond to it.  That was what he was prepped to say.  Not answering a question is par for the course in these debates.  Always has been.  

Look, here's the deal...

Mainstream democrats are letting the left side of their base have their conversation about stacking the court.  They don't want to lose the support of a chunky percentage, albeit a minority, of their base on this issue in the runup to the election.  The left side of the base knows this.  The mainstream democrats know this.  That's the way the game is played.

Now, shall we talk about how Trump refused to condemn white supremacy when asked to do so?  Or did he just forget what he was going to say?  Did he not want to alienate a chunky percentage of his base?

Was that not a huge telling moment for you as well? Not only did he refuse to condemn it, he told a group of fascists on the extreme far right to "stand by". In my book, stand by means be ready. What do you think Trump was telling them to be ready for?

Trump can't afford to alienate anyone who is considering voting for him. That includes bigoted and racist white folks. That's my opinion.

OSUBucks wrote:You need an odd number of Justices though so legally Biden could expand the SCOTUS to 11.

Legally?

I think there is no limit to the number of justices the democrats could add legally.

lefty120 wrote:

tps wrote:

lefty120 wrote:

tps wrote:A million is a lot to me.

To you yes, but to people who make the type of money that Trump does, it's a joke.  

tax avoidance. it is a $10 billion industry...HRBlock et al.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/06/joe-biden-used-this-strategy-to-trim-his-tax-bill-you-can-too.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-bidens-dodged-the-payroll-tax-11597083162

I understand all that...but the optics are really bad to educated people.  But you know, people by in large that vehemently support Trump, do so for one reason and one reason only.  The others couldn't really tell you why they support him.  

i'm curious what that one reason is? I consider myself a conservative and at this point also a trump supporter. and i guess i'm also uneducated because i don't see the optics. actually i'll wear that. i'm not smart.

Teetime wrote:

tps wrote:tax avoidance. it is a $10 billion industry...HRBlock et al.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/06/joe-biden-used-this-strategy-to-trim-his-tax-bill-you-can-too.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-bidens-dodged-the-payroll-tax-11597083162

Now lets take a look at the Trump returns so we can tell if they crossed the line from the legal "avoidance" to the illegal "evasion".

agreed. if he broke the law, he should face justice.

maybe tRuMp iS a rAcIsT?

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/

ramblinman wrote:

lefty120 wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:When Biden was asked if he would stack the Supreme Court he wouldn't answer the question. That makes me wonder what his intentions are because if the Democrats take back the Senate there's nothing stopping him. I do feel that the Democrats are owed one pick because McConnell should never have denied Obama his opportunity to seat a Justice after Scalia died. You need an odd number of Justices though so legally Biden could expand the SCOTUS to 11.

I'll be honest...that was a HUGE telling moment for me.  I agree with the Obama situation; if they didn't want his nominee, there's no way they should take Trumps.  But the fact that the DNC hadn't prepped Biden for a response there, or he just forgot what he was going to say, was a really bad look.  

He didn't forget.  He just didn't respond to the question.  He specifically said he wasn't going to respond to it.  That was what he was prepped to say.  Not answering a question is par for the course in these debates.  Always has been.  

Look, here's the deal...

Mainstream democrats are letting the left side of their base have their conversation about stacking the court.  They don't want to lose the support of a chunky percentage, albeit a minority, of their base on this issue in the runup to the election.  The left side of the base knows this.  The mainstream democrats know this.  That's the way the game is played.

Now, shall we talk about how Trump refused to condemn white supremacy when asked to do so?  Or did he just forget what he was going to say?  Did he not want to alienate a chunky percentage of his base?

Was that not a huge telling moment for you as well?  Not only did he refuse to condemn it, he told a group of fascists on the extreme far right to "stand by".  In my book, stand by means be ready.  What do you think Trump was telling them to be ready for?  

Take it easy there big shooter...I'm on your side. All I meant was that not only did he not answer the question, which I agree was how he was prepped, there was an awkward silence. It was telling. And I immediately looked at my wife before he went on his rant about the election being the most important thing, which I agree with, and said that didn't look or sound good.

And I also agree, I spoke to my one class about it this morning...Trump is the same regarding how he doesn't want to say anything against white supremacist groups because he can't lose their support. Honestly, that moment was the most telling thing most people will remember...the fact that Chris Wallace basically put an opportunity for him to condemn white supremacist groups on a tee, and he refused to do it...he even was like 'what do we call them, what do you want me to call them'...that was a way worse look than what Biden did. That's all I meant

tps wrote:maybe tRuMp iS a rAcIsT?

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/

Why do people who support Trump have to consistently reinterpret things he says? 'Do you condemn white supremacist groups?' All he has to say is 'YES, they're bad for our country and they keep our country from being unified'...but he didn't do that. Maybe I missed something, and please tell me if I did, but I didn't hear anything remotely close to that come out of his response.

When racial unrest happened during the previous administration, which there was still plenty of it, our leader came on and immediately made national addresses or statements condemning the violence and encouraging peace and order. When was the last time Trump did that during the last year and a half? Or ever? I guess he probably has, but boy, I sure haven't seen it or heard of it. All he does is threaten to send in the federal government to control the situation. Why is that necessary all of a sudden?

OSUBucks wrote:

Teetime wrote:I say have the debate on zoom. When it’s not your turn, you can’t be heard or seen. If it’s time for open debate, let it rip.

They need to come up with something like this or I don't see any reason to have two more debates.

While one person is talking for their two minutes, the mic of the other person should be muted. Period.

Mic drop

ramblinman wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:

Teetime wrote:I say have the debate on zoom. When it’s not your turn, you can’t be heard or seen. If it’s time for open debate, let it rip.

They need to come up with something like this or I don't see any reason to have two more debates.

While one person is talking for their two minutes, the mic of the other person should be muted.  Period.

I don't think cutting off the microphone would keep Trump quiet. If he can make enough noise to distract Biden he has done what he wants.

I heard this suggestion from Trevor Noah. Give the moderator a high powered squirt gun. If you talk during the other guy's two minutes you get shot in the hair with a blast of water.

Trump wouldn't make a peep if he thought his hair would get wet. Biden would think it was raining.

I think they should do it on a zoom call. If a kid is screwing around, I mute them and they can't unmute...and then I can kick them out if need be. I've never had to do either, but it would have helped last night during the debate.

Teetime wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:You need an odd number of Justices though so legally Biden could expand the SCOTUS to 11.

Legally?

I think there is no limit to the number of justices the democrats could add legally.

Correct he could appoint 4 more, just keep it at an odd number. Since Trump appears to be behind I would argue that he needs the debates more than Biden does. If Biden decides not to do any more debates I wouldn't blame him and I think most of the country would understand. I'm hearing that Trump interrupted him 128 times. I guess someone took the time to count them all.

lefty120 wrote:

tps wrote:maybe tRuMp iS a rAcIsT?

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/

Why do people who support Trump have to consistently reinterpret things he says?  'Do you condemn white supremacist groups?'  All he has to say is 'YES, they're bad for our country and they keep our country from being unified'...but he didn't do that.  Maybe I missed something, and please tell me if I did, but I didn't hear anything remotely close to that come out of his response.  

When racial unrest happened during the previous administration, which there was still plenty of it, our leader came on and immediately made national addresses or statements condemning the violence and encouraging peace and order.  When was the last time Trump did that during the last year and a half?  Or ever?  I guess he probably has, but boy, I sure haven't seen it or heard of it.  All he does is threaten to send in the federal government to control the situation.  Why is that necessary all of a sudden?  

i'm not trying to reinterpret anything. nothing needs reinterpreted. If you even glance at the link it shows he has continually denounced white supremacy. he still does.
wallacebiden knows this, or at least he should. trump told him in 2016. he's been repeating it ever since. TDS prevents people from hearing or reading those words. 
https://twitter.com/ali/status/1311365156245561344

criminals (arson, looting, assault, murder, etc) should be arrested and face justice ("control the situation"). Do you agree?
harris and biden staffers support bailing out these people.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/03/kamala-harris-tweeted-support-bail-fund-money-didnt-just-assist-protestors/

tps wrote:criminals (arson, looting, assault, murder, etc) should be arrested and face justice ("control the situation"). Do you agree?
harris and biden staffers support bailing out these people.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/03/kamala-harris-tweeted-support-bail-fund-money-didnt-just-assist-protestors/

If a judge sets bail, they can be bailed out and still have been arrested and face justice in the future.

Teetime wrote:

tps wrote:criminals (arson, looting, assault, murder, etc) should be arrested and face justice ("control the situation"). Do you agree?
harris and biden staffers support bailing out these people.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/03/kamala-harris-tweeted-support-bail-fund-money-didnt-just-assist-protestors/

If a judge sets bail, they can be bailed out and still have been arrested and face justice in the future.

Unless they jump bail or don't show up for hearings. These antifa "ideas" are an unsavory bunch.

Let's be honest, last night is EXACTLY what both parties want. No need to discuss policy, just argue and rant. Further divide the American people while they continue to rob us blind.

When will Americans wake up? Not likely.

Head Idiot wrote:Let's be honest, last night is EXACTLY what both parties want. No need to discuss policy, just argue and rant. Further divide the American people while they continue to rob us blind.

When will Americans wake up? Not likely.

I don't think it was what Biden wanted at all. He wanted to beat Trump up all night with 200,000 Corona deaths and suspect tax returns.

Trump wanted to avoid that at all costs. He did.

lefty120 wrote:
Now, shall we talk about how Trump refused to condemn white supremacy when asked to do so?  

...Trump is the same regarding how he doesn't want to say anything against white supremacist groups because he can't lose their support.   

I didn't watch the 'debate' so I'm not 100%, but when I checked the transcript I read something like:

Wallace: Will you denounce white supremacist groups?
Trump: Sure

I have to chuckle at the concept that Trump is striving to gain all, what? 5,000 KKK votes? all 10,000 White Supremacist votes? Believe me, he lost those "voters" with the First Step Act, HBCU support, pardoning Jack Johnson, and EVERYTHING he does that favors Israel.

Teetime wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:Let's be honest, last night is EXACTLY what both parties want. No need to discuss policy, just argue and rant. Further divide the American people while they continue to rob us blind.

When will Americans wake up? Not likely.

I don't think it was what Biden wanted at all. He wanted to beat Trump up all night with 200,000 Corona deaths and suspect tax returns.

Trump wanted to avoid that at all costs. He did.

That's why he calls Trump stupid right before the debate right? He wanted civility? And I know Trump does the same all the time.

Do you honestly think either of them, or their parties give a \"f\"ing about you? It's all about power and keeping that gravy train rolling. You think candidates are spending more of their own money in one election running for office than they could ever legally make in 50 years (Trump, JB, Rauner, etc) because they want to make a difference? \"f\"ing no. It's an investment. X million dollars to make 100 times that while in and out of office.