Biden Talked Trans Rights at Thursday's Town Hall

[Wichita]

“No evidence of voter fraud.”

 

I give you Andrew Yang... a candidate who ran against Biden for the democratic nomination actively tweeting for people to move to Georgia for the sole purpose of voting in the runoff election (a federal crime, by the way). 

[Guest]

Ummm, he’s asking Democrats to go to Georgia to campaign. That’s pretty obvious. I haven’t followed this thread all the way through but now is not the time to draw up false accusations. It’s time to unify and stand together.

[Wichita]

1 hour ago, Erica Gabriel said:

Ummm, he’s asking Democrats to go to Georgia to campaign. That’s pretty obvious. I haven’t followed this thread all the way through but now is not the time to draw up false accusations. It’s time to unify and stand together.

That’s not only a mighty big assumption, it’s also wildly incorrect. 
 

Why would anyone need to move to a state to campaign there? They wouldn’t. You can “campaign” for someone in Georgia from Budapest. It’s obvious what he means. Well, I guess not obvious to everyone, but then that’s been one of my underlying points in this thread. 

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/georgia-runoff-residency/

[Mia Marie]

I need to ask this question. According to the news media Biden has gone to say that if a man holding a knife is coming towards you in a fit of rage he would be considered a unarmed man and should be treated as such and not as a threat. The question is this: how would you see the man with the knife? With Biden saying things like this it really speaks low about how he views what a criminal really is. Biden's validity to me is low. I would never once believe him if he said the sun was shining even if I saw the sun out myself. Biden has never be valid  and he never will be. I believe nothing he says he will do and never will believe anything Biden says.

[MirandaB]

I was hoping we'd give Biden a chance to do something for trans rights. Saying that no one gave Trump a chance on everything is fine, but if you're insisting that Trump was better on trans issues than Biden PLEASE give me an example (fact based, if possible).

 

Saying he appointed a woman to the Supreme Court is a non sequitur and doesn't really help us if she's against trans rights. 

 

Also

 

Quote

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — President Donald Trump’s campaign on Sunday withdrew a central part of its lawsuit seeking to stop the certification of the election results in Pennsylvania, where Democrat Joe Biden beat Trump to capture the state and help win the White House.

 

Ahead of a Tuesday hearing in the case, Trump’s campaign dropped the allegation that hundreds of thousands of mail-in and absentee ballots — 682,479, to be precise — were illegally processed without its representatives watching.

 

 

If you read the link, you can also see that Trump team admitted in a court filing that their publicly stated claim that Republican observers weren't allowed in PA was not true.

 

Yes, technically there's no presidential winner until the votes are certified and the electoral college does its thing. But a classier person would do what every previous loser had done and concede when it was clear they had lost. 
Even Al Gore did that in an election he lost by one state separated by 537 votes, not an electoral college landslide like the one Biden won. 

[Wichita]

3 hours ago, RhondaS said:

I was hoping we'd give Biden a chance to do something for trans rights. Saying that no one gave Trump a chance on everything is fine, but if you're insisting that Trump was better on trans issues than Biden PLEASE give me an example (fact based, if possible).

 

Saying he appointed a woman to the Supreme Court is a non sequitur and doesn't really help us if she's against trans rights. 

 

Also

 

 

 

If you read the link, you can also see that Trump team admitted in a court filing that their publicly stated claim that Republican observers weren't allowed in PA was not true.

 

Yes, technically there's no presidential winner until the votes are certified and the electoral college does its thing. But a classier person would do what every previous loser had done and concede when it was clear they had lost. 
Even Al Gore did that in an election he lost by one state separated by 537 votes, not an electoral college landslide like the one Biden won. 

1) If you take another look at the comment I quoted when I made my reference to Trump's supreme court nominee, you'll see I was pointing out not only flawed logic, but also obvious bias. Trump is still, to this day, called a misogynist despite his supreme court pick and the other women he's appointed to various positions in his administration. Therefore, Biden can still be "anti-LGBT" despite putting "one" trans person to his transition team. 

 

I wasn't making a claim one way or the other about Trump's stance on trans people. I'm simply drawing a correlation in two examples of flawed logic and the inherent bias of defending one example and not the other -- a "misogynist" picking a woman for the highest court in the land vs. an anti-LGBT individual adding "one' trans person to a transition team...a team whose function and purpose ends once the transfer of power is complete.

 

2) It's interesting you bring up Gore...even after my post featuring the front-page headline showing Gore refused to concede. Gore did not concede. He played "jump rope" with his concession. First he did, then he took it back and began 37 days of legal challenges. 

 

Let me say that part again... In the 2000 election, we didn't have a clear winner for 37 days while we waited for the legal challenges to conclude. Here in the 2020 election, we're on day 13...24 more days to go, using the 2000 election as a template.

 

And considering how I've heard 3+ years of non-stop coverage by the media over the fictitous Russia collusion nonsense, I find it strange to see the left so anti-investigation. A wise candidate would be the investigations' loudest cheerleader so that when it's all over, he and the American people can have absolute confidence in the process as well as the winner.  

 

As it is now, Biden reminds me of an NFL coach telling his team to hurry and snap the ball to prevent the other team from throwing their challenge flag. It doesn't look good, no matter what the outcome is.

[MirandaB]

Brought up Gore in anticipation of the comparison. He didn't concede until it was clear he lost. In one state, decided by a tiny percentage of the votes cast. To get to a percentage of the vote to see the difference you have to go into the thousandths, both Bush and Gore got 48.84 percent of the vote in Florida. 

 

Trump is losing PA, for one, by 1 percentage point, Biden 49.9, Trump 48.9. He needs at least 3 states to overturn the results for him to win. 

 

The football analogy would be the team that's losing by 6 touchdowns with 2:01 left on the clock throwing a challenge flag on a play that is clear won't be overturned.   

 

If you research the lawsuits Trump has filed, the only ones he has won have resulted in votes that currently aren't counted won't count. Doesn't affect the margin if you don't count uncounted votes.  The one Rudy's touting lately souns like they want PA to throw out not only the votes they say are illegal but also all the votes from the counties those votes were cast in, legal or not..doesn't seem very American to me.  

 

 

[Rami]

There is still a slight glimmer of hope our elected leaders have our best interest in their hearts. Let us all pray they keep the ship afloat.

[Carolyn Marie]

12 hours ago, Mia Marie said:

I need to ask this question. According to the news media Biden has gone to say that if a man holding a knife is coming towards you in a fit of rage he would be considered a unarmed man and should be treated as such and not as a threat.

 

That is not what Biden said.  Here is the quote:

 

"Instead of standing there and teaching a cop, when there's an unarmed person coming at them with a knife or something, you shoot them in the leg instead of in the heart is a very different thing. There's a lot of different things that could change," Biden said in a meeting with community leaders at Bethel AME Church in Wilmington, Del.

 

He obviously misspoke about the "unarmed person."  I happen to disagree with him about this, having been a police officer.  A person with a knife is a deadly threat if they are within seven feet of someone.  The primary purpose of shooting at them is to stop the attack.  Officers' accuracy is rarely more than 40-50 percent, so aiming for the legs may result in a lot more officer deaths and injuries.  Anyway, my main point was to correct what you said about his statement.  

 

Carolyn Marie 

[Lee H]

17 hours ago, Wichita said:

I honestly can’t name a single president that was treated this badly by the media outlets of this country. It’s hilarious that people blast Trump for his treatment of the media... he didn’t start that fight. He’s merely responding to the worst treatment any sitting president has ever received from the media in this country.

What he can not stand is any media outlet reporting truthful, verifiable facts constituting actual objective reality rather than "alternative facts" constituting his "alternative reality." He channels Joseph Goebbels

 

Take this for example, from one of his dozen+/- fund raising emails just this morning:

One thing has become clear these last few days, I am the American People’s ALL-TIME favorite President.

How does he, or do you, justify such an absurd claim? He lost by over 5 million votes. Do you want to toss them all out because all of them were somehow "fraudulent?" What makes them so? Should these votes be invalidated because they were cast by "American People" who aren't white?  Who or why, then?

 

16 hours ago, Wichita said:

The election has not been certified yet. Nor have the electors cast their electoral ballots. When those have occurred, then the election will be final.

When his lawsuits can find fewer votes to challenge than Biden's lead in that state, it's over. When they can only submit hearsay to a judge who asks for evidence, it's over. When their supposed affidavits say only, "I saw this, and in my opinion, it is or should be "illegal," it's over.

 

What do you think will happen between now and December 14, or during the actual gathering of the electoral college? Are you basing your skepticism on the Great Dominion Voting Machine Conspiracy?

 

Fact: There is no evidence that any voting systems were compromised, according to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security. [The Head of which, as you know, is a Trumpian through and through.]

 

Here's a question: If the electors cast their electoral ballots and Biden receives more than 270, will he, or you, concede? I doubt it, but as you said, "then the election will be final."

 

I do acknowledge your persistence in trying to swim upstream against these factual rapids. Must get tiring. 

 

[Wichita]

7 hours ago, Lee H said:

What he can not stand is any media outlet reporting truthful, verifiable facts constituting actual objective reality rather than "alternative facts" constituting his "alternative reality." He channels Joseph Goebbels

 

Take this for example, from one of his dozen+/- fund raising emails just this morning:

One thing has become clear these last few days, I am the American People’s ALL-TIME favorite President.

How does he, or do you, justify such an absurd claim? He lost by over 5 million votes. Do you want to toss them all out because all of them were somehow "fraudulent?" What makes them so? Should these votes be invalidated because they were cast by "American People" who aren't white?  Who or why, then?

 

When his lawsuits can find fewer votes to challenge than Biden's lead in that state, it's over. When they can only submit hearsay to a judge who asks for evidence, it's over. When their supposed affidavits say only, "I saw this, and in my opinion, it is or should be "illegal," it's over.

 

What do you think will happen between now and December 14, or during the actual gathering of the electoral college? Are you basing your skepticism on the Great Dominion Voting Machine Conspiracy?

 

Fact: There is no evidence that any voting systems were compromised, according to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security. [The Head of which, as you know, is a Trumpian through and through.]

 

Here's a question: If the electors cast their electoral ballots and Biden receives more than 270, will he, or you, concede? I doubt it, but as you said, "then the election will be final."

 

I do acknowledge your persistence in trying to swim upstream against these factual rapids. Must get tiring. 

 

1) Oh I’m so glad you brought up tweets! Really and truly I’m glad. Let’s look at just one example of “reporting facts,” shall we? The attached photo is only the most recent example of the overtly and unapologetically biased media reporting false facts. Note how they claim in their headline they Trump stated Biden won, ignoring the rest of Trump’s sentence. 
 

This is just one example, but others go back to his 2016 campaign when the media labeled him racist for his comments on who comes across our southern border illegally. Every media outlet in the country conveniently left off where Trump clearly said “and some are good people.” They left that off because you can’t paint him as racist if you include the entire quote. The media knows this and I think you do too.

 

As for the rest of the nonsense that comes out of Trump’s Twitter account. I’ve never “defended” any of it. In fact, I routinely refer to the man as a “blowhard tool” who talks (tweets) out of his ass most of the time. But it’s still entertaining to see what he tweets and how the media and his haters lose their collective minds over it... when they’re not wildly editing it for for their own biased purposes, that is. 
 

2) I love how you throw out “facts” that aren’t. You’re hilariously using a couple of failed legal challenges as justification for not investigating the rest...with no hint of irony or self-awareness. The failed legal challenges you refer to are exactly what I said needed to happen — they are instances of allegations being disproven or written off as having no evidence. The ones doing this are folks in the *legal profession*. Not you, not me, and certainly not some moronic talking head on a biased “news” channel. 
 

3) I don’t have to “concede” anything. I’m not running for office. And if the legal challenges are *all* settled in Biden’s favor, it won’t matter at that point what Trump does, now will it?

 

So now I get to ask you a question: Why are you so against fully investigating the claims of fraud? What are you afraid they’ll find? Why are you so adamant that they not be investigated?

Seriously, I sat through 3+ years of listening to bogus Russian collusion nonsense...but you can’t let a couple of weeks of voting investigations play out? 
 

What are you afraid of?

[Wichita]

8 hours ago, Carolyn Marie said:

 

That is not what Biden said.  Here is the quote:

 

"Instead of standing there and teaching a cop, when there's an unarmed person coming at them with a knife or something, you shoot them in the leg instead of in the heart is a very different thing. There's a lot of different things that could change," Biden said in a meeting with community leaders at Bethel AME Church in Wilmington, Del.

 

He obviously misspoke about the "unarmed person."  I happen to disagree with him about this, having been a police officer.  A person with a knife is a deadly threat if they are within seven feet of someone.  The primary purpose of shooting at them is to stop the attack.  Officers' accuracy is rarely more than 40-50 percent, so aiming for the legs may result in a lot more officer deaths and injuries.  Anyway, my main point was to correct what you said about his statement.  

 

Carolyn Marie 

Yes, but what Biden said is actually equally damaging, whether it was a verbal “oopsie” or not. 

 

This was proven in a quirky twist of fate by the massive riots in Pennsylvania following a justified police shooting of a man armed with a knife who charged police. The man was killed in the exact situation Biden described only a few days after he made his verbal “oopsie.” 
 

So the general, cop-hating public took his little misspeak as gospel, blamed the cops for shooting a knife-wielding man who was charging at them with a lethal weapon and rioted in response. 
 

And the cops are all not begging him to knock of his crap. Biden ain’t a cop (actually, he’s never worn any service-oriented uniform), so he shouldn’t be dictating how they respond to a lethal weapon threat. And he certainly shouldn’t be speaking out against cops who defend themselves from those lethal threats. He’s taking a page from Obama’s playbook and trashing cops’ well-established procedures while simultaneously emboldening the rioters who have seen too many movies.
 

https://www.fox13news.com/news/police-rip-bidens-repeated-advice-to-shoot-suspects-in-the-leg

[Wichita]

12 hours ago, RhondaS said:

Brought up Gore in anticipation of the comparison. He didn't concede until it was clear he lost. In one state, decided by a tiny percentage of the votes cast. To get to a percentage of the vote to see the difference you have to go into the thousandths, both Bush and Gore got 48.84 percent of the vote in Florida. 

 

Trump is losing PA, for one, by 1 percentage point, Biden 49.9, Trump 48.9. He needs at least 3 states to overturn the results for him to win. 

 

The football analogy would be the team that's losing by 6 touchdowns with 2:01 left on the clock throwing a challenge flag on a play that is clear won't be overturned.   

 

If you research the lawsuits Trump has filed, the only ones he has won have resulted in votes that currently aren't counted won't count. Doesn't affect the margin if you don't count uncounted votes.  The one Rudy's touting lately souns like they want PA to throw out not only the votes they say are illegal but also all the votes from the counties those votes were cast in, legal or not..doesn't seem very American to me.  

 

 

“...until it was clear he lost...”

 

You mean after *all* the legal challenges played out? Because that’s what happened and that’s when he finally conceded...once his concession was no longer relevant or necessary because the entire country knew he lost. (Though tons of lefties still didn’t accept it, some even going so far as to stand on a Hollywood award stage and call Bush a “fake president.” Hollywood...the land of the “fake”...thinking they can call a duly-elected president “fake.” That one was a head scratcher.)
 

And no, my analogy is more accurate. Your side is trying to rush to certification before the legal challenges are concluded. 
 

What are you afraid of? After we had to listen to 3+ years of Russia collusion nonsense...why can’t you give a couple of weeks for voting investigations? What are you afraid they’ll find?

[Lee H]

I am wondering what you are defending, or advocating or whatever you call the effort you put into it.

19 hours ago, Wichita said:

As for the rest of the nonsense that comes out of Trump’s Twitter account. I’ve never “defended” any of it. In fact, I routinely refer to the man as a “blowhard tool” who talks (tweets) out of his ass most of the time.

At last, we agree on something. But what is your point?

19 hours ago, Wichita said:

they are instances of allegations being disproven or written off as having no evidence. The ones doing this are folks in the *legal profession*. Not you, not me, and certainly not some moronic talking head on a biased “news” channel. 

Actually, those "folks" are duly appointed judges. The parties are represented by lawyers. The news media reports the results, and sometimes read quotes from the judge's written judgment. And I do not consider the "talking heads" I watch as "moronic", inasmuch as I do not watch Fox News or listen to Brietbart's dark apocalyptic conspiracies. world.

 

19 hours ago, Wichita said:

Why are you so against fully investigating the claims of fraud? What are you afraid they’ll find? Why are you so adamant that they not be investigated?

 

What do you think "fully investigating" is, if the lawyers submitting it as "fraud" can find no evidence to support their claim?

 

19 hours ago, Wichita said:

Your side is trying to rush to certification before the legal challenges are concluded. 

Not so. However, we are trying to get that jackass to start allowing Biden's people to conduct the same transition planning as every other President has allowed his successor, including W to Obama. He and his acolytes are trying to delay this by filing meritless legal challenges. You are defending a man whose stupid and psychotically narcissistic refusal to accept Biden's victory and his defeat is putting our -- including your -- country at risk domestically and internationally. He is worsening the pandemic he dismisses as the "China Plague," as if insulting China absolves him of any responsibility to help Americans survive it. 

20 hours ago, Wichita said:

I don’t have to “concede” anything. I’m not running for office. And if the legal challenges are *all* settled in Biden’s favor, it won’t matter at that point what Trump does, now will it?

It does now and will then matter a hell of a lot. Do you seriously contend that Trump owes no duty to his oath, the Constitution or the country to help Biden get up to speed with all the challenges he will be facing? By the way, "concede" also means "admit that something is true or valid after first denying or resisting it." Sorry if my double use of that verb confused you.

 

[Mia Marie]

Lee, from my research I have read that this Covid-19 came from China. It started in Chinese bats that hang around the open markets and fed on live and prepared food for sale in these markets. when the fed on live and prepared food they infected the food with the earlier stain of Covid and after consumption from the people the virus was transmitted to humans. So yes it would be correct to call it "China Virus". That virus killed millions in China. It could have here happened here with the version we are encountered here. Trump has been working to eradicate this virus. All Biden wants to do is more testing. We have a really good chance to have a vaccine early in the year, or would you be more satisfied with a country shut down where millions more could lose their  jobs and many more businesses permanently  shut down due to not being able keep the business open. If Biden's past history persuades any future, you will see that he will do nothing promised.

[Jackie C.]

The official COVID stats put total deaths in China at 4634. Most of them in Hubei. Total cases as of November 16th are 86,361. Total deaths worldwide are at 1.33M.

 

For comparison, the US currently has 11.4M cases and 248K deaths. (Wikipedia)

Alternately we have 11,136,252 cases and 246,232 deaths. (CDC)

 

Current leader in cases per 100K people is North Dakota at 180.9 cases/100K people. (Texas is at 32.3 and Michigan at 72.5 if you were wondering. CDC data again.) From the map it looks like it's mostly hammering the colder states right now, though cases are up everywhere.

 

Depending on what date you're using naturally. Statistics will vary. The difference being that the East shut down early and devoted resources to stamping out the virus. They wore masks and stayed in quarantine and used contact tracing until the virus was under control.

 

There's also some evidence that COVID originated in Spain. Back in June Spanish virologists revealed that they discovered traces of the virus in waste water samples taken in March 2019. Italian scientists have also found evidence in sewage samples taken in Milan and Turin in mid-December 2019. Traces were also found in Brazil as early as November 2019. This is a print article so I'll have to just give the citation. D. Telegraph, 30 July 2020.

 

What exactly happened to our pandemic response is up for debate. There is a lot of conflicting information on who did what and why. The facts however point to the US being home to about 20% of the world's cases of COVID-19 and deaths due to the virus.

[Lee H]

Mia Marie

I don't dispute that your Orange Idol dumped a lot of money on the drug manufacturers, and Pfizer and Moderna seem to be close to getting FDA approval to start vaccinating. Of course, distribution methods for 330M people will be somewhat of a challenging problem for President Biden's team to solve. Your hero was hinting at using military logistics capacity for this, but so far, he refuses to share any information to facilitate the transition, including these plans, if they ever really existed. 

 

3 hours ago, Mia Marie said:

or would you be more satisfied with a country shut down where millions more could lose their  jobs and many more businesses permanently  shut down due to not being able keep the business open.

What would satisfy me is a rational national plan to combat the spread of the virus between now and whenever the vaccinations are available to us. I'd be satisfied with passage of the Heros Act to help all the people and small businesses affected by the measures needed to save the lives that would be lost under Scott Atlas's "herd immunity" nightmare. I am not satisfied with the GOP Senators who are cowering in the wings, afraid of the Trump "Base" [the Ee-jit Legion], rather than helping America and our people.

 

So spare me your ----- questions -- they add nothing to the discussion.

Edited November 17, 2020 by Carolyn Marie
attack-type word deleted

[Lee H]

Oh, and by the way, so what? It's here now.

2 hours ago, Mia Marie said:

Lee, from my research I have read that this Covid-19 came from China.

 

[Mia Marie]

Jackie, the totals you talk about are the totals from today's modern times. The figures I read about was from 100's of years ago. That is when the actual first case was discovered.

 

Lee, the only rational way Biden believes in is another shut down which will harm us more than you or anyone can imagine. I, personally will not condone such actions.

[Wichita]

4 hours ago, Lee H said:

1) I am wondering what you are defending, or advocating or whatever you call the effort you put into it.

At last, we agree on something. But what is your point?

 

2)Actually, those "folks" are duly appointed judges. The parties are represented by lawyers. The news media reports the results, and sometimes read quotes from the judge's written judgment. And I do not consider the "talking heads" I watch as "moronic", inasmuch as I do not watch Fox News or listen to Brietbart's dark apocalyptic conspiracies. world.

 

3)What do you think "fully investigating" is, if the lawyers submitting it as "fraud" can find no evidence to support their claim?

 

4)Not so. However, we are trying to get that jackass to start allowing Biden's people to conduct the same transition planning as every other President has allowed his successor, including W to Obama. He and his acolytes are trying to delay this by filing meritless legal challenges. You are defending a man whose stupid and psychotically narcissistic refusal to accept Biden's victory and his defeat is putting our -- including your -- country at risk domestically and internationally. He is worsening the pandemic he dismisses as the "China Plague," as if insulting China absolves him of any responsibility to help Americans survive it. 

 

5) It does now and will then matter a hell of a lot. Do you seriously contend that Trump owes no duty to his oath, the Constitution or the country to help Biden get up to speed with all the challenges he will be facing? By the way, "concede" also means "admit that something is true or valid after first denying or resisting it." Sorry if my double use of that verb confused you.

 

1) I could ask you the same question. Because although it’s obvious from the many times I’ve stated the following sentence that “I’m advocating full and complete investigations of each and every allegation of fraud.”

 

So what are you advocating? It’s certainly not for investigations. You seem to want them to skip over any perceived wrong doing and just get rid of “orange man bad.” 
 

2) No kidding, really? Let me tell you who those “folks” aren’t. (Why you decided to put folks in quotes as though you’ve never seen the word is beyond me, but whatever.) Those folks — the judges you seem you think I don’t know — are *not* reporters. They’re not cnn or msnbc anchors and they’re not you. 
 

And believe me, you can avoid those scant two sources you named and still be watching morons. The people at cnn and msnbc went off the deep end long ago. And you’re failure to acknowledge that just demonstrates how much of the kool-aid you’ve consumed.

 

3) Fully investigating is exactly what those two words implies. Which of the two confuses you? You seem to favor not investigating anything, going so far as to highlight a couple of failed cases (two failed cases vs 234 sworn affidavits) as reasoning why the remainder shouldn’t be investigated.

 

4) Absolutely so. (And there’s that maturity peeking through again. “Jackass?” Really? Once again I guess the whole no name-calling stuff only goes for democrats.)

 

He doesn’t have to help Biden do anything until Biden is the certified, actually elected president. You can cry foul all you like, but if somehow the legal challenges result in a Biden loss, there need not be any transition help because there will be no transition.  
 

5) No, it won’t matter. It only matters to the “orange man bad” crowd. The “oath” you speak of includes absolutely zero lines about ignoring potential fraud and taking a loss with no investigations. 
 

Seriously, the more you harp on these false points you bring up, the more you appear afraid of what those investigations might find. 
 

Like, oh I don’t know... how about this? “No evidence” indeed:

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-seizes-on-nevadas-clark-county-commission-race-to-raise-suspicions-of-wider-problem

[Mia Marie]

Lee, you left off the important part of my quote as you have been doing and I have seen in just about all Democrat supporters who look to find chaos in someone with whom you do not see eye to eye with.  Politicians like Democrat speak in absolute and deceptions. It has been seen throughout the history of this planet.

[Wichita]

1 hour ago, Lee H said:

Oh, and by the way, so what? It's here now.

 

“So what?” 
 

Let me answer that with a question. Everyone seems to think “orange man bad” is in Russia or China’s pocket, yet I’m pretty sure China doesn’t like him saying where the virus came from. Biden, on the other hand, refuses to reiterate where the virus originated. 
 

And China is already congratulating Biden. Very curious.

[Wichita]

2 hours ago, Lee H said:

“...Orange Idol...”

 

“Your hero...”

 

So spare me your absurd questions -- they add nothing to the discussion.

Neither do your ------ descriptions of the president as someone’s “orange idol” or “hero.”

 

Is this what you call “being civil?” Because it leaves a lot to be desired. It’s blatantly obvious what sentiment you’re attempting to “express without expressing.”

 

So... should Lee, Mia, and I start calling Biden “your creepy uncle” or “your favorite dementia patient?”

 

Would that do anything to help in terms of civility? No. It wouldn’t.

Edited November 17, 2020 by Carolyn Marie
attack-type word deleted

[Jackie C.]

2 hours ago, Mia Marie said:

Jackie, the totals you talk about are the totals from today's modern times. The figures I read about was from 100's of years ago. That is when the actual first case was discovered.

 

Sweetie, this is a novel coronavirus. The part where it's never been seen before in humans is why our resistance is so bad and it's taking such heroic measures to fight. Source please?

[Ivy]

Yeah, I wanted to get out of here.  But I admit I've been lurking.

People…  What the ---- are we arguing about?

And… why?

Edited November 17, 2020 by Carolyn Marie
Deleted attempt to avoid the naughty word filter.