|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 23 2020 04:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2020 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On May 23 2020 03:15 Danglars wrote:On May 23 2020 02:45 LegalLord wrote:
Frankly this whole "competence scoreboard" discussion seems pretty silly to me right now. It seems to come from a fairly nationalistic position of perceived strength in the response from Germany, and using whatever methods paint (less favorable country) in the least flattering light possible while hyping up the performance of (more favorable country) based almost purely on what countries the poster does and doesn't like on a political level.
Reality is that there are few countries that look particularly good by "objective" measures, the favorability of most measures is going to shift over time, and the current way of trying to contort the facts to tell a political story seems like little more than a pretty bizarre way of looking for a way to say "my team is better than your team!" Given how common it is to single out Trump and America’s response for particular scorn, it’s a necessary corrective to point to the data (however incomplete it is) and turn it around to the accusers. Essentially, are you opposed to Trump and this holding this perspective, or is it more about what they’ve done as opposed to other options/countries. The way to judge the response to the crisis isn't I think just quantitatively but also qualitatively. It's not just about how many people die and the US isn't exactly doing great on that front, but it's also how people like Trump essentially turned it into some sort of circus, advocating miracle cures, running around without a mask, strange science-denial and so on. The fact that the US isn't doing even worse compared to other countries in raw numbers isn't that surprising when you think about the fact that in the UK, 85% of the population live in England with a density of the state of New York, and a quarter lives in the London metro area. I don't want to know what it would look like if the US has the geography of your average European country. The response in term of rhetoric has been more bad than good, though I think the impact is widely overstated. Major media also loves to one-up Trump and kind of feed off him in symbiotic fashion. Thus it is with populists and the discredited institutions that give them power. And don’t forget, ~80% of America live in major metro sprawls. The situations are rather comparable in the aggregate, though not quite regionally. It really makes no sense, aside from political tribalism, to not applaud the rapid expansion in testing capacity, massive trend towards constant or declining rate of spread across the vast majority of states, and efficacy of current measures taken by states by fiat and conscientious citizens by choice. I also suppose it’s just easy to be pessimistic.
Major metro sprawl is not the same as NYC/London. If I can make a chemistry analogy, since my memory tells me you are a chemist of some sort, the dynamic between population density seems to be similar to temperature in chemistry. A reaction running at 20 C is not half as fast as a reaction running at 40 C. Covid seems to completely blow up based on population density. NYC and other places showed densely populated public transport probably has an enormous impact.
Lucky for us our infrastructure is a joke?? lol
Could also think of it like inverse square law. Covid honestly seems to behave like radiation lol. Basically benign unless in close proximity, but totally GG when in close proximity
|
On May 22 2020 20:27 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2020 18:20 Gorsameth wrote:On May 22 2020 10:19 Doodsmack wrote:On May 22 2020 09:44 Gorsameth wrote:On May 22 2020 09:18 Doodsmack wrote:
Should be interesting to see what happens in Flynn's case. He's appealing the trial judge's decision to request briefs from third parties. I did not realize it before but there is actually a procedural rule which does apparently grant a trial judge discretion to decide whether to grant a prosecution's motion to dismiss (i.e. to end a criminal case with the consent of both the prosecution and defendant). But the question is whether the trial judge only has such discretion in the case of obvious misconduct in the prosecution's decision to dismiss.
You mean obvious misconduct like withdrawing a case despite multiple guilty pleas because the defendant is a friend of the President? Flynn's case is from what I can tell the textbook situation of why it is ultimately left up to the judge to decide on a dismissal. to avoid a situation where the defendant and DoJ conspire to avoid a trial/sentencing. Also from what I understand of this I can't see how this writ of mandamus has snowballs chance in hell. Its for a situation where a judge is acting unlawfully yet the law clearly states it is up to the judge to grant a dismissal. The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The mere fact that Flynn is the president's friend is not so important when you consider how unprecedented Flynn's entire case is. It all comes down to the events that transpired at the outset of his case. He was, effectively, surveilled by wiretap without any criminal or even national security predicate. He was the incoming national security advisor talking to a foreign diplomat and telling that diplomat not to escalate tensions; he should be encouraged to do that. His alleged lies consisted of him saying "I don't remember," which is a legal hedge against a charge of lying. And the FBI has no business policing the statements White House officials make to each, so it doesn't matter too much that Flynn "lied" to Pence about the phone call. Even granting that the FBI should be policing the conversations White House officials have among one another, the argument that Flynn was vulnerable to blackmail as a result of those conversations is just a total hail mary of an argument. And all of these facts make it a completely unprecedented case that reeks of law enforcement misconduct. A former head of military intelligence having undisclosed contacts with foreign governments when he is required to report them is very much a 'national security' predication. People who get their news from PJMedia, The Blaze, and National Review disagree, Gorsameth, tsk tsk.
Members of incoming presidential administrations are not at all required to disclose contacts with foreign governments.
EDIT: They probably have to for their security clearances but that's not grounds for an FBI criminal or counterintelligence investigation, let alone an amorphous investigation combining those two in order to achieve a desired outcome.
|
For those who want to compare the US virus spread rate to other countries, this is a good source, you can see interesting trends at a glance :
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/ng-interactive/2020/may/20/coronavirus-cases-and-deaths-over-time-how-countries-compare-around-the-world
Countries where the virus is still roaming at large and you don't really see a downward trend after more than 1 month at a high level (among major countries) : US, UK, Canada, Sweden, Iran.
Russia is *maybe* peaking, but it's too soon to be sure.
Countries still on a really steep delayed upward trend : Brazil, India, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Chile, Pakistan, Bangladesh and more
Where the peak is clearly behind and down to low levels : France, Italy, Spain, Germany, (Turkey), China, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, Portugal, Ireland, Israel, SK etc...
I do believe having a buffoon not able to clearly give a sane direction to the country has severely hurt at least the US, Brazil and the UK.
The population is listening to its boss, and we have a saying in the army : "ordre, contre-ordre = désordre". This situation needed focus and dedication, and Trump has neither.
|
On May 23 2020 05:03 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2020 20:27 farvacola wrote:On May 22 2020 18:20 Gorsameth wrote:On May 22 2020 10:19 Doodsmack wrote:On May 22 2020 09:44 Gorsameth wrote:On May 22 2020 09:18 Doodsmack wrote:Should be interesting to see what happens in Flynn's case. He's appealing the trial judge's decision to request briefs from third parties. I did not realize it before but there is actually a procedural rule which does apparently grant a trial judge discretion to decide whether to grant a prosecution's motion to dismiss (i.e. to end a criminal case with the consent of both the prosecution and defendant). But the question is whether the trial judge only has such discretion in the case of obvious misconduct in the prosecution's decision to dismiss. https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/1263596992896405504 You mean obvious misconduct like withdrawing a case despite multiple guilty pleas because the defendant is a friend of the President? Flynn's case is from what I can tell the textbook situation of why it is ultimately left up to the judge to decide on a dismissal. to avoid a situation where the defendant and DoJ conspire to avoid a trial/sentencing. Also from what I understand of this I can't see how this writ of mandamus has snowballs chance in hell. Its for a situation where a judge is acting unlawfully yet the law clearly states it is up to the judge to grant a dismissal. The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The mere fact that Flynn is the president's friend is not so important when you consider how unprecedented Flynn's entire case is. It all comes down to the events that transpired at the outset of his case. He was, effectively, surveilled by wiretap without any criminal or even national security predicate. He was the incoming national security advisor talking to a foreign diplomat and telling that diplomat not to escalate tensions; he should be encouraged to do that. His alleged lies consisted of him saying "I don't remember," which is a legal hedge against a charge of lying. And the FBI has no business policing the statements White House officials make to each, so it doesn't matter too much that Flynn "lied" to Pence about the phone call. Even granting that the FBI should be policing the conversations White House officials have among one another, the argument that Flynn was vulnerable to blackmail as a result of those conversations is just a total hail mary of an argument. And all of these facts make it a completely unprecedented case that reeks of law enforcement misconduct. A former head of military intelligence having undisclosed contacts with foreign governments when he is required to report them is very much a 'national security' predication. People who get their news from PJMedia, The Blaze, and National Review disagree, Gorsameth, tsk tsk. Members of incoming presidential administrations are not at all required to disclose contacts with foreign governments.
In a vacuum, sure. However, the offense that Flynn pleaded guilty to adds an important twist.
|
On May 23 2020 04:49 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2020 04:20 Danglars wrote:On May 23 2020 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On May 23 2020 03:15 Danglars wrote:On May 23 2020 02:45 LegalLord wrote:
Frankly this whole "competence scoreboard" discussion seems pretty silly to me right now. It seems to come from a fairly nationalistic position of perceived strength in the response from Germany, and using whatever methods paint (less favorable country) in the least flattering light possible while hyping up the performance of (more favorable country) based almost purely on what countries the poster does and doesn't like on a political level.
Reality is that there are few countries that look particularly good by "objective" measures, the favorability of most measures is going to shift over time, and the current way of trying to contort the facts to tell a political story seems like little more than a pretty bizarre way of looking for a way to say "my team is better than your team!" Given how common it is to single out Trump and America’s response for particular scorn, it’s a necessary corrective to point to the data (however incomplete it is) and turn it around to the accusers. Essentially, are you opposed to Trump and this holding this perspective, or is it more about what they’ve done as opposed to other options/countries. The way to judge the response to the crisis isn't I think just quantitatively but also qualitatively. It's not just about how many people die and the US isn't exactly doing great on that front, but it's also how people like Trump essentially turned it into some sort of circus, advocating miracle cures, running around without a mask, strange science-denial and so on. The fact that the US isn't doing even worse compared to other countries in raw numbers isn't that surprising when you think about the fact that in the UK, 85% of the population live in England with a density of the state of New York, and a quarter lives in the London metro area. I don't want to know what it would look like if the US has the geography of your average European country. The response in term of rhetoric has been more bad than good, though I think the impact is widely overstated. Major media also loves to one-up Trump and kind of feed off him in symbiotic fashion. Thus it is with populists and the discredited institutions that give them power. And don’t forget, ~80% of America live in major metro sprawls. The situations are rather comparable in the aggregate, though not quite regionally. It really makes no sense, aside from political tribalism, to not applaud the rapid expansion in testing capacity, massive trend towards constant or declining rate of spread across the vast majority of states, and efficacy of current measures taken by states by fiat and conscientious citizens by choice. I also suppose it’s just easy to be pessimistic. Major metro sprawl is not the same as NYC/London. If I can make a chemistry analogy, since my memory tells me you are a chemist of some sort, the dynamic between population density seems to be similar to temperature in chemistry. A reaction running at 20 C is not half as fast as a reaction running at 40 C. Covid seems to completely blow up based on population density. NYC and other places showed densely populated public transport probably has an enormous impact. Lucky for us our infrastructure is a joke?? lol Could also think of it like inverse square law. Covid honestly seems to behave like radiation lol. Basically benign unless in close proximity, but totally GG when in close proximity
You’re welcome to suggest that’s the case, but aside from the differences in bordering countries, I don’t see it. NYC sucks because of Cuomo’s considerable ineptitude regarding sending sick elderly patients home to assisted living/nursing homes, which then became a huge tragedy. You’ve gotta add up something like Georgia, Texas, and Florida’s deaths to even come close to NY’s deaths just within nursing homes.
I won’t say the European scorecard is 1:1 comparable, but it isn’t as incomparable as previously suggested by some here.
|
On May 23 2020 05:03 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2020 20:27 farvacola wrote:On May 22 2020 18:20 Gorsameth wrote:On May 22 2020 10:19 Doodsmack wrote:On May 22 2020 09:44 Gorsameth wrote:On May 22 2020 09:18 Doodsmack wrote:Should be interesting to see what happens in Flynn's case. He's appealing the trial judge's decision to request briefs from third parties. I did not realize it before but there is actually a procedural rule which does apparently grant a trial judge discretion to decide whether to grant a prosecution's motion to dismiss (i.e. to end a criminal case with the consent of both the prosecution and defendant). But the question is whether the trial judge only has such discretion in the case of obvious misconduct in the prosecution's decision to dismiss. https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/1263596992896405504 You mean obvious misconduct like withdrawing a case despite multiple guilty pleas because the defendant is a friend of the President? Flynn's case is from what I can tell the textbook situation of why it is ultimately left up to the judge to decide on a dismissal. to avoid a situation where the defendant and DoJ conspire to avoid a trial/sentencing. Also from what I understand of this I can't see how this writ of mandamus has snowballs chance in hell. Its for a situation where a judge is acting unlawfully yet the law clearly states it is up to the judge to grant a dismissal. The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The mere fact that Flynn is the president's friend is not so important when you consider how unprecedented Flynn's entire case is. It all comes down to the events that transpired at the outset of his case. He was, effectively, surveilled by wiretap without any criminal or even national security predicate. He was the incoming national security advisor talking to a foreign diplomat and telling that diplomat not to escalate tensions; he should be encouraged to do that. His alleged lies consisted of him saying "I don't remember," which is a legal hedge against a charge of lying. And the FBI has no business policing the statements White House officials make to each, so it doesn't matter too much that Flynn "lied" to Pence about the phone call. Even granting that the FBI should be policing the conversations White House officials have among one another, the argument that Flynn was vulnerable to blackmail as a result of those conversations is just a total hail mary of an argument. And all of these facts make it a completely unprecedented case that reeks of law enforcement misconduct. A former head of military intelligence having undisclosed contacts with foreign governments when he is required to report them is very much a 'national security' predication. People who get their news from PJMedia, The Blaze, and National Review disagree, Gorsameth, tsk tsk. Members of incoming presidential administrations are not at all required to disclose contacts with foreign governments. EDIT: They probably have to for their security clearances but that's not grounds for an FBI criminal or counterintelligence investigation, let alone an amorphous investigation combining those two in order to achieve a desired outcome. He isn't just a member of an incoming presidential administration, he is a former head of military intelligence.
As someone with some of the highest access to classified information additional rules apply and he is required to register things like payments from foreign governments. Which he didn't. Plus he was already known for messing up reporting his contacts while working for the DIA (like his contact with Svetlana Lokhova)
And yes he lied on his security clearance papers and later in interviews with the FBI, which is what he plead guilty to and is now being tried for.
I'm really puzzled that you think a former head of military intelligence accepting and failing to report foreign government money to promote their interests (both Russia and Turkey) being selected as the national security adviser is somehow not grounds for a counter intelligence investigation?
If someone with access to some of the military's biggest secrets secretly accepting money from other countries isn't enough, what is?
|
People catch Biden's "You ain't Black!" interview with Charlamagne tha God yet?
|
On May 23 2020 06:36 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2020 05:03 Doodsmack wrote:On May 22 2020 20:27 farvacola wrote:On May 22 2020 18:20 Gorsameth wrote:On May 22 2020 10:19 Doodsmack wrote:On May 22 2020 09:44 Gorsameth wrote:On May 22 2020 09:18 Doodsmack wrote:Should be interesting to see what happens in Flynn's case. He's appealing the trial judge's decision to request briefs from third parties. I did not realize it before but there is actually a procedural rule which does apparently grant a trial judge discretion to decide whether to grant a prosecution's motion to dismiss (i.e. to end a criminal case with the consent of both the prosecution and defendant). But the question is whether the trial judge only has such discretion in the case of obvious misconduct in the prosecution's decision to dismiss. https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/1263596992896405504 You mean obvious misconduct like withdrawing a case despite multiple guilty pleas because the defendant is a friend of the President? Flynn's case is from what I can tell the textbook situation of why it is ultimately left up to the judge to decide on a dismissal. to avoid a situation where the defendant and DoJ conspire to avoid a trial/sentencing. Also from what I understand of this I can't see how this writ of mandamus has snowballs chance in hell. Its for a situation where a judge is acting unlawfully yet the law clearly states it is up to the judge to grant a dismissal. The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The mere fact that Flynn is the president's friend is not so important when you consider how unprecedented Flynn's entire case is. It all comes down to the events that transpired at the outset of his case. He was, effectively, surveilled by wiretap without any criminal or even national security predicate. He was the incoming national security advisor talking to a foreign diplomat and telling that diplomat not to escalate tensions; he should be encouraged to do that. His alleged lies consisted of him saying "I don't remember," which is a legal hedge against a charge of lying. And the FBI has no business policing the statements White House officials make to each, so it doesn't matter too much that Flynn "lied" to Pence about the phone call. Even granting that the FBI should be policing the conversations White House officials have among one another, the argument that Flynn was vulnerable to blackmail as a result of those conversations is just a total hail mary of an argument. And all of these facts make it a completely unprecedented case that reeks of law enforcement misconduct. A former head of military intelligence having undisclosed contacts with foreign governments when he is required to report them is very much a 'national security' predication. People who get their news from PJMedia, The Blaze, and National Review disagree, Gorsameth, tsk tsk. Members of incoming presidential administrations are not at all required to disclose contacts with foreign governments. EDIT: They probably have to for their security clearances but that's not grounds for an FBI criminal or counterintelligence investigation, let alone an amorphous investigation combining those two in order to achieve a desired outcome. He isn't just a member of an incoming presidential administration, he is a former head of military intelligence. As someone with some of the highest access to classified information additional rules apply and he is required to register things like payments from foreign governments. Which he didn't. Plus he was already known for messing up reporting his contacts while working for the DIA (like his contact with Svetlana Lokhova) And yes he lied on his security clearance papers and later in interviews with the FBI, which is what he plead guilty to and is now being tried for. I'm really puzzled that you think a former head of military intelligence accepting and failing to report foreign government money to promote their interests (both Russia and Turkey) being selected as the national security adviser is somehow not grounds for a counter intelligence investigation? If someone with access to some of the military's biggest secrets secretly accepting money from other countries isn't enough, what is?
As far as Turkey goes, Flynn did do a registration in accordance with the advice he got from counsel, it just wasn't a FARA registration. His counsel advised him that way because at the time, FARA was not enforced by the gov't. So Flynn's practice was in accord with what the rest of DC was doing. The FARA stuff is on par with the Logan Act. And the FARA threats from Mueller's team occurred long after the outset of Flynn's case, so if Flynn's case lacked predication at the outset, any FARA charges would be "fruit of the poisonous tree."
As far as Russia goes, he was not doing foreign agent work for Russia. He got paid by RT and to be at a dinner with Putin in the past, but he disclosed that to DIA at the time.
Don't remember anything about him lying on security clearance papers.
As far as Lokhova, his contact with her occurred at an event organized by Stefan Halper, who coincedentally was acting as an informant for the FBI. Just a total coincedence though. The FBI's sexual blackmail theory regarding Lokhova was coming from "tips" from Halper and Chris Steele (lol), and it was speculative at best. Not only that, the FBI concluded the theory had no merit, and accordingly planned to close the counterintel case on Flynn because it didn't bear out any evidence of collusion whatsoever.
Flynn's case is unprecedented in that it amounts to selective prosecution (FARA, Logan Act, hail mary blackmail theory) against an incoming national security adviser. And with respect to any national security predicate, it came before any FARA stuff came up. The FBI's claimed counterintel predication was not his contracts with Turkey but his phone call with the Russian ambassador - which is an absurd theory.
Flynn did show terrible judgment in taking the Turkey contract while receiving intel briefings as the incoming national security advisor. But in the US we only prosecute crimes, not generally shady behavior. And no one should be suspending their skepticism of law enforcement in a situation where the incoming presidential administration is subjected to selective prosecution under laws that were not otherwise being enforced at the time.
Your hatred of Trump is causing you to disregard fundamental civil liberties. Flynn was subjected to a roving, amorphous investigation that mixed defunct criminal statutes with far-fetched national security theories. And his status as the incoming national security advisor makes it all the more egregious.
|
This had me shaking my head a bit. Biden being interviewed by a dickcheese guy from the black community (there's been reports he's impossible to interview and does this baiting thing) probably wasn't the best thing. Some of the topics are designed to slip people up and it seems Biden fell for one of them.
Former Vice President Joe Biden is backtracking remarks he made on a popular black radio program on Friday that were criticized as questioning the cultural authenticity of black supporters of President Trump.
"If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black," the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said during an interview with Breakfast Club host Charlamagne Tha God.
Biden's campaign later said the remarks, called "racist" by the Trump campaign, were made "in jest."
But Biden reportedly told black business leaders on a call Friday afternoon that he "shouldn't have been such a wise guy. I shouldn't have been so cavalier."
Throughout Friday morning's 18-minute interview, Biden sought to distinguish his record from Trump's and to make the case for why he was the best candidate for black America. He cited the Trump administration's delayed response to the deadly coronavirus pandemic, which has disproportionately affected African Americans, his own Senate voting record and the overwhelming support he has historically garnered from black voters.
But in his closing remarks to the program, made shortly after he side-stepped speculation of whether he would select a black woman as his running mate in the White House race, Biden took the controversial dig at black Trump supporters, sparking a near-immediate backlash online.
"1.3 million black Americans already voted for Trump in 2016. This morning, Joe Biden told every single one of us we 'ain't black,' " Tim Scott, the lone black Republican in the U.S. Senate, tweeted on Friday morning. "I'd say I'm surprised, but it's sadly par for the course for Democrats to take the black community for granted and brow beat those that don't agree."
Source
Does not make a good impression at all and will only fuel those that already dislike Biden.
|
CTG said that Biden should come back on because he has more questions they didn't get to and his response was:
“You’ve got more questions? Well, I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”
Here's the clip for people to see for themselves if they haven't
It's was an unprovoked, stupid, and offensive thing for Biden to say
|
Yep, really dumb move on his part. Don’t think it matters a whole lot, but we shall see.
|
On May 23 2020 07:08 farvacola wrote:
Yep, really dumb move on his part. Don’t think it matters a whole lot, but we shall see.
Probably the worst performance with Black voters for a Democrat in a long time. He'll still get the conservative Black voters in the south but Black turnout under 60 and north of the mason-dixon will in all likelihood be down significantly, even off Hillary's numbers (since she had more support from Black people in the South).
Trump will probably get the highest Black support of any Republican in a long time too.
|
The majority of (black) voters wont even know this interview happened come voting day, but I get that you want to push and pull on the language of certainty in line with your ideological goals, so go for it.
|
Biden has one job as a candidate who makes an ass of himself and it’s to sit down and shut up, hes got that one thing to do but he just can’t keep his mouth shut. Go away Biden, stay isolated in your basement and stop saying things.
|
I'd prefer to see the whole thing before we start a more protracted discussion on one quote from it. It's definitely questionable from what I'm seeing, but context matters too.
|
Didn't Charlamagne have a weird controversial interview with Warren too? Seems to me that Democrats should avoid his program if they are expecting a softball interview, even though that was an unforced error by Joe.
OFC, this is a problem all the time for Dems when they venture into the podcast world, or anything outside center-left corporate media. That's just a foreseeable downside to not being challenged enough. Trial by fire, as they say.
|
Someone is gonna get fired from Biden's campaign for sure lol
|
On May 23 2020 07:21 farvacola wrote:
The majority of (black) voters wont even know this interview happened come voting day, but I get that you want to push and pull on the language of certainty in line with your ideological goals, so go for it.
It's already went around pretty quickly (trending of course) and I couched everything in probably/likelihood so the "language of certainty" critique doesn't seem applicable.
That said, the majority of Black voters under ~40 will likely know about this interview, and majority or not, it will likely lessen his Black turnout since he thought he could just point to his (awful) record and tell them their choices are voting for him or they aren't Black.
|
Not surprising to me at all. This isn't the first time Biden has pulled a "I'm the Not Trump candidate, and if that's not good enough then fuck you I don't want your vote."
|
On May 23 2020 07:06 GreenHorizons wrote:CTG said that Biden should come back on because he has more questions they didn't get to and his response was: “You’ve got more questions? Well, I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.” Here's the clip for people to see for themselves if they haven't https://twitter.com/AmericaRising/status/1263803921136603136It's was an unprovoked, stupid, and offensive thing for Biden to say
did charlamagne say he wasn't voting for biden or something? why did biden even do this interview?
i'd bet heavily on another 4 years for trump at this point.
but then i would have bet my life savings (not very much in 2016) on hillary so what do i know
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
