Kurve
Moderator
- Dec 27, 2016
- 30,134
- 63,029
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Moderator
- #31
Here is US Politics - Pt 1
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
NWO/Illuminati US politics - Pt 2
- Thread starter Werewolf
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
lol Biden
- Oct 21, 2011
- 2,187
- 8,256
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Biden bragged about how tough on crime he was, how many more people were going to be sent to prison. It shows how cooked you are that you continually come out to bat for the bloke. Have a read of the vice article i linked, it also contains lots of links to other stories about all this.
Lol democrats considering asking dopey to step aside.
Brilliant.
Brilliant.
- Moderator
- #7,605
No, answer my question. Stop deflecting.
Would the Bill (providing billioms in drug counseling and education and other social welfare provisoms) have passed Ronald Reagan (and the Republican Senate) without those tough on crime provisions?
Yes or No will suffice.
Getting surreal here zill 
But no, thats just what you'd like to point to be. The actual point, as would be obvious to anyone unfortunate enough to be following this shambolic exchange, is that Trump wanted Biden investigated (per his call to Zelensky) and was looking for anything to hang that on. Lo and behold, the "laptop from hell" emerges, complete with ironclad proof of the Bidens' corruption. Yet somehow, despite this proof, Trump's handpicked guys running both the DoJ and FBI decline to do anything about it. Rather than accept the fairly obvious implication that there actually wasn't much on the laptop they could get the Bidens for, you go with "coz they're corrupt", and these life long Republicans are actually covering up for the Bidens.
You know it makes sense!
We about done here?
Ahh, the J6 defense. It didn't work, therefore all good play on.
But no, thats just what you'd like to point to be. The actual point, as would be obvious to anyone unfortunate enough to be following this shambolic exchange, is that Trump wanted Biden investigated (per his call to Zelensky) and was looking for anything to hang that on. Lo and behold, the "laptop from hell" emerges, complete with ironclad proof of the Bidens' corruption. Yet somehow, despite this proof, Trump's handpicked guys running both the DoJ and FBI decline to do anything about it. Rather than accept the fairly obvious implication that there actually wasn't much on the laptop they could get the Bidens for, you go with "coz they're corrupt", and these life long Republicans are actually covering up for the Bidens.
You know it makes sense!
Right, and you've specifically carved out an exception to this for Trump.
Never said he wasn't, and of course he is. According to your own logic, that means he won't shy away from trying to get another politician in court.
We about done here?
FireKrakouer
Justice for Peanut!!
- Jul 5, 2011
- 15,978
- 24,337
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
I must admit that even I, the great FK, did not predict how badly this would go for sleepy joe. Had an AFL team performed that horribly, I would demand that they be investigated for tanking.
Now we get to see the Don bully whoever replaces Joe in the second debate.
You spelt 'obvious' wrong. Should have been done long ago.
- Apr 23, 2016
- 33,896
- 48,684
- AFL Club
- Essendon
I must admit that even I, the great FK, did not predict how badly this would go for sleepy joe. Had an AFL team performed that horribly, I would demand that they be investigated for tanking.
Now we get to see the Don bully whoever replaces Joe in the second debate.
Simping for both Trump and Elon at once? Impressive, your knees must be red raw.
FireKrakouer
Justice for Peanut!!
- Jul 5, 2011
- 15,978
- 24,337
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
No need to get upset and resort to homophobia m8.
- Apr 23, 2016
- 33,896
- 48,684
- AFL Club
- Essendon
What's homophobic about being on your knees?
- Mar 11, 2012
- 6,944
- 17,643
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Sturt, Southampton FC, LSU
Clarko likes this.
Not sure the Democrats have an alternate candidate that makes up for the general advantage of incumbency.
That being said, Biden's public appearances for the last 2 years or so have been really, really bad.
I'm sure he's in good health for an 81 year old, but he is just visibly shot. Maybe he is in denial about the toll the job is taking on his body. If he is serious about contesting he shouldn't have agreed to a debate. Would not be surprised if scheduling an early debate was a play to get him out of the nomination early.
I think Trump probably wins in November, it's just whether that's against Biden or someone else.
He has made gains with black voters, which will likely get him over the line in a few swing states, and it seems in general there are fewer 'never Trumpers' than in 2016 and 2020.
That being said, Biden's public appearances for the last 2 years or so have been really, really bad.
I'm sure he's in good health for an 81 year old, but he is just visibly shot. Maybe he is in denial about the toll the job is taking on his body. If he is serious about contesting he shouldn't have agreed to a debate. Would not be surprised if scheduling an early debate was a play to get him out of the nomination early.
I think Trump probably wins in November, it's just whether that's against Biden or someone else.
He has made gains with black voters, which will likely get him over the line in a few swing states, and it seems in general there are fewer 'never Trumpers' than in 2016 and 2020.
I must admit that even I, the great FK, did not predict how badly this would go for sleepy joe. Had an AFL team performed that horribly, I would demand that they be investigated for tanking.
Now we get to see the Don bully whoever replaces Joe in the second debate.
I am surprised a man as intelligent as yourself did not foresee this result. Biden is an absolute trainwreck.
The great man impressed the hell out of me with his ability to stay calm and not take the bait.
Ubermensch
- Oct 21, 2011
- 2,187
- 8,256
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
What exactly are you struggling with? I've said pollies aren't interested in prosecuting other pollies. Trump is an obvious exception given the amount of charges he has faced. Even then the only thing that stuck was misuse of campaign funds or whatever he got done for.Getting surreal here zill
Ahh, the J6 defense. It didn't work, therefore all good play on.
But no, thats just what you'd like to point to be. The actual point, as would be obvious to anyone unfortunate enough to be following this shambolic exchange, is that Trump wanted Biden investigated (per his call to Zelensky) and was looking for anything to hang that on. Lo and behold, the "laptop from hell" emerges, complete with ironclad proof of the Bidens' corruption. Yet somehow, despite this proof, Trump's handpicked guys running both the DoJ and FBI decline to do anything about it. Rather than accept the fairly obvious implication that there actually wasn't much on the laptop they could get the Bidens for, you go with "coz they're corrupt", and these life long Republicans are actually covering up for the Bidens.
You know it makes sense!
Right, and you've specifically carved out an exception to this for Trump.
Never said he wasn't, and of course he is. According to your own logic, that means he won't shy away from trying to get another politician in court.
We about done here?
- Oct 21, 2011
- 2,187
- 8,256
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
You are the one who is deflecting. If you were in any wau informed about the bill you wouldn't be asking this. Democrats were clearly looking to be tougher on crime than the republicans.
"The Anti-Drug Abuse Act authorized more than $1 billion for drug enforcement, education and treatment programs. But one of its most consequential provisions was the “100-1” rule, so named because it required a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for trafficking in 500 grams of powder cocaine or five grams of crack.
Though Biden took responsibility for the formula in 2002, it is unclear exactly how it came to be part of his bill. The ratio was more aggressive than proposals from either the Reagan administration, which sought a “20-1” rule, or House Democrats, who held the majority and sought a “50-1” rule, but less aggressive than the “1,000-1” ratio proposed by Sen. Lawton Chiles (D-Fla.), the co-chairman of Biden’s working group."
Last edited:
- Moderator
- #7,618
No, I've already ****ing agreed with you. Biden literally sponsored the Bill. Im in 100 percent agreement with you (and so is Biden, who has publicly disavowed his sponsorship and admitted the Act disproportionately targeted Black Americans).
Agreeing with you, is anything BUT deflecting.
Now, for the third time, answer MY question:
Would the Bill (providing billions in drug counseling and education and other social welfare measures) have passed Ronald Reagan (and the Republican Senate) without those tough on crime provisions?
Yes or No will suffice.
- Oct 21, 2011
- 2,187
- 8,256
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Still deflecting. Raegan would have accepted a 20:1 ratio for cocaine vs crack, Biden pushed it to 100:1.
Another quote from Biden, about the 1994 crime bill:
Democratic Senator Joe Biden of Delaware used the law to respond to the common and erroneous criticism that liberals were soft on crime:
"Let me define the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is now for 60 new death penalties. That is what is in this bill. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party has 70 enhanced penalties.... The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is for 100,000 cops. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is for 125,000 new state prison cells."
Did Liberals Put Black America Behind Bars? - Newsweek
A Princeton professor argues that well-meaning progressives helped imprison record numbers of African-Americans.
www.newsweek.com
- Moderator
- #7,620
Still deflecting. Raegan would have accepted a 20:1 ratio for cocaine vs crack, Biden pushed it to 100:1.
Another quote from Biden, about the 1994 crime bill:
Democratic Senator Joe Biden of Delaware used the law to respond to the common and erroneous criticism that liberals were soft on crime:
"Let me define the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is now for 60 new death penalties. That is what is in this bill. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party has 70 enhanced penalties.... The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is for 100,000 cops. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is for 125,000 new state prison cells."
Did Liberals Put Black America Behind Bars? - Newsweek
A Princeton professor argues that well-meaning progressives helped imprison record numbers of African-Americans.
I AGREE WITH YOU.
Now stop weaseling out and show some integrity. I'll ask you again, for the 5th time.
In your opinion, would the Bill (providing billions in drug counseling and education and other social welfare measures) have passed Ronald Reagan (and the Republican Senate) without 'tough on crime' provisions?
Yes, or No?
Come on mate, you can do it.
- Oct 21, 2011
- 2,187
- 8,256
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
The billions weren't just for drug counselling, it was also for drug enforcement.
And the democrats controlled the house at the time. Deflecting the blame away from Biden is pathetic.
- Moderator
- #7,622
I know, I literally said as much above. But a Bill has to pass the House AND the Senate (which was controlled by the Republicans) and also it has to clear the President (who at the time was Reagan, a Republican not exactly known for his profligate spending on social welfare programs like 'drug counseling and welfare', and in fact literally known for his policy to cut government spending everywhere other than on Defence and 'Tough on Crime' shit).
Again, for the sixth time. Stop weaseling out and answer the damn question.
In your opinion, would the Bill (providing billions in drug counseling and education and other social welfare measures) have passed Ronald Reagan (and the Republican controlled Senate) without the 'tough on crime' provisions?
Yes, or No?
- Moderator
- #7,623
**** it, I presume your reluctance to answer the question and obfuscate repeatedly tells me you know the answer is 'Not a chance in Hell the Republicans and Ronald Reagan would approve of billions of dollars in drug counselling, education and rehabilitation measures, without the Bill containing 'Tough on Crime' measures.'
Yes Biden authored the Bill. And yes, he likely supported many of its provisions (likely including the mandatory sentencing for 5 grams of Crack provision). But the political reality was that without those provisions, the Bill never would have gotten off the floor of the Senate, and even if it did, Reagan would have shitcanned it with his Veto.
Yes Biden authored the Bill. And yes, he likely supported many of its provisions (likely including the mandatory sentencing for 5 grams of Crack provision). But the political reality was that without those provisions, the Bill never would have gotten off the floor of the Senate, and even if it did, Reagan would have shitcanned it with his Veto.
- Moderator
- #7,624
Also, it's worth mentioning that Biden has repudiated his support of the Bill. Repeatedly.
Doesn't exactly sound like the words of a man who 'supports life sentences for all drug charges'.
Doesn't exactly sound like the words of a man who 'supports life sentences for all drug charges'.
- Oct 21, 2011
- 2,187
- 8,256
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Like I said, the money was for drug enforcement as well as counselling and welfare. You keep omitting that part. You are also deflecting away from the democrats tough on crime stance. Biden literally said that republicans weren't tough enough on crime. Led by Biden, they were trying to outdo the republicans. Clinton achieved that with another Biden led bill a few years later.
And just so you know, the bill can pass even if the president vetoes it.
- Status
