Joe Biden's two-term dream is over

[jj3jordan 2,171]

47 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

as long as trump is in the nes and makin

 

trump is a crook. crooks need to be in jail. lock him up by gawd!

Beside beating Hillary in 2016, what was Trumps crime?

[aubiefifty 18,231]

Just now, jj3jordan said:

Beside beating Hillary in 2016, what was Trumps crime?

go away fly.................

[jj3jordan 2,171]

1 minute ago, aubiefifty said:

go away fly.................

Solid answer fiddy but aren't you the one who is normally flying high?

[I_M4_AU 8,935]

2 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Beside beating Hillary in 2016, what was Trumps crime?

Nothing that was provable, even though they have tried multiple times.

[aubiefifty 18,231]

1 minute ago, jj3jordan said:

Solid answer fiddy but aren't you the one who is normally flying high?

not yet jj. i smoke the good stuff so i am not 24 7 getting high plus when i hate to get out i do not do so stoned.

[wdefromtx 3,610]

Yeah, I don't see him getting elected for a second term. He is kinda like all of the Cowboy's head coaches after Jimmy Johnson. Just a puppet with someone pulling the strings. 

[jj3jordan 2,171]

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

No, I'm actually genuinely curious what news websites or opinion websites you typically get your news and information from? 

I've never denied that Biden is an old white guy.......That alone does not prove nor show that the Democrats  sabotaged the campaigners of minority candidates to specifically get a white male in office. I don't know why i have to spell this out for you. 

 

I'll ask again...Where are you guys getting these weird ideas from?

 

 

What weird idea are you talking about? It is all out there in the public domain on all news channels and websites. It is literally what happened. Maybe if you go back and review the news at the beginning of the presidential primaries you will see what i am talking about. Aside from that I can't help you understand.

[CoffeeTiger 5,870]

10 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

What weird idea are you talking about? It is all out there in the public domain on all news channels and websites. It is literally what happened. Maybe if you go back and review the news at the beginning of the presidential primaries you will see what i am talking about. Aside from that I can't help you understand.

Give me some links or sources to what you are talking about. Should be extremely easy for you to do since it was on all the news websites and channels.

 

By the way, I'll ask for a 3rd time:

What news websites or sources do you typically get your news and ideas from? If you continue to ignore the question I guess we can safely assume you don't actually keep up with news and/or only listen to far right-wing opinion sources to tell you want to think.  

[jj3jordan 2,171]

9 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Give me some links or sources to what you are talking about. Should be extremely easy for you to do since it was on all the news websites and channels.

 

By the way, I'll ask for a 3rd time:

What news websites or sources do you typically get your news and ideas from? If you continue to ignore the question I guess we can safely assume you don't actually keep up with news and/or only listen to far right-wing opinion sources to tell you want to think.  

Assume all you want. If you are not aware of the facts I cannot help you.  These are not ideas or opinions.  No one gave them to me. It sounds like you may have a problem discerning ideas on your own without help from a web site or news show.  

[CoffeeTiger 5,870]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

Assume all you want. If you are not aware of the facts I cannot help you.  These are not ideas or opinions.  No one gave them to me. It sounds like you may have a problem discerning ideas on your own without help from a web site or news show.  

You see...this isn't how discussions or debates work. You should have learned this in high school, but I'll explain further. 

If you are going to say that Democrats intentionally sabotaged minority candidates in order to get a old, white, male to be the candidate, then you have two options:

 

1) you either admit that no evidence or proof of this exists, but you believe it to be true, thus making it an opinion(which you are not saying because you claim this view is "factual" and that every news agency reported it.), 

2) You provide sources of information or facts that support your argument. (which you also seem to refuse to do)

 

I provided an argument and statistics showing that it's Republicans, Not Democrats that have an issue with suppressing minority candidates. 

You then proceeded to ignore it, say I was stupid for not believing or understanding your original point, and then whenever pressed for additional sources or information you simply switch to ad hominem attacks. 

 

I absolutely can form my own ideas, but I also like to understand WHY I believe something. I don't tend to believe things just because an idea or belief popped into my head and I decided that me merely thinking it in my head was good enough for it to be an undisputable fact. 

 

 

[aubaseball 2,819]

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

You see...this isn't how discussions or debates work. You should have learned this in high school, but I'll explain further. 

If you are going to say that Democrats intentionally sabotaged minority candidates in order to get a old, white, male to be the candidate, then you have two options:

 

1) you either admit that no evidence or proof of this exists, but you believe it to be true, thus making it an opinion(which you are not saying because you claim this view is "factual" and that every news agency reported it.), 

2) You provide sources of information or facts that support your argument. (which you also seem to refuse to do)

 

I provided an argument and statistics showing that it's Republicans, Not Democrats that have an issue with suppressing minority candidates. 

 

 

 

I didn’t see any evidence of republicans suppressing minority candidates.  All I saw was you putting how many minorities are democrats and republicans.   
 

and by the way, if you haven’t learned that news agencies,papers and other media forms don’t slant their article’s to their way of thinking, you’re own whatever 50 cents on.  
I’ll repeat what I said earlier because it seems that you have a hard time comprehending, at the end of the day, an old white man is in the oval.  I never said anything about sabotage.   I only laid out the facts.   

[jj3jordan 2,171]

56 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

You see...this isn't how discussions or debates work. You should have learned this in high school, but I'll explain further. 

If you are going to say that Democrats intentionally sabotaged minority candidates in order to get a old, white, male to be the candidate, then you have two options:

 

1) you either admit that no evidence or proof of this exists, but you believe it to be true, thus making it an opinion(which you are not saying because you claim this view is "factual" and that every news agency reported it.), 

2) You provide sources of information or facts that support your argument. (which you also seem to refuse to do)

 

I provided an argument and statistics showing that it's Republicans, Not Democrats that have an issue with suppressing minority candidates. 

You then proceeded to ignore it, say I was stupid for not believing or understanding your original point, and then whenever pressed for additional sources or information you simply switch to ad hominem attacks. 

 

I absolutely can form my own ideas, but I also like to understand WHY I believe something. I don't tend to believe things just because an idea or belief popped into my head and I decided that me merely thinking it in my head was good enough for it to be an undisputable fact. 

 

 

I apologize if I said you were stupid. I never said the democrats sabotaged anyone’s campaign. They just told them behind closed doors to quit and not stand in the way of Biden. Had one of them vigorously challenged Biden they could have exposed him like others did in his previous campaigns. When Biden finally announced and entered a primary, there was instant media hype followed by an unprecedented number of candidates who seemingly had decent footholds and could have been the nominee who inexplicably just quit.  When you step back and look at the big picture it is clear.  There are not any links that would spell this out for you for obvious reasons. There may be some you could dig up that floated this as a hypothesis but I’m guessing you would not trust their analysis any more than my own. Does this really matter?  It can’t be proven unless you were in the room. It does explain a surprising reshuffling of campaigns and the extraordinary amount of hype for a historically failed candidate.  Please don’t ask me for links again.

[aubiefifty 18,231]

3 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

You see...this isn't how discussions or debates work. You should have learned this in high school, but I'll explain further. 

If you are going to say that Democrats intentionally sabotaged minority candidates in order to get a old, white, male to be the candidate, then you have two options:

 

1) you either admit that no evidence or proof of this exists, but you believe it to be true, thus making it an opinion(which you are not saying because you claim this view is "factual" and that every news agency reported it.), 

2) You provide sources of information or facts that support your argument. (which you also seem to refuse to do)

 

I provided an argument and statistics showing that it's Republicans, Not Democrats that have an issue with suppressing minority candidates. 

You then proceeded to ignore it, say I was stupid for not believing or understanding your original point, and then whenever pressed for additional sources or information you simply switch to ad hominem attacks. 

 

I absolutely can form my own ideas, but I also like to understand WHY I believe something. I don't tend to believe things just because an idea or belief popped into my head and I decided that me merely thinking it in my head was good enough for it to be an undisputable fact. 

 

 

he knows this already