In fact, let's stop beating around the bush. Let's just pick one of your claims at random and look into it. Please describe this "superpredator bill" that you are attaching to Joe Biden and tell us exactly what it is, when it happened, and who supported and who didn't. It would be great if you cited sources to back your claim, but I understand that's junior high level stuff and you might not be ready for the big leagues in that way yet. So let's just turn one of your vague claims into a specific claim and see what happens, shall we?

get owned lib

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/07/polit...ors/index.html

A repeat of the 30s just in time for the 30s isn't inevitable (hopefully) but can we bothered to do anything about it?

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c48600...sts-crime-bill

Well, it was, yes, though I was asking for more specifics about what exactly he supported, because those claims are a little broad.

But now, no. Let's just take one of them, so we can see exactly why your vague claims are not getting the job done.

Let's look at your "superpredator bill" claim. From I believe 1994, yes?

Can you list the things in that bill that you personally object to? Specifically? Because we can compare that to what Biden is on record as supporting and what he's not. I'm sure you've already done this, though, right?

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c48092...l-i-wrote-bill

hateful hateful hateful

A link to CNN is not an answer to my question.

I will repeat it here:

Can you list the things in the crime bill that you personally find objectionable so we can compare it to list of things he is on record as being in support of or opposed to? I'm sure you've already done that, though your research quality appears to be a little lacking, given your last post of "get owned lib."

jfc

I fail to see how referring to violent criminals as predators and suggesting society needs to be protected from them is hateful.

lol trolls ghana troll.

you got owned. take the l.

And that is your speculation only . Will he try some crazy shxx ? yup but you have the checks and balances in place . Heck if Joe Burden secures the border he still has a good chance to squeak out a victory

I suggest you read a book called The Boy that Cried Wolf

I have no idea what you believe that clip supports out of the things you have said.

this is some sick trolling.

it shows how much Biden supported the Superpredator bill and how involved he was in its creation.

try to keep up.

Yikes, my guy. So the answer is no, then? You cannot list the things in that bill that you personally find objectionable and compare them with what Biden is on record as supporting?

You now understand exactly why you are getting nowhere and sound ridiculous.

You think you did something here, do you?

Yikes. Big yikes.

Anyway, no. I do not feel the same way about Biden that I do about Trump regarding spreading hateful rhetoric. You have demonstrated absolutely nothing of the sort here, despite you ever so mistakenly believing you did.

If you'd ever like to try again to demonstrate it, all you have to do is make specific claims with specific quotes and we can discuss it. This juvenile nonsense you are doing isn't going to impress anyone. Except yourself, I guess. So enjoy your masturbatory celebration posts, I guess?

man, i hope so but the more people he puts in power the harder those checks and balances become. Plus, you have a congress and a supreme court that I'm not so sure care much about the checking and balancing anymore.

whether or not it ultimately comes to fruition is subject to debate. what isn't is this current push to fascism.

i don't think i'm crying wolf at all. We've already seen a massive shift away from the ideal of democracy. the maga crowd definitely has no interest in it. and, we have a lot of folks like you that dismiss it as a big nothing burger.

I have no trouble keeping up. You do.

That was never in question (though, that's absolutely not what that clip demonstrates). The question was, for at least the 6th time:

What in the crime bill did you find objectionable, exactly? Does that conincide with the parts of the bill that Biden was in support of or the parts of the bill that he was not in support of? You see, there is a clear record of which parts he supported and which parts he didn't. I'm sure you already knew that, though, right?

It's very telling that you haven't referenced that at all, though.

This is why I'm insisting on you being specific. It's also why you're refusing to do so.

I also think it's quite telling that you are bringing up things from 30 years ago and ignoring the fact that you know full well how different of a person even you are to the one you were 30 years ago.

I brought up a bunch of stuff from this year. You asked for specifics on the crime bill.

People have written books on how awful it was. And many articles. You want me to go to that effort? I could certainly point you to many articles but you already showed that you don't accept articles.

This was not the only thing you brought up from 20+ years ago, my guy. And yes, I saw you brought up other stuff from current times, but that doesn't negate the fact that you are having to reach back this far into the past to pad out your list (and failing in the meantime).

Again, I was not asking for a list of things that some people thought were awful and opposed to. You could do that for any politician. I'm asking for specific hateful rhetoric or policies that Joe Biden explicitly supported. It's unfathomable to me how you not only haven't gotten that yet, you keep repeatedly asking me if I really want you to do it.

JFC. YES I REALLY WANT YOU TO LIST THE SPECIFIC EXACT POLICIES OR RHETORIC THAT YOU THINK JOE BIDEN SPECIFICALLY SUPPORTED OR EXPLICITLY SAID THAT YOU PERSONALLY FIND OBJECTIONABLE AND HATEFUL AND I WANT YOU TO SUPPORT IT WITH EVIDENCE

Holy mother of god.

I have not once claimed or shown that I don't accept articles. And it would be considerably less effort than this ridiculous crap you've tried to pass off for the past 20 posts.

Good lord.

Bonus points if it comes anywhere near: "Trump plots mass detention and deportation of undocumented immigrants should he regain power" and "Trump sparks Republican backlash after saying immigrants are 'poisoning the blood' of the U.S."

NOTE: that's what supporting a claim of hateful rhetoric with evidence of specific examples looks like. You know, what you haven't attempted even once.

I find all of those things hateful. and Joe Biden supported all of them.

if you dont find them hateful then thats ok. I think you are wrong and bad but whatever. if you arent familiar with them then google works.

if you dont know why they are hateful then I really cant help you. Im not a lawyer or a writer or debater. I find locking up people for years for minor offenses hateful. I find dropping bombs on innocent people hateful. I find saddling young people with lifelong debt hateful (tho less so than the first 2 ofc). I find proxy wars hateful.

if you dont that is fine. we have a different moral calculus.

I do believe the current Supreme Court which consisted of three Trump judges ruled against him or refused to hear any cases from lower courts when it came to his election claims . Many of the individuals and I mean lawyers that tried the fake electors thing are all pleading out . The folks involved in Jan 6th breach of the capital are in jail or were punished

The shift from a democracy we can see with the Democrats on the recent Colorado decision and in Florida were they refused a democratic primary and declared Biden the winner

I think many of the folks crying fascism should go live in a fascist country to see the reality of it

If we truly believed in democracy we would have national referendums on abortion, guns and immigration. Neither party really is for the will of the people. Instead its for the will of the extreme left and right

He doesn't care.

What I can surmise from Victor's posting history is that in his mind he has drawn a line in the sand that divides good policy and bad policy. What people believe, what they would like to get done, what they try to get done but are unable to, doesn't matter. All that matters is what policy they are able to enact. Those who can pass good policy are good. Those who can't are bad. Those who support those who can't are also bad. There is no nuance, or subtlety, or degrees. Good, bad, that's it. Trump, Biden, exactly the same. You've crossed the line, and that's that. And the "libs" get the majority of his wrath, probably because they in theory should be the people putting forth what he sees as good policy, so it's all "lol libs" for him. Conveniently, this all makes pretty much everyone bad, so Victor has an excuse not to vote or do anything to actually change things, other than repeatedly post on forums about how terrible the "libs" are.

Nope. Thread title is still the same.

kind of but not really. close tho.

Demonstrably untrue. He did not support all parts of that bill.

Biden: "The bill also included things I didn’t like. I didn’t support the provision the president wanted in called three strikes and you’re out. Didn’t support it then, don’t support it now."

"Biden is on record at the time as saying he supported a three-strikes provision for “serious [violent] felonies against a person,” but he was against including nonviolent offenses and expressed concern that minor crimes could get swept up in the measure."

"Biden objected to Lott’s definition of “violent felony” as a crime that included the use or threat of physical force against someone punishable by more than one year imprisonment. Biden said that meant the provision could apply to someone who gets into a fistfight in a national park, making their assault a federal felony. He said he had no problem with the provision applying to “a three-time rapist.”"

Biden also suggested limiting the provision to crimes punishable by a decade of prison time or more, according to the Associated Press, which reported on Feb. 23, 1994, that Biden had said “screwy amendments” had been added on the Senate floor. The AP reported: “‘Let’s not take a really solid proposal and because of a half-dozen screwy proposals, trash the whole thing,’ Biden said, urging the House panel to help him rid the bill of those amendments.”

“But quite frankly, I don’t think I will prevail. … I’ve watched how the process works. I am not at all hopeful there will be [enough] senators prepared to vote with me.”

Biden did support $6 billion in funding for state prison construction, but not the $10 billion that was part of the final bill. His campaign says the $4 billion difference is what he means when he says he “didn’t support more money to build state prisons.”


In 2008, Biden said the 100-to-1 ratio was “arbitrary, unnecessary, and unjust,” and acknowledged that legislation he helped draft was “part of the problem that I have been trying to solve since then.”

etc.

From the same article on another of your pet topics: "“He opposed the way we went to war and the way the war was being carried out,” the statement continued. “He has for many years called his vote a mistake and takes full responsibility for it."

That is him today. The current Joe Biden. Not spreading hateful rhetoric.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/07/bi...94-crime-bill/

AGAIN, this is what supporting your claims looks like. As you can see, you don't actually know anything about what Joe Biden supports.

Well this comment didn't age well, did it?

You can try this whole thing again now that you see what actual adult conversation is supposed to look like. If you want. But I'm certainly going to make sure to preserve your comments here so people can see your pathetic attempts even if you do manage to do better in the future.

I never said that he supported all parts of the bill. he supported enough parts of it that I found hateful.

altho your link did bring up another hateful part of Biden which was how cozy he was with segrationists.