Could it be that this is like the old Kennedy/Nixon debate, where Kennedy famously dominated when you watched him on TV?
That article says: "His soft voice and bumbling manner played right into the MAGA narrative that he is past his use-by date. The chattering class said it was a disaster for Biden. He even alarmed many Democrats. But, reading the cold transcript, we get a very different picture of Biden. Substantively, he ably and forcefully made the case that that Trump should not be allowed back in the Oval Office."
Now, when I watched, I listened and thought in a "transcript-y" way some of the time. I thought Biden would get credit for producing long sentences containing substantive material, but after the debate, I saw that people were devastated by how awful he looked and sounded. That's why I just went looking for the transcript.
The Hill picks out many good sentences from the transcript, e.g., on abortion, "The idea that the politicians — that the founders wanted the politicians to be the ones making decisions about women’s health is ridiculous. … No politician should be making that decision."
That's one of the many, many Biden sentences that began "The idea." I tried counting. It's more than 20.
पोस्ट्स
१७८ टिप्पण्या:
The coverup tries too hard.
Apply that to the Hur tapes.
The transcript is bad. How awful is the audio?
From the second Joe shuffled onto the stage and gave his weak wave, I knew the debate was over.
Jill knew this would go poorly. It is all part of her scheme to collect her bribe of at least $10m in bitcoin from the VP. Joe will step down before the Dem convention in Chicago.
The bitcoin bribe is the story here.
It's like the old Winston Churchill line, we know the Bidens take bribes we're just haggling over price.
He used 'The idea that..." like a New England woman in the 1800s reprimanding a neighbor for making an accusation that, while might be true, should not be talked about.
He lied his ass off about both of their records and statements. And the new Biden is quite prone to nonsequiturs. “We finally beat Medicare!” and other weird stuff.
Biden is obviously right. The founders wanted the supreme court to be making decisions about women's reproduction, or lack thereof...
"His soft voice and bumbling manner played right into the MAGA narrative that he is past his use-by date. The chattering class said it was a disaster for Biden. He even alarmed many Democrats. But, reading the cold transcript, we get a very different picture of Biden. Substantively, he ably and forcefully made the case that that Trump should not be allowed back in the Oval Office."
Translation: Joe's got 'em right where he wants 'em! The walls are closing in on Trump!
The lengths these people will go to delude themselves.....
Is this cruel neutrality?
the transcript replaces his "em eh ah um erm"'s (his "stuttering") with single dashes
for example.. The famous line that no one knew what he said, was replaced with:
And I’m going to continue to move until we get the total ban on the –
the total initiative relative to what we’re going to do with more Border Patrol and more asylum officers.
YES! ABSOLUTELY! The Biden in the "transcript" reads Much More Better than resident Biden sounded
and That's Because.. He didn't write the lines, he just recited what he heard in his earpiece
Good! let's see more pushback to keep Joe in the race!
"decisions about women’s health"
When you put it that way...
"Come on Man" Joe is no longer. Replaced by "The Idea!" Brandon. The stern Victorian expressing contempt--my schoolmarm Grandmother's diction. That'll whip those defecting youth voters back in line.
Apparently the Hill wants us not to believe our lying eyes!
They must be joking.
Biden's delivery, especially at the beginning, was like that of a middle-school kid trying to give a memorized speech before he forgets it. Fixed, unblinking stare, rigid posture, rapid-fire, inflectionless tone...
Or maybe a Catholic school kid saying a compulsory rosary.
As I was commenting last night, I was trying to hold my eyes open for as long as he was - it hurt.
That sounded better in the original mandarin
I see in the transcript, Trump is being blamed for the budgets passed by the House in his final 2 years by the "non-Partisan", mostly Democrat and John Kasich,
"Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget" full of former legislators as board members that participated in passing irresponsible federal budgets and staff workers that all earned a living at the federal trough.
"The Hill picks out many good sentences from the transcript, e.g., on abortion, "The idea that the politicians — that the founders wanted the politicians to be the ones making decisions about women’s health is ridiculous. … No politician should be making that decision."
I've seen that trope in a mindless meme that states, in essence, 'shut up about the Founding Fathers.'
Who is making that argument? And if no one is, then it's a straw man. More so than that, it's illiberal to shout someone down before they even have a chance to make their case.
Biden said... "Convicted Felon!".... what else do you want?
I find it fascinating that CNN has chosen to to even speak to a member of the Trump campaign team. They clearly refused to put anybody on screen.
Women's health care coincides with the baby's health care. Women's health care precedes conception, so that the women can avoid toxic drug cocktails, going under the scalpel, the "burden" of passing a partially aborted carbon cluster, and other forward-looking side-effects of planned parenthood.
Biden is fine. No need to replace him. He’s fine.
"But, reading the cold transcript, we get a very different picture of Biden. Substantively, he ably and forcefully made the case that that Trump should not be allowed back in the Oval Office."
Including the part where he beat Medicare?
Including the part where he lost no soldiers on his watch?
Including the part where he claimed Trump intended to end Social Security?
There were a lot of these. I know Trump had them, too. But the transcripts can't show a Biden in command of the facts. Not unless they've been altered.
The Constitution is written to and for two parties: the People and our Posterity. The founders clearly recognized the long-term viability of our nation through reproductive rights, not rites - a wicked solution.
I've got a problem with trumpeting the phrase "no politician should make that decision [re abortion]". It elides the question of whether a doctor and a woman should be able to make that decision if the people of a state have restricted abortion.
In Joe's version of the world, no politician should be involved--but it's hunkey dookie if an appointed, not elected, Supreme Court justice gets involved.
Ah well in Joe's world, "here's the deal" young women get raped by their sisters.
The Hill picks out many good sentences from the transcript, e.g., on abortion...
And there you have it. I've always said Democrats could run a tomato and still win because of their superior vote harvesting and abortion. Women will vote for the tomato.
Hey, all they gotta do is get Biden running hard, holding long late night, entertaining rallies and his "Resting 25th Amendment Face" [John Stewart, Post debate TDS] will be forgotten, I'm sure.
Here's Stewart's attempt at salvage
https://youtu.be/3SJr44m-w1Y
"Ah well in Joe's world, "here's the deal" young women get raped by their sisters."
Didn't Lena Dunham confess to doing that to her sister?
If you had asked the people who wrote The Constitution whether or not the document meant women could freely abort their children whenever they wanted, I feel pretty certain the answer would have been a near unanimous, "No."
A friend who I was texting during the debate asked if he could copyright "The Idea" as a drinking game.
If the standard is repeating the hackneyed attacks on Trump, not bad. On the issues, terrible. For example: "...politicians to be the ones making decisions about women’s health is ridiculous...."
First of all, "women's health" my ass. We're talking about abortion. The decision rarely turns on women's health. Next, so the Affordable Care Act and thousands of statutes, etc., regulating health care issues don't involve decisions made by politicians. Really?
The bottom line is that he was as bad as we expected (or feared) he would be. Nobody thought he would blow it completely, only mostly. And he did.
Looks like Biden is done. The MSM is running lots of “who will replace Biden” stories today. I can’t see him surviving this shitstorm from his allies in the press.
The transcript reads worse than what I heard Biden say last night- he loses the thread on what he is saying so many times I quit counting. Sure, you can pick sentences out of his responses at the very start of the response but by the midpoint he was forgetting what he was actually talking about. He had the answers rehearsed before he took the stage and was able to regurgitate parts of those answers before his mind wandered away from the topic.
"He used 'The idea that..." like a New England woman in the 1800s reprimanding a neighbor for making an accusation that, while might be true, should not be talked about."
I was picturing Margaret Dumont outraged at something Groucho Marx said.
Or maybe Auntie Em unable to truly curse Mrs. Gulch.
Starting a sentence with "The idea that" is a good way to avoid responsibility for bringing the sentence in for a landing.
The idea that the majority of the people should decide whether a woman must bring her pregnancy to term... then what? The idea... is a bad idea. The idea... makes me so mad. The idea... should not even be said aloud. It's not just wrong to do it, it's wrong even to say it.
Sorry, that's Miss Gulch.
She was emphatically not married.
That's what made her so mean, so hostile to dogs.
The media is in so deep on this that they will go to the mattresses to save Biden--not for Biden's sake, but for their own.
The problem is not just Biden's dementia, but also the vast apparatus set up to convince us he's ok and the millions of Democrats willing to go along so long as they have plausible deniability.
That's what really went wrong for the Democrats last night--plausible deniability has been lost.
Dave Begley said...
Jill knew this would go poorly. It is all part of her scheme to collect her bribe of at least $10m in bitcoin from the VP. Joe will step down before the Dem convention in Chicago.
6/28/24, 11:12 AM
"Oh I'm sure you would, jez. But I'll take $100 million in Bitcoin, laundered by my Santander boytoy until I'm satisfied. Yeah, suck billionaires until you get it, I don't care. Either they 'contribute' a lot more or they can look forward to Trump hanging them."
So, there is a power struggle going on between the camp that wants Biden gone (cause they think he can't win, even with the cheat baked in) and the camp that wants him to remain at least until after the election.
"If you had asked the people who wrote The Constitution whether or not the document meant women could freely abort their children whenever they wanted, I feel pretty certain the answer would have been a near unanimous, "No.""
The question to those people — AKA the framers — would be Can Congress pass a statute making it a crime for a woman to end her pregnancy?
I think their answer would clearly be no. You've framed the wrong question, so answer mine. Why would the framers be considering anything other than whether there is federal legislative power to outlaw abortion and why would they think they had put that power within the Congress's limited enumerated powers?
I want to argue with you, Althouse, about your soft acceptance of Trump's sociopathology. But that's old, unproductive ground. Instead, I want to explore your feeling that Biden didn't really lose the debate in any catastrophic way. Becuase I am reading about several ovdrnight focus groups that saw the debate the way that you did. A CNN 15-member panel that watched the entire debate polled this way at the end:
BIDEN WON - 7
TRUMP WON - 7
TIE - 1
There are others that I'll be looking at in the days ahead, and I hope Althouse blogs them.
And one more thing; Althouse is a very interesting (if not peculiar) case of someone who is not thrilled with Trump policies, but who likes Trump personally and is angered by Trump haters (like me). What we normally presume about Trump sympathizers is the opposite; folks who "like Trump's policies but not the Tweets." Althouse; as a policy and a perfomance matter, which Presidency was a better one? Trump, with a chaotic and personally incompetent performance in the COVID crisis, and with profound damage to our international security allies? Or Biden's presidency, guiding the country to a best-of-all-Western-economies performance in dampening inflation? Record economic gains (unemployment, wage growth, stock market, energy production)? Althouse has every imaginable reason to prefer the Biden Presidency base on real performance and policy. (For what it's worth, I've been lukewarm on much of Biden's policy. I just hate Trump and view him as a profound threat to the nation.)
Althouse at 11:59; your credible, admirable law school-framing is typical of what I had admired about your blog, pre-Trump. I was of course writing my 12:00 PM post as yours was being written and they should not be read as a pair.
The dems dont care about the constitution or the founder they are dead white slavers
"Biden's presidency, guiding the country to a best-of-all-Western-economies performance in dampening inflation? Record economic gains (unemployment, wage growth, stock market, energy production)?"
Wow. Great work Joe!
"By the way, the Border Patrol endorsed me [Biden], endorsed my position,”
Border Patrol Union: “To be clear, we never have and never will endorse Biden,”
And who knew that speaking like a lost, dazed, senile old fart = "lacked oomph"
"The question to those people — AKA the framers — would be Can Congress pass a statute making it a crime for a woman to end her pregnancy?"
Sigh......
I agree their answer to your question would likely be a "No" but that isn't the point is it? They would almost surely to a man have answered that that power to ban abortion belonged to the states that make up the union. They surely would not have agreed that The Constitution took that power away from the states, too, in addition to forbidding it to Congress.
The framers also didn't mention sadomasochism, pedophilia, and other sexual orientations. They were focused on providing a viable, conservative governing framework for the People and our Posterity.
Somehow Chuck! left out Pedo Pete's fulfilling '20 campaign promise to surge the border.
Promises made, promises kept.
He should update us on his guest room high density bunk bed project.
The hill is written by bots change my mind
Could it be that this is like the old Kennedy/Nixon debate, where Kennedy famously dominated when you watched him on TV?
That is a myth not reflected in the initial reporting or from the moderator, who certainly had the best view of the participants and said Nixon seemed to make the better case. But about last night and Biden’s ridiculous outbursts, someone above mentions “sister rapists,” which alone is a creepy and strange phrase. But it was in the context of a truly bizarre outburst from Biden, apparently in defense of his border policy.
Biden starts out reminding us that Trump went to (though I think Trump only called the mother) the funeral of someone raped by one of Joe’s unvetted border jumpers. But he gets lost and suddenly jumps to a “but” gotcha that went way awry, saying a lot of women are raped by their in-laws and spouses and brothers and sisters. If one is not a Biden these statements sound otherworldly but Joe is well known for abusing his children and sniffing the children of others in very public places.
I’m sure it made sense in his dense doll-haired head. Trump looked stunned. Tapper pivoted to a different topic.
20 campaign promise to surge the border.
Promises made, promises kept.
Excess murder, rape, rape-rape, and climate progress. That said, the resort islands are flooding, and definitely don't come to Martha's Vineyard.
"Joe is fighting for the families!"
Translation: Jill Biden says "gfy" to the American media.
Matt Taibbi noted "the idea" thing early in his livestream, and by the end was falling off his chair when it happened over and over.
The women's vote is not lost!
"They would almost surely to a man have answered that that power to ban abortion belonged to the states that make up the union. They surely would not have agreed that The Constitution took that power away from the states, too, in addition to forbidding it to Congress."
It's not a question of the Constitution doing this, which is why I think bringing up the framers is off point except to the extent that these were people who also cared about state law. The states had constitutions limiting legislative power and recognizing rights. You ought to look into the history of legislation against abortion. Do you know the extent to which government involved itself in obstetrics and gynecology in the 18th century?
The Framers were stability guys, not feelings guys. You don't put in feelings that overturn stability. That's why women can't operate big systems.
"... to a man ... "
LOL.
Well, there were no women there, were there? However, if you had polled the women of 1789 there would not have been great disagreement with the men of the time.
Michael K said...
The coverup tries too hard.
6/28/24, 11:10 AM
Shhhh. Biden did great. There's no coverup. He's sharper now than he has ever been (actually that doesn't mean that much). He'll do great at the convention and kick Trump's butt in the second debate.
There's no point in bringing in a ringer who will be able to say s/he had nothing to do with opening up border, crime and inflation but boy-howdie does s/he have some excellent ideas on how to fix all that at the same time protecting pregnant people's healthcare.
"If you had asked the people who wrote The Constitution whether or not the document meant women could freely abort their children whenever they wanted, I feel pretty certain the answer would have been a near unanimous, "No.""
The question to those people — AKA the framers — would be Can Congress pass a statute making it a crime for a woman to end her pregnancy?
I think their answer would clearly be no. You've framed the wrong question, so answer mine. Why would the framers be considering anything other than whether there is federal legislative power to outlaw abortion and why would they think they had put that power within the Congress's limited enumerated powers?
So what Demented Joe spouted a few good lines. Remember he is a Master Plagiarist. There are few good political ideas of men and women that he has not pretended to be his. But that makes him a Liar. That’s all.
Ditto Althouse @ 12:20 PM.
"Do you know the extent to which government involved itself in obstetrics and gynecology in the 18th century?"
Now you are trying to change the subject, Althouse. The question is, "Would the people who wrote the Constitution have agreed that the states couldn't outlaw abortion?" That it wasn't regulated at the time doesn't mean they were ignorant of the subject and might well have been willing to tolerate the practice but that, again, isn't the issue- the only question I have raised is would they have considered abortion a right protected by The Constitution. I maintain that they would not have done so and for very good practical reasons.
You seem to be trying to conflate two different questions to avoid answering the first one.
I get it. Biden voters would rather run into a bear in the woods, than vote for Donald Trump.
link
The States have defined criteria for assessing viable human life for purposes of criminal prosecution, medical resuscitation, protective services, legal liability, etc.
Who are you going to believe? A transcript that we double-promise is accurate, or your own lying eyes?
That transcript might as well be from another planet as representative of what came out of his mouth.
The transcript - yes, run on that.
"That it wasn't regulated at the time doesn't mean they were ignorant of the subject and might well have been willing to tolerate the practice but that, again, isn't the issue- the only question I have raised is would they have considered abortion a right protected by The Constitution. I maintain that they would not have done so and for very good practical reasons."
How did they conceive of the role of government? Did they envision regulating every aspect of life? You're trying to use 18th century people for support of your 21st century experience with big government and individual rights needed as a defense. It's too anachronistic to work as argument. You must begin with an idea of limited government, not with the idea of individual rights adequate to fight against a type of government that was not within the experience of real life.
Abortion is a single issue voter question. It’s no use to talk… reminds me of that ‘Young Turks’ song by Rod Stuart, but with a different ending.
Since demos-cracy, human rites, and other indtances of "burden" relief, can be aborted in darkness, the practical issue is concerned with due process. Homicides are only prosecuted when they are known and with evidence to establish motive, opportunity, mitigating factors, etc. The conclusion our society and humanity have reached is to discourage the practices and their progress through establishment of moral taboos, and meting secular damages.
That was one long deep fake video CNN made, huh?
But here’s the deal, there’s a lot of young women who are being raped by their – by their in-laws, by their – by their spouses, brothers and sisters, by – just – it’s just – it’s just ridiculous.
Our Republican form of government operates with a national charter and under a Constitution with the intent to preserve individual rights (e.g. to life) and mitigate authoritarian progress.
Well, maybe the few cherry-picked sentences from the transcript will sway someone who didn't bother to watch the debacle. No one who watched (or will watch the flood of clips that will be flying around the interwebs) will be fooled. I wondered how the DNC-Media would try and spin it. I didn't expect this particular variation of 'don't believe your lying eyes'.
Trump put out a "cheap fake" video of the debate. It is a small investment of time, but it is devastating.
and it happened during PRIDE month
the nerve
Abortion (i.e. homicides) , redistributive change, IED, ethnic Springs, political congruence, Dreams of Herr Mengele, regulatory progress, are among the diverse issues that influence people's choices.
"If you had asked the people who wrote The Constitution whether or not the document meant women could freely abort their children whenever they wanted, I feel pretty certain the answer would have been a near unanimous, "No.""
The question to those people — AKA the framers — would be Can Congress pass a statute making it a crime for a woman to end her pregnancy?
I think their answer would clearly be no. You've framed the wrong question, so answer mine. Why would the framers be considering anything other than whether there is federal legislative power to outlaw abortion and why would they think they had put that power within the Congress's limited enumerated powers?
I think both of your questions are the proper ones when combined together. There are really three positions:
- would the Framers have felt that the Constitution provided a fundamental right to abortion;
- would the Framers have believed that Congress had the power to limit or prohibit abortion altogether: or
- would the Framers have felt the power to limit/prohibit abortions was reserved to the states pursuant to the 10th Amendment.
I suspect they would have selected the third of these, based in part on the absence of general federal murder statutes (there were statutes criminalizing murder committed on the high seas, during acts of piracy, or committed on federal lands where no state had jurisdiction), which suggests that matters involving life and death did not, in the ordinary circumstance, rise to a federal level.
PRIDE month
Lions, lionesses, and their unPlanned cubs playing in gay revelry on the African savanna.
In America, under albinophobic rhetoric and banners of equity and inclusion.
Nothing can be said sufficient to dispel or blunt the optics.
With a revolutionary war gathering, the framers punted on slavery, but notably not on Diversity (e.g. racism, sexism) that is not recorded.
This is, as the kids say these days, a whole lot of "cope". Also, "cringe".
A CNN 15-member panel that watched the entire debate polled this way at the end:
BIDEN WON - 7
TRUMP WON - 7
TIE - 1
The problem is they were all paid to deliver BIDEN WON 15-0.
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...
Could it be that this is like the old Kennedy/Nixon debate, where Kennedy famously dominated when you watched him on TV?
That is a myth not reflected in the initial reporting or from the moderator, who certainly had the best view of the participants and said Nixon seemed to make the better case. But about last night and Biden’s ridiculous outbursts, someone above mentions “sister rapists,” which alone is a creepy and strange phrase.
It seemed like Biden was saying "Give the guy(rapist) a break, everyone rapes"
I think their answer would clearly be no. You've framed the wrong question, so answer mine. Why would the framers be considering anything other than whether there is federal legislative power to outlaw abortion and why would they think they had put that power within the Congress's limited enumerated powers?
There was no concept of abortion prior to the 19th century. The very first abdominal operation was in 1809 and was to remove a huge ovarian tumor. Ephraim McDowell was the surgeon, and the surgery was successful as the tumor was benign and the patient lived another 32 years. McDowell's surgery was doubted for a long time but eventually he was given credit.
McDowell also did a lithotomy on President Polk, a gruesome procedure but common in that era. Samuel Pepys keep his bladder stone, the size of a tennis ball, for years on display. The closest to abortion was repair of a fistula between bladder and vagina, a consequence of difficult childbirth. That was accomplished by J Marion Simms, who has been a victim of 20th century morality.
It would seem that availability of birth control pills for sexually active women, and the morning after pills for the occasional unplanned hook-up would kinda lessen the hysteria over abortion on demand.
Imagine the morning after pill is as accessible as viagra online.
"Biden said a bunch of stuff we agree with. The voters are too stupid to understand what is best for them" - The Press.
What happened to the Asshat’s love affair with Frank Luntz’s panel? Our LLR Cuckster has abandoned Frank for CNN. Is it because Luntz’s undecideds broke overwhelmingly for Trump? Is that it?
The transcript used to be an Olympic Gold Medalist.
The transcript tells a different tale: “I supported Roe v. Wade, which had three trimesters,” Biden said. “The first time is between a woman and a doctor. Second time is between the doctor and an extreme situation. The third time is between the doctor — I mean between the woman and the state.”
Lost in the penumbras, but somehow Joe manages to evoke the hopelessly confused legal reasoning of Blackmun. Amazing that any serious legal scholar could treat the Roe v Wade opinion with anything but contemptuous laughter.
"We are finally.. err ummm. [indecipherable] finding housing for black Americans." - Joe Biden
Anybody do a fact check on the housing situation for black Americans when we are letting in millions of illegals who must be housed? No, that's not how the fact checks work, if there is a program where one of Biden's cronies got paid by the govt to put up a single unit of housing that a black family then rented, this will be rated as "True."
Joe in NC says he intends to win that state.
I'm telling you all here, he's driving up the bribe price.
"And son of bitch, Kamela and Doug paid the bribe!"
Althouse the AWFL found the pony!
"I suspect they would have selected the third of these, based in part on the absence of general federal murder statutes"
I find that most people are surprised when I tell them that murder is, for the most part, a state crime. There are some exceptions, those you mentioned and a couple of others, such as killing a federal official or a judge, and during a bank robbery.
Did they pick up the bit where Biden talked about people needing abortions after being raped by their sisters? What about that part where he made the case for that twelve-year old kid who was raped and murdered by a migrant, presumably implying she too might have wanted an abortion if she had lived?
Hey you guys! It's still a pig!
Wow, Biden could remember some good sentences. That's a pretty low bar.
"I suspect they would have selected the third of these, based in part on the absence of general federal murder statutes"
If freedom were exactly true, and people who lived in a state whose laws were too onerous to accept could easily move to a state where the laws were more to their liking, then there would be little reason for the federal government to intervene in abortion cases. I wonder if there would be a case for the government to install a law that prohibited the restriction of life or liberty such as they make certain practices illegal on a federal level (such as slavery, or murder.) Now, if it were determined that life was deemed to have begun at a certain stage of existence (conception, heartbeat, brain waves, viability, etc.), could the constitution be amended to prohibit the termination of said life except for specific conditions or would that only ever be left to the states. Should a state allow the termination of any life up to the age of 18 or the enslavement of people based on certain characterizations, would the federal government be ok to act? And a converse could also be argued. If a state placed undue burden on a free citizen to endure a solvable medical condition because a state mandated that it be endured, would that violate strict federalism?
The author of that opinion piece is seriously delusional. He repeats Biden's thoroughly debunked lies as if they are zingers.
Althouse: "Why would the framers be considering anything other than whether there is federal legislative power to outlaw abortion and why would they think they had put that power within the Congress's limited enumerated powers?"
But of course, the Roe v. Wade opinion reads as a federal abortion statute. 3 Trimesters, different standards, etc. Does one really imagine that whatever limitations on enumerated powers of Congress the Founders inscribed, were never intended to limit the federal judicial power to legislate?
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
Sorry, that's Miss Gulch.
She was emphatically not married.
That's what made her so mean, so hostile to dogs.
6/28/24, 11:55 AM
In typical Democrat Party member/AWFL confusion about human nature, you have the cause and effect completely reversed. She was so mean and so hostile to dogs, and that is why she wasn't married.
Michael K. (1:13pm):
"There was no concept of abortion prior to the 19th century."
Hogwash. The practice is well-attested in ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome. Ovid (43BC-17AD) wrote a whole poem about it (Amores 2.14) in which he mentions both surgical instruments and drugs as means. If you can find a copy, and can read Italian, there's a whole book on the subject: E. Nardi, Procurato aborto nel mondo greco-romano, Milan, 1971.
Biden starts out reminding us that Trump went to (though I think Trump only called the mother) the funeral of someone raped by one of Joe’s unvetted border jumpers. But he gets lost and suddenly jumps to a “but” gotcha that went way awry, saying a lot of women are raped by their in-laws and spouses and brothers and sisters.
I have heard this argument from other Dems - they allege that the crime rate among immigrants is lower than among US-born people, as though that excuses immigrant crimes. "Sorry 'bout the rape and murder of the twelve year old girl, but hey, happens all the time, more so among Americans?" That is the pro-Joe argument?
Also, note that the Dems refer to crime rates among "immigrants" rather than "illegal immigrants." Think there might be a difference?
Michael K says:
“There was no concept of abortion prior to the 19th century.”
Weren’t there herbs women took with the goal of ending pregnancy?
One of my relatives, several generations ago, was a midwife. She was sought after because “only the babies who should live, lived.” In extreme poverty, where an extra mouth to feed was a tragedy, the babies who weren’t wanted or were born with birth defects died at delivery. According to family lore anyway.
In some forward-looking cultures, a "burden" would be aborted with a fist to the gut, and in socially conservative cults during performance of human rites for social, clinical, political, and climate progress.
Ann Althouse said...
"If you had asked the people who wrote The Constitution whether or not the document meant women could freely abort their children whenever they wanted, I feel pretty certain the answer would have been a near unanimous, "No.""
The question to those people — AKA the framers — would be Can Congress pass a statute making it a crime for a woman to end her pregnancy?
I think their answer would clearly be no. You've framed the wrong question, so answer mine. Why would the framers be considering anything other than whether there is federal legislative power to outlaw abortion and why would they think they had put that power within the Congress's limited enumerated powers?
The framers were very clear about what the federal government had to do with abortion:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
and:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
To frame the abortion issue as "women's health" is obfuscatory. The woman is generally "healthy" before, during, and after. The fetus, not so much.
The issue - and it IS a legal issue in which legislators and "politicians" might properly be involved - is: when does life begin? Conception? Parturition? Weaning?
The "founders," fearful one and all of excessive Federal power, most certainly would have left this to the individual States.
Ann Althouse:
She was emphatically not married.
That's what made her so mean, so hostile to dogs.
I always thought her being such a sour, mean shit was why she never married. Or rather, was never asked.
You know it was a great speech/performance by Biden whenever Beau makes its way into it.
Suppose someone was convicted of performing an abortion in a state where it was illegal. Would Democrats then tar him as a Convicted Felon?
When you're reading that transcript, you're certainly imagining it being said by someone younger and more forceful, not some old guy who looks and sounds like he's gonna keel over at any moment.
What I don't understand about this debate is why Dr Jill and/or his other handlers didn't shoot Joe up with the same stuff they used for the State of the Union Address. Biden's back!, they all claimed after that speech. So why wasn't the same stuff used for this? Was the concoction so toxic it could only be used once? Or did it rely on some ingredient not now available, like unicorn tears shed during the Dark of the Moon? Of course, many claimed that Joe was "juiced up" for that speech, so maybe it was decided such criticism needed to be avoided, so Joe was sent out "as is". We've been told "It's hard to keep up with this President, he's so vigorous", so what could go wrong, eh?
Leland:
It is a small investment of time, but it is devastating.
Painfully devastating.
Biden didn't lack oomph. They pumped enough oomph into him to kill a horse.
If Biden had a cold last night... how did he make the rally the next day?
"Of course, many claimed that Joe was "juiced up" for that speech, so maybe it was decided such criticism needed to be avoided, so Joe was sent out "as is"."
I wouldn't be surprised. But there is a big difference between the demands of the two events. Last night, Joe had to think on his feet. At the SOTU all he had to do is read a script.
"Biden lacked oomph, but the transcript tells a different tale."
Yet again reminding us why Merrick Garland is holding fast to Biden's deposition recording.
Doctor Mike's history notes aside, The founding fathers certainly were aware of the Sixth Commandment. "Thou shalt not murder"
Their reaction to the question of abortion would likeky be along the lines of
What The F*ck!.
They have been pumping Biden so full of B-12, adderall and other substances for so long, the meds have lost their ability to pep him up.
He is a husk of a human being who deserves to live out his life in dignity, not pretending to be POTUS.
FullMoon:
Imagine the morning after pill is as accessible as viagra online.
The answer to the query "do you need a prescription to order generic morning after pills online?" is:
No
No, you don’t need a prescription for either of these EC pills. They’re available over the counter and can be bought without ID.
"Why would the framers be considering anything other than whether there is federal legislative power to outlaw abortion and why would they think they had put that power within the Congress's limited enumerated powers?"
The question for the Framers would be whether the unborn child is a human being. The Declaration of Independence says "All men are created equal." "Created" means equal from the moment of conception because equal by nature. It was disputed whether "Created equal" applied to the human beings categorized as slaves because if it did then then the "slaves" had an inalienable to to "liberty and the pursuit of happiness." And it was decided that the "slaves" did have those rights because they were "created equal." And Constitutional ammnedments were passed clarifying the constitutional issue in relation the human beings held as slaves.
And similarly the unborn have a right to life because they are created equal. If created equal has no meaning what rights do any of the rest of us have? Slavery could come back. Antisemitsm might be OK.
So why any confusion? I think it's because being and becoming are mixed in human life. We are but we also develop. Do we develop human nature or express it more fully?
Well, look at how through the whole of natural life one can see being and becoming mixed. A rose is a rose is a rose. But a rose develops. A stem forms and on it buds form and the buds open slowly or "flower." The flower petals die while stamen fertilizes the ovary and seeds form there. The seed forming place and power is one rose and the seeds are new roses. The seeds fall to the ground, tiny little things but each one a rose (seed). All these shapes through time are quite different but all are "a rose." I argue that the unborn are the same as the born just as a bud and a flower are all a rose at different stages; The unborn are human and equal and Innocent human life cannot be righteously be destroyed.
The Framers had a different understanding of the physioogy of reproduction and many thought that the child was not alive till 40 days after conception. When 19th century science showed that human life begins at conception all the US states passed laws completely banning abortion because they understood that it destroyed a human being. And that's the situation we need to recreate - that understanding underpinning that kind of law.
Would the Framers have wanted a Federal statute? On the Federal level because of our history we need an amendment expressing our understanding supplemented by some laws. And we aren't there yet. But where states have the understanding they should be allowed to pass laws defending innocent human life. The Framers would have supported that.
Why is it even an issue?
I understand the issue and I would put the other side this way. I remember a woman coming up to me while I picketed outside an abortion clinic and grabbing my arm and saying: "I know what you are doing and you are right but what you don't to understand is that I have to have choice bcause I have no choice."
We must work to assist women who often "need a choice because they have no choice" due to laws that subjugate women so they can't make independent, free choices. But it doesn't help them to create and maintain just one path from cruelty and that's by being cruel themselves.
In the time of the founding, the government didn’t make women’s healthcare decisions, fathers and husbands did.
A.A.: "I thought Biden would get credit for producing long sentences containing substantive material...."
I would concede semi-coherent sentences of modest length. As to "substantive," most of Biden's material seemed unsupported assertions and facts or data misleadingly used.
Biden's vacant stare and immobile open mouth were, as you say, devastating to look at.
The guy who wrote that Hill article is 84.
He has dementia, and can remember some things and parrot entire paragraphs he's used over and over again throughout his career, but if the CNN moderator asked him what 8x7 was, he'd have had a real problem coming up with an answer other than "purple."
How does the "Transcript" treat all of this?
With dashes.
Biden sure looks in command of the issues when they just edit the transcript a bit.
"The idea that the politicians — that the founders wanted the politicians to be the ones making decisions about women’s health is ridiculous. … No politician should be making that decision."
"Twelve years ago, I proudly stood beside President Barack Obama as he signed into law the most consequential expansion of health care in generations: the Affordable Care Act." - J. Biden - March 23, 2022
"Transcript tells a different tale"
In other words, there was a cogent thought that was striving to get out...
... and failed.
I counted only 3 Joe biden "malarkey's" - no wonder he lost
"The idea that the politicians — that the founders wanted the politicians to be the ones making decisions about women’s health is ridiculous. … No politician should be making that decision."
The idea that the founders wrote a Constitution guaranteeing pregnant women's right to kill their babies is, in fact, ridiculous. Not that F. Joe Biden knows anything about the founders.
I listened to the first part in my car, and watched rest when got home. In some ways the trailing off sentences were worse without visual distraction. But the split screen of Biden while Trump talking was the worst. They both would talk without pause like they were throwing out memorized passages.
Biden was pining for the fjords.
Eva Marie says In extreme poverty, where an extra mouth to feed was a tragedy, the babies who weren’t wanted or were born with birth defects died at delivery. According to family lore anyway.
I agree some of that went on. Nobody was about to write a law, though. The treatment of mental illness was a scandal but they knew no better. Babies were discarded, put out to die. Yes, that happened but there was no legal discussion of it.
It’s not what he said it’s how he looked on that split screen while Trump spoke. It was chilling.
"The idea that the politicians — that the founders wanted the politicians to be the ones making decisions about women’s health is ridiculous"
Why does Althouse call this a "good" sentence? It is ridiculous: overturning Roe returned abortion back to the people of the states. Nor do most abortions have anything to do with "women's health."
"The Hill picks out many good sentences from the transcript..."
There are transcripts and there are transcripts. Some are honest attempts to transcribe what the speakers actually said. Court reporters do this faithfully, or they ought to. Some are less than honest. Was The Hill consulting an honest transcript of what Biden actually uttered? One asks because an honest transcript would have long blocks of Biden's indecipherable gibberish recorded as accurately as the Latin alphabet can convey. I mean, Biden has frequent spasms of oral noise-making that assault the ear like incantations from the Necronomicon.
Having not read it myself, I would not be surprised not to see Trump's words transcribed verbatim with all the digressions and not-so-subtle wisecracks he is wont to deliver recorded faithfully. Frankly, The impromptu Trump heard makes far more sense than the extemporized Trump read. CNN knows this and routinely quotes him out of context hoping to sow the seeds of future infamous falsehoods and distortions. Therefore the transcriber was likely instructed not to interpolate anything, and to make Trump's remarks read as badly as possible without actual fabrication.
By the same token, CNN is completely in the service of the Democratic Party as surely as it is unrelentingly hostile to the Republicans and Donald Trump especially. Therefore, I suspect Biden's remarks have been "edited for clarity", with the gibberish expunged completely and the halting, flailing pauses and nonsensical digressions unrecorded.
"Therefore, I suspect Biden's remarks have been "edited for clarity", with the gibberish expunged completely and the halting, flailing pauses and nonsensical digressions unrecorded."
On the plus side, this shortens those transcripts significantly and gives the reader additional time to devote to Trump's lies.
Biden said, "The idea that the politicians — that the founders wanted the politicians to be the ones making decisions about women’s health is ridiculous."
If that were true and the Democrats respected the wishes of the founders, something they haven't made any effort to establish as a hallmark of the Party's governing philosophy, then there should be no administrative or legislative action or policy referencing "women's health" in any manner. Any transfer of taxpayer's money to "women's health" or any peripheral matter consequent to women's health (Inner Party Newspeak for abortion) is politicians making decisions about women's health. If Biden's whimsical theory held a drop of water, the subject would be as remote from federal concern as the rites of the Roman Catholic Church. But it's not and hasn't been since Roe v. Wade. Consequently, either Biden was bullshitting or hallucinating.
Anyone talking about "Trump's lies" has ZERO credibility, given the lies they've been telling for hte better part of 4 years (and are continuing to tell now) puffing for Senile Joe.
"On the plus side, this shortens those transcripts significantly and gives the reader additional time..."
In Mason G.'s case, that additional time will amount to the remainder of his natural life.
Mason G., Our poster poltroon of the month, reminds us all to give all you can afford to the Save the Lefties Fund to support its efforts to find a treatment for that terrible and so far incurable disease. TDS, that great waster of liberal brains, must be defeated. There isn't an abundance of liberal brainpower to waste as it is
I'm curious that no one discussing the status of abortion for the founding fathers has mentioned the Hippocratic Oath which mentioned, and forbade, abortions at least using some techniques and manifestly long predated our nation's founding. In this context it's seems pretty clear that the founding generation would have felt regulation of abortion was appropriate for some level of government. I agree with others that it would almost certainly have been at the state level -- where indeed essentially all legislation regulating the practice has in fact been made.
the idea = yankeeism
the nerve = southernism
I read the transcript. It doesn't improve my opinion of Biden's performance. In fact, it appears to me that the only times he was completely coherent was when he was delivering personal attacks against Trump. It's as if he had about 5 of those memorized and just made sure to deliver one near the beginning of every response.
Biden, is, and always has been, petty and unprofessional.
And yes, I'm aware that it's rather ridiculous to say that when his opponent is Donald Trump. But the left and the media try to present him as a genteel older gentleman, when he's just as coarse and petty as his opponent, with frankly a lot less flair for it.
In contrast to the transcript of Biden's answers that reportedly reveal him to be have been more coherent than his manner conveyed, transcripts of Trump from almost anywhere reveal him to be a rambling, substance free, self-involved, barely coherent dolt.
"the idea = yankeeism
the nerve = southernism"
?????
"Any transfer of taxpayer's money to 'women's health;' or any peripheral matter consequent to women's health (Inner Party Newspeak for abortion) is politicians making decisions about women's health."
Not necessarily. It is also (or can be) politicians acting as representatives to the needs of their constituents, providing funding and other resources to provide to women in need access and a means to have their health needs met according to the personal decisions they make for themselves. This is essentially the function of government and the purpose of the of tax funds we pay.
Dr. K thanks to the line to J. Marion Sims. Obviously, a medical giant. Too bad the wikipedia article is badly written its almost impossible to understand the full extent of his service to medical science.
Whoever wrote it seemed more interested in talking about "enslaved women" and bashing white men than discussing his contributions.
"Court reporters do this faithfully, or they ought to. Some are less than honest."
Do you suggest that "some" court reporters do not faithfully transcribe all that is said during a court proceeding, that they may fudge or remove or or paraphrase or skip over bits here and there for...what reasons??
Do you suggest that "some" court reporters do not faithfully transcribe all that is said during a court proceeding, that they may fudge or remove or or [sic] paraphrase or skip over bits here and there for...what reasons??
I apologize, Robert Cook. I failed to realize I must constrain my style to something more... elementary to avoid aggravating your paranoia.
The pronoun some refers in both cases to transcript and not to court reporters. This is obvious to most people reading English on a competent level, but not, evidently, to you.
Once more, please accept my extenuation, though I cannot assure you that my syntax will not confuse you again in the unforeseen. I stopped writing for children when I stopped being one myself.
"In Mason G.'s case, that additional time will amount to the remainder of his natural life."
My previous post (6:45) was intended as sarcasm. Just sayin'.
"My previous post (6:45) was intended as sarcasm."
Sarcasm is like Formula One grand prix auto racing. Done with finesse it can lead to riches and glory. Or it could just leave you a greasy smear on the track. I usually avoid it, except when dealing with Robert Cook. The sarcasm just writes itself whenever he's the target.
Sorry for any disappointment, I'm not looking for riches and glory and I wasn't targeting anybody (well, not specifically, anyway).
Ah well in Joe's world, "here's the deal" young women get raped by their sisters.
6/28/24, 11:39 AM
Makes you wonder what REALLY went on in the Biden household, doesn't it???
FullMoon said...
It would seem that availability of birth control pills for sexually active women, and the morning after pills for the occasional unplanned hook-up would kinda lessen the hysteria over abortion on demand.
Imagine the morning after pill is as accessible as viagra online.
6/28/24, 1:16 PM
It's available in every pharmacy without a prescription. And you can order it at Amazon to always have on hand.
The Hill picks out many good sentences from the transcript, e.g., on abortion, "The idea that the politicians — that the founders wanted the politicians to be the ones making decisions about women’s health is ridiculous. … No politician should be making that decision."
Was that before or after Biden said we are worried about women who are raped by their sisters?
Senility, or LGBTQ insanity?
The question to those people — AKA the framers — would be Can Congress pass a statute making it a crime for a woman to end her pregnancy?
I think their answer would clearly be no. You've framed the wrong question, so answer mine. Why would the framers be considering anything other than whether there is federal legislative power to outlaw abortion and why would they think they had put that power within the Congress's limited enumerated powers?
I think the Framers would respond that Congress cannot outlaw abortions, that's a state issue. They would be federalists (a.k.a. pro Dobbs).
Also, they'd be almost universally pro-life and appalled at the idea of a billion dollar abortion industry. And the idea that the unelected branch of the federal government dictated these rules to us would have been appalling to them.
Many of the Framers were slave-owners, and so they were obviously morally compromised. But we moderns who criticize them are also morally compromised. We define our own children as sub-human property and and say it's our right to terminate them. The idea that you would pay a doctor to kill an unborn child? That would be a shocking crime in the colonies. You would kill mother and child, for starters.
I doubt any of the Framers would support Roe v. Wade. Biden's commentary on Roe was complete gibberish. Has he been to law school? His babbling about trimesters was utterly incoherent and not even close to what the law was at any point in our history.
Also, it's dishonest for pro-aborts to ignore the commercial aspects of the abortion industry. Abortion is commerce! Congress has the power to regulate commercial activities. And that's been construed very broadly. (Whether the Framers would agree is another question, of course).
It's not like abortions are free. It's a billion dollar industry.
Does Congress have the authority to regulate billion dollar industries, Professor Althouse?
One way to make this clear would be for a state to outlaw or regulate the prices charged for an abortion. Say you can only charge $1 for an abortion. It may be that some passionate abortion doctors would continue to provide that service for feminist reasons. But if you remove the profit incentive, you would do a lot of harm to the abortion industry. It would destroy it, I think.
Also, the equal protection clause is the relevant Constitutional provision for pro-lifers. That was ratified in 1868, not 1789. Asking what the Framers of the Constitution thought of the 14th Amendment is kind of non-sensical. It didn't exist back then!
(And the answer, of course, is that they would have had strongly divided opinions on it!)
Defining unborn babies as non-persons is a federal act. And regardless of whether the slave-owning Framers thought that was within federal authority to do, my answer is, no sir. A person is a live human being.
Say you can only charge $1 for an abortion.
=================
but then abortionist can get tips for well done? [would be exempt under Trump]
I'd like a transcript with stage descriptions.
Trump [Scowling]: Yada, yada, yada.
[Biden stares into space, not moving, not blinking for 90 seconds. His mouth is agape].
Biden just proved what a disaster he's been for the country and why. I have no sympathy for the treasonous lying little twerp. He's been that way his whole political career.
The efforts at trying to make his debate performance anything but a huge embarrassment are almost as embarrassing.
Some Dems will try to reset things by dumping him and finding an alternate. I doubt the ChiComs who own Biden and a lot of Congress will allow that. Instead, they'll amp up their election fraud efforts to reelect him, since they've already proven they can get away with it, and have the US erupt in civil disorder if he wins. While we're busy fighting ourselves about Biden, they'll waltz in on Taiwan.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I know this clause has been tossed aside by extreme perversion of the Commerce Clause (and others). But it was a KEY part of the Constitution when written. States wanted assurances the Federal government would not become the be all, end all power over most of our lives.
So, unless one can find abortion delegated to or prohibited IN the Constitution the answer is NOPE the framers would not have made abortion legal or illegal. That would be a state call.
Keaster:
"There are transcripts and there are transcripts. Some are honest attempts to transcribe what the speakers actually said. Court reporters do this faithfully, or they ought to. Some are less than honest."
Keaster in response to me, explaining away his muddled comment:
"The pronoun some refers in both cases to transcript and not to court reporters. This is obvious to most people reading English on a competent level, but not, evidently, to you."
No, it's not obvious at all. You refer specifically to "court reporters" who "do this faithfully, or they ought to. Some are less than honest." In "doing this," you can only mean the court reporters transcribing the words of official proceedings, and the "some" in "some are less than honest" logically refers back to the transcribers, not the transcriptions. And, of course! Transcriptions do not produce themselves. If you meant "some are less than honest" to refer to the transcripts, this still stands as an accusation someone produced a "dishonest" transcription. Who do you suspect? (And you didn't even read the transcript! Hooboy!)
You made your vague accusation of inaccurate transcripts in context of THE HILL and whether they relied on "an honest" transcript of Biden's statements in the debate. I wouldn't assume court reporters produce transcripts for news organizations. Do you? Rather, the media rely on audio or video recordings and their own personnel to produce transcripts. Your reference to "court reporters" at all was simply lazy or dumb, completely irrelevant here.
Below is my improvement on your statement, making your inchoate accusation of dark doings at least coherent and less overtly paranoid:
"There are transcripts and there are transcripts. Most transcriptions are honest attempts to accurately record in print what the speakers actually said. Some transcriptions may contain errors, or in rare cases, be less than honest. Who produced the transcript THE HILL used to provide Biden's recorded statements? Is their transcription reliable?"
Robert Cook said...
"Court reporters do this faithfully, or they ought to. Some are less than honest."
"Do you suggest that "some" court reporters do not faithfully transcribe all that is said during a court proceeding, that they may fudge or remove or or paraphrase or skip over bits here and there for...what reasons??"
Money.
Vis a vis the 18th century.
I'm sure that health considerations were considered personal and not within the pervue of even local government. Post constitution I think this would fall under equal protection which would make the "right" a one sided affair. The states could do better.
Face it, Robert Cook. You made a fool of yourself. (Oughtn't you be accustomed to this by now?) Your weaseling only makes you more pathetic.
Note to Rusty: You're barking up the wrong tree. Please read my comment from 6:40pm yesterday.
The Hill picks out many good sentences from the transcript, e.g., on abortion, "The idea that the politicians — that the founders wanted the politicians to be the ones making decisions about women’s health is ridiculous. … No politician should be making that decision."
The idea that the Founder wanted JUDGES to be the ones making decisions about women’s health is ridiculous.
But hey, if you want to completely get rid of the FDA and the DEA because they're unconstitutional, I won't argue with you.
But I'm pretty sure the Dems are all in on bureaucrats "making decisions about women’s, and men's health".
See also: Biden Admin Covid shot mandate
So, what does the "transcript" have to say about Biden's comment on Medicare? Immigration?
Because I listened to the words there, and he didn't make sense, at all
The Hill picks out many good sentences from the transcript
IOW, they went through 90 minutes of blathering, and cherry picked out 20 sentences that you could pretend were coherent, so long as you ignored everything around them?
And so, what we had to do is try to put things back together again. That’s exactly what we began to do. We created 15,000 new jobs. We brought on – in a position where we have 800,000 new manufacturing jobs.
We created 15,000 jobs! In a country of 330 million people!
What's that last sentence supposed to mean?
I come from Scranton, Pennsylvania. I come from a household where the kitchen table – if things weren’t able to be met during the month was a problem.
???
That’s why I’m working so hard to make sure I deal with those problems. And we’re going to make sure that we reduce the price of housing. We’re going to make sure we build 2 million new units. We’re going to make sure we cap rents, so corporate greed can’t take over.
Really? Who exactly is going to build those "2 million new units"? You know, while you "cap rents, so corporate greed can’t take over"?
And the military – you know, when he was president, they were still killing people in Afghanistan. He didn’t do anything about that. When he was president, we still found ourselves in a position where you had a notion that we were this safe country. The truth is, I’m the only president this century that doesn’t have any – this – this decade – doesn’t have any troops dying anywhere in the world, like he did.
So, incoherent babbling, plus a lie where he writes out teh deaths of 13 US soldiers, killed because Biden insisted that Baghram Airbase be closed first, rather than last
He also said he inherited 9 percent inflation. No, he inherited almost no inflation and it stayed that way for 14 months. And then it blew up under his leadership, because they spent money like a bunch of people that didn’t know what they were doing. And they don’t know what they were doing. It was the worst – probably the worst administration in history.
Finally, a coherent and honest statement
Oh, wait, that's Trump, not Biden
here's the video of this. I've added what they left out in []:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej4gFT21VOM
For example, we have a thousand trillionaires in America – I mean, billionaires in America. And what’s happening? They’re in a situation where they, in fact, pay 8.2 percent in taxes. If they just paid 24 percent or 25 percent, either one of those numbers, they’d raised $500 million [dollars] – billion dollars, I should say, in a 10-year period.
We’d be able to right – wipe out his debt. We’d be able to help make sure that – all those things we need to do, childcare, elder care, making sure that we continue to strengthen our healthcare system, making sure that we’re able to make every single solitary person eligible for what I’ve been able to do with the [ah with with the] COVID – excuse me, with [um] dealing with everything we have to do with [uh].
Look, if – we finally beat Medicare.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/retirement/how-many-billionaires-and-millionaires-live-in-the-u-s/
As of 2023, there are a mere 735 billionaires in the U.S. The millionaires are more plentiful—almost 22 million.
So, numbers are bullshit, transcript is cleaned up of his dementia mumbling.
And you really do have to see his face during that last line. He's standing there, totally lost, and then he's really proud of himself, and he looks up and says "we finally beat Medicare". Because there was some line about Medicare his handlers have been beating in to him for the last week, and he thought he'd remembered it
To wrap up:
If you pull out all the mumbling, and babbling where he's just completely mentally lost, if you take away all the visual and behavioral clues that ANYONE who's dealt with someone suffering from dementia will instantly recognize, then you can cherry pick some cleaned up lines to try to make Joe look better than he actually was.
But it's all elder abuse.
And a significant threat to America. Tell me, who exactly is in charge of the nuclear codes that a President holds? Who is running the US military?
Who writes the things the Joe reads from teh teleprompter?
Because I absolutely guarantee you, "Joe Biden" is not the answer to any of those questions
To wrap up:
If you pull out all the mumbling, and babbling where he's just completely mentally lost, if you take away all the visual and behavioral clues that ANYONE who's dealt with someone suffering from dementia will instantly recognize, then you can cherry pick some cleaned up lines to try to make Joe look better than he actually was.
But it's all elder abuse.
And a significant threat to America. Tell me, who exactly is in charge of the nuclear codes that a President holds? Who is running the US military?
Who writes the things the Joe reads from the teleprompter?
Because I absolutely guarantee you, "Joe Biden" is not the answer to any of those questions
How many voters will be making their choice based on who had the better transcript?
Tell me, who exactly is in charge of the nuclear codes
=================
nobody can start nuclear war then
Narayanan said...
Tell me, who exactly is in charge of the nuclear codes
=================
nobody can start nuclear war then
No, Narayanan, all this means is that teh US might not be able to fight back if someone decides to nuke us.
There's more to the world than just America
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा