Joe Biden says he ‘has’ cancer thanks to oil industry

[Phi for All]

18 hours ago, MigL said:

I'm with JC on this one.

It is certainly 'questionable'.
As evidenced by 40 % of your citizens believing J Biden did not actually win.

IOW, it is being questioned by the electorate.

Why does this sound so familiar? Oh, right, the Intelligent Design argument, teach the controversy.

[swansont]

19 hours ago, MigL said:

It is certainly 'questionable'.
As evidenced by 40 % of your citizens believing J Biden did not actually win.

!

Moderator Note

Evidence didn't suddenly take on a new definition. If there is actual evidence, you (and everyone else making similar claims) will kindly comply with rule 2.12 and point to it

 

[MigL]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Why does this sound so familiar? Oh, right, the Intelligent Design argument, teach the controversy.

I did not say it was questionable to me.
But it certainly is to a large number of the American populace.

That is fact; not opinion.

See story in The Guardian for evidence
"More than 40% in US do not believe Biden legitimately won election - poll"

( I'm  unable to post a link to the article )

Does that comply with Rule 2.12 Swansont ?

[Peterkin]

An article about the opinion of people who have been misled is not evidence that an election result is questionable. That result has already been decided in 50 courts, 50 states and a federal government.  It is evidence of effective propaganda and the gullibility of humans.

[iNow]

MigL is correct. As is JCM. 

It is being questioned therefore by definition is questionable. 

The answer to that question is they’re wrong. Biden did win. The question has been answered even though people keep asking it.

It was a semantic comment IMO, not an assertion or statement of belief. 

At the same time, since so many millions continue to believe the disinformation and are questioning the election, we should be more cautious here when talking about it ourselves and strive to make clear our own position that the election outcome is obviously legitimate. 

Edited July 22, 2022 by iNow

[geordief]

57 minutes ago, MigL said:

I did not say it was questionable to me.
But it certainly is to a large number of the American populace.

That is fact; not opinion.

See story in The Guardian for evidence
"More than 40% in US do not believe Biden legitimately won election - poll"

( I'm  unable to post a link to the article )

Does that comply with Rule 2.12 Swansont ?

Seems like a whole new meaning of "questionable" that doesn't include the speaker as one of those doing the questioning.

Have you come across that usage before? Where the speaker says something is "questionable" and the audience has to deduce that the speaker is referring  just  to other people ,without specifying it?

 

Have to say that referrring to Biden's election as  "questionable" certainly makes me deduce that the speaker personally sees something  to question about it.

 

We are so used to Trump weaseling (or getting his cronies to do it for him) out of outlandish and disgraceful remarks  that it feels like we are entering the post truth area.

 

In the context of American politics to give credence to that stupidity is also disgraceful.

On 7/21/2022 at 11:46 AM, J.C.MacSwell said:

He does seem to have been suffering some confabulation for quite some time now. I'm not sure how fast he's declining. Considering the position he has questionably been elected to, he seems to holding up better than many expected, opinion polls notwithstanding.

Here's the actual quote.

It's obvious surely what was  being said.

Some kind of denigration that makes little sense ,but so what?

Edited July 22, 2022 by geordief

[Peterkin]

If everything in the universe regarding which a person or persons may be uncertain is classified as 'questionable' then the word 'questionable' as commonly used, i.e: doubtful, dubious, problematic, not affording assurance of the worth, soundness, or certainty of something

then the word is of highly questionable value in language.

Anyway, the people who subscribe to the 'stolen election' story are not questioning [seeking evidence as to factual state of the subject at issue]; they are idly doubting on the basis of a thoroughly and publicly disproved lie.

Edited July 22, 2022 by Peterkin

[mistermack]

This might be a science forum, but this is a politics thread. The words 'questionable' and 'evidenced' are obviously used differently in political language, compared to scientific papers. I peronally have no problem with the meaning, when they are used in the everyday parlance. The context makes it clear what's being said. 

[MigL]

Oh, you Americans ... so easily triggered.

I, myself, do NOT believe J Biden's election is questionable.
That is my opinion, based on facts as I understand them.

However, 2 out of 5 Americans are questioning the election results.
That makes J Biden's victory questionable to 40 % of Americans; does it not ???

The reasons, founded or unfounded, are not in question, as those are THEIR opinions, based on ( or lack of ) facts as they do ( or don't ) understand them.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

 

Anyway, the people who subscribe to the 'stolen election' story are not questioning [seeking evidence as to factual state of the subject at issue]; they are idly doubting on the basis of a thoroughly and publicly disproved lie.

Have I made it clear yet that I'm not one of them? My use of "questionable" was toward those who put him up against Trump, as the best they could find among the 35+ year old Americans born in that country.

[Peterkin]

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Have I made it clear yet that I'm not one of them? My use of "questionable" was toward those who put him up against Trump, as the best they could find among the 35+ year old Americans born in that country.

Yes, I heard you the first time. You used the correct adjective for the judgment of the DNC, but misapplied it to election itself. Has this not been covered sufficiently? 

[J.C.MacSwell]

INow has correctly pointed out that it wasn't just card carrying Dems that put him in that position...most seem now to be fairly adamant that they don't want him running again in 2024.

Hopefully each Party finds someone new...or a new moderate party offers a decent option.

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Yes, I heard you the first time. You used the correct adjective for the judgment of the DNC, but misapplied it to election itself. Has this not been covered sufficiently? 

Just wanted to make sure Peterkin. Not everyone follows all the posts as razor sharply as yourself.

[Peterkin]

44 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

INow has correctly pointed out that it wasn't just card carrying Dems that put him in that position

Are we talking about the nomination or the election this time around? After each person who wishes to run for an office is deemed eligible, has established a campaign committee, submitted the relevant legal forms and and paid the filing fee for candidacy, they begin by running in primaries where party members (those card-carrying ones; It might be self-defeating to let in the opposing party's members) vote for delegates in each state (delegates may be pledged of unpledged - 'super' ones, important enough party members to use their personal judgement over their constituents', and then these delegates vote at the nominating convention. All these events have to organized by a coherent body, which is the national convention committee for each party; all these candidate selection procedures are carried out under their auspices. There are all kinds of ways in which the caucus is able to influence who qualifies and who is finally nominated. The process itself is by-and-large democratic, but very much party-restricted up until the campaign between each party's nominees.

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

most seem now to be fairly adamant that they don't want him running again in 2024.

Fine. I'm reasonably sure he won't want to put himself through that wringer again - supposing he survives this term.

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Not everyone follows all the posts as razor sharply as yourself.

I sometimes wonder how not following leads to conclusions of such acuity.   

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Are we talking about the nomination or the election this time around? After each person who wishes to run for an office is deemed eligible, has established a campaign committee, submitted the relevant legal forms and and paid the filing fee for candidacy, they begin by running in primaries where party members (those card-carrying ones; It might be self-defeating to let in the opposing party's members) vote for delegates in each state (delegates may be pledged of unpledged - 'super' ones, important enough party members to use their personal judgement over their constituents', and then these delegates vote at the nominating convention. All these events have to organized by a coherent body, which is the national convention committee for each party; all these candidate selection procedures are carried out under their auspices. There are all kinds of ways in which the caucus is able to influence who qualifies and who is finally nominated. The process itself is by-and-large democratic, but very much party-restricted up until the campaign between each party's nominees.

 

 

One would expect...but...

INow would know the details much better than I, but in some States this is allowed. Both non card carrying voters, and card carrying members of the opposite party can vote in either parties primary if I understand correctly.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Fine. I'm reasonably sure he won't want to put himself through that wringer again - supposing he survives this term.

You may be right. He might simply not want to appear a lame duck POTUS for most all of his only term.

[Peterkin]

Quote

crossover voting refers to a behavior in which voters cast ballots for a party with which they are not traditionally affiliated.^[1][2] Even in the instance of closed primary elections, in which voters are required to receive a ballot matching their own political party, crossover voting may still take place, but requires the additional step of voters to change their political affiliation ahead of the primary election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossover_voting

17 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Both non card carrying voters, and card carrying members of the opposite party can vote in either parties primary if I understand correctly.

Depends where they live. https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/primary-types.aspx

I very much doubt it was Republican crossovers who put Biden in line for the presidency. They would have supported a candidate who couldn't beat theirs, rather than the one with the best chance. Still, once they registered as Democrats, maybe they felt differently about Trump. You just never know.

[Existential Dreams]

Why  take office of President of USA  if you are going through Cancer or had   treatment  for cancer  in the first place ?  He doesn't seem fit for the role he is in  ,  he is unfit for office and issues that are going on around the world , look at the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan for example . 

 

* sorry about Spelling and grammar, i have dyslexia and other learning issues  

[J.C.MacSwell]

49 minutes ago, Existential Dreams said:

Why  take office of President of USA  if you are going through Cancer or had   treatment  for cancer  in the first place ?  He doesn't seem fit for the role he is in  ,  he is unfit for office and issues that are going on around the world , look at the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan for example . 

 

* sorry about Spelling and grammar, i have dyslexia and other learning issues  

I certainly wouldn't dissuade a decent candidate from running based on having dealt with skin cancer.

I do wonder if the withdrawal from Afghanistan was in any way related to the expectation or intelligence reports with regard to Russia attacking Ukraine. (or China sabre rattling against Taiwan) Biden seemed pretty determined to get out.

Welcome to the Forum!

[Peterkin]

14 hours ago, Existential Dreams said:

Why  take office of President of USA  if you are going through Cancer or had   treatment  for cancer  in the first place ?

Why not? Why would a past illness disqualify an otherwise sound candidate? If FDR was physically fit enough, I guess so was JFK and so is Biden. 

Quote

he is unfit for office and issues that are going on around the world , look at the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan for example

I don't believe that's related to treatment for skin cancer.

[J.C.MacSwell]

@Peterkin

How is it that you are quoting me saying "he is unfit for office and issues that are going on around the world , look at the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan for example"?

I did not post that.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How is it that you are quoting me saying "he is unfit for office and issues that are going on around the world , look at the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan for example"?

I did not post that.

Sorry. My cursor skipped a line on the second pass and I didn't notice. It jumps around sometimes when the mouse needs its feet washed. Will attend to it right away! 

Correction:

2 hours ago, Existential Dreams said:

he is unfit for office and issues that are going on around the world , look at the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan for example . 

 

Edited July 23, 2022 by Peterkin
incorrect attribution of quote - my fault