Why did Joe Biden’s poor performance in the debate last night come as a surprise to many on the left? The responses of two people writing in today’s Guardian give a clue:
Trump’s positions on anything and everything shift and slide at will, and he lies about his own past with pathological confidence – in this debate he both denied that he had sex with Stormy Daniels and that he praised the white supremacists who stormed Charlottesville in 2017. More substantively he lied – unchallenged, except by Biden – about his role in the January 6 coup attempt, and the CNN pundits did not trouble him further about his crimes.
Trump lied aplenty. He acted as if he never had said there were “good people” on both sides in Charlottesville, and pretended that he hadn’t dissed America’s war dead.
Emphasis added in both quotes. Why have I bolded the parts about Charlottesville? Because it seems that neither Rebecca Solnit nor Lloyd Green were aware that in that speech about Charlottesville, Trump said literally seconds later: “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White Nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White Nationalists, OK? And the press has treated then absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also you had fine people, but you also had troublemakers.”
Check for yourselves by watching this video of the 2017 press conference in which Trump referred to “Fine people on both sides” from CNBC news: “President Donald Trump On Charlottesville: You Had Very Fine People, On Both Sides” Aug 15, 2017.
Here is my transcription, with timestamps, of Trump’s answers to journalists’ questions in the relevant section of that press conference. I have not attempted to transcribe the questions, but everything Trump said is there. Bear in mind that it was very noisy, with people constantly shouting over each other, hence Trump’s constant repetition of “Excuse me – excuse me”.
*
0:04 I’m not putting anybody on a moral plane. What I’m saying is this: You had a group on one side, and you had a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs, and it was vicious, and it was horrible, and it was a horrible thing to watch. But there is another side. There was a group on this side, you can call them the left – you’ve just called them the left – that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that’s the way it is.
0:35 Well, I do think there’s blame, yes, I think there’s blame on both sides. You look at – you look at both sides, I think there’s blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And – and – and if you reported it accurately, you would say-
0:56 Excuse me, excuse me [inaudible] and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people – on both sides – you had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue, and the renaming of a park from “Robert E. Lee” to another name.
1:27 George Washington was a slaveowner. Was George Washington a slaveowner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down – excuse me – are we going to take down – are we going to take down statues to George Wash–
1:42 How about Thomas Jefferson, what do you think of Thomas Jefferson, you like him? OK, good, are we going to take down the statue, because he was a major slaveowner. Now, are we going to take down his statue? So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history, you’re changing culture,
1:57 and you had people – and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White Nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White Nationalists, OK? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.
2:14 Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the, with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You get – you had a lot of bad – you had a lot of bad people in the other group too.
*
Despite what Trump actually said being on video for all to see, the mainstream media has repeated thousands of times that Trump praised the neo-Nazis and white supremacists, or that his “both sides” comment was intended to equate the entire group of left wing protesters to neo-Nazis and white supremacists, rather than to equate the extremists of the right to the extremists of the left, and to equate the fine people on the right (whom he explicitly defined as being those who were NOT neo-Nazis or white supremacists) to the fine people on the left.
Which journalists are lying and which genuinely believe this disinformation? It is reasonable to assume Rebecca Solnit and Lloyd Green genuinely believe it. They probably would not have wanted to make themselves look foolish in public, and, besides, the poor lambs probably get their news from the Guardian and the other organs of what is still called the “quality” press.
But didn’t anyone point out to the Guardian the many debunkings by Scott Adams (https://x.com/ScottAdamsSays) and others of what Adams calls the “Fine People Hoax”? Hey, I tried to do it repeatedly when commenting on those few Guardian articles that allow comments these days. About five per cent of my many attempts slipped through; the other 95% of them were censored immediately.
The same went for my comments about the genuineness of Hunter Biden’s laptop, however polite, however well-referenced. Deleted immediately.
The same went for my comments detailing the many times that Joe Biden came out with provable falsehoods (although he probably believes them, poor chap) or descended into meaningless gabble. Deleted immediately. And I am sure that in keeping its readers and its writers safe from disturbing evidence of Biden’s decline, the Guardian was only following the lead of the New York Times and the rest of the “respectable” media.
And thus the Democrats and their friends wove the net in which they now find themselves trapped.
Nobody is going to be talking about this small thing. All people will care about is the zombie like image of Biden. Any sensible person is not just thinking “I can’t vote for that guy”, they are thinking “OMG that guy has control of the nuclear codes.” I really wonder if it is time for the 25th, even if we get the horrendous Kamala.
If you are a Trump fan, I’m not quite so sure this debate is good news. It seems there will be huge pressure on Biden to withdraw and they will put up a stronger candidate (because everyone is stronger than Biden), and that will make it harder for Trump to win. There is a bit of an obstacle course for the Democrats to run to make it happen, but if you are trying to stop “Hitler” then nothing is off the table. If that doesn’t scare you consider this expression: “President Hillary Clinton”. I guarantee she is working it to try to get the slot.
Your point, however, about Charlottesville is a good one, and your experience commenting on the Gruinard is very telling. I often see in my SM feeds people talking about how terrible banning books is, and when I see that I’ll often, with futility, respond by saying “I agree, so you also agree that it was terrible for Twitter to ban Trump, or that bans on hate speech are wrong”. The left only wants free speech when it is speech they agree with. Which is the opposite of the idea of free speech.
But again if you are trying to stop “Hitler” nothing is off the table, even bald faced lies. Heck there are still people talking about the Russian interference in Trump’s initial election.
Fraser,
I doubt Brandon has control of the nuclear go codes. Likewise Kamala Harris. I would not trust either with a cap gun. If they were to try and initiate a nuclear launch, I hope that would have to go through the Joint Chiefs of Staff first. Who would launch a nuke because Sleepy Joe said so?
The Democrats could try and get rid of the husk of the man formerly called Biden, but it is hard to get rid of a sitting president if he does not want to go. First Lady Dr Jill Biden would have something to say about that. The party cannot get rid of the president for being in the same room as a piece of cake.
If they did manage to get Bidet to stand down and have a brokered convention, whoever they chose would have a lot of ground to make up. Americans have known Trump for years, who is nationally known on the Democrat side? Obama (Barack that is) can’t run again, and Mike doesn’t seem keen. And even the Democrats must realise Hillary Clinton is electoral poison.
No, they will probably keep FJB on the ticket and ramp up the steal. That’s much safer than trying to get actual people to vote for you.
The people who lie are Guardian writers – they were not making an honest mistake, they knew perfectly well that that President Trump condemned the neo Nazi types in Virginia, the-Guardian-writers-were-lying about President Trump just as they lie about everything else. Like Plato they consider their lies “noble” because they serve the Collectivist cause.
But the Guardian is not alone in being a despicable publication – today the Economist magazine came out openly for the Labour Party, for even higher taxes, even more government spending, even more regulations, and an end to what is left of Freedom of Speech. As I (and others – I certainly can not be claim to be the first to notice) have been pointing out for years – the Economist magazine is Collectivist publication wearing the skin of a free market publication.
At least the Guardian is honest about what it is – the Economist magazine is not even honest about its own identity.
It is also worth pointing out that lost in all the noise of Zombie Biden are two EXTREMELY important and positive rulings from the USSC. Fischer — where the court overturned a conviction of “obstructing an official proceeding” which will free or reduce the charges on a lot of Jan6ers, and reduces the power of government to prosecute people who are simply protesting a government action. and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo which overturns the Chevron Deference and so greatly handcuffs the power of many federal agencies.
It is also worth pointing out that the idea the “conservative justices” have a political agenda, that Justice Barrett dissented on the Fischer ruling, and Justice Jackson concurred on Loper Bright Enterprises.
There are people who argue that ‘perception is reality’ – mostly self important people trying to avoid dealing with inconvenient truths.
And there are still Democrats saying that they will vote for Biden ‘because’ Trump always lies (or will end democracy, or start WW III) and this is their perception at odds with reality. Now *if* Biden is suffering from dementia it will only get worse. Could he last another 4 years? Almost certainly not. So Biden has to step down and a new candidate found. Otherwise we could see, in an absurd world, Hologram AI Biden or Animatronic AI Biden as President.
The idea that Donald Trump— whose daughter, Ivanka, the apple of his eye, is an Orthodox Jew, as is his son-in-law Jared, and his grandchildren, Joseph, Arabella, and Theodore—would look kindly at American Nazis is stipple-minded slander from people employed by a publication that really doeshate Jews.
Ed, Here here!
Attending a Loper Bright party this evening. It’ll be a fun night for Federalist Society libertarians! Many a strong cup of coffee will be slammed tonight!
Best USSC decision of the year. This does more to rein in unelected ‘crats than anything Trump could ever hope to do in office.
(But, alas, should the Dems attain a trifecta – House, Senate, and Prez – they will be able to make process changes that will attenuate Loper.)
God, don’t even breathe her name today.
She may be electoral poison, but she’d be running against Trump, who is his own brand of electoral poison. We might have the lowest turnout for a prez election ever, but the winner still wins. I fear a Hillary presidency more than another Biden presidency. She’s nuts, she’s smart, and now she’s very very bitter. “Deplorable” would become its own tax bracket.
Non-US readers may not understand that the reason that the Charlottesville hoax must be maintained and preserved at almost any cost is that it forms an integral part of President Biden’s electoral origin fable – he continuously alleges that Trump’s supposed plaudits for Nazis with swastikas singing anti-semitic songs is the prmary reason he got into the 2020 race. It’s all nonsense, of course, but it’s a pivotal story that he keeps on telling, just one of the many, many time-worn untruths that he keeps on trotting out. To question the story is to undermine the current President and presumptive candidate.
When even Snopes has debunked the story
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/
you can be just-about 100%-sure that it’s untrue. But being 100%-untrue has never been a bar to President Biden habitually repeating it, often with his own unique embellishments at every telling.
llater,
llamas
The only loser is Biden with arguably his main talking point (at least before being able to use the term convicted felon), one of the few this functionally compromised individual can still parrot without making a complete ass of himself, now torpedoed.
Did Snopes decide, correctly as it turned out, to bet the farm on a Biden epic fail in the debate? We already know from the “Grabbing them by the pussy” tape that the media and their handlers will sit on material for years until the time is right to inflict maximum damage on Republicans but using this tactic to kneecap an incumbent Democrat president and nominee has me scratching my head. I’d understand if the correction came out after the debate but beforehand and after maintaining their own false narrative for nearly seven years. What is going on?
The media line (not just the Guardian – but also the television stations) appears to be “Trump lied” during the debate – it was Mr Biden who lied (for example about President Trump’s view of Nazis, and about being endorsed by the Border Patrol – who hate him), just as the media does.
As for GB News (supposedly the conservative alternative to the leftist television stations in Britain) one of their presenters repeatedly said “I am liking the line” and “I am still liking the line” in relation to Mr Biden calling President Trump a “convicted felon”.
May this presenter herself face a corrupt court that will convict her on absurd charges – let us see if this lady still says “I am liking the line”.
I would remind readers that corrupt American courts have previously convicted people of murder when they knew (they knew) that no murder had taken place – with the falsely convicted person then taken to prison to be cut up with knives. Would the lady say “I am liking the line” if this was done to her?
Then there is the case of the person who was dragged to New York (hundreds of miles away from his home) to be convicted of the “crime” of passing the joke “vote by text” meme. a meme that he did not even invent (it was invented by Hillary Clinton supporters – one of the few memes they invented, of course they were NOT prosecuted).
Would the GB News presenter like to be sent to prison, on false (indeed absurd) charges by a corrupt court?
People who support corrupt courts “I am liking the line” only support the corrupt courts when the injustice is done to their political opponents – they do not want to be sent to prison (to be cut up with knives, or otherwise abused) themselves.
Paul Marks writes, “The people who lie are Guardian writers – they were not making an honest mistake, they knew perfectly well that that President Trump condemned the neo Nazi types in Virginia”
Them writing for the Guardian does not necessarily mean they are kept in the know. This applies particularly to Lloyd Green who, unlike Rebecca Solnit, is not a regular columnist for the newspaper. Most journalists are Outer Party, not Inner Party.
Llamas and John, via Stephen Green on Instapundit, I read an article by Matt Margolis that said that Snopes only posted its debunking of the claim that Trump was referring to the Neo-Nazis when he spoke of “Fine people” this week.
I’m thinking of asking Snopes to fact-check the claim that Snopes waited all this time since 2017 to fact-check this widely believed false claim about Trump, but if anyone else wants to do it first, go ahead.
@ Natalie Solent – the Matt Margolis column is correct, the Snopes debunking of the story was datelined June 20th of this year. As to why they waited until now to post this debunking – they have covered a wide variety of stories about the Charlottesville protest, going back 5 years and more – I could not say. Snopes has a long history of consistently analysing questions about Trump in the light least-favourable to him, usually in terms of rating things that cannot be verified one way or another along the lines of “there’s no proof that he didn’t”. So this particular fact-check is quite at odds with their usual tone.
@ bobbyb – while I share your pleasure at the Loper Bright decision, I suggest that the Grant’s Pass decision has more real-world implications for quality-of-life and economic impact.
Incidentally, is there a secret, special name
generator that produces such memorable names for landmark cases? From Anton Piller to Kelo to Bruen, yea, even unto Chevron, the legal landscape seems to be demarcated by such mental shorthand.
llater,
llamas
RE: The Snopes issue
Obviously, the Democratic Party is not monolithic, with plenty of internal factions vying for power. Without any insider knowledge of these factions, we can only guess at the exact processes that led to the debate debacle.
There’ll be Biden loyalists, those who think he’s over the hill and they need a fresh face at the top of the ticket etc.
The current ‘oh, so he’s unfit for the presidency’ wave of realisation in the media and Dems (but I repeat myself) was, as many observed, not something they did not actually know, so there’s a high chance this public debacle was planned, and all these demonstrate a realignment of loyalties.
Snopes just got in a bit earlier than the others with the fact-check. They must have caught wind that something is up, and acted accordingly.
So what happens next? The internal Dem factions will engage one another, but the anti-Biden faction has it work cut out for them – time to make the change is limited. If Biden is still the nominee, then they have a final choice to make, which could be fatal to the US:
Should they still cheat their way to victory?
Of course, there is also another simpler explanation for the debacle – they are just that stupid.
I hardly ever attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by insanity.
In this case, however, an arguably simpler explanation is that “they” estimated that, while having a debate was only a risk, refusing to have a debate would have been a certain disaster.
Snorri Godhi
while having a debate was only a risk, refusing to have a debate would have been a certain disaster.
I don’t think that is right. They initiated the debate, in fact it is the earliest debate in American political history. And frankly they could almost certainly get away with not having a debate. The media would give them air cover and the excuse would be that he wasn’t going to dignify a convicted felon with a debate.
The American people would be a little upset about it but not much and not enough to swing very many votes away from Biden.
This was their choice. I have given thought over the weekend about whether this was some Machiavellian plan to get rid of Biden. I don’t think it was though. It was the Biden camp that initiated it, not the DNC and I think the people I saw comment on it seemed genuinely shocked by the result, and, more importantly, unprepared in how to handle it. Both are indications that it wasn’t part of some evil genius plan.
I think what is more likely is that Biden, either Joe or Jill wanted to do it. It was that thing that some old people who are beginning to lose it do — to PROVE that they are still the same as they were — and when they go ahead utterly humiliate themselves. That ragey, blustery “I’m not old” thing that people do when they are fading fast. Especially so older people with huge egos, which is definitely Joe. And then the people around him had to do it. It is the same reason Joe had that stupid argument about his golf handicap or seems to constantly be challenging people to push up contests.
They knew it wasn’t going to be great so did all they could to prepare him. But there just wasn’t enough to work with. He has been having his ego stroked for fifty years, it is the main reason he hates Trump so much — he won’t kiss the ring. And when you have been Don of the crime family it is hard to admit it is over. So I think it is a combination of Jill loving the power and the lifestyle so not being honest enough to tell Joe the truth, in fact encouraging him to do things that will hurt him, and Joe’s big fat ego fading in and out of focus that resulted in this debacle.
What Fraser Orr said. This was a typical Biden bluster that has now epically backfired on him. Trump had been taunting him for weeks about whether he was even capable of debating. Of course, Biden, who is notoriously thin-skinned and will reliably rise to such bait, then rushed out and loudly proclaimed, many times, on camera, that he would debate ‘anywhere, any time, pal!’. It’s part of his self-created tough guy image. If only he could just take him out behind the gym and beat the tar out of him . . . he still thinks that he’s a high school jock.
Having thrown out the challenge – no doubt without the sanction of his inner circle, and certainly against their advice – he was incapable of backong down from it. In the normal way of things, I doubt Trump cares much about debates, since they have so often been stacked against him. But now Biden nailed his colours to the mast, Trump negotiated this format – so good for him, so bad for Biden – and just stood back and let Biden – well, you all saw it. It’s not just ‘never interrupt your adversary when he is making a mistake’ – it’s goading him into the mistake and helping him to make it as big a mistake as possible. You should see the campaign commercials . . .
llater,
llamas
Biden’s “I’m not going anywhere” speech the following day, admittedly back with his trusty teleprompter, was a far more coherent shouty effort in stark contrast to the debate debacle.
I wonder if the old maxim of follow the money might be in progress. Mr and Mrs Biden really love money so how much would it cost the donors to persuade him to stand down?
Should this happen the sums involved will make the likes of the Burisma salary and art sale proceeds funnelled through Hunter look like loose change although I doubt they will rival the Obama media contracts and book deals let alone the world-class grifting of the Clinton Foundation.
A valid point Natalie – I stand corrected.
Re: Charlottesville
Isn’t this about the undermining of language and the meaning of words? Isn’t a white nationalist, Nazi, by Leftie lights,…..anyone who rejects the centralization and abuse of power by a remote, unelected, abusive and corrupt administrative state, along with their corporatist allies? Isn’t that most of us?
I highly doubt that Biden’s personal wishes count for much behind the scenes.
Either his handlers thought they should get it over with – and thought they could manage the story as they have until now.
Or a group that has seen the decline close up and/or opposes the Obama Rat Pack approved an early debate to force a replacement.
It’s important to remember that none of the actors – politicos or journos – were surprised… They are dismayed that it went so poorly that the rest of us found out.
Isn’t the sneakiness and deception regarding Joe Bidens mental status, just part and parcel?Listening to some Dem coverage of the debate. What jumps out is the utter lack of self awareness, no realization that “they” are being rejected, their boondoggles and bungling, along with their weird culty beliefs. They and their sleezy, uniparty friends have stomped on the faces of middle America, working America, Main Street, and independent farmers for 20+ years. They offer us nothing but insults, bigotry, name calling….. For that, they demand, submission and acceptance of a bleak future.
It’s entirely possible that Joe and Kamala are the best and brightest that Dems have going for them.
@BenDavid
I highly doubt that Biden’s personal wishes count for much behind the scenes. Either his handlers thought they should get it over with – and thought they could manage the story as they have until now.
I don’t think you are right. I think that Biden himself decided to go with the debate, and the idea that this was some slick plan by the DNC just doesn’t bear out with the reaction. In the past Biden was as Machiavellian as you suggest, but he just isn’t up to that anymore and I can easily see him blurting it out without much preparation. There is a huge component of “Don’t call me old, lets have a push up contest, my dick is bigger than yours, and my golf handicap is better than yours.” If he weren’t president it would be really sad to see this bumbling old man trying to pretend he was what he was thirty years ago. I’m just a little terrified that he doesn’t try to prove his machismo by pressing a nuclear button.
The Dems reaction has basically been “Biden had a bad night” and “Trump was really bad too”. But I think they are gaslighting us and it won’t work. There is a big difference between a “bad night” — which is where you flubbed an answer or got hit with a zinger — and what we saw which was someone incapable of coherent thought. As to “Trump was really bad too” aside from the fact that that wasn’t true, nobody remembers anything Trump says because it was covered up by the shock from our reaction to Biden.
But it is looking like they are going to stick with Biden. One commentator said “Jill knows that Joe’s career is his life and if his career ends so will his life”, and the loathsome and corrupt Chris Coons is even saying such laughable nonsense as “Biden is the only person who can beat Trump.”
The fact that the response is SO bad and SO ineffective tells me that this was not at all the plan, that they are totally blindsided. Presumably they figured they’d hype Biden up on amphetamines and he’d be like at the State of the Union. I don’t really understand why they didn’t do that, which is the only rat I smell here.
Fraser Orr
There is a big difference between reading the SoU off a teleprompter and being light on your feet and able to respond extemporaneously, under intense pressure, even with prep.
Anyone: What do you think of Trump’s response? I think it was smart to step back and let Biden twist in the wind. I did wonder if Trump anticipated Bidens mental state or if he was as aghast and stunned as the viewers? I, for one, am very glad, he didn’t pummel Biden. It wouldn’t have been a good look, and,if he had, that would have been the story and not Biden’s implosion
Exasperated – yes as Napoleon put it “never interrupt the enemy when they are making a mistake”.
I am NOT a “lawyer”, nor have I ever played one on TV; here is my take on the state of play:
The default position regarding churnalists and the “truth” should ALWAYS be:
EVERY LSM utterance is a toxic fraud. Work from there.
MAKE them prove their “innocence” on EVERY count.
“Presumption of Innocence” as a fundamental legal / “just-us” precept”. A noble concept, but the Napoleonic Code has ruled in the “West” for over a century,so far..
Pull down ANY legislation or set of “Regulations to the Act” and it will be riddled with declarations of “probable guilt” on the part of the peasants
The Tsunami of ever-more complex ans EXPENSIVE “licences and permits” to do ANYTHING is a good indicator.
“Freedom of Association”? Nice idea, BUT: What about “Freedom FROM Association”?