TimLovesTech

Well hindsight is always 20/20, and some of the topics you could tell Biden felt passionate about exacerbating his trouble articulating his thoughts. Overall I don't think a "debate" is the correct format for trying to contrast himself with Trump. You can't argue with the kid that is just going to stick out his tongue or make fart noises anytime you try and talk, and that is what Joe was trying to do with Trump.

Luckily the EPA now has no power to do anything about it either, all but guaranteeing it gets worse before it ever gets better.

Sorry, I can't find it now. I know I read or heard it around the time of the debate, but have no idea where at this point so I've noted such above. And up until I saw a post here on Lemmy about how much of a train wreck it was early on I wasn't even going to watch the debate at all, because I already know I'm pro-democracy and that is really what this election is all about.

Thank you for fact checking me though, I don't want to be the source of inaccurate information.

Biden is just old, and the cold did him no favors. He was also I think completely unprepared for the firehose of just straight up disprovable lies coming at him while also trying to actually convey his talking points. Even if well I don't think it's a great medium for an 81 yr old man. Listen to him elsewhere though and it's clear he still has his marbles, unlike Trump who is on a fast decline and unable to even explain an idea. The man isn't as young as he was clearly, and probably should have just retired long ago. But having known family and others with dementia, I don't think Biden has dementia at all, he's just old and debates like an 81 yr old.

Are these Black and Hispanic voters going to the guy that talked about immigrants "taking Black jobs?" or eventually "taking Hispanic jobs too"? How can any minority vote for a man that is clearly a racist through and through. His father was a racist, arrested marching with the KKK, and they both got fined for not renting to people of color. He has a history of using minority and immigrant labor so he can threaten and cheat them out of pay. The list goes on and on. Biden may not be a saint (far from it), but he at least believes in democracy.

Also that debate was the perfect storm for Biden.

• 1. He was clearly getting over a cold and sounded like he needed to clear his throat the whole time.
• 2. Because of #1 it made overcoming his speech issues like his stutter all the more difficult, requiring more mental processing than normal.
• 3. The debate format of no guardrails and having 2 minutes to both try and state your talking points, and also trying to counter the absolute bullshit word salad of lies Trump was spewing his way was a lot to process for anyone, let alone an 81yr old.
• 4. ~~CNN gave in to the Right and dropped the fact checking that afternoon, but Biden really had no choice but to show up. Imagine what conspiracy theories would have come out of Biden pulling out last minute because his campaign knew it was going to be a shit show. You can't reason with people acting in bad faith, and once the fact checking was removed this "debate" was a lose/lose situation for Biden.~~ I read or heard this someplace around the time of the debate, but I'm unable to find it now.

I don't disagree that Biden's showing was disheartening, but I also think the fact that he was actually trying to convey a message, while having a firehouse of shit spewed at him from his right should factor into that as well. It was a "debate" with someone acting in bad faith and Joe trying to follow the rules, with basically no moderation at all. It wasn't a debate, but more like trying to have a rational talk with a kid that just keeps sticking out his tongue and making fart noises.

Right, only the modern interpretation of an original text that very few people in the world has even seen, let alone able to read. And then all the MANY offshoots of Christianity because each had something people didn't like, a "leader" made a new "version" for them. Forced indoctrination like this is very similar to starting a cult, as almost all of those start with someone that needs to interpret the text or "God's" word.

I think it would be an interesting exercise for everyone pushing this to have to compare and contrast with say David Koresh, or Joseph Smith, and explain how their version of God's word isn't a cult.

Reading the Memorandum, it doesn't specify what Bible is to be used. Perhaps malicious compliance uses a "alternative" version?

Also found this from the Satanic Temple (who hopefully is on top of this) -

If a public school permits the distribution of religious materials to the student body, they have opened a limited public forum and are obligated to allow religious materials from other faiths. This principle applies to other forms of school-sponsored religious expression as well.

Also funny how these hypocrites go on and on about indoctrination, and then want to indoctrinate every kid in the state by law.

If you go back further though, translation of the text to a language the "people" could understand was illegal. Anyone caught with such texts was imprisoned or worse. Those in charge and using religion to control the masses (it's true intention IMHO) didn't want everyone to be able to read it, they wanted people depending on the "chosen" to teach and judge them (what today we may call a cult).

He also followed that up with a line about immigrants coming after Hispanic jobs. I don't know how any "debate" can be taken seriously when a candidate can say shit like that and the immediate follow up question isn't, "Mr. Trump, what is a Black or Hispanic job?".

I think it's a bit of a dog whistle as well.

"Their taking Black jobs, and their taking Hispanic jobs ..."

"What exactly is a Black or Hispanic job Mr. Trump?" should have been the follow up on that one.

These are companies not people (even though we treat them that way when convenient), and they broke a regulation that is part of their expected operating procedures. Why are we dragging this into court and seating a jury because a company didn't do the thing they were supposed to do. They should have no presumption of innocence, the inspection is the proof one way or the other. This just lets them further delay any consequences, and will be another thing calculated into their cost analysis of "are we going to follow the rules" or is it more cost effective (at least short term because that's what shareholders care about) to just NOT ever follow the rules, delay any fines, rinse and repeat?