this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
45 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10181 readers
187 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Here is his fantastic Detroit speech from today.
https://youtube.com/live/elwW0B50cZQ
Hard to fuck up when you're reading 100% from a teleprompter. Click to a random spot in the video where he's talking. Notice his face is ALWAYS locked on a specific location. Literally the glass panes that you can see. That's the teleprompter. He seems to favor the one on his right.
So you think he did a good job? We agree.
But I thought the narrative was that he was a senile old man who can put two words together? When you watched his responses to reporters at his NATO press conference, he wasn't going from a teleprompter and spoke well on policy issues. But yeah, he makes mistakes when speaking, so his ability to talk policy doesn't matter I guess.
No. I don't hand out trophies for reading words off a screen. My 7 year old daughter can do that.
So you are ignoring the part about his NATO policy comments. I guess so you can stick with what you've already decided. Got it.
You want me to ignore 95% of the speech to address comments at the end that amounts to literal moments? And judge his "fantastic" speech on just those moments...
It's not a matter of me "already deciding" something... It's being objective.
When the man is forced to talk off prompter for longer than literal moments. He fails... EVERY time. And even oftentimes fails ON prompter. But for some reason this 90 seconds or so proves otherwise for you. This speaks more for you than for me.
The speech was exceptional and every politician uses a teleprompter. So there is nothing to ignore. His SOTU was exceptional and one of the best I have heard in my life. His speech prior to his responses to reporters at NATO was ok. His mistakes were unfortunate but the content was very good and critically important to what we need. His responses unscripted to reporters on policy were excellent.
"He fails… EVERY time. " except when he doesn't.
He is the dem candidate. Like every person he has his faults and I don't agree with him on everything. I'd like to see a progressive instead but that is not realistic right now, so he has my support. Otherwise you are supporting the felon, Putin, Orban and insanity.
And this is where you're wrong. I can support "nothing". Until either side actually puts up a reasonable fucking choice. I'll choose to support myself, and that's it.
Edit: Are you vote botting yourself? The same people are upvoting your comment... hours apart. Very odd that the same couple people are upvoting all your stuff hours apart on a thread they presumably would read once and move on from.
I don't even know how to check who has upvoted on beehaw. You sound a bit paranoid, maybe people just agree?
Are we meant to believe that this is a real criticism?
Of Biden? No... of the commenter for claiming the speech was "Fantastic" when it was just read off a teleprompter? Yes...