Joe Biden's hair-sniffing fetish?

[blackram]

What do they call that hair-sniffing fetish that Biden keeps doing while he is behind a woman? There must be some kind of name for it besides "hair-sniiffing".

 

[DILLIGAF]

Its called Groping or unsolicited sexual contact

DILLIGAF

 

[Curly]

Also called a perfect.

 

[Voicer]

Also called a perfect.

Perv.

 

[DannyDevito]

Perv.

Hey, I like hair sniffing.

 

[blackram]

Hey, so just as we were talking about this issue, the issue burst out into the open soon after! We're a bunch political pundits on HUBGFE! :rofl!:
Biden blindsided by dose of 2020 reality - POLITICO

 

[FrankLo]

 

[blackram]

#metoo......unless it's a democrat, right. Oh....that's just ole Joe. He don't mean nuffin by it! You've got to believe the woman's story about how she felt......but that don't mean he can't run for President.

You can argue to prevent a Supreme Court Justice from getting the position because a woman made a claim about a alleged action decades ago with no proof and no witnesses, but you can watch Ole Joe groping women and girls (there are plenty of pictures and videos) and blow it off as no big deal.

If you cannot see or admit your own hypocrisy, you might be a liberal democrat. :biggrin2:

The Democratic Establishment is so desperate to keep Bernie Sanders from winning it this time that they're willing to overlook pretty much anything as long as they promise not to upset their corporate benefactors. Each attempt seems more desperate than the last one.

First they tried Kamala Harris, a youthful black woman from California, checks all of the identity boxes. They gave her a splashy send-off with 20,000 Democratic party operatives in her audience, to make it look like she has a lot of momentum. Except that African-Americans can't stand her, there is no way they would vote for her, she has a brutal record in California of throwing African-Americans in jail for things as minor as not showing up to school. And Bernie Sanders is more popular than her in her own state of California. She has fizzled already.

Next they tried Beto O'Rourke, who had a very closely fought finish against Ted Cruz in the Texas Senate race. it was close, but he still finished second to the guy who finished second against Trump in the presidential race in 2016. So this was somehow good enough to go up against Trump the next time around? Anybody but Bernie, as they say. They even sent him off with an initial funding haul of coincidentally just slightly above Bernie Sanders' first day haul. He stands on tables, car roofs, and waves his hands all about, and says absolutely nothing in the end. He's also got an unfortunate history of voting mainly with the Republicans. He's fizzling out now too.

Their next great hope is Biden. He's also their last great hope. He's also their last chance hope. He's got name recognition, like Bernie, but he's also got a 40 year history unfortunate statements. He's run for president many times before, and he's never come close before. The Establishment knows all about his unfortunate history, that's why he's their last-chance choice, the guy you take home when the bar is closing and everybody else has already paired up. This is not going well already, and he hasn't even officially started yet.

 

[papasmerf]

Who is or was Biden :unknw:

Pretty sure he is an ALSO RAN.

 

[blackram]

Right now, I don't see who could really beat Trump.

I can. You're not going to agree with who I think can easily beat Trump, so instead I'll explain the type of person who can beat Trump. This person needs to have a consistent message, and a straight message, no "if's, and's, or but's". This person needs to be able to defend their position vigorously in the face of opposition pushback. They need to pushback against the pushback. The person who will do the best job of pushing back against the pushback, is the person who actually believes in their message, and doesn't just hold this position because the polls say it's the best position to hold.

Beto is an empty suit calling on his supporters to tell he what he should be. Not great leadership by definition.

The Democratic Establishment is hoping he is the next Obama 2.0. Obama himself is now being looked upon as a severe disappointment within the Democratic party (by regular members, not leadership, of course). He's looked on as weak and unable to do any basic pushback against him. He was so worried about being labled the "angry black guy" that he stood by and did nothing that he promised. There's no mood for that sort of leadership in the party anymore, they want a true activist, and Beto isn't it.

Bernie.....too old and white....maybe.

That's not an argument, it's just a talking point. Bernie, Biden, Trump, Hillary, were all just a few years apart. Biden and Bernie seem to be fittest ones there of their age group. White? Bernie is just killing it with ethnic groups (blacks, asians, hispanics, etc.), he's easily polling in the 60%, 70% popularity ranges with all of them. He's twice as popular with black folks than Kamala Harris is, who is supposed to be black herself.

Kamala is another person who the Democratic Establishment is trying to foist on the Democratic electorate. She fills all of the identity politics checkboxes: black, south asian, woman. Except if you follow any black Youtube channels, they all hate her! She's got a brutal record of jailing black people, and not really being on their side in her record as Attorney-General of California. Did the Democrats think that people would actually forget that??

Biden....probably the best chance but all the other candidates are going after him now.

No, he's too far to the right for the current Democratic base. If it wasn't for his handsiness, he would still be in trouble for his past policies on crime, race, and women. His positions on Medicare4All, Minimum Wage, free-trade, etc. does not fit in the current Democratic party. He's only popular because he has nostalgia from the Obama days, but like Hillary, as soon as he enters and starts talking, his popularity is going to plummet.

I think the Dems are kind of stuck. The more radical left wants a socialist but I don't think that will actually get them the votes. The loud squeeky voices might make them think that the country wants radical leftism but I think most of the silent majority....

Are you sure about that? Most of the policies they are talking about have incredible popularity among Americans, well over 70% or 80% in some cases. M4A, Green New Deal, higher taxation for billionaires, etc. If you don't attach any labels (Democrat, liberal, progressive, socialist) whatsoever to these policies, they enjoy huge approval. And even when assigning political labels, they still hold incredible approval. People under 60, are split on their opinion about Socialism. People under 40, are roughly mostly in favour of socialism. People under 30, have absolutely no problem with the word socialism. The people brainwashed by the Cold War days, the fierce anti-socialists are dying off.

Dems want single payer health care....but they just watched Obamacare fail at its intention to lower health care costs.

Obamacare is also known as Romneycare, it was a right-wing Republican thinktank generated plan. It was obviously going to fail, it kept the insurance companies in place. Medicare4All is quite different and is a proper left-wing plan that is well-tested in the rest of the world, including up here in Canada. It works better all over the world than the system in place in America.

I think the average American is happy to see that unemployment is way down, that the economy seems to be doing well, that we're standing up to our adversaries and our "allies".

You see the economy is only doing well for the upper classes, it's not doing all that well for the working classes, where most jobs are now minimum wage and/or part-time. These are the vast majority that have not shared in the American prosperity. People are living from paycheck to paycheck, even if they have some high-paying jobs. Just look at the government workers who went to food banks when the government was shutdown.

Isn't that why Dems are now arguing to get rid of the Electoral College. The thing that makes sure that the little guy is heard.

That's not what the purpose of the Electoral College was. it was set up that way because back in the 18th century there weren't any telecommunications systems and electronic vote counting systems that could count up millions of votes in seconds and transmit the results all around the country. So they broke up the voting into more easily counted Electors who represented the voters of their state. There's no need for that system in a modern world. Representation of the "little guy" should be done by the two branches of Congress. Neither branch works that well, so they now look to the presidential branch to achieve some sort of ad hoc regional representation.