Only in America... | Page 40 | Vital Football

Only in America...

hulloutpost said:
Indeed, quite so. If Trump had any self awareness (he hasn't) he may reflect on how useless he had to be or how effective MSN and social media were, for him to actually lose to this creepy, bumbling buffoon.
Click to expand...
I fell going up my stairs this morning with a cup of coffee and I am a perfectly healthy 31 year old man. This is a non story. It is funny. But a non story.

Also, what about Biden is worthy of classifying him a bumbling buffoon? I acknowledge he is a bit creepy by the way.... But I do question when people say he is dumb. I'd love to hear why.
 
MichiganImp said:
I fell going up my stairs this morning with a cup of coffee and I am a perfectly healthy 31 year old man. This is a non story. It is funny. But a non story.

Also, what about Biden is worthy of classifying him a bumbling buffoon? I acknowledge he is a bit creepy by the way.... But I do question when people say he is dumb. I'd love to hear why.
Click to expand...
Not knowing the bloke, I couldn't say he was a buffoon. He seems to be doing far more for American society than the previous holder of his post. Now, there is a man that just screams buffoon, along with anyone that that believes him, and every senator that allowed him to escape punishment for the invasion of the Capitol.
Joe, dumb? Maybe. He's brighter, and a far better human being than many of the millions whose lives he's trying to improve.
But, yes it was funny, especially the Trump golf shots. I somehow doubt Donald is good enough to hit him. More likely the ball ends up out of bounds and he sneaks one just in play out of his pocket, whilst the rest of his four ball look the other way!!
 
hulloutpost said:
Indeed, quite so. If Trump had any self awareness (he hasn't) he may reflect on how useless he had to be or how effective MSN and social media were, for him to actually lose to this creepy, bumbling buffoon.
Click to expand...
Was Biden the best Democrat candidate? No, far from it.
Was Biden the better option compared to the incumbent? Absolutely, 100% yes.

Given a choice between a creepy, bumbling buffoon and a self-serving narcissistic man-baby, I would 100% go for the creepy, bumbling, buffoon every time. An expired sandwich is still better than a shit sandwich.

how effective MSN and social media were
Click to expand...

Trump had Fox News gushing over him 24/7. "Social media" is mostly the free exchange of ideas in a public forum. Trump benefitted in 2016 and throughout his term from both.

To think that Joe Biden was handed an unfair advantage by either of these is very one-eyed. Joe Biden's advantage came from the fact he was up against Trump - and probably benefitted most from Trump's disastrous handling of the Pandemic. If 2016 never happened and Biden was up against a semi-competent candidate, he wouldn't have got close to the presidency.
 
MichiganImp said:
I fell going up my stairs this morning with a cup of coffee and I am a perfectly healthy 31 year old man. This is a non story. It is funny. But a non story.

Also, what about Biden is worthy of classifying him a bumbling buffoon? I acknowledge he is a bit creepy by the way.... But I do question when people say he is dumb. I'd love to hear why.
Click to expand...

Check out his frequent gaffes and forgetfulness. There are plenty of examples on media outlets and social media channels. I never called him dumb by the way. I'm sure when he was younger he was a very capable man.

His reliance on autocue and avoidance of a one to one 'unmanaged' press address/Q&A without aides to protect him thus far whilst president, must be a concern for those managing advising him.

People are querying why he hasn't done one yet. Apparently it's because he is too busy; a bit like it was windy the other day maybe.

It's funny, and not a non story when you factor in the constant forgetfulness and struggling to string together cogent sentences. Quite concerning for swathes of The US public I imagine, but that's a matter for The US with the exception of things like NATO of course, which are of interest to the wider world.
 
Last edited:
markhonesmagicstuds said:
Was Biden the best Democrat candidate? No, far from it.
Was Biden the better option compared to the incumbent? Absolutely, 100% yes.

Given a choice between a creepy, bumbling buffoon and a self-serving narcissistic man-baby, I would 100% go for the creepy, bumbling, buffoon every time. An expired sandwich is still better than a shit sandwich.



Trump had Fox News gushing over him 24/7. "Social media" is mostly the free exchange of ideas in a public forum. Trump benefitted in 2016 and throughout his term from both.

To think that Joe Biden was handed an unfair advantage by either of these is very one-eyed. Joe Biden's advantage came from the fact he was up against Trump - and probably benefitted most from Trump's disastrous handling of the Pandemic. If 2016 never happened and Biden was up against a semi-competent candidate, he wouldn't have got close to the presidency.
Click to expand...


I never said Biden was handed an unfair advantage, I was suggestive that those on the Biden side may well have made particularly good and effective use of MSN/social media whereas Trump clearly did not. I would go as far to say Trump conversely, actually shot himself in the foot with 'it' regularly. That was his problem to own, and a case of where some self awareness may have helped him.

I'm amazed that between the main parties running for office, the US came up with two such appalling candidates and it is a shame for their electorate that is what they were saddled with as choices. And the US electorate are happy that their only alternative to Trump was an expired sandwich?

No doubt the US could quite rightly look at The UK and draw comparisons that we had to effectively choose between Corbyn and Johnson.

A case for both countries of having to elect dumb or dumber; maybe the use of the term dumb for Biden is appropriate on further thought after all. I'll leave it to individual preferences to decide which way round the candidates were.
 
Last edited:
plumbob said:
Not knowing the bloke, I couldn't say he was a buffoon. He seems to be doing far more for American society than the previous holder of his post. Now, there is a man that just screams buffoon, along with anyone that that believes him, and every senator that allowed him to escape punishment for the invasion of the Capitol.
Joe, dumb? Maybe. He's brighter, and a far better human being than many of the millions whose lives he's trying to improve.
But, yes it was funny, especially the Trump golf shots. I somehow doubt Donald is good enough to hit him. More likely the ball ends up out of bounds and he sneaks one just in play out of his pocket, whilst the rest of his four ball look the other way!!
Click to expand...
I'm no golfer but looking at his swing he looks a bit tight and would probably benefit from some coaching.
 
hulloutpost said:
Check out his frequent gaffes and forgetfulness. There are plenty of examples on media outlets and social media channels. I never called him dumb by the way. I'm sure when he was younger he was a very capable man.

His reliance on autocue and avoidance of a one to one 'unmanaged' press address/Q&A without aides to protect him thus far whilst president, must be a concern for those managing advising him.

People are querying why he hasn't done one yet. Apparently it's because he is too busy; a bit like it was windy the other day maybe.

It's funny, and not a non story when you factor in the constant forgetfulness and struggling to string together cogent sentences. Quite concerning for swathes of The US public I imagine, but that's a matter for The US with the exception of things like NATO of course, which are of interest to the wider world.
Click to expand...

While I will say that I would like him to do more 'unmanaged' press events, I don't know how that affects his ability to govern a nation.

You know he has a speech impediment, right? He has a stutter. Not sure if you've ever known anyone with a stutter but as a person who has one, it is infuriating when people think we are dumb because we cannot "string sentences together." Most of my schooling had teachers thinking I was a moron because I couldn't read aloud from books because of my stutter. Now to have the president mocked on the world's stage because of his speech? Shit man, that is low.

He speaks well most of the time but, as a stutterer myself, I can see the little tricks he is using in his head to get the correct words out. Sometimes the wrong word comes out because it is better than struggling with the word you want for 20 seconds while Fox News calls you stupid for a full week.

And before you say that liberals made fun of Trump for his cognitive decline....yes that is true. But it is a stupid argument and I never fell for it. I think Trump is all there, which actually makes him more terrifying.

Also, lastly, it is not common for presidents to do press conferences. Trump did them a lot more because he just liked to be in front of camera. Obama, Bush, Clinton, rarely did press conferences unless there was something major going on.
 
MichiganImp said:
While I will say that I would like him to do more 'unmanaged' press events, I don't know how that affects his ability to govern a nation.

You know he has a speech impediment, right? He has a stutter. Not sure if you've ever known anyone with a stutter but as a person who has one, it is infuriating when people think we are dumb because we cannot "string sentences together." Most of my schooling had teachers thinking I was a moron because I couldn't read aloud from books because of my stutter. Now to have the president mocked on the world's stage because of his speech? Shit man, that is low.

He speaks well most of the time but, as a stutterer myself, I can see the little tricks he is using in his head to get the correct words out. Sometimes the wrong word comes out because it is better than struggling with the word you want for 20 seconds while Fox News calls you stupid for a full week.

And before you say that liberals made fun of Trump for his cognitive decline....yes that is true. But it is a stupid argument and I never fell for it. I think Trump is all there, which actually makes him more terrifying.

Also, lastly, it is not common for presidents to do press conferences. Trump did them a lot more because he just liked to be in front of camera. Obama, Bush, Clinton, rarely did press conferences unless there was something major going on.
Click to expand...

It's not his stammer, it's his inability to remember basics. The number of times he confuses names, relationships, roles etc. indicates to me cognitive decline that is not linked to his stammer. If you look at historic footage of him as a young man he does not appear to have these cognitive issues.

I'm not bothered what lampooning was/is made of Trump or Biden as they both appear to be unfit for office imo. If 'you' declare yourself fit for the role as POTUS and present as they both do, neither can complain or be surprised at the scorn they attract.

Very early days for Biden granted, but are you absolutely sure about Presidential News Conferences? He doesn't look too keen to appear before the cameras if this league table is correct:

Presidential News Conferences | The American Presidency Project (ucsb.edu)

Also the 'media whore' Trump appears to come in lower than Bush and Clinton per annum, and is only two p.a. more than Obama. To be fair to Trump there weren't any new wars on his watch so I accept your explanation that the others may have had more reason to appear before the press.

Biden does have time to move up the table, time will tell; so perhaps I should reserve my cynicism at this juncture.
 
Last edited:
hulloutpost said:
It's not his stammer, it's his inability to remember basics. The number of times he confuses names, relationships, roles etc. indicates to me cognitive decline that is not linked to his stammer. If you look at historic footage of him as a young man he does not appear to have these cognitive issues.

I'm not bothered what lampooning was/is made of Trump or Biden as they both appear to be unfit for office imo. If 'you' declare yourself fit for the role as POTUS and present as they both do, neither can complain or be surprised at the scorn they attract.

Very early days for Biden granted, but are you absolutely sure about Presidential News Conferences? He doesn't look too keen to appear before the cameras if this league table is correct:

Presidential News Conferences | The American Presidency Project (ucsb.edu)

He does have time to move up the table, time will tell.
Click to expand...
I disagree with your assessment of his cognitive decline, but we won't convince each other. Just be careful about what you say, it can come across as rude. But maybe we can just leave it at that.

As for the news conferences, didn't that kinda prove my point? No one really does them anymore. Trump would do his "chopper talks" but it is uncommon for a president to do 'off the cuff' remarks anymore.
 
MichiganImp said:
I disagree with your assessment of his cognitive decline, but we won't convince each other. Just be careful about what you say, it can come across as rude. But maybe we can just leave it at that.

As for the news conferences, didn't that kinda prove my point? No one really does them anymore. Trump would do his "chopper talks" but it is uncommon for a president to do 'off the cuff' remarks anymore.
Click to expand...
I'm certainly not intending to be rude towards yourself. I'm quite happy to be rude about Biden and Trump for the reasons outlined. I agree we can leave our different pov about Biden's cognitive levels where they are.
 
Columbia University Accused Of Segregation With 6 Different Graduation Ceremonies (ibtimes.com)

So in the warped, mixed up, virtue signalling world of SJWs and identity politics, nothing much should surprise me, but then this crops up.

Seriously, they are (voluntarily!!!!) reintroducing graduation ceremonies not only based on race, but throwing in status and sexuality for good measure.

All the people in the 60's that were violently beaten, oppressed and even died during the hard fought civil rights movement to end segregation and promote equality. Words fail; I wonder what Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. would make of people choosing to self segregate and exclude other people on the basis of race and social standing?

Oh my goodness, the world has turned upside down.
 
hulloutpost said:
Columbia University Accused Of Segregation With 6 Different Graduation Ceremonies (ibtimes.com)

So in the warped, mixed up, virtue signalling world of SJWs and identity politics, nothing much should surprise me, but then this crops up.

Seriously, they are (voluntarily!!!!) reintroducing graduation ceremonies not only based on race, but throwing in status and sexuality for good measure.

All the people in the 60's that were violently beaten, oppressed and even died during the hard fought civil rights movement to end segregation and promote equality. Words fail; I wonder what Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. would make of people choosing to self segregate and exclude other people on the basis of race and social standing?

Oh my goodness, the world has turned upside down.
Click to expand...


I'm not really sure I get the problem with this. Student graduation ceremonies, like the ones you mention, do not replace traditional ceremonies they simply add to them. Students can often participate in both, or one, or none, if they so choose.

How is anyone hurt if, for example, an Asian student wants to enjoy a celebration with an Asian heritage theme with others who have a similar interest. Guests to these ceremonies can come from all backgrounds, and they frequently do.

Given the long history of exclusion in the US, and specifically in Higher Education, these ceremonies send a positive message without hurting anyone. I don't get why this would bother anyone. People can self-select their music, TV, food, friendship around ethnicity if they want to.

If the official university ceremony denied access to one group or another you would have a point, but that is not the case.
 
LA_Imp said:
I'm not really sure I get the problem with this. Student graduation ceremonies, like the ones you mention, do not replace traditional ceremonies they simply add to them. Students can often participate in both, or one, or none, if they so choose.

How is anyone hurt if, for example, an Asian student wants to enjoy a celebration with an Asian heritage theme with others who have a similar interest. Guests to these ceremonies can come from all backgrounds, and they frequently do.

Given the long history of exclusion in the US, and specifically in Higher Education, these ceremonies send a positive message without hurting anyone. I don't get why this would bother anyone. People can self-select their music, TV, food, friendship around ethnicity if they want to.

If the official university ceremony denied access to one group or another you would have a point, but that is not the case.
Click to expand...

But it excludes people doesn't it. It encourages division; not unity and equality.

If I do the classic thing and turn it around so that another three groups had their own additional graduation ceremonies as you suggest they can:

Let's pick white people, straight people and rich people for the sake of argument. That won't be happening though, and nor should/would it be allowed to.

(Rhetorical question) I wonder what the reaction would be if people enquired about having their graduation celebrated at such events and were told no, you're black, you're gay, you're poor.

Are you seriously suggesting with a straight face, that such events would be permitted by the University?

I submit that would not send a positive message, people (feelings) would be hurt and they would very, very much be bothered.

Equality, fairness, inclusiveness cannot be selective streets.
 
hulloutpost said:
But it excludes people doesn't it. It encourages division; not unity and equality.

If I do the classic thing and turn it around so that another three groups had their own additional graduation ceremonies as you suggest they can:

Let's pick white people, straight people and rich people for the sake of argument. That won't be happening though, and nor should/would it be allowed to.

(Rhetorical question) I wonder what the reaction would be if people enquired about having their graduation celebrated at such events and were told no, you're black, you're gay, you're poor.

Are you seriously suggesting with a straight face, that such events would be permitted by the University?

I submit that would not send a positive message, people (feelings) would be hurt and they would very, very much be bothered.

Equality, fairness, inclusiveness cannot be selective streets.
Click to expand...

It doesn't exclude anyone who would like to participate in these ceremonies. If a student says I am a black student and would like to participate they can. There is no racial purity test. If someone says I am gay and I would like to join the LGBTQ event they can.

Everyone is invited to the main graduation and these additional celebratory events occur as complementary events. For a long time graduation ceremonies were white people only affairs. Now, they are not, and in addition some groups would like to celebrate the achievements of their community on top of that. There are celebrations that are separate for Honours students, student athletes, students in different majors celebrate in their own ceremonies. There are separate ceremonies for students in programs designed to support economically disadvantaged students (EOP etc). This is not a big deal. Again, nobody is hurt by this, and nobody is told they are not welcome. The friends and family cheering in the audience will not be exclusively from the graduates backgrounds.

I suppose students could request a whites heritage celebration, but taken in the context of the racial history of the United States, I think any college or university would understand what that message was really about.

The message is if you are black, Asian, Gay, etc. then there are these additional events that you may choose, or not choose, to participate in. Who is being told no?

The real question is if you are a white student why would you want a whites only celebration? The answer to the other groups is because they are emerging from long, long periods of oppression and existing in the shadows, and want to celebrate with others who have shared experiences. That is not true for white students in the US.
 
LA_Imp said:
It doesn't exclude anyone who would like to participate in these ceremonies. If a student says I am a black student and would like to participate they can. There is no racial purity test. If someone says I am gay and I would like to join the LGBTQ event they can.

Everyone is invited to the main graduation and these additional celebratory events occur as complementary events. For a long time graduation ceremonies were white people only affairs. Now, they are not, and in addition some groups would like to celebrate the achievements of their community on top of that. There are celebrations that are separate for Honours students, student athletes, students in different majors celebrate in their own ceremonies. There are separate ceremonies for students in programs designed to support economically disadvantaged students (EOP etc). This is not a big deal. Again, nobody is hurt by this, and nobody is told they are not welcome. The friends and family cheering in the audience will not be exclusively from the graduates backgrounds.

I suppose students could request a whites heritage celebration, but taken in the context of the racial history of the United States, I think any college or university would understand what that message was really about.

The message is if you are black, Asian, Gay, etc. then there are these additional events that you may choose, or not choose, to participate in. Who is being told no?

The real question is if you are a white student why would you want a whites only celebration? The answer to the other groups is because they are emerging from long, long periods of oppression and existing in the shadows, and want to celebrate with others who have shared experiences. That is not true for white students in the US.
Click to expand...

I understand the point you try to make but that doesn't alter the fact that it is wrong to exclude participants on issues of race, gender, sexuality etc. You say people aren't excluded from being participants but clearly they are. A white person would not be allowed to participate in an Asian ceremony, nor would a white ceremony for them, be tolerated on any level.

It is very telling and presumptuous that it's ok to dismiss a potential 'white' graduation ceremony on the basis that any college or university would understand what that message was really about. White people have a lot to celebrate and be proud of, the same as anybody else.

I stand by my original point that unless ALL demographics can a) be allowed to hold an event and b) do so without generating the mother of all firestorms, then the ideology is flawed, wrong and fuels resentment.

In my opinion that would never be allowed to happen, so until it is, this is a discriminatory practice and causes division rather than unifying people.
 
Last edited:
hulloutpost said:
I understand the point you try to make but that doesn't alter the fact that it is wrong to exclude participants on issues of race, gender, sexuality etc. You say people aren't excluded from being participants but clearly they are. A white person would not be allowed to participate in an Asian ceremony, nor would a white ceremony for them, be tolerated on any level.

It is very telling and presumptuous that it's ok to dismiss a potential 'white' graduation ceremony on the basis that any college or university would understand what that message was really about. White people have a lot to celebrate and be proud of, the same as anybody else.

I stand by my original point that unless ALL demographics can a) be allowed to hold an event and b) do so without generating the mother of all firestorms, then the ideology is flawed, wrong and fuels resentment.

In my opinion that would never be allowed to happen, so until it is, this is a discriminatory practice and causes problems rather than unifying people.
Click to expand...

We are probably going to have to agree to disagree, but there are a couple of distinctions with regards to Colleges and Universities in the US that you may not be aware of. Columbia is a private university, as opposed to a public university, such as UCLA or UC Berkeley. This is an important distinction, because as a private university Columbia has more autonomy to conduct its affairs than public colleges and universities. If Columbia only wanted to offer one graduation ceremony they could, if they wanted one main ceremony and one additional ceremony for just black students, they could. What they cannot do is deny any student the option to participate in the main academic graduation ceremony as it would violate federal regulations. Addition, is not discrimination. Public universities can be subject to state requirements if the legislature pass them, but federal law does supersede these as well, especially if the institution receives federal financial aid funds.

If a white student (or any other student) had no option to participate in any graduation ceremony at all, based on their ethnicity, they would have a legal right to sue based on federal discrimination laws. That is not the case, so they have not been discriminated against.

The simple question is which students are being denied the opportunity and discriminated from participating in a single university graduation ceremony alongside all other students? The answer is 0.
 
LA_Imp said:
We are probably going to have to agree to disagree, but there are a couple of distinctions with regards to Colleges and Universities in the US that you may not be aware of. Columbia is a private university, as opposed to a public university, such as UCLA or UC Berkeley. This is an important distinction, because as a private university Columbia has more autonomy to conduct its affairs than public colleges and universities. If Columbia only wanted to offer one graduation ceremony they could, if they wanted one main ceremony and one additional ceremony for just black students, they could. What they cannot do is deny any student the option to participate in the main academic graduation ceremony as it would violate federal regulations. Addition, is not discrimination. Public universities can be subject to state requirements if the legislature pass them, but federal law does supersede these as well, especially if the institution receives federal financial aid funds.

If a white student (or any other student) had no option to participate in any graduation ceremony at all, based on their ethnicity, they would have a legal right to sue based on federal discrimination laws. That is not the case, so they have not been discriminated against.

The simple question is which students are being denied the opportunity and discriminated from participating in a single university graduation ceremony alongside all other students? The answer is 0.
Click to expand...

Fair enough we will agree to disagree. I wasn't aware of the distinction between universities but personally I don't see how that is part of the equation here.

Discrimination whether it is in private or public businesses is illegal here. That may be different in The States but it doesn't make it morally right.

It's not about white students being disallowed from having a ceremony; it's the reality that they would not be able to hold an additional 'white' ceremony, unlike all other demographics.

On that basis I simply believe there is straight forward discrimination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.