The New York Times on a mission:
In our view, Candidate Castro's surprising mean streak has been one of the stories of the Democratic debates.

He did it again at last Thursday's debate. Surprisingly, Castro seems to have revealed a side of himself which is unattractive.

Castro's behavior was widely discussed after last Thursday's debate. But the largest takeaway from the debate involves that monologue by Candidate Biden.

We'll start with the multi-part question posed to Biden. That question was nothing to boast about, but as he responded, the current Democratic front-runner went on a meandering roll:
DAVIS (9/12/19): Mr. Vice President, I want to come to you and talk to you about inequality in schools and race.

In a conversation about how to deal with segregation in schools back in 1975, you told a reporter, "I don't feel responsible for the sins of my father and grandfather. I feel responsible for what the situation is today, for the sins of my own generation, and I'll be damned if I feel responsible to pay for what happened 300 years ago."

You said that some forty years ago. But as you stand here tonight, what responsibility do you think that Americans need to take to repair the legacy of slavery in our country?

BIDEN: Well, they have to deal with the— Look, there's institutional segregation in this country. And from the time I got involved, I started dealing with that. Red-lining, banks, making sure that we are in a position where—

Look, you talk about education. I propose that what we take is those very poor schools, the Title I schools. Triple the amount of money we spend, from 15 to 45 billion a year. Give every single teacher a raise, the equal raise to getting out—the $60,000 level.

Number two, make sure that we bring in to help the teachers deal with the problems that come from home. The problems that come from home, we need—we have one school psychologist for every 1500 kids in America today. It's crazy.

The teachers are—I'm married to a teacher. My deceased wife is a teacher. They have every problem coming to them. We have—make sure that every single child does, in fact, have 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds go to school. School! Not daycare. School. We bring social workers in to homes and parents to help them deal with how to raise their children.

It's not that they don't want to help. They don't—they don't know quite what to do. Play the radio, make sure the television—excuse me, make sure you have the record player on at night, the, the— Make sure that kids hear words. A kid coming from a very poor school—a very poor background will hear four million words fewer spoken by the time they get there. There's so much we—

DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Vice President.

BIDEN: No, I'm going to go like the rest of them do, twice over, OK? Because here's the deal. The deal is that we've got this a little backwards...
At that point, Biden began discussing Venezuela. But it seems to us that the exchange presented above raises a very basic question—a question which comes from our culture's problematic Elite Cognition Files.

Bowing to the rules of her guild, ABC's Linsey Davis started by quoting something Biden said forty-four years ago, in 1975.

(To watch this exchange, click here, move ahead to 2:06.)

Alas! A type of selective "gotcha journalism" has been a plague on the system for decades, sometimes with the candidates' troubling "quotations" dreamed up—indeed, invented—by the press corps itself.

In the last two presidential cycles, the selectivity has taken on a dismaying chronological dimension. In 2016, pundits journeyed back twenty years in time to attack Candidate Clinton for a term she'd used on one occasion in 1996.

Last Thursday, Davis reached all the way back to a time before she herself had been born!

Davis' vaguely-formed question was built around an extremely old bit of gotcha. But in his answer, Biden wandered the countryside, once again raising questions about the possibly declining state of his cognition.

His sentences didn't seem to parse. He jumped from one topic to another, scattershot fashion.

As Biden's comments meandered, he did, in fact, make a series of glancing references to a range of rarely-discussed educational topics—to the levels of funding for low-income schools; to the so-called "20 million word gap" (or 30 million, or four million); to the role of parents in the education of kids who come from low-literacy backgrounds.

But Biden took this journey in a semi-coherent way—and inevitably, the cognitively-challenged upper-end press corps ended up clucking about his use of the term "record player."

(Charles Blow, in this morning's Times: "[H]e gave a rambling, nonsensical answer that included a reference to a record player." However rambling it may have been, the answer wasn't nonsensical—unless you're ignorant of the issues to which the answer referred.)

As a group, upper-end pundits chuckled in unison about Biden's meandering answer. In their latest standard repeatable group assessment, they announced that the "record player" reference was funny, a source of amusement.

They love it when they all get to say the same things and tell the same wonderful jokes. They've been this way for decades now. For such reasons, we've questioned the state of their cognition since 1998.

At any rate, that was a stumbling, disjointed statement from the Democratic front-runner—from the oldest major party front-runner in the history of American politics.

Biden's statement reinforced questions which have been coming, not without reason, from The Elite Cognition Files. But so did the typically silly way the upper-end "press corps" reacted.

Our question is this:

Can a major modern nation survive when its upper-end elites are functioning on such low cognitive levels? As we raise this obvious question, we note an important change in the weather at the New York Times, a newspaper branded as the liberal world's brightest and smartest and best.

On Sunday, August 18,
the New York Times announced a major new approach to journalism, The 1619 Project. Last Friday, in this widely-read essay, Andrew Sullivan praised the quality of much of the project's initial work, but he also said that this new approach is "as much activism as journalism."

"The New York Times Has Abandoned Liberalism for Activism." So reads the headline which sits atop Sullivan's widely-read, worthwhile piece.

It seems to us that the New York Times has chosen to pursue several types of "activism" in the past year or so. Here's a question we'll ponder this week, even as we analyze Biden's meandering answer and the way the mainstream pundit corps responded to it:

Our question comes live and direct from The Upper-End Cognition Files. Do you feel that the Times is smart enough to undertake missions like these?

Tomorrow: Problematic cognition levels at the New York Times


  1. It isn't new for the NY Times to be activist. Those who followed the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman story here will recall Bob Somerby's accurate portrayal vs. the Times's inaccurate, activist portrayal. The Times's picture was debunked by the Zimmerman trial, but the Times never admitted their faulty reporting. Sadly, the Times was not the only culprit. Many Americans still believe the false narrative, that Z stalked and attacked Martin. Most Americans remain unaware that Z was an upstanding, generous person, while TM was a juvenile delinquent.

    1. David thinks Somerby was "accurate" because Somerby repeated what was being said on conservative websites. Zimmerman, that upstanding generous person, has since led a troubled life:

      In America, we don't shoot juvenile delinquents.

    2. Somerby repeats conservative memes uncritically. It's only liberals he criticizes. He is a 'useless idiot' for Trump.

    3. You are absolutely right, @10:27. This event pretty much destroyed Zimmerman's life. Before this event he had a stable marriage and a regular job. He actively did volunteer activities. He was helpful to neighbors of all races.

    4. ABC News reported:

      "In a wide-ranging interview conducted by investigative freelance journalist Christi O'Connor, [Shellie] Zimmerman said on the evening Martin died she was staying elsewhere because the couple had got in an argument the night before."

      From Reuters:

      "Then came 2005, and a series of troubles. Zimmerman’s [Allstate insurance] business failed, he was arrested, and he broke off an engagement with a woman who filed a restraining order against him.

      That July, Zimmerman was charged with resisting arrest, violence, and battery of an officer after shoving an undercover alcohol-control agent who was arresting an under-age friend of Zimmerman’s at a bar. He avoided conviction by agreeing to participate in a pre-trial diversion program that included anger-management classes.

      In August, Zimmerman’s fiancee at the time, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman reciprocated with his own order on the same grounds, and both orders were granted. The relationship ended.

      In 2007 he married Shellie Dean, a licensed cosmetologist, and in 2009 the couple rented a townhouse in the Retreat at Twin Lakes. Zimmerman had bounced from job to job for a couple of years, working at a car dealership and a mortgage company. At times, according to testimony from Shellie at a bond hearing for Zimmerman last week, the couple filed for unemployment benefits.

      Zimmerman enrolled in Seminole State College in 2009, and in December 2011 he was permitted to participate in a school graduation ceremony, despite being a course credit shy of his associate’s degree in criminal justice. Zimmerman was completing that course credit when the shooting occurred."

      NOTE: Here we see the thread of domestic violence that seems to precede other types of shootings recently. This pattern of behavior before the shooting continued afterward. It seems hard to argue that the shooting ruined his life when he hadn't managed to achieve much stability before the shooting either.

      David, of course, gets his info from conservative websites who have an interest in portraying Zimmerman as a hero protecting his neighborhood. The real Zimmerman is more complex.

    5. "He was helpful to neighbors of all races".
      With the known exception of Travon Martin who Zimmerman knew to be a juvenile delinquent before he stalked and killed him.

    6. This event.....

      ie, the murder of a teenager.

    7. Zimmerman did not kill him. There is no evidence for that.

    8. Better trolling please.

    9. mm - the mixed race jury, who of course heard all the witnesses and saw all the evidence, unanimously agreed to the contrary of your statement.

    10. @anon 11:53AM,
      DinC reinforces his reputation as a congenital liar.

      Pardon my redundancy, but this is TDH.

    11. no, David, they believed there was "reasonable doubt" and could have been "self-defense"
      Cause the young Martin lad attacked poor George with a hunk of sidewalk, don't you know

      "mixed race jury"

      8 whites and 2 Hispanic, only 1 of which made it to the final jury of 6.

      “There was a clear racial aspect to the jury selection,” West*** said. “Rightfully or wrongfully, we were more suspicious, if you will, of African-American jurors because of the way the case was presented in the media.”

      ***Don West, Zimmerman's attorney.

    12. No jury following Florida law would have found Zimmerman guilty of illegal homicide. The law says that if you are in any place you have a right to be (basically any place you aren’t trespassing and not committing a crime) and you feel that your life or safety is threatened by another person, then you have the right to use deadly force against that person.

      It doesn’t matter if you could have safely disengaged.

      It doesn’t matter whether your reaction is commensurate with the threat.

      It doesn’t matter whether your impression was right or wrong.

      The standard of evidence for self-defense is so low that it may be inferred from the state’s case without a defendant’s testimony.

      The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no threat or that no reasonable person would have perceived a threat. Which, of course, is hard to do when the killer kills the sole witness.

      Both Zimmerman and Martin had a right to be where their confrontation took place. What we’ll never know for sure is which one threatened the other first. It’s entirely possible that they bumped into each other in the dark, and each thought the other was threatening. In that case, they both could have legally used deadly force.

    13. deadrat,
      If it works for our cowardly first responders, who feel threatened by unarmed black teens, it should work for everyone.

    14. Not for everyone, in particular not for black people. See the 2012 case of Marissa Alexander in Florida.

  2. "Surprisingly, Castro seems to have revealed a side of himself which is unattractive."

    Surprisingly, dear Bob? Ha-ha.

    Show me one liberal zombie cult high-priest who has an attractive side. ... No? There you go.

    Well, I suppose the least unattractive would be your current front-runner (soon to be replaced in that role by your fake Indian): Creepy Joe. The poor fella with jello instead of the brain, he arouses more pity than disgust...

    1. Mao, like Trump and the rest of the GOP, is still butt-hurt that Warren wants to hold his Establishment pals accountable for their felonies.

  3. Wonder of wonders. Somerby is affirmatively quoting Republican Andrew Sullivan again! Sullivan called the NY Times report 1619 "activism". Somerby agrees that the NY Times is being activist, but he blames them for asking Biden whether he feels responsible today for the sins of our legacy of slavery. Biden began talking about the schools. Then Somerby glossed over Biden's incoherence to blame the press for focusing on his mention of record players as a cure for lack of vocabulary building exposure to words.

    Then Somerby says:

    "Biden's statement reinforced questions which have been coming, not without reason, from The Elite Cognition Files. But so did the typically silly way the upper-end "press corps" reacted."

    What does he mean by the "Elite Cognition Files"? Who knows, but the word "elite" is sufficient to know it cannot be good. Is "cognition" bad? Are "files" bad? Somerby doesn't explain himself.

    You cannot expose children to words by playing records to them, just as they learn very little sitting in front of a TV. Minority kids spend more screen time, because the TV or game or tablet screen is a babysitter, it keeps them quiet. Children need interaction with adults to develop cognitively, they need to talk and be talked to. They don't need record players or any other form of media. They need attention from human beings and they don't get as much of that as middle class kids do. Neither Biden nor Somerby seems to understand that.

    But Somerby doesn't seem to value "cognition" much. It is becoming his new accusation against liberals. Now he is talking about "Problematic cognition levels". It was Biden who messed up and no one disputes that his statement was muddled, but Somerby blames reporters and praises Andrew Sullivan because he considers discussion of the legacy of the Civil War to be "activism." As if such activism were wrong. As if an attempt by the NY Times to engage in real dialog about race were a bad thing (after all, Obama called for it). Meanwhile, Kamala Harris is faux and Warren is haunted by DNA, and Somerby says Castro is mean for treating a debate like an actual debate.

    1. You can learn a language from watching TV and YouTube videos. I did anyway.

    2. Learning a language takes active thinking not passive watching. A child is not able to do that. A motivated adult might be able to. You don't know a language unless you can use it in flexible communication with a native speaker.

    3. A child is not able to do active thinking? Are you stoned?

    4. Not of the type needed to learn a language from a video. People doing that have already learned one language and they have learned to direct their attention to important features and they have an internal motive to learn. A child is not the same as an adult cognitively. They learn languages through interaction with other people.

      There was a deaf couple with a hearing son who wanted their child to be able to speak language. They exposed him to video for hours every day. At the end of that time, he was not able to speak.

      People learn languages from videos because the videos ask them questions and give them feedback. You can't learn Spanish by watching Spanish TV unless you already have some ability to guess at meanings from context, or words sound like words in the language you already know. You can't bootstrap language from passive watching of cartoons or the kinds of TV kids watch.

      It isn't cute to pull a single sentence out of context and ridicule it. There is a literature on language learning. Biden doesn't know it. Neither does Somerby. He taught Middle School, not kindergarten.

      Think back to your school days. If you read a passage in a book with paying attention to it, could you remember it afterward? Was it possible to understand it (assuming some complexity)? Children learn to direct their attention. Until then they are drawn by things in the environment. Parents engage kids by doing things to attract and keep their attention. Eye contact does that, for example. Saying the child's name. Showing them things and asking questions. Interacting with them. That's how kids learn.

      Early on, college administrators thought they could magnify their class sizes by having rooms with video showing a lecture going on in another room. The students didn't pay sufficient attention to learn anything (based on test scores), and these were college-aged adults. It takes a real life teacher to gain student attention and hold it in order to focus them on important material. Even that doesn't work unless the students are motivated. Little kids are harder to work with than adults.

    5. Typo: with paying attention should say "without paying attention"

    6. You are not an expert in the language learning field are you? Or any other field. You are a student, correct?

    7. So much you saw here is false.

    8. (It is true "there is literature on language learning.".)

    9. This is just totally false:

      "You can't bootstrap language from passive watching of cartoons or the kinds of TV kids watch."

      Cartoons are great for language learning because the images accompany the the words spoken - like when Peppa Pig asks his brother George to go climb a hill, you see all these images exactly as the words are spoken. And the vocabulary is simple.

      You are not an expert so please stop making things up.

    10. We all know your boring obsession with Somerby, there is no need to repeat it to me here.

      You are a student and not an expert, clearly neurotic and probably psychotic.

      You should spend your time elsewhere, frankly, ironing out your unhealthy obsessions. But whatever.

      Believe in and obsess over what you must.

      Wishing you the best.

    11. Anon @1:32: Quit the ad hominem attacks and do some research. Otherwise, some, but never those as wise and courteous as I, might ask of you, “You are a lazy, ignorant shit, correct?”

      Anon @12:45, on the other hand, may actually know whereof he/she speaks. Read and learn:

    12. I'm not and never disputed that part of the neurotic students' (her) claim.

      it is definitely true about the socioeconomic differences and the need for true interaction with people.

      I'm just disputing that children cannot learn a language from watching cartoons and, mostly everything in this paragraph:

      "People learn languages from videos because the videos ask them questions and give them feedback. You can't learn Spanish by watching Spanish TV unless you already have some ability to guess at meanings from context, or words sound like words in the language you already know. You can't bootstrap language from passive watching of cartoons or the kinds of TV kids watch."

      Mostly based on the research of Stephen Krashen.

      I will concede that I was using ad homimum. And it's most important for the children to interact with real people. But she is wrong in some of her assertions. It's really not that important. She's a neurotic student with an internet obsession and a huge, huge hole in her heart. I feel sorry for her and hope she eventually gets better.

    13. Krashen talks about second language acquisition. I am talking about first language acquisition. We all agree that human interaction is important, so I don't see what the fuss is. Calling me names doesn't change or help anything.

      You say I am not an expert on this. I cannot assert any credentials here because deadrat will come along and say anyone can pretend to be anything on the internet. I am a published author on this topic and I do research on it. I stated above that I was talking about children acquiring a first language and not about someone learning a second language, and that makes a big difference. Krashen's input theory is about second languages learning. No linguist thinks you can put a child in front of a TV and expect it to acquire spoken language.

      This is relevant to disadvantaged kids because (1) their parents have less time to spend talking to them, (2) they spend more time babysat by TV and games, (3) they spend more time talking to other children, (4) parents without education may not realize the importance of talking to a baby who cannot talk back, (5) parents with less education are less able to model literacy skills and interests, (6) their environment and childhood experiences are less likely to present real life referents for the words they are exposed to.

    14. Okay, you ended your last sentence in a preposition. I'm not certain anything you have written or asserted can be trusted.

    15. For the record, Krashen bases his studies on how children learn a first language:

      "similar to the process children undergo when they acquire their first language. It requires meaningful interaction in the target language - natural communication - in which speakers are concentrated not in the form of their utterances, but in the communicative act." which can include cartoons.

      So you may be a researcher but you don't seem to be particularly good one,in this case anyway.

    16. This quote from Krashen is exactly what I said. You added the bit about cartoons. There is no meaningful interaction when you watch a cartoon, no natural communication because the child watches while the cartoon goes on, in no way influenced by the child's behavior. There is no interaction at all between the child and cartoon.

      Saying that something is "similar to" something does not mean that it is "based on" that thing.

      I am done responding to you. Talking about how children acquire language is not "research" and you don't seem to be able to talk to others without insults.

    17. Hypotheses, hypotheses everywhere, but not a datum to drink.
      Until now:

      Gosh, Anon, Unknown seems to have your number. Better quit while you’re only six decades behind.

    18. No she doesn't have my number and that link you posted isn't relevant to anything that has been discussed here by me. that's twice you've posted a totally irrelevant link.

      I am glad that it's true, she is right in that Krashen says exactly what she said and she is right about the importance of meaningful interactions, something that is obvious and I never disputed. but krashen also said of children learning a language for the first time, the importance of the communicative act. Which basically means storytelling over learning the rules of grammar and lists of vocabulary. and cartoons are nothing more than a series of communicative acts by the characters told in simple vocabulary with visual aids for everything that is being said. It's a great way for children to learn a language for the first time. Something that is obvious. The dumb unknown bitch said "You can't bootstrap language from passive watching of cartoons or the kinds of TV kids watch." And that is false. False according to krashen for sure. she also said a child is not capable of doing active thinking. She says so much dumb shit in this post and all of her posts. She vomits up shit out of her textbooks and is clearly mentally unstable.

      But I'm not disputing anything about the income gap or importance of meaningful personal interactions, she's right about that but she doesn't know anything about krashen and importance of cartoons and the type of storytelling and comprehensible input they give children learning language for the first time.

      I don't know why you felt the need to jump in the middle of this and post
      Two totally irrelevant links showing your inability to comprehend simple arguments. Anyway, it's not really important, have a nice day.

  4. Somerby claims that the press is being activist by asking him about questions from his past, going back to his racial attitudes in the 70s (when race was a very current event), as if a candidate's past should be off limits?

    Somerby thinks that focusing on the record player remark was activism and typical of the press's trivial focus. But when the same thing happens to Castro over a correct rebuke of Biden's incoherence, Somerby says:

    "In our view, Candidate Castro's surprising mean streak has been one of the stories of the Democratic debates."

    He buys the press characterization hook, line and sinker when it is someone he is predisposed to dislike (e.g., a viable Democrat).

    If Biden isn't up to debating in this silly 1-minute statement, 45-second rebuttal format, he shouldn't be nominated. We don't need to put another doddering old fool into office. He can't think on his feet and that is obvious from his debate performance. It isn't Castro's fault. It is Biden's.

    Anyone who writes must make choices about what to include and what to exclude. Choices dictate emphasis. The NY Times believes that addressing racial issues is important today. Somerby thinks that stuff should remain in the past and Biden should get a pass on whatever he said about race before. I don't see why anyone running today shouldn't be asked about what is obviously a current concern. The real trap for Biden is that he won't ever repudiate a past mistake, cannot change, cannot admit he was wrong, ever. It is why he won't apologize to Anita Hill and why he won't update his views on many things, from credit cards to policing to busing. We don't need a president with that kind of inflexibility, that kind of blind spot about his own actions.

    1. As has been noted elsewhere, Biden tends to conflate race and poverty. So if you ask a question about race, you get an answer about poverty. His answer about fixing the achievement gap in schooling is focused on economic disparities.

    2. Biden also thinks he can sit down with Mitch McConnell and hammer out compromise bills.

    3. “[Biden’s] answer about fixing the achievement gap in schooling is focused on economic disparities.”

      All the research papers I have read suggest he is dead right, at least with regard to decreasing the gap. For example, school desegregation’s positive effects have been shown to be due to increased resources allocated to schools attended by blacks, not to racial integration per se. Headstart has had little effect on academic performance, but has demonstrated lifetime effects. Researchers have speculated that Headstart’s primary usefulness is not in education, but in allowing mothers, primarily, to take jobs and increase family wealth and income. (The stress of real extended poverty is unknown to most people here.)

      As the old radio ad said, “Money talks, nobody walks.” I have no idea what that means, but it sounds apropos.

    4. Also read Claude Steele about stereotype threat. It shows the effect on test scores of being treated like a second-class citizen, of being the subject of low expectations.

    5. As the old radio ad said, “Money talks, nobody walks.” I have no idea what that means, but it sounds apropos.

      “Money talks, nobody walks. Dennison’s Clothes. Route 22, Union, New Jersey. Open 10AM to 5AM.”

      Damn! I didn’t think anyone here was as old as me.

      The key phrase was part of the sing-song AM-radio pitch for discount clothing. Basically, the prices are so good (money talks) that no one will leave (nobody walks) without picking up a bargain. It’s a play on the phrase “money talks, bullshit walks” — if you’ve got the goods, I’ll take you seriously; if all you’ve got is a story, get out of here.”

    6. The NAEP should be unable to communicate "stereotype threat." No one, including the test takers, are are informed of the scores of identified individuals; only percentiles of large aggregates of students are reported.

  5. “ABC's Linsey Davis started by quoting something Biden said forty-four years ago, in 1975.”

    Asking someone about something they actually said as an elected official doesn’t seem like much of a gotcha question, even if it was a long time ago, particularly in this case in light of the discussion about reparations that is current.

    At any rate, whatever the question, Biden knows by now he will be asked about this. It is up to the candidate to come up with an effective answer. That is one way of showing leadership and electability blah blah blah.

    The upshot of Biden’s answer was that his “Cognition” seems a bit worn down by age, and that is worrisome for a front runner.

    And it wasn’t just the pundit class who noticed. I watched Biden’s answer, and never watched a single TV pundit or read anything in the Times about it, and came away troubled.

    Somerby’s subtext seems to be that upper end journalists are turning on Biden “as a group.” That isn’t completely clear at this point. But it’s fairly clear that the pundits do not find his “record player” remark funny. Troubling, rather.

    It might be useful as well for a media critic to examine the way the press is treating all the main Democratic candidates, not just Biden. For example, do they agree with Somerby that Warren is terrible? They do seem to have reached a consensus that Castro was mean. Apparently, Somerby agreed with that characterization, so he didn’t question it.

  6. I'll bet Somerby has never read a book about cognition. Now he wants to throw the word around as a criticism.

    Age matters, but being able to learn or recall something quickly seems of minimal value, whereas wisdom coupled with experience may be more valuable in the presidency. The question is whether Biden has those qualities. I don't think so. I don't believe he can assemble a first rate staff, inspire confidence in the populace, or relate well to people from different countries either.

    If he has been told over and over that putting his hands on women and children is a cultural taboo, yet he jokes about it and insists he has done nothing wrong, how will he conform to protocols for meeting the Queen of England? Probably like Trump did. He makes gaffes for a reason, and that has nothing to do with his age.

    As an academic, I couldn't vote for a man who plagiarizes and doesn't care (because he does it again). As a woman, I couldn't vote for a man who wouldn't let the witnesses corroborating Anita Hill's testimony take the stand. As a person with student and credit card debt, I couldn't vote for the man who wrote the bill constricting bankruptcy relief.

    I cringe when I hear him speak. I dislike him intensely (more than Bernie) and I would never vote for him. I know there are other Democrats who feel as I do about him. With so many other good candidates, why is Somerby talking about Biden so much? Why is he, today, excusing Biden by blaming the press for the way he was treated when he couldn't get his act together during the debate?

  7. Trump puts sick kids into camps without their parents, but Castro is mean because he tells Biden he's contradicting himself?

  8. There is a funny 2017 video of VP Biden telling a story about his experience of being menaced by a local thug named "Corn Pop" when Biden was a young life guard at a pool in the hood.

    Maybe it's because Biden sounds like every cracker in my family, that I don't find him to be meandering in a confused way. He's meandering in a convivial manner.

    I know that Joe should tighten it up due to the nature of media sound bites and the particular scrutiny he receives due to his age. I find that a damn shame.

  9. 'Do you feel that the Times is smart enough to undertake missions like these?'

    At least, they aren't Trumptards like Somerby

  10. Am so happy to share this testimony thank you Dr Oduku i never believed i will be herpes negative again despite all i passed through Dr Oduku you are truly sent by God and you can also place your order for Dr Oduku roots and herbs medicine email or what-app number +2347067706774.

  11. LOTTO, lottery,jackpot.
    Hello all my viewers, I am very happy for sharing this great testimonies,The best thing that has ever happened in my life is how I win the lottery euro million mega jackpot. I am a Woman who believe that one day I will win the lottery. finally my dreams came through when I email and tell him I need the lottery numbers. I have spend so much money on ticket just to make sure I win. But I never know that winning was so easy until the day I meant the spell caster online which so many people has talked about that he is very great in casting lottery spell, . so I decide to give it a try.I contacted this great Dr Believe and he did a spell and he gave me the winning lottery numbers. But believe me when the draws were out I was among winners. I win 30,000 million Dollar. Dr Believe truly you are the best, all thanks to you forever