You were responding to OAM, but . . . .
I think that the "quotation" that OAM did falls under the category of satire. I've seen that construction used by other posters on this board.
History is not incidents that happened in the past. It is the study of those incidents.
It's sort of like the military's distinction between information and intelligence. Information is just random stuff. Intelligence is the product of analyzing information for its probable truth, it's significance, etc. History is the analysis of what happened in the past using what sources we have for those events. And you never have enough sources that are reliable enough, so you are always making a choice as to whether or how an event happened, and as to whether it is significant or not.
The casual term "a history" as in the question to which you responded just meant "does he do this often?" Citing one example does not really prove that he does.
For example, "Does Joe Biden have a history of misstatements and/or embarrassing statements?" The answer would be that, yes he does, and you could cite his plagiarized campaign biography from the '80s, his claims to have graduated at the top of his law school class, his statement about Barack Obama being "a clean negro who speaks articulately" (or words to that effect), him telling a guy he wanted to recognize to stand up when he was in a wheelchair, and on and on and on. He's a gaffe machine.
Does he have a history of threatening to whip people's asses? He's done it more than once, I'm pretty sure.
IMO, Biden is no great candidate. He's flamed out in every national race he has been in and he may well flame out this one too. He is sometimes called the wise old head in the Democratic Party, but he strikes me as the village idiot. I thought that he was dumber than everybody's favorite whipping girl Sarah Palin in 2008, and that's a low bar to get under.
But he's not, IMO, nearly as awful as Donald J. Trump, who is our worst President since Andrew Johnson. if not our worst ever.
So would two incident constitute "a history", since I responding to one incident with another incident?
Personally I wasn't interested in writing a dissertation on what constitutes the study of history. I was responding, in kind, to the type of response I received. If you want to defend the way OAM responded to my post and how he generally responses to people he doesn't agree with feel free.
And I think that CincyDawg did a better job displaying that there were more than 2 incidents.
And just so everyone knows, I have not voted for a Democrat or Republican for President since 1988. And there is a good chance I won't again in this election, though I must confess the unreasonable over the top Trump haters are causing me to reconsider and actually vote for him. Overall, other than his tweets, his constant hyperbole and in general the way he communicates, I think he has done a good job. Moving out of all these foreign entanglements, reducing so many regulations and I could go on. Personally I thought his raising tariffs was a mistake, I am a free-trader, but it seem to have work. That said, he hasn't done enough to shrink the government, it hasn't done enough to reduce spending and cutting government programs that need to go away. He has a tendency to want to centralized power rather than decentralize. All things I think need to be done, but no Republican or Democrat on the national level have done it or has the will to do it, which is why I don't vote for them.
