|
|
|
On October 01 2020 02:19 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 02:05 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 01:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 01 2020 01:08 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 01:04 iamthedave wrote:On October 01 2020 00:34 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 00:21 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:50 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 23:33 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:
[quote]
You can call it white supremacy if you want, but I see it more as ultra-nationalistic xenophobia, which isn't an exclusively "white" train of thought.
Trump pointed out that he cancelled the racial sensitivity training because he believed it's racist and indoctrinates people into hating America. I don't disagree with that perspective. The Marxist language that seems to pervade these programmes and the shaming of [some] whites for the actions of their ancestors are imo helping Trump. Extremism is dangerous on both ends of the political spectrum, and Trump gives off the vibe that he cares more about economical prosperity than the idea of Equity, or as he and many others see it, gateway Communism.
People say he didn't denounce the ideology of white supramacy during the debate. The thing is, he did. The problem was he did so before the moderator finished asking the question. He said "Sure". It was almost immediate, and he probably felt he'd done it at that point. When specifically asked to denounce Proud Boys he did not. I don't know much about that group but I did see a funny interview by a reporter of a Latino-American regional leader dude at one of their counter-protests. That doesn't gel with what I'd imagine a white supremist group would do and the reporter seemed a bit stupified at where to go with her narrative once the guy said he was Latino.
EDIT: Trump's behaviour during the debate wasn't acceptable, though. Hopefully he can keep his mouth shut during his opponent's turn on round two. It was pretty silly. The "Proud Boys" are a neo-fascist paramilitary group. The fact is, 45 won't explicitly denounce white supremacists because he knows they will vote for him. Denying the existence of racism in the US is akin to supporting it. "I don't know much about this subject but I saw a funny interview with one person" certainly entitles you to an opinion, but you should acknowledge that any opinion formed in this way is factually baseless and, on it's own, scientifically irrelevant. Right, but the same can be said for the burden of proof of calling someone a white-supremist, only it's even harder to prove without some incident to substantiate it. It seems that you can throw that label around pretty casually these days, and the reprecussions, even in the absence of evidence, can be damaging. It's slander. I wasn't aware of who the Proud Boys really are and that one silly interview was the only thing I ever saw related to them. They just seemed like a bunch of chads who wanted to beat the shit out of people who they didn't agree with, which is essentially the same thing happening on the other side. EDIT: How many members do they really have, and how would comdemning their violence actually make them suddenly not vote Republican? Harder to prove than what? Prove that someone is not a white-supremacist? I sorta just give people the benefit of the doubt on that one and call them out when they act - you know - explicitly racist. Like saying that white supremacists are "good people." It's not slander. Slander would be something like "45 has sex with alligators" (although I hear he does spend a LOT of time around water hazards). Harder to prove for an individual than for an organization whose beliefs may be documented in some manifesto or whose actions are clearly deplorable. Without some concrete incident that actually defines a person as a racist, having one of two possible political preferences (when your justification may run deeper than skin) does not inherently mean you're a racist. Are non-white Trump supporters somehow white-supremists? EDIT: Didn't Trump condemn the KKK? Only after vacillating over and over and because people kept asking him to. They endorsed him you see. The KKK saw him as being on their side, same as the Proud Boys do. 'Tis the power of dog whistling. The KKK's shift from Democrat to Republican was pre-Trump, though. The only way they wouldn't have endorsed the Republicans' candidate at that point would have been if he wasn't white, right? Is this one of those "Democrats were the real racists because something something slavery / KKK" mistakes? The parties literally switched names when their identities changed, which is why "Dixiecrats" was a thing, and yet now the Republicans are the ones in the South. Rather than using labels of Democrat and Republican, which is historically confusing and literally backwards at some point in time, it's probably clearer to talk about liberals/progressives and conservatives. The party with socially progressive views is not the party that wanted to perpetuate slavery nor supported the KKK. The social liberals want gender/sex/LGBT/race equality/equity, in some capacity or another. The social conservatives are resistant to change. Notoriously racist and sexist groups extremely, disproportionately favor the current Republican party because that is the name of the current socially conservative group... that's why their rhetoric is xenophobic and sexist, and why they push for anti-immigration laws and anti-women laws. Conservatives are resistant to sudden and drastic overhauls to avoid diving into the deep end on day one. It's not an unreasonable method to tread carefully as you progress forward. There is definitely an element in every country, not just America, that are too conservative. There obviously has to be some forward progress, and I think America is less racist now than it was historically, but there's clearly room for improvement. On the subject of the blurred interpretive lines of equality and equity, they are not the same. With equality, everyone starts at the start line. With equity, everyone finishes the race at the same time. Life isn't equitable, and some people start the race in a Lamborghini while others have a bicycle. Having generational wealth isn't a crime. If you truly believe in religious freedoms, then you have to respect that an issue like abortion being not universally agreed upon is inevitable, along with other issues that religion can be sticky about. Gender-based disparities in income are not typically related to a gender-based disparity in hourly wage, but rather in hours worked. If you think conservative women who vote Republican on the basis that they are better for the economy than Democrats are somehow stupid, or prefer to be downtrodden, then you underestimate the social empowerment that can be gained through economic empowerment. The people that you describe, who want slow, careful change, are liberal democrats in the US. The republican party doesn't want to progress slower, it wants to revert back the recent progress, "make America great again". The only time the slow, moderate change republican exists in the framework of republican politics is when someone wants to get elected and they specify that they are NOT like this, that they will fight actively to get the results republicans want. It is common for republicans, when talking to liberals, to hide behind conservatism because it's a politically correct position. But they aren't that, we can see that through all of their beliefs and actions.
What you are describing are regressives, not conservatives. Not all supporters of the Republicans are regressives. The idea that a statement like MAGA is akin to "let's turn back the clock in all aspects" is reductive. The idea that America was a once-great nation that in recent times has fallen from grace is not a uniquely Republican one. Perhaps the innocent interpretation is that some Americans really naively want their country to be elavated to the level it once was, not just feared for their military might. I'm not saying Trump will be able do that or even that it's somehow possible; the world is competitive af right now.
I just don't see Joe Biden as a non-racist (he's said enough dumb shit to substantiate at least that), nor do I see him as a good candidate. What I see is a decrepit establishment politician trying to masquerade as an agent of change.
TLDR: It's giant douche vs turd sandwich all over again.
|
What are those non-regressive republicans still doing there? Are they idiots? Do they not realize that a candidate (Biden) says the things they want, and the other (Trump) says the things they don't want?
|
On October 01 2020 02:39 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 02:19 Nebuchad wrote:On October 01 2020 02:05 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 01:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 01 2020 01:08 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 01:04 iamthedave wrote:On October 01 2020 00:34 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 00:21 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:50 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 23:33 Arghmyliver wrote:
[quote]
The "Proud Boys" are a neo-fascist paramilitary group. The fact is, 45 won't explicitly denounce white supremacists because he knows they will vote for him. Denying the existence of racism in the US is akin to supporting it. "I don't know much about this subject but I saw a funny interview with one person" certainly entitles you to an opinion, but you should acknowledge that any opinion formed in this way is factually baseless and, on it's own, scientifically irrelevant.
Right, but the same can be said for the burden of proof of calling someone a white-supremist, only it's even harder to prove without some incident to substantiate it. It seems that you can throw that label around pretty casually these days, and the reprecussions, even in the absence of evidence, can be damaging. It's slander. I wasn't aware of who the Proud Boys really are and that one silly interview was the only thing I ever saw related to them. They just seemed like a bunch of chads who wanted to beat the shit out of people who they didn't agree with, which is essentially the same thing happening on the other side. EDIT: How many members do they really have, and how would comdemning their violence actually make them suddenly not vote Republican? Harder to prove than what? Prove that someone is not a white-supremacist? I sorta just give people the benefit of the doubt on that one and call them out when they act - you know - explicitly racist. Like saying that white supremacists are "good people." It's not slander. Slander would be something like "45 has sex with alligators" (although I hear he does spend a LOT of time around water hazards). Harder to prove for an individual than for an organization whose beliefs may be documented in some manifesto or whose actions are clearly deplorable. Without some concrete incident that actually defines a person as a racist, having one of two possible political preferences (when your justification may run deeper than skin) does not inherently mean you're a racist. Are non-white Trump supporters somehow white-supremists? EDIT: Didn't Trump condemn the KKK? Only after vacillating over and over and because people kept asking him to. They endorsed him you see. The KKK saw him as being on their side, same as the Proud Boys do. 'Tis the power of dog whistling. The KKK's shift from Democrat to Republican was pre-Trump, though. The only way they wouldn't have endorsed the Republicans' candidate at that point would have been if he wasn't white, right? Is this one of those "Democrats were the real racists because something something slavery / KKK" mistakes? The parties literally switched names when their identities changed, which is why "Dixiecrats" was a thing, and yet now the Republicans are the ones in the South. Rather than using labels of Democrat and Republican, which is historically confusing and literally backwards at some point in time, it's probably clearer to talk about liberals/progressives and conservatives. The party with socially progressive views is not the party that wanted to perpetuate slavery nor supported the KKK. The social liberals want gender/sex/LGBT/race equality/equity, in some capacity or another. The social conservatives are resistant to change. Notoriously racist and sexist groups extremely, disproportionately favor the current Republican party because that is the name of the current socially conservative group... that's why their rhetoric is xenophobic and sexist, and why they push for anti-immigration laws and anti-women laws. Conservatives are resistant to sudden and drastic overhauls to avoid diving into the deep end on day one. It's not an unreasonable method to tread carefully as you progress forward. There is definitely an element in every country, not just America, that are too conservative. There obviously has to be some forward progress, and I think America is less racist now than it was historically, but there's clearly room for improvement. On the subject of the blurred interpretive lines of equality and equity, they are not the same. With equality, everyone starts at the start line. With equity, everyone finishes the race at the same time. Life isn't equitable, and some people start the race in a Lamborghini while others have a bicycle. Having generational wealth isn't a crime. If you truly believe in religious freedoms, then you have to respect that an issue like abortion being not universally agreed upon is inevitable, along with other issues that religion can be sticky about. Gender-based disparities in income are not typically related to a gender-based disparity in hourly wage, but rather in hours worked. If you think conservative women who vote Republican on the basis that they are better for the economy than Democrats are somehow stupid, or prefer to be downtrodden, then you underestimate the social empowerment that can be gained through economic empowerment. The people that you describe, who want slow, careful change, are liberal democrats in the US. The republican party doesn't want to progress slower, it wants to revert back the recent progress, "make America great again". The only time the slow, moderate change republican exists in the framework of republican politics is when someone wants to get elected and they specify that they are NOT like this, that they will fight actively to get the results republicans want. It is common for republicans, when talking to liberals, to hide behind conservatism because it's a politically correct position. But they aren't that, we can see that through all of their beliefs and actions. What you are describing are regressives, not conservatives. Not all supporters of the Republicans are regressives. The idea that a statement like MAGA is akin to "let's turn back the clock in all aspects" is reductive. The idea that America was a once-great nation that in recent times has fallen from grace is not a uniquely Republican one. Perhaps the innocent interpretation is that some Americans really naively want their country to be elavated to the level it once was, not just feared for their military might. I'm not saying Trump will be able do that or even that it's somehow possible; the world is competitive af right now. I just don't see Joe Biden as a non-racist (he's said enough dumb shit to substantiate at least that), nor do I see him as a good candidate. What I see is a decrepit establishment politician trying to masquerade as an agent of change. TLDR: It's giant douche vs turd sandwich all over again.
This is the first thing you've said that makes any sense. The problem is that the recent fall from grace is directly related to the current GOP and the regressive nature of American politics in general. We have a two party system that glorifies the adversarial nature of the two parties to play to the win/lose dichotomy that pervades American culture. At this point the system is just designed to perpetuate itself. The parties are paid as long as the engine is running, but the car doesn't have to actually go anywhere. As such the "liberal" and "conservative" nature of the parties skews further right over time to the point where we have actual whiny Hitler. We don't want Biden but we sure as hell don't want someone flooring it in reverse.
I don't really have any hope, I'm trying to get plans together to leave, but I'll vote Biden before I go.
|
On October 01 2020 02:39 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 02:19 Nebuchad wrote:On October 01 2020 02:05 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 01:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 01 2020 01:08 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 01:04 iamthedave wrote:On October 01 2020 00:34 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 00:21 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:50 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 23:33 Arghmyliver wrote:
[quote]
The "Proud Boys" are a neo-fascist paramilitary group. The fact is, 45 won't explicitly denounce white supremacists because he knows they will vote for him. Denying the existence of racism in the US is akin to supporting it. "I don't know much about this subject but I saw a funny interview with one person" certainly entitles you to an opinion, but you should acknowledge that any opinion formed in this way is factually baseless and, on it's own, scientifically irrelevant.
Right, but the same can be said for the burden of proof of calling someone a white-supremist, only it's even harder to prove without some incident to substantiate it. It seems that you can throw that label around pretty casually these days, and the reprecussions, even in the absence of evidence, can be damaging. It's slander. I wasn't aware of who the Proud Boys really are and that one silly interview was the only thing I ever saw related to them. They just seemed like a bunch of chads who wanted to beat the shit out of people who they didn't agree with, which is essentially the same thing happening on the other side. EDIT: How many members do they really have, and how would comdemning their violence actually make them suddenly not vote Republican? Harder to prove than what? Prove that someone is not a white-supremacist? I sorta just give people the benefit of the doubt on that one and call them out when they act - you know - explicitly racist. Like saying that white supremacists are "good people." It's not slander. Slander would be something like "45 has sex with alligators" (although I hear he does spend a LOT of time around water hazards). Harder to prove for an individual than for an organization whose beliefs may be documented in some manifesto or whose actions are clearly deplorable. Without some concrete incident that actually defines a person as a racist, having one of two possible political preferences (when your justification may run deeper than skin) does not inherently mean you're a racist. Are non-white Trump supporters somehow white-supremists? EDIT: Didn't Trump condemn the KKK? Only after vacillating over and over and because people kept asking him to. They endorsed him you see. The KKK saw him as being on their side, same as the Proud Boys do. 'Tis the power of dog whistling. The KKK's shift from Democrat to Republican was pre-Trump, though. The only way they wouldn't have endorsed the Republicans' candidate at that point would have been if he wasn't white, right? Is this one of those "Democrats were the real racists because something something slavery / KKK" mistakes? The parties literally switched names when their identities changed, which is why "Dixiecrats" was a thing, and yet now the Republicans are the ones in the South. Rather than using labels of Democrat and Republican, which is historically confusing and literally backwards at some point in time, it's probably clearer to talk about liberals/progressives and conservatives. The party with socially progressive views is not the party that wanted to perpetuate slavery nor supported the KKK. The social liberals want gender/sex/LGBT/race equality/equity, in some capacity or another. The social conservatives are resistant to change. Notoriously racist and sexist groups extremely, disproportionately favor the current Republican party because that is the name of the current socially conservative group... that's why their rhetoric is xenophobic and sexist, and why they push for anti-immigration laws and anti-women laws. Conservatives are resistant to sudden and drastic overhauls to avoid diving into the deep end on day one. It's not an unreasonable method to tread carefully as you progress forward. There is definitely an element in every country, not just America, that are too conservative. There obviously has to be some forward progress, and I think America is less racist now than it was historically, but there's clearly room for improvement. On the subject of the blurred interpretive lines of equality and equity, they are not the same. With equality, everyone starts at the start line. With equity, everyone finishes the race at the same time. Life isn't equitable, and some people start the race in a Lamborghini while others have a bicycle. Having generational wealth isn't a crime. If you truly believe in religious freedoms, then you have to respect that an issue like abortion being not universally agreed upon is inevitable, along with other issues that religion can be sticky about. Gender-based disparities in income are not typically related to a gender-based disparity in hourly wage, but rather in hours worked. If you think conservative women who vote Republican on the basis that they are better for the economy than Democrats are somehow stupid, or prefer to be downtrodden, then you underestimate the social empowerment that can be gained through economic empowerment. The people that you describe, who want slow, careful change, are liberal democrats in the US. The republican party doesn't want to progress slower, it wants to revert back the recent progress, "make America great again". The only time the slow, moderate change republican exists in the framework of republican politics is when someone wants to get elected and they specify that they are NOT like this, that they will fight actively to get the results republicans want. It is common for republicans, when talking to liberals, to hide behind conservatism because it's a politically correct position. But they aren't that, we can see that through all of their beliefs and actions. What you are describing are regressives, not conservatives. Not all supporters of the Republicans are regressives. The idea that a statement like MAGA is akin to "let's turn back the clock in all aspects" is reductive. The idea that America was a once-great nation that in recent times has fallen from grace is not a uniquely Republican one. Perhaps the innocent interpretation is that some Americans really naively want their country to be elavated to the level it once was, not just feared for their military might. I'm not saying Trump will be able do that or even that it's somehow possible; the world is competitive af right now.
A lot of Republicans seem to want to go back to the good old days of the Confederacy, given their fondness for that flag and monuments. There is a seemingly unbroken history of "keeping the uppity blacks in their place", with the president now openly encouraging voter intimidation and armed militias. US "conservatives" are openly flaunting this these days.
|
That was a disaster and I turned it off after 20 minutes.
Next time I hope someone like Buttigieg and Rubio win and they will actually listen to their opponents full responses. We only have to wait 4 - 8 years now.
It was simply stunning that the debate setup had no apparent rules.
I’d give
Trump an F
Biden a D-
Chris Wallace / Debate Setup gets a no show immediate expelled
|
On October 01 2020 02:54 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 02:39 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 02:19 Nebuchad wrote:On October 01 2020 02:05 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 01:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 01 2020 01:08 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 01:04 iamthedave wrote:On October 01 2020 00:34 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 00:21 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:50 dUTtrOACh wrote:
[quote]
Right, but the same can be said for the burden of proof of calling someone a white-supremist, only it's even harder to prove without some incident to substantiate it. It seems that you can throw that label around pretty casually these days, and the reprecussions, even in the absence of evidence, can be damaging. It's slander. I wasn't aware of who the Proud Boys really are and that one silly interview was the only thing I ever saw related to them. They just seemed like a bunch of chads who wanted to beat the shit out of people who they didn't agree with, which is essentially the same thing happening on the other side.
EDIT: How many members do they really have, and how would comdemning their violence actually make them suddenly not vote Republican? Harder to prove than what? Prove that someone is not a white-supremacist? I sorta just give people the benefit of the doubt on that one and call them out when they act - you know - explicitly racist. Like saying that white supremacists are "good people." It's not slander. Slander would be something like "45 has sex with alligators" (although I hear he does spend a LOT of time around water hazards). Harder to prove for an individual than for an organization whose beliefs may be documented in some manifesto or whose actions are clearly deplorable. Without some concrete incident that actually defines a person as a racist, having one of two possible political preferences (when your justification may run deeper than skin) does not inherently mean you're a racist. Are non-white Trump supporters somehow white-supremists? EDIT: Didn't Trump condemn the KKK? Only after vacillating over and over and because people kept asking him to. They endorsed him you see. The KKK saw him as being on their side, same as the Proud Boys do. 'Tis the power of dog whistling. The KKK's shift from Democrat to Republican was pre-Trump, though. The only way they wouldn't have endorsed the Republicans' candidate at that point would have been if he wasn't white, right? Is this one of those "Democrats were the real racists because something something slavery / KKK" mistakes? The parties literally switched names when their identities changed, which is why "Dixiecrats" was a thing, and yet now the Republicans are the ones in the South. Rather than using labels of Democrat and Republican, which is historically confusing and literally backwards at some point in time, it's probably clearer to talk about liberals/progressives and conservatives. The party with socially progressive views is not the party that wanted to perpetuate slavery nor supported the KKK. The social liberals want gender/sex/LGBT/race equality/equity, in some capacity or another. The social conservatives are resistant to change. Notoriously racist and sexist groups extremely, disproportionately favor the current Republican party because that is the name of the current socially conservative group... that's why their rhetoric is xenophobic and sexist, and why they push for anti-immigration laws and anti-women laws. Conservatives are resistant to sudden and drastic overhauls to avoid diving into the deep end on day one. It's not an unreasonable method to tread carefully as you progress forward. There is definitely an element in every country, not just America, that are too conservative. There obviously has to be some forward progress, and I think America is less racist now than it was historically, but there's clearly room for improvement. On the subject of the blurred interpretive lines of equality and equity, they are not the same. With equality, everyone starts at the start line. With equity, everyone finishes the race at the same time. Life isn't equitable, and some people start the race in a Lamborghini while others have a bicycle. Having generational wealth isn't a crime. If you truly believe in religious freedoms, then you have to respect that an issue like abortion being not universally agreed upon is inevitable, along with other issues that religion can be sticky about. Gender-based disparities in income are not typically related to a gender-based disparity in hourly wage, but rather in hours worked. If you think conservative women who vote Republican on the basis that they are better for the economy than Democrats are somehow stupid, or prefer to be downtrodden, then you underestimate the social empowerment that can be gained through economic empowerment. The people that you describe, who want slow, careful change, are liberal democrats in the US. The republican party doesn't want to progress slower, it wants to revert back the recent progress, "make America great again". The only time the slow, moderate change republican exists in the framework of republican politics is when someone wants to get elected and they specify that they are NOT like this, that they will fight actively to get the results republicans want. It is common for republicans, when talking to liberals, to hide behind conservatism because it's a politically correct position. But they aren't that, we can see that through all of their beliefs and actions. What you are describing are regressives, not conservatives. Not all supporters of the Republicans are regressives. The idea that a statement like MAGA is akin to "let's turn back the clock in all aspects" is reductive. The idea that America was a once-great nation that in recent times has fallen from grace is not a uniquely Republican one. Perhaps the innocent interpretation is that some Americans really naively want their country to be elavated to the level it once was, not just feared for their military might. I'm not saying Trump will be able do that or even that it's somehow possible; the world is competitive af right now. I just don't see Joe Biden as a non-racist (he's said enough dumb shit to substantiate at least that), nor do I see him as a good candidate. What I see is a decrepit establishment politician trying to masquerade as an agent of change. TLDR: It's giant douche vs turd sandwich all over again. This is the first thing you've said that makes any sense. The problem is that the recent fall from grace is directly related to the current GOP and the regressive nature of American politics in general. We have a two party system that glorifies the adversarial nature of the two parties to play to the win/lose dichotomy that pervades American culture. At this point the system is just designed to perpetuate itself. The parties are paid as long as the engine is running, but the car doesn't have to actually go anywhere. As such the "liberal" and "conservative" nature of the parties skews further right over time to the point where we have actual whiny Hitler. We don't want Biden but we sure as hell don't want someone flooring it in reverse. I don't really have any hope, I'm trying to get plans together to leave, but I'll vote Biden before I go.
I'd probably point at the time of the Vietnam war as the beginning of America's gradual fall from grace. It tied in to the hipocrisy of being conscripted to fight for "freedom" abroad when [black/non-white] Americans themselves were not free. The impression of the government being "good" or "incorruptable" was shattered at that time.
Dismissing the fear of communism isn't helping the Democrats, particularly not as they recruit from further and further left into their upper echelons.
|
Saying both sides are bad options and therefore Trump is about the same level as Biden is the same as saying
a mosquito bite is comparable to a gunshot wound
Sure they both suck, but one is objectively better than the other and it's not even close.
|
But you can't evaluate the content of their debate as purely the content of their characters as people. Joe Biden is a successful politician and multi-time vice-president because he's likable. Trump is the president because he's a shit-disturber. There's a clear good guy and bad guy, I won't argue that.
What is truly relevant, is what the parties actually stand for right now, which is what I was hoping to get from the debate. What I got was a shit show. They were both terrible at conveying their party's standpoints and plans going forward. BUT... This is only round one.
What I'm truly interested in is the debate between the two VP candidates. I would like to see two professional politicians go at it in a civil debate, and I would like to come out of it truly understanding what the plans are.
EDIT: Maybe we need better questions?
|
Norway28797 Posts
NEW: Commission on Presidential Debates statement:
"Last night’s debate made clear that additional structure should be added to the format of the remaining debates ... The CPD will be carefully considering the changes that it will adopt and will announce those measures shortly."
I dunno what it entails, but hopefully it's something actually meaningful like muting the microphone of the person not designated to speak.
|
Good luck getting Trump's team to agree to such rules
|
The trouble is the debate commission is old as hell and needs to be junked and replaced in the internet age.
One is president JFK’s appointee to the FCC. They’re mostly as old as Trump and Biden. Defund the commission.
|
They need an octagon and four ounce gloves. One five-minute round. Global MMA ruleset. Catchweight.
After that, they'll be punched out and should be able to have a calm discussion.
|
On October 01 2020 03:51 dUTtrOACh wrote:
They need an octagon and four ounce gloves. One five-minute round. Global MMA ruleset. Catchweight.
After that, they'll be punched out and should be able to have a calm discussion.
I would just skip the discussion and have the president decided by that.
But anyway, really disappointing display, I think it bodes better for Trump though. Will be hard for anyone to get excited to go vote for Biden.
|
On October 01 2020 03:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:
NEW: Commission on Presidential Debates statement:
"Last night’s debate made clear that additional structure should be added to the format of the remaining debates ... The CPD will be carefully considering the changes that it will adopt and will announce those measures shortly."
I dunno what it entails, but hopefully it's something actually meaningful like muting the microphone of the person not designated to speak.
The only thing that can be done is muting microphones. They don't have any reason to not speak over each other so long as it is advantageous.
|
It's ridiculous that the candidates can even opt out of debating. It should be mandatory, and the rules should (obviously) be transparent and fair.
|
We saw, honestly, each debaters true self. Job accomplished, even if a messy job accomplished. If Trump repeats this kind of performance, he’s not likely to carry enough swing states (consider the amount of Obama-carried swing counties and swing states in 2016 that went Trump).
For what it’s worth, Biden isn’t big on trying to nail Trump on policy; he wants a win on character and temperament and Trump’s record.
|
On October 01 2020 03:38 dUTtrOACh wrote:
But you can't evaluate the content of their debate as purely the content of their characters as people. Joe Biden is a successful politician and multi-time vice-president because he's likable. Trump is the president because he's a shit-disturber. There's a clear good guy and bad guy, I won't argue that.
What is truly relevant, is what the parties actually stand for right now, which is what I was hoping to get from the debate. What I got was a shit show. They were both terrible at conveying their party's standpoints and plans going forward. BUT... This is only round one.
What I'm truly interested in is the debate between the two VP candidates. I would like to see two professional politicians go at it in a civil debate, and I would like to come out of it truly understanding what the plans are.
EDIT: Maybe we need better questions?
Yeah, it's unlikely that you'll get what you want with 45 in office. Even in the VP debate Pence will have to vaguely defend the ticket. It's not like there's any attempt at good-faith or fact-based debating at this point. The GOP has sunk so much cost into 45 it'll take a miracle to winch them out at this point. Debates are always marred by some amount of shit-flinging but the torrent of faeces is impossible to overcome when it streams forth so indiscriminately.
|
On October 01 2020 03:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 02:54 Arghmyliver wrote:On October 01 2020 02:39 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 02:19 Nebuchad wrote:On October 01 2020 02:05 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 01:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 01 2020 01:08 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 01:04 iamthedave wrote:On October 01 2020 00:34 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 00:21 Arghmyliver wrote:
[quote]
Harder to prove than what? Prove that someone is not a white-supremacist? I sorta just give people the benefit of the doubt on that one and call them out when they act - you know - explicitly racist. Like saying that white supremacists are "good people." It's not slander. Slander would be something like "45 has sex with alligators" (although I hear he does spend a LOT of time around water hazards).
Harder to prove for an individual than for an organization whose beliefs may be documented in some manifesto or whose actions are clearly deplorable. Without some concrete incident that actually defines a person as a racist, having one of two possible political preferences (when your justification may run deeper than skin) does not inherently mean you're a racist. Are non-white Trump supporters somehow white-supremists? EDIT: Didn't Trump condemn the KKK? Only after vacillating over and over and because people kept asking him to. They endorsed him you see. The KKK saw him as being on their side, same as the Proud Boys do. 'Tis the power of dog whistling. The KKK's shift from Democrat to Republican was pre-Trump, though. The only way they wouldn't have endorsed the Republicans' candidate at that point would have been if he wasn't white, right? Is this one of those "Democrats were the real racists because something something slavery / KKK" mistakes? The parties literally switched names when their identities changed, which is why "Dixiecrats" was a thing, and yet now the Republicans are the ones in the South. Rather than using labels of Democrat and Republican, which is historically confusing and literally backwards at some point in time, it's probably clearer to talk about liberals/progressives and conservatives. The party with socially progressive views is not the party that wanted to perpetuate slavery nor supported the KKK. The social liberals want gender/sex/LGBT/race equality/equity, in some capacity or another. The social conservatives are resistant to change. Notoriously racist and sexist groups extremely, disproportionately favor the current Republican party because that is the name of the current socially conservative group... that's why their rhetoric is xenophobic and sexist, and why they push for anti-immigration laws and anti-women laws. Conservatives are resistant to sudden and drastic overhauls to avoid diving into the deep end on day one. It's not an unreasonable method to tread carefully as you progress forward. There is definitely an element in every country, not just America, that are too conservative. There obviously has to be some forward progress, and I think America is less racist now than it was historically, but there's clearly room for improvement. On the subject of the blurred interpretive lines of equality and equity, they are not the same. With equality, everyone starts at the start line. With equity, everyone finishes the race at the same time. Life isn't equitable, and some people start the race in a Lamborghini while others have a bicycle. Having generational wealth isn't a crime. If you truly believe in religious freedoms, then you have to respect that an issue like abortion being not universally agreed upon is inevitable, along with other issues that religion can be sticky about. Gender-based disparities in income are not typically related to a gender-based disparity in hourly wage, but rather in hours worked. If you think conservative women who vote Republican on the basis that they are better for the economy than Democrats are somehow stupid, or prefer to be downtrodden, then you underestimate the social empowerment that can be gained through economic empowerment. The people that you describe, who want slow, careful change, are liberal democrats in the US. The republican party doesn't want to progress slower, it wants to revert back the recent progress, "make America great again". The only time the slow, moderate change republican exists in the framework of republican politics is when someone wants to get elected and they specify that they are NOT like this, that they will fight actively to get the results republicans want. It is common for republicans, when talking to liberals, to hide behind conservatism because it's a politically correct position. But they aren't that, we can see that through all of their beliefs and actions. What you are describing are regressives, not conservatives. Not all supporters of the Republicans are regressives. The idea that a statement like MAGA is akin to "let's turn back the clock in all aspects" is reductive. The idea that America was a once-great nation that in recent times has fallen from grace is not a uniquely Republican one. Perhaps the innocent interpretation is that some Americans really naively want their country to be elavated to the level it once was, not just feared for their military might. I'm not saying Trump will be able do that or even that it's somehow possible; the world is competitive af right now. I just don't see Joe Biden as a non-racist (he's said enough dumb shit to substantiate at least that), nor do I see him as a good candidate. What I see is a decrepit establishment politician trying to masquerade as an agent of change. TLDR: It's giant douche vs turd sandwich all over again. This is the first thing you've said that makes any sense. The problem is that the recent fall from grace is directly related to the current GOP and the regressive nature of American politics in general. We have a two party system that glorifies the adversarial nature of the two parties to play to the win/lose dichotomy that pervades American culture. At this point the system is just designed to perpetuate itself. The parties are paid as long as the engine is running, but the car doesn't have to actually go anywhere. As such the "liberal" and "conservative" nature of the parties skews further right over time to the point where we have actual whiny Hitler. We don't want Biden but we sure as hell don't want someone flooring it in reverse. I don't really have any hope, I'm trying to get plans together to leave, but I'll vote Biden before I go. I'd probably point at the time of the Vietnam war as the beginning of America's gradual fall from grace. It tied in to the hipocrisy of being conscripted to fight for "freedom" abroad when [black/non-white] Americans themselves were not free. The impression of the government being "good" or "incorruptable" was shattered at that time. Dismissing the fear of communism isn't helping the Democrats, particularly not as they recruit from further and further left into their upper echelons.
One of the observable trends of american politics is the democratic party shifting right, which starts under Carter.
That's why conservatives used to be rightwing, because the left was actual left.
You're scared of democrats moving left but that was one of the conditions of the period you liked.
(Also socialism is good)
|
On October 01 2020 04:18 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 03:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 02:54 Arghmyliver wrote:On October 01 2020 02:39 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 02:19 Nebuchad wrote:On October 01 2020 02:05 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 01:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 01 2020 01:08 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 01:04 iamthedave wrote:On October 01 2020 00:34 dUTtrOACh wrote:
[quote]
Harder to prove for an individual than for an organization whose beliefs may be documented in some manifesto or whose actions are clearly deplorable. Without some concrete incident that actually defines a person as a racist, having one of two possible political preferences (when your justification may run deeper than skin) does not inherently mean you're a racist. Are non-white Trump supporters somehow white-supremists?
EDIT: Didn't Trump condemn the KKK?
Only after vacillating over and over and because people kept asking him to. They endorsed him you see. The KKK saw him as being on their side, same as the Proud Boys do. 'Tis the power of dog whistling. The KKK's shift from Democrat to Republican was pre-Trump, though. The only way they wouldn't have endorsed the Republicans' candidate at that point would have been if he wasn't white, right? Is this one of those "Democrats were the real racists because something something slavery / KKK" mistakes? The parties literally switched names when their identities changed, which is why "Dixiecrats" was a thing, and yet now the Republicans are the ones in the South. Rather than using labels of Democrat and Republican, which is historically confusing and literally backwards at some point in time, it's probably clearer to talk about liberals/progressives and conservatives. The party with socially progressive views is not the party that wanted to perpetuate slavery nor supported the KKK. The social liberals want gender/sex/LGBT/race equality/equity, in some capacity or another. The social conservatives are resistant to change. Notoriously racist and sexist groups extremely, disproportionately favor the current Republican party because that is the name of the current socially conservative group... that's why their rhetoric is xenophobic and sexist, and why they push for anti-immigration laws and anti-women laws. Conservatives are resistant to sudden and drastic overhauls to avoid diving into the deep end on day one. It's not an unreasonable method to tread carefully as you progress forward. There is definitely an element in every country, not just America, that are too conservative. There obviously has to be some forward progress, and I think America is less racist now than it was historically, but there's clearly room for improvement. On the subject of the blurred interpretive lines of equality and equity, they are not the same. With equality, everyone starts at the start line. With equity, everyone finishes the race at the same time. Life isn't equitable, and some people start the race in a Lamborghini while others have a bicycle. Having generational wealth isn't a crime. If you truly believe in religious freedoms, then you have to respect that an issue like abortion being not universally agreed upon is inevitable, along with other issues that religion can be sticky about. Gender-based disparities in income are not typically related to a gender-based disparity in hourly wage, but rather in hours worked. If you think conservative women who vote Republican on the basis that they are better for the economy than Democrats are somehow stupid, or prefer to be downtrodden, then you underestimate the social empowerment that can be gained through economic empowerment. The people that you describe, who want slow, careful change, are liberal democrats in the US. The republican party doesn't want to progress slower, it wants to revert back the recent progress, "make America great again". The only time the slow, moderate change republican exists in the framework of republican politics is when someone wants to get elected and they specify that they are NOT like this, that they will fight actively to get the results republicans want. It is common for republicans, when talking to liberals, to hide behind conservatism because it's a politically correct position. But they aren't that, we can see that through all of their beliefs and actions. What you are describing are regressives, not conservatives. Not all supporters of the Republicans are regressives. The idea that a statement like MAGA is akin to "let's turn back the clock in all aspects" is reductive. The idea that America was a once-great nation that in recent times has fallen from grace is not a uniquely Republican one. Perhaps the innocent interpretation is that some Americans really naively want their country to be elavated to the level it once was, not just feared for their military might. I'm not saying Trump will be able do that or even that it's somehow possible; the world is competitive af right now. I just don't see Joe Biden as a non-racist (he's said enough dumb shit to substantiate at least that), nor do I see him as a good candidate. What I see is a decrepit establishment politician trying to masquerade as an agent of change. TLDR: It's giant douche vs turd sandwich all over again. This is the first thing you've said that makes any sense. The problem is that the recent fall from grace is directly related to the current GOP and the regressive nature of American politics in general. We have a two party system that glorifies the adversarial nature of the two parties to play to the win/lose dichotomy that pervades American culture. At this point the system is just designed to perpetuate itself. The parties are paid as long as the engine is running, but the car doesn't have to actually go anywhere. As such the "liberal" and "conservative" nature of the parties skews further right over time to the point where we have actual whiny Hitler. We don't want Biden but we sure as hell don't want someone flooring it in reverse. I don't really have any hope, I'm trying to get plans together to leave, but I'll vote Biden before I go. I'd probably point at the time of the Vietnam war as the beginning of America's gradual fall from grace. It tied in to the hipocrisy of being conscripted to fight for "freedom" abroad when [black/non-white] Americans themselves were not free. The impression of the government being "good" or "incorruptable" was shattered at that time. Dismissing the fear of communism isn't helping the Democrats, particularly not as they recruit from further and further left into their upper echelons. One of the observable trends of american politics is the democratic party shifting right, which starts under Carter. That's why conservatives used to be rightwing, because the left was actual left. You're scared of democrats moving left but that was one of the conditions of the period you liked. (Also socialism is good)
As much as I wish I had time for "what happened to the parties! [in the South]" that will have to be for another day.
The Democrat party has obviously moved left, just more slowly than the 30s and 40s and not always on all issues at once.
The reason they came to "moderate" is because when the nation wasnt in economic crisis Democrat presidential candidates mostly got their clocks cleaned. Carter won after Nixon stomped in 72. Clinton came in after Reagan/Bush won three straight presidential elections with two being some of the largest landslides ever and the third being a huge rout. Even before FDR the GOP won a large majority of presidential races post civil war. And Carter, Clinton, and Obama all benefitted immensely from economic slowdowns.
Democrats simply have some sort of self-preservation instinct that tells them that when they say "look at the polls our radical ideas are popular!", they are wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
