|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36622 Posts
2020 Presidential Debate
1. Why is there a separate thread for the debate?
Opening a separate thread just for the debate allows everyone to have a chance to post in the debate thread without worrying about their content getting lost in the chaotic sea that is the USPMT.
Additionally, this allows the moderators to comb through all the pages and moderate efficiently without having to look through any past pages. It's a win/win for everyone!
2. What will happen to the USPMT?
The USPMT lock isn't permanent. The thread will be reopened at a later date this week. For now, please use this thread only to discuss US political matters.
3. Are the rules the same?
We are going to treat this thread like a StarCraft Live Report thread. There will be lots of posts and conversations going on so moderation will be a little more lax to accommodate for that. The thread will feel like spam from time to time, but we will do our best to make sure that it doesn't get out of control.
However, please note that we absolutely will not tolerate users attacking one another. TL posting rules still apply. We will not hesitate to mod action you if you are viciously harassing someone purely because they hold a different political view than you do.
Please discuss tonight's debate in a civil manner. While we encourage a fierce environment full of passionate debating, we do NOT encourage a battleground. This is not a war, so please don't treat it like one.
4. What happens after the debate is over?
The debate thread will remain open for 48 hours after the debate is over. Afterwards, we will lock the thread and reopen USPMT.
|
Seeker is the real hero here. I won't be watching but I'll be reading this for the hot takes.
|
This is a negative ev debate, it sounds like. Either not much happens and we get bored or something interesting happens but most likely that'll be something bad for Biden.
|
Having basically no audience will play in Biden's favor I think.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
I haven’t really been following this election as much as in years past because honestly it isn’t even the most important thing happening this year, but I’ll be watching for the potential tidbits of great fun that could potentially come of this.
|
I haven't really followed Bidens campaign much, how were his public appearances recently? He has enough ammo to wipe the floor with Trump but is he up to the task?
|
This is a great idea Is there a YouTube livestream / link to watch live?
|
On September 30 2020 09:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:This is a great idea Is there a YouTube livestream / link to watch live? + Show Spoiler +
Here is C-SPAN's livestream.
|
On September 30 2020 09:45 NrG.Bamboo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 09:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:This is a great idea Is there a YouTube livestream / link to watch live? + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW1lY5jFNcQ Here is C-SPAN's livestream.
Thank you!!!
|
Let's play a game (for those watching). Every time trump goes off topic or rambles, take a shot. Every time Biden stutters or corrects himself, take a shot.
User was warned for this post because TL does not condone murder game suggestions.
|
If you type 'presidential debate 2020 live' in youtube search you can find streams from basically every big US broadcaster too if you prefer one of those.
On September 30 2020 10:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: Let's play a game (for those watching). Every time trump goes off topic or rambles, take a shot. Every time Biden stutters or corrects himself, take a shot.
User was warned for this post because TL does not condone murder game suggestions. lol
I hope it doesn't become a battle of senility with both of them not being coherent but it might well turn out to be
|
The #1 thing I'm most interested in, tonight, is how much of the conversation is going to be about legitimate substance and policy, as opposed to mudslinging and scandals.
|
On September 30 2020 10:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: Let's play a game (for those watching). Every time trump goes off topic or rambles, take a shot. Every time Biden stutters or corrects himself, take a shot.
User was warned for this post because TL does not condone murder game suggestions. Biden: "Look" followed by short pause Come on, Man Malarkey Listen folks Obama
Trump: The best, best in world, greatest perhaps ever Yuge Chinavirus, or China with gesture Sleepy Joe, ____ Kamala Interjects
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On September 30 2020 10:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The #1 thing I'm most interested in, tonight, is how much of the conversation is going to be about legitimate substance and policy, as opposed to mudslinging and scandals. Chris Wallace did well last election with hosting the presidential debate and keeping it about policy; hoping he will do well again.
|
When Biden coughed I was like OH GOD NO
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
First question, Supreme Court nominees. Boilerplate answer from Trump. Biden talks about the ACA.
|
Joe looks nearly dead. This is sad.
|
Pre-existing condition of pregnancy.
He opposes Barrett because of a possible ruling on ACA. Yeah, you had the chance to amp up that sucker with Clinton, better luck next time.
Trump talking about Kamala actually running the Democratic ticket ROFL shots fired
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
Not a good start from Biden. This isn't the VP candidate Biden from 8 years ago...
|
How many of the 200'000 who have died on Trump's watch have survived, excellent question!
Yeah I don't think I'll be watching this for long
|
On September 30 2020 10:13 LegalLord wrote: Not a good start from Biden. This isn't the VP candidate Biden from 8 years ago... No one is the same 8 years later no matter the field. That's kind of...duh?
|
Trump is debating Wallace more than Biden at this moment. Biden struggling to be heard and with a few incoherent ideas.
|
This is depressing, both are really embarrassing. Joe has trouble following a thought through and trump has his schtick he's sticking too and making this hard to watch. Both are so unimpressive so are.
|
Trump arguing with moderator, interrupting Joe Biden. Maybe not the best look.
|
Arguing with the moderator, aw yeah. I can relate to that.
|
Trump attacking Wallace for asking why he still has no plan for replacing ACA
|
You can't watch this and not notice how poor Biden's cognitive status is.
|
Biden running on the court is severely undermined by his election not changing the likely outcome of any of the rulings he's referencing being threatened by Trump winning.
|
Someone needs to cut Trump's mic. Yelling over, and steamrolling, Biden and Wallace (moderator). ffs.
|
This is a real indictment of our country, that these are our candidates for most powerful person in the world.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On September 30 2020 10:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 10:13 LegalLord wrote: Not a good start from Biden. This isn't the VP candidate Biden from 8 years ago... No one is the same 8 years later no matter the field. That's kind of...duh? To be clear, he debated well back then and today he's debating like ass. Whether or not it's obvious that that would be the case.
|
debating health care with Chris Wallace the presidential nominee lmao
|
On September 30 2020 10:15 Wegandi wrote: You can't watch this and not notice how poor Biden's cognitive status is. This is likely as good as it gets for him too.
It's good strategy by Trump to drive a wedge between Biden and anyone to his left.
|
They need to mute mics
by god what a shitshow
|
On September 30 2020 10:15 Wegandi wrote: You can't watch this and not notice how poor Biden's cognitive status is. I mean, he's looking for some other kind of moderator intervention. It's very hard with the crosstalk interjections.
Trump's just daring Wallace to cut off the mic.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On September 30 2020 10:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 10:15 Wegandi wrote: You can't watch this and not notice how poor Biden's cognitive status is. This is likely as good as it gets for him too. It's good strategy by Trump to drive a wedge between Biden and anyone to his left. "You just lost the left" - Trump
I have to admit, doing a bang-up job of it.
|
Trump is being too aggressive. Maybe I've purged 2016 from my mind though.
|
From the sound of it, glad we didn't take up that drinking game eh?
|
Watched 30 seconds and this is pure cringe. Trump just keeps interrupting with whatever comes to his mind and Biden struggles to string together a coherent thought.
|
"Will you shut up, man"
LMAO
|
On September 30 2020 10:19 Introvert wrote: Trump is being too aggressive. Maybe I've purged 2016 from my mind though. thats what happens when you don't prepare
|
Vote for what? Is voting for Biden voting for ending the filibuster and packing the court or not?
|
Christ this is watching two toddlers sling mud. Trump's constant interruptions and turning it into a three way debate with Wallace, and Biden struggling to complete a thought and not answering on packing the courts.
|
On September 30 2020 10:21 ggrrg wrote: Watched 30 seconds and this is pure cringe. Trump just keeps interrupting with whatever comes to his mind and Biden struggles to string together a coherent thought.
I'm seeing the same. I trust you guys to let us know if something interesting happens ^^'
|
Trump can't keep silent for more than 2 seconds
' Will you shut up man?' - Biden
|
On September 30 2020 10:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 10:15 Wegandi wrote: You can't watch this and not notice how poor Biden's cognitive status is. This is likely as good as it gets for him too. It's good strategy by Trump to drive a wedge between Biden and anyone to his left. More to make the middle think he is too far left with his dangerous socialism. According to Trump he is the anti socialist and that is why you should vote him.
This should not push the left from voting against Trump lol.
|
Seems like Trump wants to put as much pressure so Biden's brain can't keep up and his mistakes/corrections increase.
Looks like Trump is throwing a tantrum and Biden is just taking it.
|
It's been 20 minutes and the 2020 Trump debate is already more toxic than the 2016 Trump debate.
|
If Biden and Trump end up seeing who can blame China the most, I'm happy.
|
On September 30 2020 10:23 Slaughter wrote: Seems like Trump wants to put as much pressure so Biden's brain can't keep up and his mistakes/corrections increase.
Looks like Trump is tgrowing a tantrum and Biden is just taking it. Biden told him to shut up.
|
The USATODAY feed has live fact checking (can't vouch for the quality) but thought I should mention it.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
your Country52793 Posts
Can someone point me to a single quote from a democratic governor that praised trump for his coronavirus response?
|
trump: millions would have died under biden lmao
Under Trump, they already have 20% of the world deaths
|
Biden is doing wayyyyy better now. Super rough in the beginning but seems more warmed up.
|
Actually I think Trump is clearly more in command of anything relating to a fact as he's ever been, he should lean on that.
|
your Country52793 Posts
I find it weird that Biden is awkwardly trying to pivot towards the audience.
|
On September 30 2020 10:26 The_Templar wrote: Can someone point me to a single quote from a democratic governor that praised trump for his coronavirus response?
Headlines mentioned Cuomo "praising" him the specific quote was "He has delivered for New York. He has"
www.nbcnewyork.com
|
On September 30 2020 10:26 The_Templar wrote: Can someone point me to a single quote from a democratic governor that praised trump for his coronavirus response?
Plenty of governors thanked him for PPE. Kind of different, lol.
Holy shit Biden bringing up injecting bleach and Easter. LET IT RIP GRANDPA LOL
|
You'd be worse is not a glowing talk of himself. And now vaccine is slow because of the "left". Just all made up shit, vaccine, and so on.
Trump making a promise to deliver vaccine before election seems dumb. But will people remember, or just another lie.
|
Trump: Do I call Biden the left?
LOL
|
Trump ' we'll have a vaccine done fast, november, the military can deliver soldiers and can also deliver vaccines will deliver it soon' Biden ' This is the man who said it would be over in the summer like a miracle, and to inject bleach in your arm '
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On September 30 2020 10:26 The_Templar wrote: Can someone point me to a single quote from a democratic governor that praised trump for his coronavirus response? Didn't Trump require it as a condition of receiving federal aid fairly early in the pandemic?
|
On September 30 2020 10:26 The_Templar wrote: Can someone point me to a single quote from a democratic governor that praised trump for his coronavirus response?
Democratic Govs have at times praised him for his availability and resources, my governor, Newsom, had said positive things. It's not like they're campaigning for him tho, obviously.
|
Wow that last bit from Trump was pretty...mean? Did Biden hit a nerve?
|
Biden struggling to stay presidential while also fending off Trump and sell his message. He doesn't sound senile/incoherent and has had some good moments, but he's being very inconsistent. He was pretty weak in the SC section.
Trump being an aggressive buffoon and blatantly lying every three seconds. He was winning the Supreme Court section hard until he turned into a rambling child. Anyone that supports him should be ashamed at how atrocious he looks.
SC section = tie COVID section = strong Trump loss
|
your Country52793 Posts
Waiting for Trump to challenge Biden to an IQ test live on stage.
|
It may be just a lack of impulse control but interrupting Biden screws up the sound bites for his ads/post debate coverage.
|
On September 30 2020 10:32 The_Templar wrote: Waiting for Trump to challenge Biden to an IQ test live on stage. Oh God.please! I want too see Trump answer that kind of questions so bad.
|
On September 30 2020 10:32 Stratos_speAr wrote: Biden struggling to stay presidential while also fending off Trump and sell his message. He doesn't sound senile/incoherent and has had some good moments, but he's being very inconsistent. He was pretty weak in the SC section.
Trump being an aggressive buffoon and blatantly lying every three seconds. He was winning the Supreme Court section hard until he turned into a rambling child. Anyone that supports him should be ashamed at how atrocious he looks.
Biden is best when he IS NOT "presidential". I don't want a "presidential" president. The entire idea of politicians being business formal makes me want to puke. Yell, scream, say what you mean.
|
holy hell this is just shameful. Trump just looks so much worse than 4 years ago.
|
your Country52793 Posts
Gotta say, I kinda expected trump to go with the "never let his opponent speak" strategy.
On September 30 2020 10:33 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 10:32 The_Templar wrote: Waiting for Trump to challenge Biden to an IQ test live on stage. Oh God.please! I want too see Trump answer that kind of questions so bad. Didn't you know? He can identify an elephant. That makes him one of the smartest people in the universe.
|
"They" have sure said a lot of interesting no one has seen.
Never had a problem with events, herman cain would probably disagree.
|
Trump saying Biden would tell people not to wear masks if people went to his rallies? Holy shit what a terrible look.
Dear people saying Biden is in cognitive decline: Where you at? Can we finally move on?
|
Trump literally just says "you couldn't do it" and makes up blatant verified lies about his opponent.
His entire strategy is to spread so many lies that some of them stick.
|
gerontocracy is a real problem
|
On September 30 2020 10:19 Introvert wrote: Trump is being too aggressive. Maybe I've purged 2016 from my mind though. A little cringey for me. He's gotta let Biden string a couple of sentences together to come back and hang him with his words. The current exchange feels like elder abuse.
|
Biden is actually answering the question, already winning this section.
|
On September 30 2020 10:37 Mohdoo wrote: Trump saying Biden would tell people not to wear masks if people went to his rallies? Holy shit what a terrible look.
Dear people saying Biden is in cognitive decline: Where you at? Can we finally move on?
Biden is in cognitive decline.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On September 30 2020 10:37 Mohdoo wrote: Trump saying Biden would tell people not to wear masks if people went to his rallies? Holy shit what a terrible look.
Dear people saying Biden is in cognitive decline: Where you at? Can we finally move on? Biden certainly looks like he's in cognitive decline. Certainly, that's less bad than what is happening with Trump.
|
I brought back Big 10 football is best line so far haha
|
|
On September 30 2020 10:40 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 10:37 Mohdoo wrote: Trump saying Biden would tell people not to wear masks if people went to his rallies? Holy shit what a terrible look.
Dear people saying Biden is in cognitive decline: Where you at? Can we finally move on? Biden certainly looks like he's in cognitive decline. Certainly, that's less bad than what is happening with Trump.
He looks like any average 78(?) Year-old.
He doesn't look fantastic, but hes already debunked this "incoherent dementia" talking point.
|
On September 30 2020 10:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 10:19 Introvert wrote: Trump is being too aggressive. Maybe I've purged 2016 from my mind though. A little cringey for me. He's gotta let Biden string a couple of sentences together to come back and hang him with his words. The current exchange feels like elder abuse.
This section has actually been better. Maybe we'll end in a better state lol.
Biden always looked better in debates than in smaller settings, for whatever reason. He still sounds out of it though at times.
|
"People want their restaurants" LMFAO
"I brought back football"
I didn't drink enough for this. Someone hand me the everclear.
|
What a horrible debate or is it me? Its not even that either of them looks bad but the whole thing feels so uninspiring with so little substance from either of the candidates,both repeating the same things lots of times. Biden had a few good moments,like when he mentioned the things trump said about the epidemic "it will be over by easter,it will just go away" but je also falls back now and then,trump didnt look horrible but not great either. Overall the debate itself has been pretty bad and disapointing thus far. I wanted to watch all of it but ima go to sleep.
If i had to call it now then i think thus far biden is slightly ahead,which i guess is pretty decent seeing the expectations but neither of them have been truly inspiring.
|
On September 30 2020 10:42 CorsairHero wrote: Chris Wallace is awful
I dont see anything wrong with the moderator.
Trump is just an awful human being and a petulant child. Holy fuck they need to cut his mic.
|
Wow this money talk is utter bullshit. I love this he will show it stuff. LOL Biden killing him with the when.
|
For some reason it just occurred to me that Trump says "Obama" the same way Palin does.
|
Uninterrupted Biden is not too bad. He's still too old and most of the other dem candidates would've been way better.
When Trump says ' I'll show my tax returns when it's done' Biden needs to hammer on the fact that he's been saying that bs for four years now and that there is no rule that you cannot show them when under audit
|
On September 30 2020 10:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 10:39 Danglars wrote:On September 30 2020 10:19 Introvert wrote: Trump is being too aggressive. Maybe I've purged 2016 from my mind though. A little cringey for me. He's gotta let Biden string a couple of sentences together to come back and hang him with his words. The current exchange feels like elder abuse. This section has actually been better. Maybe we'll end in a better state lol. Biden always looked better in debates than in smaller settings, for whatever reason. He still sounds out of it though at times. He's Trump. He goes with the gut, and if the gut isn't feeling like letting Biden get an word in edgewise, he does it. When he thinks the time for that is up, he stops. He's way out of balance on what he's perceiving works, and then five minutes later he's back on top of it.
Hammering Biden on being a Senator so long and crafting these tax bills was the right move. Still doing bad though.
|
your Country52793 Posts
Trump's been saying the tax returns will be available soon since 2016. Does anyone still believe him?
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On September 30 2020 10:42 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 10:40 LegalLord wrote:On September 30 2020 10:37 Mohdoo wrote: Trump saying Biden would tell people not to wear masks if people went to his rallies? Holy shit what a terrible look.
Dear people saying Biden is in cognitive decline: Where you at? Can we finally move on? Biden certainly looks like he's in cognitive decline. Certainly, that's less bad than what is happening with Trump. He looks like any average 78(?) Year-old. He doesn't look fantastic, but hes already debunked this "incoherent dementia" talking point. The "average 78 year old" is a pretty bad standard to aspire to.
I'm not going to diagnose him, since that's not how it works, but he certainly reminds me of the 70+ year olds I know with diagnoses of early stage dementia. Including today.
|
On September 30 2020 10:40 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 10:37 Mohdoo wrote: Trump saying Biden would tell people not to wear masks if people went to his rallies? Holy shit what a terrible look.
Dear people saying Biden is in cognitive decline: Where you at? Can we finally move on? Biden is in cognitive decline. Sure everyone is past what 30? So is Trump and Biden does not look worse than Trump.
|
"I've done more in 47 months than you've done in 47 years" - Trump
Pretty good line lol
|
On September 30 2020 10:46 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 10:42 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 30 2020 10:40 LegalLord wrote:On September 30 2020 10:37 Mohdoo wrote: Trump saying Biden would tell people not to wear masks if people went to his rallies? Holy shit what a terrible look.
Dear people saying Biden is in cognitive decline: Where you at? Can we finally move on? Biden certainly looks like he's in cognitive decline. Certainly, that's less bad than what is happening with Trump. He looks like any average 78(?) Year-old. He doesn't look fantastic, but hes already debunked this "incoherent dementia" talking point. The "average 78 year old" is a pretty bad standard to aspire to. I'm not going to diagnose him, since that's not how it works, but he certainly reminds me of the 70+ year olds I know with diagnoses of early stage dementia. Including today.
Sure its not a great standard, but as I said, it's far from "incoherent dementia"
He also looks better than his opponent, which is really the only benchmark that he has at this point.
|
Wallace: That's spending, not taxes Biden: I'm going to eliminate significant numbers of tax. I'm gonna make corporate 28% instead of 21%.
Uhh Biden???
"We inherited the worst recession short of a depression" geez this was old when Obama tried to explain away his shortfalls
|
On September 30 2020 10:46 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 10:40 IgnE wrote:On September 30 2020 10:37 Mohdoo wrote: Trump saying Biden would tell people not to wear masks if people went to his rallies? Holy shit what a terrible look.
Dear people saying Biden is in cognitive decline: Where you at? Can we finally move on? Biden is in cognitive decline. Sure everyone is past what 30? So is Trump and Biden does not look worse than Trump. I mean we could aspire to have something better than ' not worse than Trump'
|
On September 30 2020 10:48 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 10:46 JimmiC wrote:On September 30 2020 10:40 IgnE wrote:On September 30 2020 10:37 Mohdoo wrote: Trump saying Biden would tell people not to wear masks if people went to his rallies? Holy shit what a terrible look.
Dear people saying Biden is in cognitive decline: Where you at? Can we finally move on? Biden is in cognitive decline. Sure everyone is past what 30? So is Trump and Biden does not look worse than Trump. I mean we could aspire to have something better than ' not worse than Trump'
We tried, and we lost in the primary.
|
On September 30 2020 10:48 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 10:46 JimmiC wrote:On September 30 2020 10:40 IgnE wrote:On September 30 2020 10:37 Mohdoo wrote: Trump saying Biden would tell people not to wear masks if people went to his rallies? Holy shit what a terrible look.
Dear people saying Biden is in cognitive decline: Where you at? Can we finally move on? Biden is in cognitive decline. Sure everyone is past what 30? So is Trump and Biden does not look worse than Trump. I mean we could aspire to have something better than ' not worse than Trump' No, I've been assured we can't
|
On September 30 2020 10:47 Taelshin wrote: "I've done more in 47 months than you've done in 47 years" - Trump
Pretty good line lol Trump hasn't been president for 47 months Must be the cognitive decline since he can't count
|
You can really tell these guys take things personally. Biden has always been that way, none of his Democratic opponents ever went after him personally though. This is who both of these people are lol.
|
On September 30 2020 10:47 Taelshin wrote: "I've done more in 47 months than you've done in 47 years" - Trump
Pretty good line lol
Totally agree. His base will be like "Yeah you deported so many people I fucking love it".
|
On September 30 2020 10:48 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 10:46 JimmiC wrote:On September 30 2020 10:40 IgnE wrote:On September 30 2020 10:37 Mohdoo wrote: Trump saying Biden would tell people not to wear masks if people went to his rallies? Holy shit what a terrible look.
Dear people saying Biden is in cognitive decline: Where you at? Can we finally move on? Biden is in cognitive decline. Sure everyone is past what 30? So is Trump and Biden does not look worse than Trump. I mean we could aspire to have something better than ' not worse than Trump' Should, sadly this is what you got and one of them be it. Trolly problem, avoiding it is chicken shit.
|
its just funny I'm not fact checking it, its a funny line. Cheer up guys Biden's not doing too badly, better then expected.
|
Trump is a complete dumpster fire right now. Wow.
Biden completely and totally body slamming this
|
On September 30 2020 10:49 Introvert wrote: You can really tell these guys take things personally. Biden has always been that way, none of his Democratic opponents ever went after him personally though. This is who both of these people are lol.
Biden had a lot of these moments with Democratic voters challenging him on his record/town halls when Hunter came up.
When/if it comes up tonight (if Biden mentions Russia) he might call Trump fat and challenge him to a pushup contest.
|
Wallace getting shit on by Trump
|
This "debate" has accomplished more for 3rd parties than anything else ever in history. Good lord.
|
your Country52793 Posts
On September 30 2020 10:52 Wegandi wrote: This "debate" has accomplished more for 3rd parties than anything else ever in history. Good lord.
So, uh, how about that ranked choice voting system?
|
Biden's going real hard on denying the allegations against his son with the 3.5 million and Burisma payouts. It's gonna direct more attention on the truth of the matter. Not too good.
"My son did nothing wrong" <<< "Why you talking about my son, he's a businessman on his own" or "That's not going to affect my decision making, and do you want to drag your kids into this tussle too?"
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On September 30 2020 10:52 Mohdoo wrote: Trump is a complete dumpster fire right now. Wow.
Biden completely and totally body slamming this Biden has the better one-liners today. All meaningful discussion of policy is drowned out in the noise.
I think today's winning line is "will you please shut up?"
|
your Country52793 Posts
On September 30 2020 10:53 Danglars wrote: Biden's going real hard on denying the allegations against his son with the 3.5 million and Burisma payouts. It's gonna direct more attention on the truth of the matter. Not too good.
"My son did nothing wrong" <<< "Why you talking about my son, he's a businessman on his own" or "That's not going to affect my decision making, and do you want to drag your kids into this tussle too?" That kind of nuance is going to be drowned out by the stream of consciousness coming from his opponent.
|
About time Wallace spoke up a bit.
|
Bisutopia18997 Posts
On September 30 2020 10:52 Wegandi wrote: This "debate" has accomplished more for 3rd parties than anything else ever in history. Good lord. It would have made me very happy to have a libertarian on stage before this debate started, but now I think you are right and it’s better to not be on that stage.
|
On September 30 2020 10:54 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 10:52 Mohdoo wrote: Trump is a complete dumpster fire right now. Wow.
Biden completely and totally body slamming this Biden has the better one-liners today. All meaningful discussion of policy is drowned out in the noise.
I think today's winning line is "will you please shut up?"
In the Twitter age, and when you're up in fucking Georgia (LMAO), this constitutes a body slamming. If Biden does anything except get humiliated, this is a giant win.
|
On September 30 2020 10:53 Danglars wrote: Biden's going real hard on denying the allegations against his son with the 3.5 million and Burisma payouts. It's gonna direct more attention on the truth of the matter. Not too good.
"My son did nothing wrong" <<< "Why you talking about my son, he's a businessman on his own" or "That's not going to affect my decision making, and do you want to drag your kids into this tussle too?"
Biden has never had the strongest responses to these.
That said, I don't see it sticking at all since Trump looks just awful here. I think the story is just going to be how much of a brat Trump is being and focus on almost nothing that either of them said.
|
Biden's been deflecting or refusing to answer on packing the Supreme Court and his congressional record, and the response to the Hunter questions were pretty weak. He has his strong moments, but it's more to do with directly citing Trump's record or media reports, and he's letting Trump get into his mind.
|
"I let people out of jail"
- Trump on why he is good for black people. Ho-lee-shit.
|
Im used to this back and forth bickering. Been watching a lot of Among Us lately.
|
Trump's killing African-Americans with coronavirus. Bold play.
|
your Country52793 Posts
Trump's debating Hillary Clinton with that superpredator line.
|
On September 30 2020 10:57 Mohdoo wrote: "I let people out of jail"
- Trump on why he is good for black people. Ho-lee-shit. Only because another reality show actor worked with him for a photo op.
|
Oh yay, the "bad apple" argument...
|
This debate makes me think Trump is more likely to win than I previously thought.
|
your Country52793 Posts
On September 30 2020 10:59 GreenHorizons wrote: Oh yay, the "bad apple" argument... At least it's paired with acknowledging that they're not currently being rooted out.
|
On September 30 2020 10:57 The_Templar wrote: Trump's debating Hillary Clinton with that superpredator line. I mean Biden was defending his support and advancement of that crime bill long after people of his party started bailing because of its results in incarcerations.
Trump's making a lot of law-and-order play on African Americans. He's missing the connection to protect African Americans that call the cops to stop crime.
|
Biden's answer to the race part is a half-assed establishment answer.
That said, it is easily the best answer of the entire debate so far. Completely shuts down Trump's answer and makes him look like a fool.
|
On the topic of police, I take a massive dump on Joe Biden. The vast majority of police officers are *horrendously horrible people*. as a Portland resident, I have witnessed extreme violence being shrugged off by "good apples". It is complete fucking bullshit. I dunno what the % is, but at LEAST the majority of cops are terrible humans.
|
Trumps answer to racism is 'we need law and order' lmao
and yeah fuck the 'bad apple' argument
|
On September 30 2020 10:59 GreenHorizons wrote: Oh yay, the "bad apple" argument... According to Trump you should be loving the dems and hating him, he is stopping the radical revolution!
|
Why do we need racial sensitivity training? Trump: We need to go back to our core values
|
It's a horrible oversight for Trump to let Charlottesville slide by. And for Biden to take superpredator. but then again he'd have to say Hillary Clinton's name.
|
Biden with some really optimistic, Pollyanna responses to solving racism and policing in the country.
|
There's something honest about letting them give each other their best shot. This is who they are.
Moderator is actually helping Trump when he argues he needs to shut up.
|
On September 30 2020 11:00 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 10:59 GreenHorizons wrote: Oh yay, the "bad apple" argument... At least it's paired with acknowledging that they're not currently being rooted out. Not a consolation to me. It's maybe worse considering that he wants to give them more money.
|
They really have to mute mics next debates. IF there are more debates after this.
|
I love this by Trump, you can trust your numbers but I'm going to trust the anecdotes that fit my narrative. So embarrassing.
|
On September 30 2020 11:03 PhoenixVoid wrote: Biden with some really optimistic, Pollyanna responses to solving racism and policing in the country.
He's trying to appeal to the good-old-days when people talked about politics differently.
It's a load of bullshit but I think it'll work very well here.
|
"More violent than frankly under Obama"
That aint it Trump.
|
On September 30 2020 11:04 HelpMeGetBetter wrote: They really have to mute mics next debates. IF there are more debates after this. Doubt it unless it somehow creates a significant bump for Biden in polling.
|
Hearing a criminal obsessed with promoting law and order is cute.
|
Damnit Biden when Trump says 'are you in favor of law and order' you need to point out Trumps problems with following the law
|
your Country52793 Posts
On September 30 2020 11:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Hearing a criminal obsessed with promoting law and order is cute. Pretty sure it's being used as a dogwhistle anyway.
|
No cops supporting Biden might be the best thing I've heard about him.
|
"we dont have time"
"we have time"
OH MY GOD
|
Evidently someone told Trump that Biden can't mention law and order, and that will split off his left base. Left base is fine, and Biden does the platitude about law, order, and justice.
|
On September 30 2020 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 11:04 HelpMeGetBetter wrote: They really have to mute mics next debates. IF there are more debates after this. Doubt it unless it somehow creates a significant bump for Biden in polling. Wow full Trumper now. The dems have control of the debates and it is biased for them?
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On September 30 2020 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote: No cops supporting Biden might be the best thing I've heard about him. He needs to keep the support of the radical left somehow, of course.
|
On September 30 2020 11:06 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Damnit Biden when Trump says 'are you in favor of law and order' you need to point out Trumps problems with following the law
I think his answer was actually one of the strongest he could come up with to Trump's question.
|
Wallace's interruptions of Trump has been a hell of a boon for Biden because Biden has struggled to fight back when Trump gets pushy. Plus Trump directing his anger to Wallace relieves some pressure on Biden.
|
your Country52793 Posts
On September 30 2020 11:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 11:06 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Damnit Biden when Trump says 'are you in favor of law and order' you need to point out Trumps problems with following the law I think his answer was actually one of the strongest he could come up with to Trump's question. Too bad Trump won't shut up and let me listen to 90% of what Biden's saying.
|
On September 30 2020 11:07 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 11:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Hearing a criminal obsessed with promoting law and order is cute. Pretty sure it's being used as a dogwhistle anyway.
Good point.
|
Biden's continued obvious dodging of certain questions, like court packing or "I'm not in public office dont ask me" is pathetic.
|
He can't condemn them ahahahah
|
Lol "stand back and stand by" is his condemnation of the white supremacist? Um what? Wow?!?!?!? Holy .... fucking.... shit....
|
loooool
will you disavow white supremacists?
proud boys stand down and stand by
wow.
|
gotta pivot to antifa when white supremacy is brought up
|
Please denounce Nazi's sir
'Well Proud Boys, stand aside and stand by' lmaooo what
|
On September 30 2020 11:08 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2020 11:04 HelpMeGetBetter wrote: They really have to mute mics next debates. IF there are more debates after this. Doubt it unless it somehow creates a significant bump for Biden in polling. Wow full Trumper now. The dems have control of the debates and it is biased for them? I'm saying that there likely wouldn't be more debates unless this one bumps Biden's polling. Otherwise there's nothing in it for him.
If that managed to confuse anyone else.
|
On September 30 2020 11:10 Introvert wrote: Biden's continued obvious dodging of certain questions, like court packing or "I'm not in public office dont ask me" is pathetic.
He hasn't dodged a question since the first segment. I think his condemnation of rioting will play out really well for his broader appeal.
|
Burned Toast
Canada2040 Posts
I like that pause when they asked him to condemn white supremacist... So much things in that pause.
|
Wow, he totally clearly chose not to condemn white supremacy. And people will be like "Well by saying nothing, he chose to like not make a stand so anyway he is not racist not at all fake news"
|
Wallace: Tonight you said you're the Democratic party right now. Did you ever call the Democratic mayor of Portland, the Democratic governor of Oregon, you gotta stop this ... bring in the national guard, do whatever it takes that you'd stop the days and months of violence in portland Biden: I don't hold public office.
BUDDY you said you're the Democratic party and you still don't currently hold office, so either you're powerless to affect the party across the nation, or powerful and don't want to do anything.
Burisma/Moscow money to Hunter was first mistake. This is probably second as far as major ones. You can't have it both ways Biden.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
Watching the Twitterverse, this quip from Jill Stein is solid:
|
Wallace: Will you tell white supremacists and the Proud Boys to stop causing violence? Trump: Sure... Stand by and do something about the left! That's... That's the opposite...
|
Trump is looking awful petchulant spoiled brat.
|
Trump refusing to condemn white supremacists will easily be the worst gaffe of this debate.
Decent chance it dominates the headlines.
|
How in the world are you able to bring yourself to say anything remotely positive about Jill Stein?
|
It's clear Biden got him with the proud boys, Trump has no idea who they are lol.
|
On September 30 2020 11:15 Mohdoo wrote:How in the world are you able to bring yourself to say anything remotely positive about Jill Stein? When you're right, you're right, and she's right.
|
yikes. scorched earth policy
|
No response to the Russian bounties on American troops
|
On September 30 2020 11:15 Introvert wrote: It's clear Biden got him with the proud boys, Trump has no idea who they are lol.
yeah he does, what are you talking about?
|
On September 30 2020 11:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 11:15 Mohdoo wrote:How in the world are you able to bring yourself to say anything remotely positive about Jill Stein? When you're right, you're right, and she's right.
You mean to say you think the US is a failed state? This is groundbreaking news.
|
Trump just lied about Hunter Biden being dishonorably discharged from the military... As if that's even relevant to this presidency...
|
Biden coming in strong with referencing Beau and Trump calling KIAs losers.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On September 30 2020 11:17 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 11:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2020 11:15 Mohdoo wrote:How in the world are you able to bring yourself to say anything remotely positive about Jill Stein? When you're right, you're right, and she's right. You mean to say you think the US is a failed state? This is groundbreaking news. It's an ugly thing to watch, all in real time.
|
Yeah, Jill for sure right on this one lol
|
Trump's going back to 'just rake the forests'
|
Crystal clean air and water, people. You heard the man! And he will keep business as usual.
Got my vote.
How will Biden beat that??
|
Yes American is doing tremendous on the environment, "do whatever good".
Come on now everyone knows america sucks on the environment.
|
On September 30 2020 11:17 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 11:15 Introvert wrote: It's clear Biden got him with the proud boys, Trump has no idea who they are lol. yeah he does, what are you talking about?
does he? maybe I missed it. sounded to me he asked who he should condemn, and Wallace said white supremacists, but Biden said "proud boys" and Trump heard it. He sisnt k ow who that was so he pivoted. Idk maybe I'm wrong.
|
Trump, expectedly, is failing hard on the climate change issue... He doesn't realize that forest fires are a symptom of climate change, not the primary cause of climate change. Wtf.
|
On September 30 2020 11:17 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 11:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2020 11:15 Mohdoo wrote:How in the world are you able to bring yourself to say anything remotely positive about Jill Stein? When you're right, you're right, and she's right. You mean to say you think the US is a failed state? This is groundbreaking news.
Anyone who thinks the U.S. is a failed state is utterly clueless and honestly it exposes that person's privilege and ignorance.
|
This feels so much like a needlessly drawn out comedy sketch with no punchline in sight
|
Trump is right about not clearing out forest floors or letting them burn though. Def an issue here in California lol
|
On September 30 2020 11:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 11:17 Mohdoo wrote:On September 30 2020 11:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2020 11:15 Mohdoo wrote:How in the world are you able to bring yourself to say anything remotely positive about Jill Stein? When you're right, you're right, and she's right. You mean to say you think the US is a failed state? This is groundbreaking news. Anyone who thinks the U.S. is a failed state is utterly clueless and honestly it exposes that person's privilege and ignorance.
Imagine walking down the street to buy food, going home to sleep without needing to defend yourself, and then charging your smart phone, then talking about the US being a failed state.
|
By the virtue of actually answering the question about climate change, environment and the economy, Biden wins the topic by default I guess? Trump's answer on California's wildfires ended up him responding to a personal interview question by Wallace, which was bizarre.
|
On September 30 2020 11:21 schaf wrote: This feels so much like a needlessly drawn out comedy sketch with no punchline in sight A writers room that didn't toss away any ideas.
The cow line? Keep it.
|
On technology/science Trump just looks so fuckin stupid it's insane.
|
On September 30 2020 11:22 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 11:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 30 2020 11:17 Mohdoo wrote:On September 30 2020 11:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2020 11:15 Mohdoo wrote:How in the world are you able to bring yourself to say anything remotely positive about Jill Stein? When you're right, you're right, and she's right. You mean to say you think the US is a failed state? This is groundbreaking news. Anyone who thinks the U.S. is a failed state is utterly clueless and honestly it exposes that person's privilege and ignorance. Imagine walking down the street to buy food, going home to sleep without needing to defend yourself, and then charging your smart phone, then talking about the US being a failed state. Like Chris Rock said, "If America was a woman, it would be a big titty woman. And everybody loves a big titty woman!"
|
watch out for the evil Democrats coming to take your guns and cows
|
On September 30 2020 11:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 11:22 Mohdoo wrote:On September 30 2020 11:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 30 2020 11:17 Mohdoo wrote:On September 30 2020 11:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2020 11:15 Mohdoo wrote:How in the world are you able to bring yourself to say anything remotely positive about Jill Stein? When you're right, you're right, and she's right. You mean to say you think the US is a failed state? This is groundbreaking news. Anyone who thinks the U.S. is a failed state is utterly clueless and honestly it exposes that person's privilege and ignorance. Imagine walking down the street to buy food, going home to sleep without needing to defend yourself, and then charging your smart phone, then talking about the US being a failed state. Like Chris Rock said, "If America was a woman, it would be a big titty woman. And everybody loves a big titty woman!" Big fake titties and a wicked stew of STD's (and men lined up to "praise" her)
|
Trump is so incomprehensible on the environment that it's just pathetic and barely even worth mentioning.
|
Trump sounded like he did not understand the environment at all. He sounded older than boomers, clueless.
|
On September 30 2020 11:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 11:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 30 2020 11:22 Mohdoo wrote:On September 30 2020 11:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 30 2020 11:17 Mohdoo wrote:On September 30 2020 11:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2020 11:15 Mohdoo wrote:How in the world are you able to bring yourself to say anything remotely positive about Jill Stein? When you're right, you're right, and she's right. You mean to say you think the US is a failed state? This is groundbreaking news. Anyone who thinks the U.S. is a failed state is utterly clueless and honestly it exposes that person's privilege and ignorance. Imagine walking down the street to buy food, going home to sleep without needing to defend yourself, and then charging your smart phone, then talking about the US being a failed state. Like Chris Rock said, "If America was a woman, it would be a big titty woman. And everybody loves a big titty woman!" Big fake titties and a wicked stew of STD's Thanks for sucking the humor out of the joke. Much appreciated.
|
So proud boys need to be ready
California needs to rake its forest
And most of all dems are coming for them cows. Hide your cows.
|
Is Biden calling for international observers to ensure the reliability of the election or no?
|
The hardcore Trump supporters, best president ever types, should watch this debate in its entirety. Lots of own goals and not challenging Biden on lies and contradictions. Some poor debate idea that Biden can alienate his base by supporting cops and opposing the green new deal.
|
Trump is going to look like a moron and just lie this entire section.
Final verdict: Biden wins by being at least understandable and making no major gaffes. Trump with the assist by looking like an atrocious asshole that refused to condemn white supremacy.
|
your Country52793 Posts
On September 30 2020 11:28 GreenHorizons wrote: Is Biden calling for international observers to ensure the reliability of the election or no? Doesn't sound like it.
|
Biden's statement on voting is good. Calling Trump out for voting by mail himself.
|
Next presidential debate either needs mute buttons or tasers. I really don't care which.
|
Biden was weak during the climate change segment.
and yeah tasers/mutes/sound proof booth's that raise up from the floor to encapsulate them, something, haha.
|
The bar for Biden was so low. But I think he did it? I think...
|
feels like I'm watching President Camatcho all over again.
|
Good closing by Biden and voting and the transition of power.
|
On September 30 2020 11:30 Taelshin wrote: Biden was weak during the climate change segment.
I think he was eh.
Trump made him look good by comparison.
|
why is mail in ballots allowed till Nov 10? thats a load of bullshit wtf did he just lie?
|
This is amazingly dangerous. I'm honestly stunned Trump is so directly trying to discredit the election.
|
On September 30 2020 11:29 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 11:28 GreenHorizons wrote: Is Biden calling for international observers to ensure the reliability of the election or no? Doesn't sound like it.
With both sides claiming fraud and neither inviting international observers, is the only rational conclusion that both parties intend to do fraudulent things?
|
Did Biden make any real points, other than Trumps bad at president-ing(vaguely)? We should wear masks, and his son is a war hero veteran?
|
On September 30 2020 11:33 Emnjay808 wrote: why is mail in ballots allowed till Nov 10? thats a load of bullshit wtf did he just lie?
Some states will accept ballots until the 10th if they were sent by the 3rd.
|
your Country52793 Posts
Gotta love watching the president of the United States spreading baseless conspiracy theories on the debate stage.
|
On September 30 2020 11:33 Mohdoo wrote: This is amazingly dangerous. I'm honestly stunned Trump is so directly trying to discredit the election.
How is that dangerous? He just told a white supremacist group to "stand by", now this.
I can't see no dangerous. He's a genius.
|
On September 30 2020 11:22 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 11:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 30 2020 11:17 Mohdoo wrote:On September 30 2020 11:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2020 11:15 Mohdoo wrote:How in the world are you able to bring yourself to say anything remotely positive about Jill Stein? When you're right, you're right, and she's right. You mean to say you think the US is a failed state? This is groundbreaking news. Anyone who thinks the U.S. is a failed state is utterly clueless and honestly it exposes that person's privilege and ignorance. Imagine walking down the street to buy food, going home to sleep without needing to defend yourself, and then charging your smart phone, then talking about the US being a failed state.
imagine tuning into a debate between the two senile candidates running for most powerful person in the world and hearing the current President say that the election coming in 40 days is going to be a big fraud. the results can’t be trusted.
|
On September 30 2020 11:27 Shingi11 wrote: So proud boys need to be ready
California needs to rake its forest
And most of all dems are coming for them cows. Hide your cows.
I think this is a good takeaway from these debates so far. Brb hiding my cows to protect them from this crystal air.
|
your Country52793 Posts
On September 30 2020 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 11:29 The_Templar wrote:On September 30 2020 11:28 GreenHorizons wrote: Is Biden calling for international observers to ensure the reliability of the election or no? Doesn't sound like it. With both sides claiming fraud and neither inviting international observers, is the only rational conclusion that both parties intend to do fraudulent things? No, I think it's rational to think that there can be a neutral observer within the country.
|
Trump is really not going to give up power is he. This constant brainwashing with ' Rigged mail votes, a disgrace' is not going to end well for the US.
|
On September 30 2020 11:29 Stratos_speAr wrote: Trump is going to look like a moron and just lie this entire section.
Final verdict: Biden wins by being at least understandable and making no major gaffes. Trump with the assist by looking like an atrocious asshole that refused to condemn white supremacy. People are actually going to believe that 2 million (currently 1 million globally) Americans would have died under a Biden administration from covid.
|
On September 30 2020 11:33 rel wrote: Did Biden make any real points, other than Trumps bad at president-ing(vaguely)? We should wear masks, and his son is a war hero veteran? Yes rewatch, it's hard to hear over all trumps crying.
|
Trump is such a fascist piece of shit.
|
It's call passion for your Country and what your doing... Unlike SleepyJoe... JimmiCovid....
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On September 30 2020 11:36 Stratos_speAr wrote: Trump is such a fascist piece of shit.
This is so much worse than I thought. Jesus fucking Christ.
|
On September 30 2020 11:36 rel wrote: It's call passion for your Country and what your doing... Unlike SleepyJoe... JimmiCovid.... This entire train of thought, or lack thereof, is uncalled for.
|
On September 30 2020 11:29 Danglars wrote: The hardcore Trump supporters, best president ever types, should watch this debate in its entirety. Lots of own goals and not challenging Biden on lies and contradictions. Some poor debate idea that Biden can alienate his base by supporting cops and opposing the green new deal.
Like I said I think this is his best debate even if he's a bigger ass than usual. Low bar, but he's been on topic and more relevant than ever before. Idk I dont think anything changed.
edit: except a deeper feeling that we deserve this.
|
On September 30 2020 11:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 11:36 Stratos_speAr wrote: Trump is such a fascist piece of shit. This is so much worse than I thought. Jesus fucking Christ.
ah Jill Stein. when youre right youre right.
this is truly very sad. i feel a real sense of doom rolling over me
|
Trump just asked his supporters to show up and interfere with others voting on Election Day. That dog whistle was clear as day.
|
|
Biden comparing military ballet voting to what the D's are pushing out now, yikes.
|
Next debate is October 7th.
|
On September 30 2020 11:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Trump just asked his supporters to show up and interfere with others voting on Election Day. That dog whistle was clear as day.
Agreed i dont think this is going to go peacefully. This is just insane that he can talk like that.
|
On September 30 2020 11:35 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2020 11:29 The_Templar wrote:On September 30 2020 11:28 GreenHorizons wrote: Is Biden calling for international observers to ensure the reliability of the election or no? Doesn't sound like it. With both sides claiming fraud and neither inviting international observers, is the only rational conclusion that both parties intend to do fraudulent things? No, I think it's rational to think that there can be a neutral observer within the country. I suppose, but what organization would that be?
|
oh my god i cant wait for the pence harris debate. holy fucking shit
|
On September 30 2020 11:39 Shingi11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 11:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Trump just asked his supporters to show up and interfere with others voting on Election Day. That dog whistle was clear as day. Agreed i dont think this is going to go peacefully. This is just insane that he can talk like that. It's insane that he was elected. This is par for the course for everything he's done since then and more than likely, before.
|
On September 30 2020 11:36 rel wrote: It's call passion for your Country and what your doing... Unlike SleepyJoe... JimmiCovid....
Wow your insults are as disappointing and boring and your heros. I feel sorry for you man. Good luck !
|
Overall probably the most shameful public display of American politics that I can recall.
How anyone can justify their support of Trump is simply unconscionable at this point.
|
On September 30 2020 11:37 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 11:36 rel wrote: It's call passion for your Country and what your doing... Unlike SleepyJoe... JimmiCovid.... This entire train of thought, or lack thereof, is uncalled for.
I second this.
JimmiC is a fine, upstanding Canadian with plenty of passion for his country and what he's doing. I'll fite u.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
Looks like that's it for the failed state debate. Was a glorious wild ride.
|
Trump advocating for good, peaceful "Poll watchers" is worrying as shit haha
|
That was interesting. Guess I'll get my rake.
|
On September 30 2020 11:41 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 11:37 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 30 2020 11:36 rel wrote: It's call passion for your Country and what your doing... Unlike SleepyJoe... JimmiCovid.... This entire train of thought, or lack thereof, is uncalled for. I second this. JimmiC is a fine, upstanding Canadian with plenty of passion for his country and what he's doing. I'll fite u. I'm pretty excited I got such a culturally relevant nickname and that he considers me and expert on covid. I'm flattered.
|
May your votes actually count, and may they actually belong to lawful Americans... with that said. May the best person win the presidency.
|
Not gonna lie... 99% of school teachers would have done a better job moderating that debate than Chris Wallace. If you think watching and listening to that chaos was rough, picture 20 little Trumps running around a classroom while a teacher has to stay calm and patient and actually try to educate them, rather than scream and slap the shit out of them.
|
On September 30 2020 11:41 LegalLord wrote: Looks like that's it for the failed state debate. Was a glorious wild ride. Indeed. Going to be interesting to see how the highlights break down and if they can isolate Biden's audio for clips (might only be fox that can since they'll have the raw audio rather than the broadcast audio) or not.
|
JimmiCovid... You ramble on more about Covid than Fauci and Biden put together. (and all the major liberal news networks.)
|
On September 30 2020 11:42 Fleetfeet wrote: Trump advocating for good, peaceful "Poll watchers" is worrying as shit haha Yeah but not as scary as the stand back and stand by call out.
Attacking the legitimacy of the election, and telling armed groups to stand by (when he has asked to condemnation white.supremists) was super alarming.
|
On September 30 2020 11:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Not gonna lie... 99% of school teachers would have done a better job moderating that debate than Chris Wallace. If you think watching and listening to that chaos was rough, picture 20 little Trumps running around a classroom while a teacher has to stay calm and patient and actually try to educate them, rather than scream and slap the shit out of them.
What else could he have done?
|
On September 30 2020 11:45 rel wrote: JimmiCovid... You ramble on more about Covid than Fauci and Biden put together. (and all the major liberal news networks.)
You're one of "those", are you?
|
Dunno what "those" is. I'm a Centrist. If you're talking about what I am on the political spectrum.
|
On September 30 2020 11:46 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 11:45 rel wrote: JimmiCovid... You ramble on more about Covid than Fauci and Biden put together. (and all the major liberal news networks.) You're one of "those", are you?
We get QAnon folks every so often, they blast the thread for a little bit, reveal some incredibly disqualifying position, get ignored, and never post again. We've been down this road before.
|
On September 30 2020 11:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 11:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Not gonna lie... 99% of school teachers would have done a better job moderating that debate than Chris Wallace. If you think watching and listening to that chaos was rough, picture 20 little Trumps running around a classroom while a teacher has to stay calm and patient and actually try to educate them, rather than scream and slap the shit out of them. What else could he have done?
The entire format was horseshit and doomed from the start.
It's not like this wasn't foreseeable, they just didn't give a shit. Wallace couldn't have done crap even if he wanted to - making this entire thing a farce, apart from potentially some "not that far gone" trumpets seeing trump for what he actually is.
|
On September 30 2020 11:45 rel wrote: JimmiCovid... You ramble on more about Covid than Fauci and Biden put together. (and all the major liberal news networks.)
I'd offer you facts that suggest otherwise, but I get the feeling you're one of those 'irresponsible republicans' that just doesn't fucking care what reality shows if it's against what you believe in your heart.
|
On September 30 2020 11:47 rel wrote: Dunno what "those" is. I'm a Centrist. If you're talking about what I am on the political spectrum.
As an actual centrist, bullshit.
We get QAnon folks every so often, they blast the thread for a little bit, reveal some incredibly disqualifying position, get ignored, and never post again. We've been down this road before.
So it's not just me then, fair enough, i'll follow suit.
|
Mohdoo, well at least I got your energy to replying about me. Appreciate the effort.
|
On September 30 2020 11:49 rel wrote: Mohdoo, well at least I got your energy to replying about me. Appreciate the effort.
You're welcome, it has been a pleasure. I look forward to your future contributions.
|
Real huh. Yeah keep telling yourself that my dude.
|
horribly formatted questions about broad topics. obviously everything asked was premeditated and well thought out.
|
Pretty wild debate. Truly awful performance from both. Poor Chris Wallace, not much he could do there.
|
Okay I had a blast and was thoroughly entertained.. enjoy talking in your own muck with no real debate for criticism... what this website is ALL about.
|
On September 30 2020 11:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 11:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Not gonna lie... 99% of school teachers would have done a better job moderating that debate than Chris Wallace. If you think watching and listening to that chaos was rough, picture 20 little Trumps running around a classroom while a teacher has to stay calm and patient and actually try to educate them, rather than scream and slap the shit out of them. What else could he have done?
Not let Trump walk all over him? Not let Trump hijack Biden's responses? Been more stern with Trump?
I know that Trump would have gone into his usual pearl-clutching "you're out to get me / you're biased / woe is me" rant if he actually got shut down, but Wallace would have been praised quite highly if he actually had the balls to do something about Trump's absurd interrupting streak.
|
What a fucking shitshow of a debate. Trump's answers at the end are genuinely concerning. Openly telling people to watch the polls and telling the proud boys to stand by.
This is not behaviour of someone who thinks they can win an election legitimately.
|
I think the VP debate (10/7) will be more level-headed, fwiw.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On September 30 2020 11:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 11:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 30 2020 11:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Not gonna lie... 99% of school teachers would have done a better job moderating that debate than Chris Wallace. If you think watching and listening to that chaos was rough, picture 20 little Trumps running around a classroom while a teacher has to stay calm and patient and actually try to educate them, rather than scream and slap the shit out of them. What else could he have done? Not let Trump walk all over him? Not let Trump hijack Biden's responses? Been more stern with Trump? I know that Trump would have gone into his usual pearl-clutching "you're out to get me / you're biased / woe is me" rant if he actually got shut down, but Wallace would have been praised quite highly if he actually had the balls to do something about Trump's absurd interrupting streak. Honestly, he did all three of those things. And while it helped, it wasn't really enough to handle a full-on tantrum.
|
This is not behaviour of someone who thinks they can win an election legitimately.
Does he strike you as the legit guy, having enough integrity to admit defeat? Or more like the guy who'd pay for people to make shit up about a political opponent?
I mean.. None of this is surprising. I'm surprised people are surprised or shocked. This isn't a new characteristic of trump. He's always been like that, from day one.
|
On September 30 2020 11:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think the VP debate (10/7) will be more level-headed, fwiw. If they even have it. If I was Harris, I'd just decline and make bullshit excuses to not do it. Let this debate be the last one and run ads until election of trump throwing a tantrum.
|
I honestly don't think he could have done that without coming across as not-impartial, which would play in to Trump's hand. Trump's speed in playing the victim is his defense, and he's had enough real success in being a victim that it's likely to stick when he plays it again. He's the boy that cries wolf and people buy it because there was a wolf once or twice.
|
Well, that was an event. Pretty clear neither of them are strong debaters with Trump resorting to mostly bluster and interruptions to make his point, and Biden failing to articulate an answer to some tough personal questions or to stay on topic on certain inquiries. Trump won on the Supreme Court issue handily, Biden took the climate/environment question, the rest of the topics I think were a tie or just barely inching Biden's way, but that's just my bias speaking.
I don't think this was the night where Biden convinced the remaining undecided voters, and Trump should probably walk away happy he didn't exactly lose the debate either. If no one's mind is changed, that's still an acceptable result for Biden and a mediocre one for Trump, given that he's slipping heavily in key swing states like PA, MI, WI and even NC, OH and GA lately. Biden was making a lot of appeals to the Midwest and Rust Belt states that Clinton lost from Obama during that debate, and we'll see if it resonated or was lost in Trump's shouting.
|
All in all i dont think anyone "won" the debate in that no one is going to change who they are voting for after watching that.
I would say biden came out better though. HE had his ups and downs but he toed a accepted line if unimpressive. I could maybe see someone on the fence going for joe after this.
Trump on the other was a mess, all the sound bits are going to be from him and non of them good. Telling armed militia groups they need watch voters is bull. Yes his base wants to hear that but trump does not need to win his base. He needs to win everyone else that is fleeing from him.
Also going after bidens son addiction was low even for him. Even some republicans are calling him out on that
|
On September 30 2020 11:52 Ben... wrote: What a fucking shitshow of a debate. Trump's answers at the end are genuinely concerning. Openly telling people to watch the polls and telling the proud boys to stand by.
This is not behaviour of someone who thinks they can win an election legitimately.
This to me says that Trump's data scientists are telling him he has nothing to lose. He is well on track to lose and anything he can do to make that not happen is a good idea.
|
Are people still convinced these debates are meant to win the "undecided vote"
lets be real lol
|
God that was utterly depressing and demoralizing.
|
CNN saying Wallace had no control as a moderator. Like... what was he supposed to do??
|
On September 30 2020 11:58 vult wrote: CNN saying Wallace had no control as a moderator. Like... what was he supposed to do?? "Mr. President. Shut the fuck up or I will have your mic confiscated. You have been warned." ? I dunno.
|
On September 30 2020 11:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 11:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think the VP debate (10/7) will be more level-headed, fwiw. If they even have it. If I was Harris, I'd just decline and make bullshit excuses to not do it. Let this debate be the last one and run ads until election of trump throwing a tantrum.
Harris is 1000X times the debater that pence is though. She is going to tear him a new hole. I see no reason she should not debate. In all honesty i wish she could debate trump too.
|
On September 30 2020 11:57 Emnjay808 wrote: Are people still convinced these debates are meant to win the "undecided vote"
lets be real lol
When Georgia is competitive, a "win" would have been Biden forgetting where he was. All Biden needed to do was not lose miserably.
|
Confiscating his mic would be shown as a liberal gag-order.
|
On September 30 2020 12:00 Shingi11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 11:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 30 2020 11:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think the VP debate (10/7) will be more level-headed, fwiw. If they even have it. If I was Harris, I'd just decline and make bullshit excuses to not do it. Let this debate be the last one and run ads until election of trump throwing a tantrum. Harris is 1000X times the debater that pence is though. She is going to tear him a new hole. I see no reason she should not debate. In all honesty i wish she could debate trump too. Part of me wishes there was a cross debate of some sort where VP candidate vs P and vice versa.
|
Curious how people feel about this on TL:
Poll: Should the microphone of who isn't the designated speaker be muted?Yes (35) 78% No (10) 22% 45 total votes Your vote: Should the microphone of who isn't the designated speaker be muted? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No
|
On September 30 2020 12:00 Shingi11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 11:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 30 2020 11:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think the VP debate (10/7) will be more level-headed, fwiw. If they even have it. If I was Harris, I'd just decline and make bullshit excuses to not do it. Let this debate be the last one and run ads until election of trump throwing a tantrum. Harris is 1000X times the debater that pence is though. She is going to tear him a new hole. I see no reason she should not debate. In all honesty i wish she could debate trump too.
I honestly don't think there's any debating Trump unless you have an above-average intelligence audience (not intended as a shot at the US) and come armed with a binder of data set to counter the bullshit he spouts (which is where your above average intelligence audience comes in, capable of understanding and appreciating the data). You can't go "This is the truth, and here is the proof" because he'll just say "No no no no all lies didnt happen fake news" and respond with "Crystal clear air, crystal clear water" without any actual substance or reference to any actual plan.
|
On September 30 2020 12:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 11:57 Emnjay808 wrote: Are people still convinced these debates are meant to win the "undecided vote"
lets be real lol When Georgia is competitive, a "win" would have been Biden forgetting where he was. All Biden needed to do was not lose miserably.
Ya i agree, trump is the one who needed this debate to turn around the numbers not biden. When you are struggling to hold onto South Carolina and Georgia you need something big. And this night was not it.
|
On September 30 2020 11:57 Emnjay808 wrote: Are people still convinced these debates are meant to win the "undecided vote"
lets be real lol It was pretrump. But Trump even pissed off the fox News moderator I can't imagine how the rest will go or if they have a purpose at this point.
Trump telling the proud boys to stand by in the middle of a nationally televised debate is a low point in recent american history and that's saying a lot
|
On September 30 2020 12:03 Mohdoo wrote:Curious how people feel about this on TL: Poll: Should the microphone of who isn't the designated speaker be muted?Yes (35) 78% No (10) 22% 45 total votes Your vote: Should the microphone of who isn't the designated speaker be muted? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No
Absolutely not, let us see these men for who they are.
|
If you give trump the excuse that he got unfairly treated by muting his mic, he'll use it. And his minions will gobble it up, probably retaliating later down the line - potentially at a polling station, armed to the teeth, "ensuring legitimacy".
It's a debate. In a debate both mics are on. The problem is simply that you elected a clown with no manners, no decency or culture, so the real solution is to simply not have a debate, since apparently his behaviour doesn't set off enough alarms for many americans.
|
On September 30 2020 12:06 m4ini wrote: If you give trump the excuse that he got unfairly treated by muting his mic, he'll use it. And his minions will gobble it up, probably retaliating later down the line - potentially at a polling station, armed to the teeth, "ensuring legitimacy".
It's a debate. In a debate both mics are on. The problem is simply that you elected a clown with no manners, no decency or culture, so the real solution is to simply not have a debate, since apparently his behaviour doesn't set off enough alarms for many americans. That's a lot of Americans when they argue. Get louder than the other person to "break their will". trump deciding to drown out what Biden was saying so that his base and those undecideds didn't get a clear answer was the goal.
|
CNN accurately referred to this debate as a shitshow.
|
On September 30 2020 12:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: CNN accurately referred to this debate as a shitshow.
Does anyone disagree that the debate being a shitshow is anything other than a huge win for Biden?
|
On September 30 2020 12:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 12:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: CNN accurately referred to this debate as a shitshow. Does anyone disagree that the debate being a shitshow is anything other than a huge win for Biden? I see no way of arguing that Trump won big which was what everyone was saying he needed.
|
On September 30 2020 12:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 12:06 m4ini wrote: If you give trump the excuse that he got unfairly treated by muting his mic, he'll use it. And his minions will gobble it up, probably retaliating later down the line - potentially at a polling station, armed to the teeth, "ensuring legitimacy".
It's a debate. In a debate both mics are on. The problem is simply that you elected a clown with no manners, no decency or culture, so the real solution is to simply not have a debate, since apparently his behaviour doesn't set off enough alarms for many americans. That's a lot of Americans when they argue. Get louder than the other person to "break their will". trump deciding to drown out what Biden was saying so that his base and those undecideds didn't get a clear answer was the goal.
While i certainly don't come out and say that often, i do think there's a lot of civilised people left in the USA. It doesn't even matter what was discussed in the first place.
Any normal person should take a long look at this "debate" and behavioural clues, and then ask himself if this is a person you want to vote for. Trump would be too slimy for a shoddy 80s used car salesman, i mean..
I just refuse to believe that the majority of a country, any country, looks at this and actually thinks that yes, that is america, that's how we need to portray us to the world.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
I was very pleased with today's clown show. It's exactly what I tuned in to see, and both candidates basically handled it exactly as you would expect.
In terms of polling, I expect it to be largely a wash. There's no clear winner and plenty of losers here, and overall that will probably reflect as a big fat nothing in the polls.
|
On September 30 2020 12:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 12:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: CNN accurately referred to this debate as a shitshow. Does anyone disagree that the debate being a shitshow is anything other than a huge win for Biden?
I do. Biden made a very disappointing showing.
|
Epic.
|
Okay.
I know the rules and stuff, but i can't really give any context, or my opinion on this. Not without breaking rules. I've mentioned this to Danglars specifically in the politics thread, that Trump is an enabler (remember, you calling people hysteric because they got pissed off about trump priming his base for exactly this kind of bullshit?). I don't think you need any more proof.
|
On September 30 2020 12:12 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 12:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 30 2020 12:06 m4ini wrote: If you give trump the excuse that he got unfairly treated by muting his mic, he'll use it. And his minions will gobble it up, probably retaliating later down the line - potentially at a polling station, armed to the teeth, "ensuring legitimacy".
It's a debate. In a debate both mics are on. The problem is simply that you elected a clown with no manners, no decency or culture, so the real solution is to simply not have a debate, since apparently his behaviour doesn't set off enough alarms for many americans. That's a lot of Americans when they argue. Get louder than the other person to "break their will". trump deciding to drown out what Biden was saying so that his base and those undecideds didn't get a clear answer was the goal. While i certainly don't come out and say that often, i do think there's a lot of civilised people left in the USA. It doesn't even matter what was discussed in the first place. Any normal person should take a long look at this "debate" and behavioural clues, and then ask himself if this is a person you want to vote for. Trump would be too slimy for a shoddy 80s used car salesman, i mean.. I just refuse to believe that the majority of a country, any country, looks at this and actually thinks that yes, that is america, that's how we need to portray us to the world.
Americans have the exact same problem with Congress.
Congressional approval ratings have been under 10% for something like a decade, yet most Americans think it's "the other guys" who are the problem and so they just keep supporting their incumbent regardless of the actual situation.
Same exact thing here. Most will agree that this was a disgrace, but they'll just blame it on the other guy and nothing will change.
|
On September 30 2020 12:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 12:12 m4ini wrote:On September 30 2020 12:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 30 2020 12:06 m4ini wrote: If you give trump the excuse that he got unfairly treated by muting his mic, he'll use it. And his minions will gobble it up, probably retaliating later down the line - potentially at a polling station, armed to the teeth, "ensuring legitimacy".
It's a debate. In a debate both mics are on. The problem is simply that you elected a clown with no manners, no decency or culture, so the real solution is to simply not have a debate, since apparently his behaviour doesn't set off enough alarms for many americans. That's a lot of Americans when they argue. Get louder than the other person to "break their will". trump deciding to drown out what Biden was saying so that his base and those undecideds didn't get a clear answer was the goal. While i certainly don't come out and say that often, i do think there's a lot of civilised people left in the USA. It doesn't even matter what was discussed in the first place. Any normal person should take a long look at this "debate" and behavioural clues, and then ask himself if this is a person you want to vote for. Trump would be too slimy for a shoddy 80s used car salesman, i mean.. I just refuse to believe that the majority of a country, any country, looks at this and actually thinks that yes, that is america, that's how we need to portray us to the world. Americans have the exact same problem with Congress. Congressional approval ratings have been under 10% for something like a decade, yet most Americans think it's "the other guys" who are the problem and so they just keep supporting their incumbent regardless of the actual situation. Same exact thing here. Most will agree that this was a disgrace, but they'll just blame it on the other guy and nothing will change.
Can't argue with that, i suppose that's the root for many things wrong in the US, and the UK for that matter. Or really, any country that thinks a two party system is where it's at.
As someone who grew up in a country with a few more than two parties, it's just something i'll never understand i think.
|
|
On September 30 2020 12:15 m4ini wrote:Okay. I know the rules and stuff, but i can't really give any context, or my opinion on this. Not without breaking rules. I've mentioned this to Danglars specifically in the politics thread, that Trump is an enabler (remember, you calling people hysteric because they got pissed off about trump priming his base for exactly this kind of bullshit?). I don't think you need any more proof. https://twitter.com/ByMikeBaker/status/1311130735584051201 But he's just joking, you see. The more reasonable Republicans don't take Trump seriously, so don't pay attention to the fanatics who actually commit the violence and kill people over their politics. They're not real.
|
On September 30 2020 12:25 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 12:15 m4ini wrote:Okay. I know the rules and stuff, but i can't really give any context, or my opinion on this. Not without breaking rules. I've mentioned this to Danglars specifically in the politics thread, that Trump is an enabler (remember, you calling people hysteric because they got pissed off about trump priming his base for exactly this kind of bullshit?). I don't think you need any more proof. https://twitter.com/ByMikeBaker/status/1311130735584051201 But he's just joking, you see. The more reasonable Republicans don't take Trump seriously, so don't pay attention to the fanatics who actually commit the violence and kill people over their politics. They're not real.
Funny.
Or so would i say if this wasn't the actual argument.
|
Chris Wallace did as good a job as was possible I think, surprised to see criticism of him.
|
On September 30 2020 12:27 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 12:25 NewSunshine wrote:On September 30 2020 12:15 m4ini wrote:Okay. I know the rules and stuff, but i can't really give any context, or my opinion on this. Not without breaking rules. I've mentioned this to Danglars specifically in the politics thread, that Trump is an enabler (remember, you calling people hysteric because they got pissed off about trump priming his base for exactly this kind of bullshit?). I don't think you need any more proof. https://twitter.com/ByMikeBaker/status/1311130735584051201 But he's just joking, you see. The more reasonable Republicans don't take Trump seriously, so don't pay attention to the fanatics who actually commit the violence and kill people over their politics. They're not real. Funny. Or so would i say if this wasn't the actual argument.
Dont you know trump never means what he says, its just talk between the boys.
Also have you heard about the face eating leopards party, great bunch.
|
On September 30 2020 12:31 Shingi11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 12:27 m4ini wrote:On September 30 2020 12:25 NewSunshine wrote:On September 30 2020 12:15 m4ini wrote:Okay. I know the rules and stuff, but i can't really give any context, or my opinion on this. Not without breaking rules. I've mentioned this to Danglars specifically in the politics thread, that Trump is an enabler (remember, you calling people hysteric because they got pissed off about trump priming his base for exactly this kind of bullshit?). I don't think you need any more proof. https://twitter.com/ByMikeBaker/status/1311130735584051201 But he's just joking, you see. The more reasonable Republicans don't take Trump seriously, so don't pay attention to the fanatics who actually commit the violence and kill people over their politics. They're not real. Funny. Or so would i say if this wasn't the actual argument. Dont you know trump never means what he says, its just talk between the boys. Also have you heard about the face eating leopards party, great bunch.
Joe Exotic/Carole Baskin 2024?
|
On September 30 2020 12:06 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 12:03 Mohdoo wrote:Curious how people feel about this on TL: Poll: Should the microphone of who isn't the designated speaker be muted?Yes (35) 78% No (10) 22% 45 total votes Your vote: Should the microphone of who isn't the designated speaker be muted? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No
Absolutely not, let us see these men for who they are. Why not law and order for a debate that has rules?
|
From 538's coverage there was this tracker which aggregated sentiment about both candidates. General sentiment about both candidates dropped off sharply aft the beginning of the debate, and I guess Biden had a couple more positive bumps than Trump, but it was as much a condemnation of the debate format and shitshow than the candidatest themselves.
As far as my opinion on the debate itself, Biden isn't as sharp as he was, but he's good enough. I think it solidifies the opinions of leaning Bidens that he's not going to keel over in the first months of office. I have no clue if Trumps ranting plays well with his base, but I guess that kind of incivility resonates. What we saw in any of the previous debates this year as far as chaos goes pretty much doesn't compare to this.
|
FYI as a Portland resident
|
On September 30 2020 12:36 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 12:06 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2020 12:03 Mohdoo wrote:Curious how people feel about this on TL: Poll: Should the microphone of who isn't the designated speaker be muted?Yes (35) 78% No (10) 22% 45 total votes Your vote: Should the microphone of who isn't the designated speaker be muted? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No
Absolutely not, let us see these men for who they are. Why not law and order for a debate that has rules? Wondering the same thing. Why can't a presidential debate be focused on the content of ideas and ability to express oneself, like a normal debate, instead of focusing on which one can shout everyone down the most? Sounds like the best way to see them for who they are in my book. Being an obnoxious asshole who doesn't let other people speak does reveal something about a man, but it's probably something best kept a secret.
|
On September 30 2020 12:43 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 12:36 CorsairHero wrote:On September 30 2020 12:06 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2020 12:03 Mohdoo wrote:Curious how people feel about this on TL: Poll: Should the microphone of who isn't the designated speaker be muted?Yes (35) 78% No (10) 22% 45 total votes Your vote: Should the microphone of who isn't the designated speaker be muted? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No
Absolutely not, let us see these men for who they are. Why not law and order for a debate that has rules? Being an obnoxious asshole who doesn't let other people speak does reveal something about a man, but it's probably something best kept a secret. Exactly, which is why his choice to act in such a manner revealed more about character than him pretending to be civil would. It's his right to make a fool of himself, let them say what they want.
|
On September 30 2020 12:48 NrG.Bamboo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 12:43 NewSunshine wrote:On September 30 2020 12:36 CorsairHero wrote:On September 30 2020 12:06 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2020 12:03 Mohdoo wrote:Curious how people feel about this on TL: Poll: Should the microphone of who isn't the designated speaker be muted?Yes (35) 78% No (10) 22% 45 total votes Your vote: Should the microphone of who isn't the designated speaker be muted? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No
Absolutely not, let us see these men for who they are. Why not law and order for a debate that has rules? Being an obnoxious asshole who doesn't let other people speak does reveal something about a man, but it's probably something best kept a secret. Exactly, which is why his choice to act in such a manner revealed more about character than him pretending to be civil would. It's his right to make a fool of himself, let them say what they want.
That's been on prominent display for four years though... nothing to "reveal" there. I was very depressed at how fumbling Biden seemed, it was really his time to reveal something. I wish we had someone young and sharp rather than this appeal to going back to pre-Trump business as usual. But sadly this is the choice we get because Trump has to go.
|
It's his right to make an ass of himself, but the moderator of a debate should have the power to actually moderate the conversation in turn so the other person can participate in the debate. If there is going to be any value in the debates, there needs to be a mechanism for someone to get a word in when it's their turn to respond to a question or point. Period.
|
On September 30 2020 12:06 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 12:03 Mohdoo wrote:Curious how people feel about this on TL: Poll: Should the microphone of who isn't the designated speaker be muted?Yes (35) 78% No (10) 22% 45 total votes Your vote: Should the microphone of who isn't the designated speaker be muted? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No
Absolutely not, let us see these men for who they are. Part of me thinks each side should have a button which mutes opposition for up to 20 seconds, with 3 charges.
Would be hilarious, and strategic use of the mute button to either interrupt the opponent while they're making a point, or shutting them up to get your point across could be a fun change.
|
We're very far from a point where the entertainment value of the debates should be a primary concern.
|
Trump touting law and order while breaking every rule, and just after the tax info was hilarious. Biden was right albeit cheesy to say only with Justice.
Trump had the memorable bad moments, Biden had the memorable lines and better close. If drone is right and this was for the 8% I cant imagine what Trump would have done to impress them.
He did lock down the far right white supremacist vote with the shout out though.
|
The most immediate polling on the debate results suggest Biden ended up the winner. Comparing Trump's debates against Hillary, he didn't do that much better against Biden. Polling showed that Trump was expected to win, so Biden must have really outperformed expectations. Apparently Trump's rhetoric and bluster didn't play so well outside of his baseline, people are mostly blaming him for the lack of decorum and I guess Biden's favourability advantage and appeals to the viewers paid off even with a dull showing.
CBS + Show Spoiler +
CNN + Show Spoiler +
Data Progress: Biden 51% (+11) - Trump 39%
The poll that best represents how we all feel after that travesty + Show Spoiler +
Looooool. This was actually a better than expected day for Biden maybe.
|
clown fiesta, they were both terrible
truly embarrassing to watch
|
How did the Debate make you feel?
Annoyed 69% Entertained 31% Pessimistic 19% Informed 17% + Show Spoiler +
|
On September 30 2020 13:18 JimmiC wrote: Trump touting law and order while breaking every rule, and just after the tax info was hilarious. Biden was right albeit cheesy to say only with Justice.
Trump had the memorable bad moments, Biden had the memorable lines and better close. If drone is right and this was for the 8% I cant imagine what Trump would have done to impress them.
He did lock down the far right white supremacist vote with the shout out though.
Which is barely anybody. This past weekend in Portland, the proud boys were apparently going to show up with “10K” strong and terrorize Portland. Only 200 or so showed up, from across the country mind you, multiple of them got arrested, and/or fined. The counter protests were in the thousands. Their little “attack” on Portland literally fizzled immediately.
|
Would be interesting to see some level headed thoughts after people go to sleep and have the chance to analyze this debate again. I don't know what to think!
|
i just watched some "highlights" of the debate and i was honestly laughing for a good minute because the whole thing was a joke. then i realised it wasnt funny at all, its just incredibly sad and pathetic that the "leader of the free world" has become a circus. america needs to take a good long look at themselves for being unable to produce a better candidate and a better president. what an absolute farce
|
On September 30 2020 14:52 evilfatsh1t wrote: i just watched some "highlights" of the debate and i was honestly laughing for a good minute because the whole thing was a joke. then i realised it wasnt funny at all, its just incredibly sad and pathetic that the "leader of the free world" has become a circus. america needs to take a good long look at themselves for being unable to produce a better candidate and a better president. what an absolute farce
America and introspection have never mixed well
|
On September 30 2020 14:52 evilfatsh1t wrote: i just watched some "highlights" of the debate and i was honestly laughing for a good minute because the whole thing was a joke. then i realised it wasnt funny at all, its just incredibly sad and pathetic that the "leader of the free world" has become a circus. america needs to take a good long look at themselves for being unable to produce a better candidate and a better president. what an absolute farce
Yeah the (cultural) damage accrued by that crazy Trump ride are vast. As with all good things, you will mainly miss them when they are gone. Conversely you are ok with all that and saying "WORTH IT".
Well, let's keep your fingers crossed Nov. 3rd will show a clear path forward.
|
|
Well this was indeed quiet disapointing but it is what it is. Trump is a weaker then in 2016 vs hillary as someone else already said,both kinda did look like the old man that they both are but biden did quiet a bit better then i did expect. Overall this debate probably didnt change much for most of the voters.
The mike,s i think should not be muted but maybe the debate leader should have the option to mute a mike. There should be an option for interuption,that imo is kinda essantial in debates.
Harris vs pence should be a lot better and i do expect harris to "win" with a huge margin. In the end most people watch the debate from their own perspective. Republican voters will think their candidate did fine and the democrats will think the same about their candidate. Harris should do far better then pence when it comes to apealing to the still undecided voters though,if only because she is younger. 3 old man and a relatively young women,she will look good and apeal to the people in the centre who are still undecided. Undecided i think are still quiet a few people even though i have read analyzis which claim undecided is only a very small group.
Biden i think will win the election and i doubt i will have to change that opinion again. From here on the epidemic will get worse towards the election,a vaccine might be announced but that will be far to late to really make an impact. Trump winning would be far worse for the polarization in the country then biden winning and i dont see how anyone would benefit from that,the republicans got their judges so it wouldnt be the end of the world for them i guess.
|
On September 30 2020 17:04 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 12:14 Starlightsun wrote:On September 30 2020 12:10 Mohdoo wrote:On September 30 2020 12:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: CNN accurately referred to this debate as a shitshow. Does anyone disagree that the debate being a shitshow is anything other than a huge win for Biden? I do. Biden made a very disappointing showing. Nobody expected Biden to do well.He came off as weak.Imagine him doing deals with world leaders in his current state? not going to happen.
Unlike Trump I trust that Biden will make use of experienced diplomats and our state apparatus rather than try to singlehandedly "make deals". For all Trump's bluster he has been incredibly soft towards both dictators abroad and domestic terrorists in our own country that belong to his base.
|
All this makes me think, that the USA realy should reform their election process. It is pretty much unchanged for hundreds of years and needs a serious overhaul. The german democracy was implemented after WW2 and his way more thought out and gives a single person way less power. (For example our equivalent for the supreme court isn t appointed by the chancelor and they don t serve untill they die) Disclaimer: didn t see more than 5 second clips from the debate, but from what I ve read here, both options are pretty bad for the voters.
|
Theres no real incentive for those in power to change our election system though, I mean Lesser of Two Evilism keeps mediocre Democrats like Biden in power, and Republicans are generally looking to suffer from anything where they cant rely heavily on a loyal base.
Unfortunately I don't think we're going to see any real changes to the way the US operates. The US is operating more or less as the people in power want it to, and wresting power from them is just not going to happen without some sort of serious breakpoint that probably would mean violence.
|
Once again, those debates are the most useless shit ever. The moderators have to fact check and keep in line the candidates. 4 years later, clowns are clowning. This is a fucking joke
|
Genuine question: do you see Trump as "strong"?
|
On September 30 2020 12:00 vult wrote: Confiscating his mic would be shown as a liberal gag-order. An argument only accepted by his cult followers, who will never change anyway. Its not relevant.
On September 30 2020 12:43 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 12:36 CorsairHero wrote:On September 30 2020 12:06 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2020 12:03 Mohdoo wrote:Curious how people feel about this on TL: Poll: Should the microphone of who isn't the designated speaker be muted?Yes (35) 78% No (10) 22% 45 total votes Your vote: Should the microphone of who isn't the designated speaker be muted? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No
Absolutely not, let us see these men for who they are. Why not law and order for a debate that has rules? Wondering the same thing. Why can't a presidential debate be focused on the content of ideas and ability to express oneself, like a normal debate, instead of focusing on which one can shout everyone down the most? Sounds like the best way to see them for who they are in my book. Being an obnoxious asshole who doesn't let other people speak does reveal something about a man, but it's probably something best kept a secret. Because this is America and American voters evidently don't care about policy and the content of idea's. I thought we learned that the hard way 4 years ago.
|
On September 30 2020 17:37 Zambrah wrote: Theres no real incentive for those in power to change our election system though, I mean Lesser of Two Evilism keeps mediocre Democrats like Biden in power, and Republicans are generally looking to suffer from anything where they cant rely heavily on a loyal base.
Unfortunately I don't think we're going to see any real changes to the way the US operates. The US is operating more or less as the people in power want it to, and wresting power from them is just not going to happen without some sort of serious breakpoint that probably would mean violence.
Pretty much. Even if Biden wins there's no way for him to implement any of his purported policy plans other than the stuff that Republicans want (so nothing good imo).
|
On September 30 2020 12:43 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 12:36 CorsairHero wrote:On September 30 2020 12:06 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2020 12:03 Mohdoo wrote:Curious how people feel about this on TL: Poll: Should the microphone of who isn't the designated speaker be muted?Yes (35) 78% No (10) 22% 45 total votes Your vote: Should the microphone of who isn't the designated speaker be muted? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No
Absolutely not, let us see these men for who they are. Why not law and order for a debate that has rules? Wondering the same thing. Why can't a presidential debate be focused on the content of ideas and ability to express oneself, like a normal debate, instead of focusing on which one can shout everyone down the most? Sounds like the best way to see them for who they are in my book. Being an obnoxious asshole who doesn't let other people speak does reveal something about a man, but it's probably something best kept a secret.
Normally, that should be self-correcting. In a sane world, someone who shouts down the opposition in a debate would be viewed as an idiot whom one shouldn't elect. So politicians wouldn't act that way, because it would be basically conceding the debate.
But for some reason, in the US stuff doesn't work that way. As can be seen that the US managed to elect Donald Trump, the single most obviously unfit person one can imagine.
He is probably not the most unfit ruler in history, because there were some really unfit people when monarchies were all the rage. But he has to be somewhere close to the top there.
|
On September 30 2020 18:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:Genuine question: do you see Trump as "strong"? At least even far leftists can agree, he has united the republican party in a way that it has not been for a long time.He has changed the republican party and has the support of many former democrats in rust belt blue collar areas (hence him winning michigan, PA,WI....) and the support of so many police unions and other unions who were traditionally democrat.
Biden is currently leading a totally broken democrat party split between the declining center & working class (who are going to Trump as seen with unions and aforementioned rust belt working class states) and the radical left led by people like AOC.Democrat party is wholly more fractured than the republican party, who can even argue this point right now?
Nobody here wanted Biden as the nominee.People didn't really even want Harris.Polls here had Sanders well out in front with Gabbard also strong.As far as leading a united party with a clear voice Trump is well in front.Thats why Biden couldn't answer basic questions like will he pack the court or who are his nominees for the court, he has to tread a fine line between radical left and the declining democrat middle and he cannot win that battle.We're watching the rapid decline of the democrat party in action, right now.
|
Here's a pretty cool breakdown of the current polling information between Biden and Trump. Obligatory reminder that polls are probabilistic models and not claims of certainty. In other words, someone with an 80% chance of winning can still lose, just like how it's possible for you to roll a 1 on a standard six-sided die, even though it's less likely than you *not* rolling a 1. TL;DR - Biden is currently winning, but there are still several weeks before the election, things can change, and "currently winning" doesn't equal "guaranteed winner". https://ig.ft.com/us-election-2020/
|
On September 30 2020 19:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 18:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:Genuine question: do you see Trump as "strong"? At least even far leftists can agree, he has united the republican party in a way that it has not been for a long time.He has changed the republican party and has the support of many former democrats in rust belt blue collar areas (hence him winning michigan, PA,WI....) and the support of so many police unions and other unions who were traditionally democrat. Biden is currently leading a totally broken democrat party split between the declining center & working class (who are going to Trump as seen with unions and aforementioned rust belt working class states) and the radical left led by people like AOC.Democrat party is wholly more fractured than the republican party, who can even argue this point right now? Nobody here wanted Biden as the nominee.People didn't really even want Harris.Polls here had Sanders well out in front with Gabbard also strong.As far as leading a united party with a clear voice Trump is well in front.Thats why Biden couldn't answer basic questions like will he pack the court or who are his nominees for the court, he has to tread a fine line between radical left and the declining democrat middle and he cannot win that battle.We're watching the rapid decline of the democrat party in action, right now. Ok but I am asking if you think of Trump as a strong person and leader? I am not trying to corner you, just to understand the psychology of people who support him.
|
On September 30 2020 19:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 18:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:Genuine question: do you see Trump as "strong"? At least even far leftists can agree, he has united the republican party in a way that it has not been for a long time.
Why do you think this? Do his polling numbers regarding Republican support far outweigh support that previous Republican presidents/candidates had within their own party?
Anecdotally, I have at least 3 long-time-conservative friends who just voted all blue, including for Biden, because (in their paraphrased words) Trump doesn't represent their core conservative values and he's made a mockery of their party.
|
Next debate there should be only one microphone and whoever get's a question/speaking time has to move to it. At it'll cut out when the time is over.
|
Norway28241 Posts
On September 30 2020 19:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 19:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 30 2020 18:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:Genuine question: do you see Trump as "strong"? At least even far leftists can agree, he has united the republican party in a way that it has not been for a long time. Why do you think this? Do his polling numbers regarding Republican support far outweigh support that previous Republican presidents/candidates had within their own party? Anecdotally, I have at least 3 long-time-conservative friends who just voted all blue, including for Biden, because (in their paraphrased words) Trump doesn't represent their core conservative values and he's made a mockery of their party.
He has united the republican party through being so repugnant that he pushed out the more moderate conservatives. That is imo quite fair.
|
I just can't imagine being an adult human that can listen to Trump shout and complain on and off for 1.5 hours, and think this is IT right here, this is the person I want to represent me and the county I live in. That's straight bonkers.
|
Trump looked like he actually cared, Biden just stood there as an empty shell saying practiced lines.
But from what I've seen of this shitshow, it looked to me that Biden won this debate, and the whole "shut up man" is blown out of porpotion. He just got tired of Trumps shit
|
On September 30 2020 21:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 19:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 30 2020 19:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 30 2020 18:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:Genuine question: do you see Trump as "strong"? At least even far leftists can agree, he has united the republican party in a way that it has not been for a long time. Why do you think this? Do his polling numbers regarding Republican support far outweigh support that previous Republican presidents/candidates had within their own party? Anecdotally, I have at least 3 long-time-conservative friends who just voted all blue, including for Biden, because (in their paraphrased words) Trump doesn't represent their core conservative values and he's made a mockery of their party. He has united the republican party through being so repugnant that he pushed out the more moderate conservatives. That is imo quite fair.
I feel like that's a tautology / No True Scotsman argument, right? I assume you're being sarcastic lol... of course Trump has the support of his supporters, and of course if we label his dissenters as *not real Republicans*, then no *real Republicans* dissent from him! XD
|
Lol no one "won." That's what everyone is missing here - it's not really about "winning" and "losing" - its about empowering an effective government. Instead of meaningful policy debate we get two people shouting at each other for an hour and a half. It's pretty sad. Americans are dumb, they are satisfied as long as they can scream and froth at the mouth for their favorite sportsball team. Why do you think the NFL, NBA etc are so successful? It doesn't matter which team you support, it all supports the organization. Similarly - the electorate doesn't really care about having a legitimate government as long as they can frenzy the populace enough to get paid. There is no meaningful policy, it's just a few intellectuals clawing to keep basic human rights above water while everyone else loads their pockets with gold.
On a related note, TL.net is a pretty international community, anyone have any immigration advice? Thanks!
|
On September 30 2020 22:08 Timebon3s wrote: Trump looked like he actually cared, Biden just stood there as an empty shell saying practiced lines.
I think Trump "cared" that he's facing possible jail time if he doesn't win. He struck me as a scared and desperate man with his back to the wall. I do agree that Biden's platitudes felt hollow, but not that he's an empty shell. He seemed genuinely pained at various points, especially when Trump kept going after his sons.
|
On September 30 2020 19:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 18:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:Genuine question: do you see Trump as "strong"? At least even far leftists can agree, he has united the republican party in a way that it has not been for a long time.
What?
No, I can't agree. The republican party is far right, it's always united behind its leader, that's super easy to do. Trump had difficulty doing it, which is a sign of weakness.
|
You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it. Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump.
|
On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote: You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it. Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump.
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.
EDIT 2: Biden's behaviour during the debate was also a bit shonky, too. There were MANY points where he'd find the camera, ignoring at that point whatever the question was, and address the American people (urging them to go out and vote) rather than answering the question asked or facing his opponent. Not once during the debate did I see Trump do that. Biden practically did it every time he or his son Hunter wasn't being attacked by Trump or didn't have a coherent answer to something he was being asked. I feel like it's also in a way disrepectful to the debate, just in a less in-your-face way.
|
On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote: You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it. Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. 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.
|
On September 30 2020 19:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 19:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 30 2020 18:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:Genuine question: do you see Trump as "strong"? At least even far leftists can agree, he has united the republican party in a way that it has not been for a long time.He has changed the republican party and has the support of many former democrats in rust belt blue collar areas (hence him winning michigan, PA,WI....) and the support of so many police unions and other unions who were traditionally democrat. Biden is currently leading a totally broken democrat party split between the declining center & working class (who are going to Trump as seen with unions and aforementioned rust belt working class states) and the radical left led by people like AOC.Democrat party is wholly more fractured than the republican party, who can even argue this point right now? Nobody here wanted Biden as the nominee.People didn't really even want Harris.Polls here had Sanders well out in front with Gabbard also strong.As far as leading a united party with a clear voice Trump is well in front.Thats why Biden couldn't answer basic questions like will he pack the court or who are his nominees for the court, he has to tread a fine line between radical left and the declining democrat middle and he cannot win that battle.We're watching the rapid decline of the democrat party in action, right now. Ok but I am asking if you think of Trump as a strong person and leader? I am not trying to corner you, just to understand the psychology of people who support him. Of course, since he's the first western leader that has truly stood up to China. We're talking about a country that harvests organs from prisoners and practitioners of Falun Gong, To go along with the millions of Uyghur Muslims in concentration camps, re-education centers, forced sterilizations. And I'm thankful that we can talk about that here cos you sure can't on Reddit.
Biden has been in politics 47 years, from my perspective the US has gone backwards substantially in that time.The United States hasn't run a trade surplus since 1975.China joined the WTO during the Bush Jr administration (2001/02) and this is when the trade deficit with China started exploding higher and China started to truly expand as an economy.Trump may not even be able to fix these issues at this time, could be too late, but at least he's trying with tarriffs, with deals, he can admit it's actually an issue.
Can you see there is an issue with the trade situation and with how China operates at the very least? The human rights abuses? What did Biden do in his 47 years to try counter that? What is so hard to understand that things are seriously wrong and bringing in some guy that has been in politics 47 years won't help that.Help me out here.
Would you be willing to entertain the theory that there are people that work against the best interests of their country for financial gain from other nations? It's really not a stretch.
|
Norway28241 Posts
|
On September 30 2020 23:33 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote: You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it. Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. 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?
|
On September 30 2020 23:36 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 19:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 30 2020 19:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 30 2020 18:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:Genuine question: do you see Trump as "strong"? At least even far leftists can agree, he has united the republican party in a way that it has not been for a long time.He has changed the republican party and has the support of many former democrats in rust belt blue collar areas (hence him winning michigan, PA,WI....) and the support of so many police unions and other unions who were traditionally democrat. Biden is currently leading a totally broken democrat party split between the declining center & working class (who are going to Trump as seen with unions and aforementioned rust belt working class states) and the radical left led by people like AOC.Democrat party is wholly more fractured than the republican party, who can even argue this point right now? Nobody here wanted Biden as the nominee.People didn't really even want Harris.Polls here had Sanders well out in front with Gabbard also strong.As far as leading a united party with a clear voice Trump is well in front.Thats why Biden couldn't answer basic questions like will he pack the court or who are his nominees for the court, he has to tread a fine line between radical left and the declining democrat middle and he cannot win that battle.We're watching the rapid decline of the democrat party in action, right now. Ok but I am asking if you think of Trump as a strong person and leader? I am not trying to corner you, just to understand the psychology of people who support him. Of course, since he's the first western leader that has truly stood up to China. We're talking about a country that harvests organs from prisoners and practitioners of Falun Gong, To go along with the millions of Uyghur Muslims in concentration camps, re-education centers, forced sterilizations. And I'm thankful that we can talk about that here cos you sure can't on Reddit. Biden has been in politics 47 years, from my perspective the US has gone backwards substantially in that time.The United States hasn't run a trade surplus since 1975.China joined the WTO during the Bush Jr administration (2001/02) and this is when the trade deficit with China started exploding higher and China started to truly expand as an economy.Trump may not even be able to fix these issues at this time, could be too late, but at least he's trying with tarriffs, with deals, he can admit it's actually an issue. Can you see there is an issue with the trade situation and with how China operates at the very least? The human rights abuses? What did Biden do in his 47 years to try counter that? What is so hard to understand that things are seriously wrong and bringing in some guy that has been in politics 47 years won't help that.Help me out here. Would you be willing to entertain the theory that there are people that work against the best interests of their country for financial gain from other nations? It's really not a stretch. Thanks but I am not talking about Biden and not talking about specifics of foreign policy. I am asking whether you see that man, as a person and a leader as strong.
I ask because from my perspective he is the incarnation of weakness. And I wonder how people who vote for him see him as a strong person, if they do. That genuinely eludes me.
|
On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote: You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it. Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. 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. EDIT 2: Biden's behaviour during the debate was also a bit shonky, too. There were MANY points where he'd find the camera, ignoring at that point whatever the question was, and address the American people (urging them to go out and vote) rather than answering the question asked or facing his opponent. Not once during the debate did I see Trump do that. Biden practically did it every time he or his son Hunter wasn't being attacked by Trump or didn't have a coherent answer to something he was being asked. I feel like it's also in a way disrepectful to the debate, just in a less in-your-face way. XD 1 Pointing out racism isn't hating America, it's trying to better it. 2 Trump has been cuddling white supremacists since he tried to be elected 3 Your lack of information on the Proud Boys tell me you're not informed 4 As Chris Wallace said, they are free to use their time as they well please. So if you find Biden disrespectful when hes trying to speak to americans, in a live debate, you have a poor understanding of what a debate should be.
|
Those tweets really made me smile. I think the difference in lenience with misbehaviour between sexes is overlooked in politics.
That being said, I don't think we are too harsh with women, just that we are not nearly harsh enough with men. If a woman politician behaved like Trump, people would say she is a hysterical toddler that throws tantrum after tantrum, and they would be right. And saying "will you shut up" should not be acceptable at that level of politics, although Biden wasn't left with much of a choice.
|
On September 30 2020 23:36 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 19:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 30 2020 19:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 30 2020 18:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:Genuine question: do you see Trump as "strong"? At least even far leftists can agree, he has united the republican party in a way that it has not been for a long time.He has changed the republican party and has the support of many former democrats in rust belt blue collar areas (hence him winning michigan, PA,WI....) and the support of so many police unions and other unions who were traditionally democrat. Biden is currently leading a totally broken democrat party split between the declining center & working class (who are going to Trump as seen with unions and aforementioned rust belt working class states) and the radical left led by people like AOC.Democrat party is wholly more fractured than the republican party, who can even argue this point right now? Nobody here wanted Biden as the nominee.People didn't really even want Harris.Polls here had Sanders well out in front with Gabbard also strong.As far as leading a united party with a clear voice Trump is well in front.Thats why Biden couldn't answer basic questions like will he pack the court or who are his nominees for the court, he has to tread a fine line between radical left and the declining democrat middle and he cannot win that battle.We're watching the rapid decline of the democrat party in action, right now. Ok but I am asking if you think of Trump as a strong person and leader? I am not trying to corner you, just to understand the psychology of people who support him. Of course, since he's the first western leader that has truly stood up to China. We're talking about a country that harvests organs from prisoners and practitioners of Falun Gong, To go along with the millions of Uyghur Muslims in concentration camps, re-education centers, forced sterilizations. And I'm thankful that we can talk about that here cos you sure can't on Reddit. Biden has been in politics 47 years, from my perspective the US has gone backwards substantially in that time.The United States hasn't run a trade surplus since 1975.China joined the WTO during the Bush Jr administration (2001/02) and this is when the trade deficit with China started exploding higher and China started to truly expand as an economy.Trump may not even be able to fix these issues at this time, could be too late, but at least he's trying with tarriffs, with deals, he can admit it's actually an issue. Can you see there is an issue with the trade situation and with how China operates at the very least? The human rights abuses? What did Biden do in his 47 years to try counter that? What is so hard to understand that things are seriously wrong and bringing in some guy that has been in politics 47 years won't help that.Help me out here.
We've gone further backwards in terms of policy in the past 4 years under 45 than we have progressed since The Great Depression, sure. What, exactly, has 45 done to stand up to China? Besides saying "I'm tough on China" can you name any effective or relevant sanctions or measures that 45 has taken that have effectively stymied any of the things that you described?
45 is explicitly racist - racism is not a good leadership quality 45 is incomprehensibly stupid - leaders should at least be within the realm of understandable idiocy 45 is a pathological liar - leaders should generally be truthful to their people 45 is an incompetent businessman - leaders should be financially responsible 45 is a rampaging narcissist - leaders should at least be able to put up a minor resistance to flattery
Biden is a kind of bumbling older man from the Democratic establishment. He is, at best, a mediocre presidential candidate. 45 is a dumpster fire. I don't want either of these people as a leader. I want an intellectual progressive to be the leader - you know, someone with a brain, and actual meaningful ideas about ways to improve the Social Contract and the relationship between people and their representation in order to more align with the individual's desires. To promote individual freedom. I don't want to sit here arguing about shit that was well and truly hammered out in the 1700s. That's why I'm going to leave the country after I vote for Biden. I'm going to assume since you are from Australia, you just don't know what's going on here. Basically, you are voting between two people, one of whom is ACTUALLY HITLER, and you are like "oh I dunno, the other guy hasn't done much in his 47 years in politics." If that's a choice you have to question.... well Australia is not on my list, soooo. Maybe that's why.
|
Northern Ireland20514 Posts
On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote: You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it. Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. 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. EDIT 2: Biden's behaviour during the debate was also a bit shonky, too. There were MANY points where he'd find the camera, ignoring at that point whatever the question was, and address the American people (urging them to go out and vote) rather than answering the question asked or facing his opponent. Not once during the debate did I see Trump do that. Biden practically did it every time he or his son Hunter wasn't being attacked by Trump or didn't have a coherent answer to something he was being asked. I feel like it's also in a way disrepectful to the debate, just in a less in-your-face way. Where’s the shame? I literally don’t understand this.
I don’t feel any shame in being white, while simultaneously I’m able to accept it’s pretty advantageous in certain ways. Likewise wealth doesn’t invalidate one’s own accomplishments, but it may mean somebody else with equivalent ones from a poor background may have had to work that much harder than you.
It’s about being cognisant of these factors, not being ashamed of your own identity signifiers.
On the inverse side of being white and a guy, which is kind of handy, I’m also bipolar and have medical difficulties that other people simply don’t have. I’m not envious or jealous of the accomplishments of others without that hurdle, but equally others being sensitive to mine and making adjustments helps greatly.
|
1. Using an unarguably bad thing as a foot in the door for indoctrinating people into socialism can be construed as hating America. Just because a person disagrees with the socialist indoctrination aspect, does not mean they are inherently racist. Communism-phobic? Perhaps. 2. How? 3. It should tell you I'm not American. 4. When I'm sitting there wanting to hear an answer to the question asked, I feel it is disrespectful to not answer and effectively spend the time for bullshit. It's a matter of perspective.
|
On October 01 2020 00:00 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote: You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it. Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. 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. EDIT 2: Biden's behaviour during the debate was also a bit shonky, too. There were MANY points where he'd find the camera, ignoring at that point whatever the question was, and address the American people (urging them to go out and vote) rather than answering the question asked or facing his opponent. Not once during the debate did I see Trump do that. Biden practically did it every time he or his son Hunter wasn't being attacked by Trump or didn't have a coherent answer to something he was being asked. I feel like it's also in a way disrepectful to the debate, just in a less in-your-face way. Where’s the shame? I literally don’t understand this. I don’t feel any shame in being white, while simultaneously I’m able to accept it’s pretty advantageous in certain ways. Likewise wealth doesn’t invalidate one’s own accomplishments, but it may mean somebody else with equivalent ones from a poor background may have had to work that much harder than you. It’s about being cognisant of these factors, not being ashamed of your own identity signifiers. On the inverse side of being white and a guy, which is kind of handy, I’m also bipolar and have medical difficulties that other people simply don’t have. I’m not envious or jealous of the accomplishments of others without that hurdle, but equally others being sensitive to mine and making adjustments helps greatly.
My point is nobody should be made to be ashamed of their ethnicity. Labelling someone as a racist piece of shit (which happens to people who have a Trump sign on their lawn or a MAGA hat) and expecting a dialogue past that is the definition of high hopes.
|
Too peoples problems with diversity training, it is like any training. It can be done really well, and it can be done extremely poorly. You have a lot of factors, effort, skill of trainer, willingness of participants and the program itself. Making a broad stroke comment about it just shows ignorance.
As to Trump and the proud boys, I think at this point it is clear he is a straight up racist. Because of his lack of intellect he does not seem to understand that a big part of "dog whistle" is to have plausible deniability. There are meant to be people who use it who are not racist but do not know, and there are people who do it to piss off the libs by being like "what are you talking about". Think All lives matter, when people first here the slogan they are like "yeah, that is nice" or someone attempting to trigger people can say "what you don't think Chinese peoples lives matter?" or whatever. Or it is complex, like the number 88 or others where when someone is trying to explain how it is racist they either lose their audience or it looks to complex to be true.
Now Trump telling the Proud boys to "stand back and stand by" is him basically acting like their leader. And the obvious question is what does he want them to stand by. As Drone points out this is a clear violent hate group. So the only thing you can be asking them is to be ready to enact violence on the undesirables if I lose. This one is unspinnable and not defensible.
As Mohdoo points out, gladly the proud boys don't have nearly as much support as they would like people to believe. But they are awful, same category as the KKK and Nazis. To proudly give them a shoutout during a national debate with ZERO subtly.
For all those wondering how a guy can lose all daddies money when he was set up with large amounts of New York City real-estate before a number of massive booms. Well, he is so dumb he can't even get dog whistling right.
|
On October 01 2020 00:06 dUTtrOACh wrote: 1. Using an unarguably bad thing as a foot in the door for indoctrinating people into socialism can be construed as hating America. Just because a person disagrees with the socialist indoctrination aspect, does not mean they are inherently racist. Communism-phobic? Perhaps.
I didn't watch the whole debate so I have no idea what you guys are talking about. But as a radical socialist, I am interested, of course. Can I get some cliff notes?
|
On October 01 2020 00:06 dUTtrOACh wrote: 1. Using an unarguably bad thing as a foot in the door for indoctrinating people into socialism can be construed as hating America. Just because a person disagrees with the socialist indoctrination aspect, does not mean they are inherently racist. Communism-phobic? Perhaps. 2. How? 3. It should tell you I'm not American. 4. When I'm sitting there wanting to hear an answer to the question asked, I feel it is disrespectful to not answer and effectively spend the time for bullshit. It's a matter of perspective. You're gonna have to explain to me how you go from racism = bad to communism. The issue is not you not being american, it's you assuming you can listen to Trump while being uninformed. Trump has dozens of tweets defending white supremacists. I'm gonna take an example that happened quite literally a week ago, when he used the race horse theory to pander to his crowd, warning them that "bad people with bad genes" are coming to get them. Or "Proud Boys stand down and stand by". You want me to give it straight with no bullshit ? Anytime you listen to Trump, you need to fact check. Because he lies on and on and on.
|
On October 01 2020 00:08 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 00:00 WombaT wrote:On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote: You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it. Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. 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. EDIT 2: Biden's behaviour during the debate was also a bit shonky, too. There were MANY points where he'd find the camera, ignoring at that point whatever the question was, and address the American people (urging them to go out and vote) rather than answering the question asked or facing his opponent. Not once during the debate did I see Trump do that. Biden practically did it every time he or his son Hunter wasn't being attacked by Trump or didn't have a coherent answer to something he was being asked. I feel like it's also in a way disrepectful to the debate, just in a less in-your-face way. Where’s the shame? I literally don’t understand this. I don’t feel any shame in being white, while simultaneously I’m able to accept it’s pretty advantageous in certain ways. Likewise wealth doesn’t invalidate one’s own accomplishments, but it may mean somebody else with equivalent ones from a poor background may have had to work that much harder than you. It’s about being cognisant of these factors, not being ashamed of your own identity signifiers. On the inverse side of being white and a guy, which is kind of handy, I’m also bipolar and have medical difficulties that other people simply don’t have. I’m not envious or jealous of the accomplishments of others without that hurdle, but equally others being sensitive to mine and making adjustments helps greatly. My point is nobody should be made to be ashamed of their ethnicity. Labelling someone as a racist piece of shit (which happens to people who have a Trump sign on their lawn or a MAGA hat) and expecting a dialogue past that is the definition of high hopes.
Wearing a MAGA hat or having a Trump sign on your lawn are not ethnicities.
|
On October 01 2020 00:08 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 00:00 WombaT wrote:On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote: You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it. Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. 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. EDIT 2: Biden's behaviour during the debate was also a bit shonky, too. There were MANY points where he'd find the camera, ignoring at that point whatever the question was, and address the American people (urging them to go out and vote) rather than answering the question asked or facing his opponent. Not once during the debate did I see Trump do that. Biden practically did it every time he or his son Hunter wasn't being attacked by Trump or didn't have a coherent answer to something he was being asked. I feel like it's also in a way disrepectful to the debate, just in a less in-your-face way. Where’s the shame? I literally don’t understand this. I don’t feel any shame in being white, while simultaneously I’m able to accept it’s pretty advantageous in certain ways. Likewise wealth doesn’t invalidate one’s own accomplishments, but it may mean somebody else with equivalent ones from a poor background may have had to work that much harder than you. It’s about being cognisant of these factors, not being ashamed of your own identity signifiers. On the inverse side of being white and a guy, which is kind of handy, I’m also bipolar and have medical difficulties that other people simply don’t have. I’m not envious or jealous of the accomplishments of others without that hurdle, but equally others being sensitive to mine and making adjustments helps greatly. My point is nobody should be made to be ashamed of their ethnicity. Labelling someone as a racist piece of shit (which happens to people who have a Trump sign on their lawn or a MAGA hat) and expecting a dialogue past that is the definition of high hopes. How do you call people with a "pol pot" sign on their lawn ? If it walks and talks like a duck, chances are it's a duck. You want people to not think you're a racist piece of shit ? Stop following one, it's that easy. You're either a troll, or wildly uninformed.
|
Northern Ireland20514 Posts
On October 01 2020 00:08 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 00:00 WombaT wrote:On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote: You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it. Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. 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. EDIT 2: Biden's behaviour during the debate was also a bit shonky, too. There were MANY points where he'd find the camera, ignoring at that point whatever the question was, and address the American people (urging them to go out and vote) rather than answering the question asked or facing his opponent. Not once during the debate did I see Trump do that. Biden practically did it every time he or his son Hunter wasn't being attacked by Trump or didn't have a coherent answer to something he was being asked. I feel like it's also in a way disrepectful to the debate, just in a less in-your-face way. Where’s the shame? I literally don’t understand this. I don’t feel any shame in being white, while simultaneously I’m able to accept it’s pretty advantageous in certain ways. Likewise wealth doesn’t invalidate one’s own accomplishments, but it may mean somebody else with equivalent ones from a poor background may have had to work that much harder than you. It’s about being cognisant of these factors, not being ashamed of your own identity signifiers. On the inverse side of being white and a guy, which is kind of handy, I’m also bipolar and have medical difficulties that other people simply don’t have. I’m not envious or jealous of the accomplishments of others without that hurdle, but equally others being sensitive to mine and making adjustments helps greatly. My point is nobody should be made to be ashamed of their ethnicity. Labelling someone as a racist piece of shit (which happens to people who have a Trump sign on their lawn or a MAGA hat) and expecting a dialogue past that is the definition of high hopes. Support a racist/racist enabler and oh noes people might think you’re a racist, how awful.
The conservative framing of ideas like white privilege equivocates it with original sin, when it really isn’t the case at all.
Original sin is something inalienable, inescapable, something innate. Accepting you have a societal leg up and (ideally) acting in a way to neuter that leg up for others isn’t at all conferring fault on you as a person based on your innate racial characteristics.
|
On October 01 2020 00:08 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 00:00 WombaT wrote:On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote: You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it. Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. 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. EDIT 2: Biden's behaviour during the debate was also a bit shonky, too. There were MANY points where he'd find the camera, ignoring at that point whatever the question was, and address the American people (urging them to go out and vote) rather than answering the question asked or facing his opponent. Not once during the debate did I see Trump do that. Biden practically did it every time he or his son Hunter wasn't being attacked by Trump or didn't have a coherent answer to something he was being asked. I feel like it's also in a way disrepectful to the debate, just in a less in-your-face way. Where’s the shame? I literally don’t understand this. I don’t feel any shame in being white, while simultaneously I’m able to accept it’s pretty advantageous in certain ways. Likewise wealth doesn’t invalidate one’s own accomplishments, but it may mean somebody else with equivalent ones from a poor background may have had to work that much harder than you. It’s about being cognisant of these factors, not being ashamed of your own identity signifiers. On the inverse side of being white and a guy, which is kind of handy, I’m also bipolar and have medical difficulties that other people simply don’t have. I’m not envious or jealous of the accomplishments of others without that hurdle, but equally others being sensitive to mine and making adjustments helps greatly. My point is nobody should be made to be ashamed of their ethnicity. Labelling someone as a racist piece of shit (which happens to people who have a Trump sign on their lawn or a MAGA hat) and expecting a dialogue past that is the definition of high hopes. Don't support an openly racist politician if you don't want to be bundled up with his racist beliefs? It's really not difficult.
|
On September 30 2020 23:50 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 23:33 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote: You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it. Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. 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).
|
On October 01 2020 00:21 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 23:50 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 23:33 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote: You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it. Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. 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?
|
On October 01 2020 00:21 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 23:50 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 23:33 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote: You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it. Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. 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).
What's a 45?
|
On October 01 2020 00:16 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 00:08 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 00:00 WombaT wrote:On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote: You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it. Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. 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. EDIT 2: Biden's behaviour during the debate was also a bit shonky, too. There were MANY points where he'd find the camera, ignoring at that point whatever the question was, and address the American people (urging them to go out and vote) rather than answering the question asked or facing his opponent. Not once during the debate did I see Trump do that. Biden practically did it every time he or his son Hunter wasn't being attacked by Trump or didn't have a coherent answer to something he was being asked. I feel like it's also in a way disrepectful to the debate, just in a less in-your-face way. Where’s the shame? I literally don’t understand this. I don’t feel any shame in being white, while simultaneously I’m able to accept it’s pretty advantageous in certain ways. Likewise wealth doesn’t invalidate one’s own accomplishments, but it may mean somebody else with equivalent ones from a poor background may have had to work that much harder than you. It’s about being cognisant of these factors, not being ashamed of your own identity signifiers. On the inverse side of being white and a guy, which is kind of handy, I’m also bipolar and have medical difficulties that other people simply don’t have. I’m not envious or jealous of the accomplishments of others without that hurdle, but equally others being sensitive to mine and making adjustments helps greatly. My point is nobody should be made to be ashamed of their ethnicity. Labelling someone as a racist piece of shit (which happens to people who have a Trump sign on their lawn or a MAGA hat) and expecting a dialogue past that is the definition of high hopes. Support a racist/racist enabler and oh noes people might think you’re a racist, how awful. The conservative framing of ideas like white privilege equivocates it with original sin, when it really isn’t the case at all. Original sin is something inalienable, inescapable, something innate. Accepting you have a societal leg up and (ideally) acting in a way to neuter that leg up for others isn’t at all conferring fault on you as a person based on your innate racial characteristics.
The best-selling popularizers of a certain strand of antiracism do make racism into something very much like “original sin.” Yeah maybe “white privilege” can be distinguished from that, but it’s not wrong to say that there is a popular strand of antiracism that mixes up an odd blend of neoplatonism (a fallen world and an unreachable ideal), evangelical awakening, and racialized communism (racial inequalities matter more than non-racial inequalities). And its popular because its proselytizers are the most willing to come do a workshop at your business or agency for a large fee.
|
On October 01 2020 00:58 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +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:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote: You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it. Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. 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). What's a 45?
45 is Trump (45th PotUS)
|
On October 01 2020 00:34 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +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:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote: You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it. Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. 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.
|
On October 01 2020 01:00 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 00:58 Sbrubbles 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:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote: You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it. Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. 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). What's a 45? 45 is Trump (45th PotUS)
Ah, ok. Is calling a president by his position an actual thing in the US, or this an attempt to disempower his name?
|
United States97245 Posts
On October 01 2020 01:05 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 01:00 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 00:58 Sbrubbles 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:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote: You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it. Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. 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). What's a 45? 45 is Trump (45th PotUS) Ah, ok. Is calling a president by his position an actual thing in the US, or this an attempt to disempower his name? It’s an actual thing. His supporters refer to him as 45 sometimes too. I know some that exclusively refer to him as 45
|
On October 01 2020 01:04 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +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:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote: You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it. Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. 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?
|
On October 01 2020 01:08 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +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:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote: You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it. Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. 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?
I doubt the KKK would support a candidate who was not white.
|
On October 01 2020 01:08 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +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:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote: You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it. Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. 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.
|
But apparently Trump > Biden cuz Chyna? :D
|
I find the China stuff odd, because everything I have read the trade deficit with China is growing. I mean I guess it is classic Trump stuff that people believe the bluster and don't look into the results. They are also being way more aggressive militarily, whether that is with Taiwan, the Indian border and so on.
If you were going to go with a results based look, why is Trump "beating" or doing better against China?
I also though calling Covid the Chinese Plague was a interesting choice. It appears he has decided that playing it down as just a cold or as the flu was a mistake so now he is playing up the danger but trying to keep deflecting the blame to China. I also thought it was poor strategy to claim "Biden would have done worse" since it is more or less accepting that he did awful. Generally you hear about what a tremendous job he is doing better than any president in history, this was a pretty dramatic change for him.
|
On October 01 2020 01:04 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +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:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote: You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it. Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. 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. And also the power of literally telling them to stand by and watch the polling places on his behalf. Strong condemnation from a strongman.
|
On October 01 2020 01:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +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:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote: You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it. Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. 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.
|
Having generational wealth isn't a crime.
Maybe it needs to be made one?
|
Is there a "who do you think won" poll somewhere in this thread?
|
On October 01 2020 02:05 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +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:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote: You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it. Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. 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.
|
Trump has not united the republican party in any real way let alone the most out of anyone for a long long long while. Hes cetinly got a lot of racists and reactionaries out of the basement but he's failed to do anything about the libertarian problem and a lot of more moderate George bush republicans are only holding on for what he does for judges and a distrust/dislike for the other side.
George Bush united the Republican party into a machine that couldn't be denied. It may have been the last gasp of the Nixon-Reagon GOP machine but he made people proud to be republican in a way Obama made people proud to be democrat. George Bush was even prying the Hispanic vote away from democrats that would have made future elections very interesting if Obama didn't come next.
|
On October 01 2020 02:16 Sent. wrote: Is there a "who do you think won" poll somewhere in this thread? I could have sworn I made one, but now I don't see it.
Poll: Who won?Both lost along with America (22) 69% Biden won (8) 25% Trump won (2) 6% Wallace won (0) 0% 32 total votes You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Trump won ☐ Biden won ☐ Both lost along with America ☐ Wallace won
|
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?
|
Norway28241 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.
|
I'm glad Biden said Antifa is an idea, not an organization. Its a message that the vast majority of politicians and the media can't seem to get their head around.
|
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.
I hope so. In a debate, the most powerful person in the room needs to be the moderator, not either of the speakers. Of course, the moderator shouldn't need to wield their power - as long as both speakers behave themselves - but it simply must be possible for the moderator to rein in the speakers and take back control of the debate, if required.
And it was clearly required, last time.
|
White supremacism and whatever the “nouveau return to western civilization” should be called are also idea.
They should be seen as plug and play ideologies that can be plugged into different groups run by malcontents. The ideas of Antifa themselves didn’t kill a dude in Portland a month ago, it was some hardcore Antifa guy.
|
On October 01 2020 03:47 Sent. wrote: Good luck getting Trump's team to agree to such rules I mean if he decides to pull out that is bad for the TV ratings, but it is also really bad for Trump he has ground to make up.
You clearly need some rule enforcement tool because Trumps team agreed to all the rules for last night and didn't even pretend to be interesting in following any of them.
|
On October 01 2020 04:30 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 04:18 Nebuchad wrote: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: [quote]
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.
I'm reading that they had a good reason to do so, not that they didn't do it
|
|
Ted Wheeler, mayor of Portland, loaned himself $150,000 for his campaign. Portland limit on such a thing is $5,000. Needless to say, our left of Bernie candidate is hammering him pretty hard on it.
|
On October 01 2020 04:53 Danglars wrote: White supremacism and whatever the “nouveau return to western civilization” should be called are also idea.
They should be seen as plug and play ideologies that can be plugged into different groups run by malcontents. The ideas of Antifa themselves didn’t kill a dude in Portland a month ago, it was some hardcore Antifa guy.
You do realize why there is a distinction between an idea and an organization, right? The KKK has a national leader that directs the KKK's actions and messages. Power within white supremacist movements like the Klan are centralized in a national leadership. They are an organization. Antifa does not have that. There is no overarching "Antifa" that all other Antifa branches follow and listen to. That's why you can't label Antifa as a terrorist organization or as an organization in general because there is no "Antifa" organization. You have random, independent branches scattered all across the U.S. who are deciding what they believe Antifa stands for and how their branch should go about expressing their independently formed beliefs. They are not even close to the same.
|
On October 01 2020 04:53 Danglars wrote: White supremacism and whatever the “nouveau return to western civilization” should be called are also idea.
They should be seen as plug and play ideologies that can be plugged into different groups run by malcontents. The ideas of Antifa themselves didn’t kill a dude in Portland a month ago, it was some hardcore Antifa guy.
Precisely. If you use dictionary definitions, the proud boys are a terrorist group, whereas the far right isn't a terrorist ideology (ie you can do far right politics without being a terrorist). So designating the far right a terrorist group would make no sense, right?
|
On October 01 2020 05:14 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 04:53 Danglars wrote: White supremacism and whatever the “nouveau return to western civilization” should be called are also idea.
They should be seen as plug and play ideologies that can be plugged into different groups run by malcontents. The ideas of Antifa themselves didn’t kill a dude in Portland a month ago, it was some hardcore Antifa guy. You do realize why there is a distinction between an idea and an organization, right? The KKK has a national leader that directs the KKK's actions and messages. Power within white supremacist movements like the Klan are centralized in a national leadership. They are an organization. Antifa does not have that. There is no overarching "Antifa" that all other Antifa branches follow and listen to. That's why you can't label Antifa as a terrorist organization or as an organization in general because there is no "Antifa" organization. You have random, independent branches scattered all across the U.S. who are deciding what they believe Antifa stands for and how their branch should go about expressing their independently formed beliefs. They are not even close to the same. You’re confusing the lack of a hierarchical national organizing body, with the lack of organization. The KKK would still be bad if it wasn’t centrally run, and each city instead organized on its own. Their ideology is repugnant. It’s no wonder that so many of these independent bodies have contributed to violence. Biden should condemn Antifa if he really wants to draw a line against Trump. Too bad Trumps too all over the place to articulate the point.
|
On October 01 2020 05:14 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 04:53 Danglars wrote: White supremacism and whatever the “nouveau return to western civilization” should be called are also idea.
They should be seen as plug and play ideologies that can be plugged into different groups run by malcontents. The ideas of Antifa themselves didn’t kill a dude in Portland a month ago, it was some hardcore Antifa guy. You do realize why there is a distinction between an idea and an organization, right? The KKK has a national leader that directs the KKK's actions and messages. Power within white supremacist movements like the Klan are centralized in a national leadership. They are an organization. Antifa does not have that. There is no overarching "Antifa" that all other Antifa branches follow and listen to. That's why you can't label Antifa as a terrorist organization or as an organization in general because there is no "Antifa" organization. You have random, independent branches scattered all across the U.S. who are deciding what they believe Antifa stands for and how their branch should go about expressing their independently formed beliefs. They are not even close to the same.
Most of the right-wing nuts who have gone on killing sprees in the last decade weren't part of organizations either, though.
|
On October 01 2020 05:14 Mohdoo wrote:Ted Wheeler, mayor of Portland, loaned himself $150,000 for his campaign. Portland limit on such a thing is $5,000. Needless to say, our left of Bernie candidate is hammering him pretty hard on it. https://twitter.com/sarah2020/status/1311347895665266688
So a rich person can't campaign for mayor in Portland with their own funds?
|
On October 01 2020 05:35 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 05:14 StasisField wrote:On October 01 2020 04:53 Danglars wrote: White supremacism and whatever the “nouveau return to western civilization” should be called are also idea.
They should be seen as plug and play ideologies that can be plugged into different groups run by malcontents. The ideas of Antifa themselves didn’t kill a dude in Portland a month ago, it was some hardcore Antifa guy. You do realize why there is a distinction between an idea and an organization, right? The KKK has a national leader that directs the KKK's actions and messages. Power within white supremacist movements like the Klan are centralized in a national leadership. They are an organization. Antifa does not have that. There is no overarching "Antifa" that all other Antifa branches follow and listen to. That's why you can't label Antifa as a terrorist organization or as an organization in general because there is no "Antifa" organization. You have random, independent branches scattered all across the U.S. who are deciding what they believe Antifa stands for and how their branch should go about expressing their independently formed beliefs. They are not even close to the same. Most of the right-wing nuts who have gone on killing sprees in the last decade weren't part of organizations either, though. So how do you police that? Designate all far right activity terrorism regardless of whether or not it is?
|
On October 01 2020 04:03 Danglars wrote: 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. What did you see ?
|
On October 01 2020 05:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 05:14 StasisField wrote:On October 01 2020 04:53 Danglars wrote: White supremacism and whatever the “nouveau return to western civilization” should be called are also idea.
They should be seen as plug and play ideologies that can be plugged into different groups run by malcontents. The ideas of Antifa themselves didn’t kill a dude in Portland a month ago, it was some hardcore Antifa guy. You do realize why there is a distinction between an idea and an organization, right? The KKK has a national leader that directs the KKK's actions and messages. Power within white supremacist movements like the Klan are centralized in a national leadership. They are an organization. Antifa does not have that. There is no overarching "Antifa" that all other Antifa branches follow and listen to. That's why you can't label Antifa as a terrorist organization or as an organization in general because there is no "Antifa" organization. You have random, independent branches scattered all across the U.S. who are deciding what they believe Antifa stands for and how their branch should go about expressing their independently formed beliefs. They are not even close to the same. You’re confusing the lack of a hierarchical national organizing body, with the lack of organization. The KKK would still be bad if it wasn’t centrally run, and each city instead organized on its own. Their ideology is repugnant. It’s no wonder that so many of these independent bodies have contributed to violence. Biden should condemn Antifa if he really wants to draw a line against Trump. Too bad Trumps too all over the place to articulate the point. Do you think he wouldn't?
He has said he not for the new green deal, he has said he does not want to defund the police. These are way more affronts to the progressives then whether or not he condemns Antifa. They are a group that most of the understands why they do what they do but disagrees with, especially when it crosses the line to violence. And even if not all the progressives agree all the moderates would and the vastly outnumber the progressives, especially the progressives who want violence. (a lot wouldn't be that mad about punching a facist in the face, however most would agreeing shooting is too far)
Biden condemning Antifa would be easy for him, it would also be popular for him to do so. Trump struggles with this, and he does so because it would unpopular with his base.
Do you not see a HUGE FUCKING PROBLEM then your president struggles to and it would be unpopular for him to publicly condemn awful groups and instead gives them shoutouts?
There is no both sides here when the Biden Dems are no where close to what the GH dems would be. You flip flop between agreeing with GH on how bad the Dems are for not being what GH wants and accusing them for being awful for them being what GH wants. Pick a damn position lol.
|
On October 01 2020 03:51 Danglars wrote: 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. I feel like one of the biggest problems with this sort of a setting (outside of an inability to rein in the speakers) is that either person can just say bold claims that may or may not be true, and it doesn't really get fact-checked by anyone until afterwards (except the opponent who would obviously say things are false if they disagree anyway.) It's mostly making speeches towards each other, and it's on the viewer to believe/deny what's being said until they can research or refresh their memory later, which I suspect most people don't do.
A while back when some people were trying to set up Joe Rogan to moderate conversation/debate between the two, I thought that was unironically a great idea. In a setting for which bullshit claims can be fact checked and arguments develop based on facts would be quite a thing to see from our presidential candidates. I think pulling up sources in real-time and going over them together would be a better demonstration of how each person actually intends on moving the country in a particular direction. For what it's worth, Trump agreed to the proposition.
|
I think I'd rather see an in depth debate on a specific issue too instead of 2 minute sound bytes on a bunch. Would reveal more about their knowledge and thought process to really dig in to one topic. Maybe each campaign could pick a topic they want to debate... Trump wanted to repeat the phrase law and order so bad... Would be nice to see his opponent get to pin him down on what specifically he means and how they contrast. The thousand lies a minute tactic would be less effective because the relevant facts could be researched beforehand.
|
On October 01 2020 06:01 Starlightsun wrote: I think I'd rather see an in depth debate on a specific issue too instead of 2 minute sound bytes on a bunch. Would reveal more about their knowledge and thought process to really dig in to one topic. Maybe each campaign could pick a topic they want to debate... Trump wanted to repeat the phrase law and order so bad... Would be nice to see his opponent get to pin him down on what specifically he means and how they contrast. The thousand lies a minute tactic would be less effective because the relevant facts could be researched beforehand.
I absolutely agree with this. Better to talk about two things, but really, instead of barely touching 20 things.
|
On October 01 2020 05:36 IgnE wrote:So a rich person can't campaign for mayor in Portland with their own funds? Basically. Portland has a deep disdain for the ethics associated with wealth.
|
On October 01 2020 06:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 05:36 IgnE wrote:On October 01 2020 05:14 Mohdoo wrote:Ted Wheeler, mayor of Portland, loaned himself $150,000 for his campaign. Portland limit on such a thing is $5,000. Needless to say, our left of Bernie candidate is hammering him pretty hard on it. https://twitter.com/sarah2020/status/1311347895665266688 So a rich person can't campaign for mayor in Portland with their own funds? Basically. Portland has a deep disdain for the ethics associated with wealth.
I like the sound of that mentality
|
On October 01 2020 05:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 04:30 Introvert wrote:On October 01 2020 04:18 Nebuchad wrote: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: [quote]
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. I'm reading that they had a good reason to do so, not that they didn't do it
eh, I put "moderate" in quotes for a reason. Biden the "centrist" is still further left than Biden the "centrist" of the 70s. He's been in politics so long that he actually makes an excellent study for how the Democrat party has moved. It's moved left.
|
On October 01 2020 05:49 NrG.Bamboo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 03:51 Danglars wrote: 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. I feel like one of the biggest problems with this sort of a setting (outside of an inability to rein in the speakers) is that either person can just say bold claims that may or may not be true, and it doesn't really get fact-checked by anyone until afterwards (except the opponent who would obviously say things are false if they disagree anyway.) It's mostly making speeches towards each other, and it's on the viewer to believe/deny what's being said until they can research or refresh their memory later, which I suspect most people don't do. A while back when some people were trying to set up Joe Rogan to moderate conversation/debate between the two, I thought that was unironically a great idea. In a setting for which bullshit claims can be fact checked and arguments develop based on facts would be quite a thing to see from our presidential candidates. I think pulling up sources in real-time and going over them together would be a better demonstration of how each person actually intends on moving the country in a particular direction. For what it's worth, Trump agreed to the proposition. I think the candidates themselves bear the responsibility to call out lies or non-answers during the debate itself. A free press then writes articles with a breadth of opinions can then publish articles going through why they think #1-50 statements were lies or half-truths. Right now, this is only accomplished by reading both left-wing and right-wing biased fact checks, as no one source gives a good neutral read at present time. The debates themselves need to show both candidates sustaining their point of view and responding to attacks, not to serve as a venue for instant fact checks. If Trump or Bush or Obama only gives interviews to friendly interviewers, the debate exchanges are a good first time for intense questioning to show voters they can give plausible responses. That's their value.
Joe Rogan would be a good choice just given his stature and disposition for inquiry. He would probably be fair about when to cut off crosstalk and keep candidates to whatever time restraints they agree to.
I think too much is made of the "dumb voter" hypothesis, in which voters are too stupid to look up the truth or falsehood of states on issues that matter to them. It's essential in a democracy to trust that enough citizens can seek these things out on their own and make evaluations on the arguments that are presented to them. The "real-time" sources and junk are way overrated.
|
On October 01 2020 11:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 05:07 Nebuchad wrote:On October 01 2020 04:30 Introvert wrote:On October 01 2020 04:18 Nebuchad wrote: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: [quote]
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. I'm reading that they had a good reason to do so, not that they didn't do it eh, I put "moderate" in quotes for a reason. Biden the "centrist" is still further left than Biden the "centrist" of the 70s. He's been in politics so long that he actually makes an excellent study for how the Democrat party has moved. It's moved left.
The last Democrat president described himself as to the right of Nixon though, Democrats since the 90s seem to have leaned rightwards.
|
On October 01 2020 05:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 05:14 StasisField wrote:On October 01 2020 04:53 Danglars wrote: White supremacism and whatever the “nouveau return to western civilization” should be called are also idea.
They should be seen as plug and play ideologies that can be plugged into different groups run by malcontents. The ideas of Antifa themselves didn’t kill a dude in Portland a month ago, it was some hardcore Antifa guy. You do realize why there is a distinction between an idea and an organization, right? The KKK has a national leader that directs the KKK's actions and messages. Power within white supremacist movements like the Klan are centralized in a national leadership. They are an organization. Antifa does not have that. There is no overarching "Antifa" that all other Antifa branches follow and listen to. That's why you can't label Antifa as a terrorist organization or as an organization in general because there is no "Antifa" organization. You have random, independent branches scattered all across the U.S. who are deciding what they believe Antifa stands for and how their branch should go about expressing their independently formed beliefs. They are not even close to the same. You’re confusing the lack of a hierarchical national organizing body, with the lack of organization. The KKK would still be bad if it wasn’t centrally run, and each city instead organized on its own. Their ideology is repugnant. It’s no wonder that so many of these independent bodies have contributed to violence. Biden should condemn Antifa if he really wants to draw a line against Trump. Too bad Trumps too all over the place to articulate the point.
I'm not confusing it with a lack of organization though. People trying to argue that you can label anyone who identifies as Antifa as a terrorist are confusing organizations existing with there being an overarching, national organization. Trying to give Antifa in general a terrorist label for something a specific branch did is like trying to give everyone who follows Islam a terrorist label because of something done by ISIS. You can condemn the actions of the branch and even label that branch as a terrorist organization if their core tenants and actions are terrorist in nature but you can't label the general ideology terrorist in nature. That's why "Antifa" is an idea and not an organization. White Supremacist movements like the Klan, however have a national, centralized leadership, and actions done under the name of the Klan reflect the Klan as a whole. They are an organization.
|
On October 01 2020 05:35 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 05:14 StasisField wrote:On October 01 2020 04:53 Danglars wrote: White supremacism and whatever the “nouveau return to western civilization” should be called are also idea.
They should be seen as plug and play ideologies that can be plugged into different groups run by malcontents. The ideas of Antifa themselves didn’t kill a dude in Portland a month ago, it was some hardcore Antifa guy. You do realize why there is a distinction between an idea and an organization, right? The KKK has a national leader that directs the KKK's actions and messages. Power within white supremacist movements like the Klan are centralized in a national leadership. They are an organization. Antifa does not have that. There is no overarching "Antifa" that all other Antifa branches follow and listen to. That's why you can't label Antifa as a terrorist organization or as an organization in general because there is no "Antifa" organization. You have random, independent branches scattered all across the U.S. who are deciding what they believe Antifa stands for and how their branch should go about expressing their independently formed beliefs. They are not even close to the same. Most of the right-wing nuts who have gone on killing sprees in the last decade weren't part of organizations either, though.
I never said most were part of organizations. In fact, I never said any were. I used the Klan to show the difference between an organization and an idea.
|
On October 01 2020 11:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 05:49 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On October 01 2020 03:51 Danglars wrote: 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. I feel like one of the biggest problems with this sort of a setting (outside of an inability to rein in the speakers) is that either person can just say bold claims that may or may not be true, and it doesn't really get fact-checked by anyone until afterwards (except the opponent who would obviously say things are false if they disagree anyway.) It's mostly making speeches towards each other, and it's on the viewer to believe/deny what's being said until they can research or refresh their memory later, which I suspect most people don't do. A while back when some people were trying to set up Joe Rogan to moderate conversation/debate between the two, I thought that was unironically a great idea. In a setting for which bullshit claims can be fact checked and arguments develop based on facts would be quite a thing to see from our presidential candidates. I think pulling up sources in real-time and going over them together would be a better demonstration of how each person actually intends on moving the country in a particular direction. For what it's worth, Trump agreed to the proposition. I think the candidates themselves bear the responsibility to call out lies or non-answers during the debate itself. A free press then writes articles with a breadth of opinions can then publish articles going through why they think #1-50 statements were lies or half-truths. Right now, this is only accomplished by reading both left-wing and right-wing biased fact checks, as no one source gives a good neutral read at present time. The debates themselves need to show both candidates sustaining their point of view and responding to attacks, not to serve as a venue for instant fact checks. If Trump or Bush or Obama only gives interviews to friendly interviewers, the debate exchanges are a good first time for intense questioning to show voters they can give plausible responses. That's their value. I can understand that there is certainly value in having them stand on their own as a competency evaluation, no doubt. I'd not like to replace or remove these debates at all, however:
I think too much is made of the "dumb voter" hypothesis, in which voters are too stupid to look up the truth or falsehood of states on issues that matter to them. It's essential in a democracy to trust that enough citizens can seek these things out on their own and make evaluations on the arguments that are presented to them. The "real-time" sources and junk are way overrated.
I'm not so sure about this. As you've said, fact checking thoroughly means looking at it from different perspectives, which I don't think most people do. Not doubling down on the "dumb voter" idea in the sense that they don't care enough, but rather pointing out that people might look back to see for themselves what's correct, but overlook the fact that these "fact checkers" are also biased. Most people just want to confirm what they already believe anyway, which is where I see the value of being able to check in real-time to steer the conversation into more productive endeavor. I'm curious why you feel that it is overrated?
|
On October 01 2020 11:34 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 11:13 Introvert wrote:On October 01 2020 05:07 Nebuchad wrote:On October 01 2020 04:30 Introvert wrote:On October 01 2020 04:18 Nebuchad wrote: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: [quote]
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. I'm reading that they had a good reason to do so, not that they didn't do it eh, I put "moderate" in quotes for a reason. Biden the "centrist" is still further left than Biden the "centrist" of the 70s. He's been in politics so long that he actually makes an excellent study for how the Democrat party has moved. It's moved left. The last Democrat president described himself as to the right of Nixon though, Democrats since the 90s seem to have leaned rightwards.
And Obama was wrong.
I disagree, but I feel I'm not going to make any progress. Biden is out there denouncing or ignoring a whole bunch of stuff from the 90s. I think Democrat vs leftist discussions and arguments from the thread over the years here are probably more helpful than I can be when talking with said Democrats and leftists.
|
On October 01 2020 11:34 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 11:13 Introvert wrote:On October 01 2020 05:07 Nebuchad wrote:On October 01 2020 04:30 Introvert wrote:On October 01 2020 04:18 Nebuchad wrote: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: [quote]
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. I'm reading that they had a good reason to do so, not that they didn't do it eh, I put "moderate" in quotes for a reason. Biden the "centrist" is still further left than Biden the "centrist" of the 70s. He's been in politics so long that he actually makes an excellent study for how the Democrat party has moved. It's moved left. The last Democrat president described himself as to the right of Nixon though, Democrats since the 90s seem to have leaned rightwards. There's a lot of ... not misinformation, but only small facts being bandied about in this conversation that aren't really addressing the whole picture.
The parties were not truly ideological delineated for a very long time in the post WW2-era. There were liberal republicans and conservative democrats (still are, on both of these, but they've been dwindling since the early 2000s).
There's been ideological realignments, starting most notably with Goldwater in 64 and continued with Nixon's southern strategy where he appealed to conservative democrats in the south. Neither of these did in the liberal republican though. Reagan didn't do it either.
The rise of conservative talk radio and fox news coincided with the increase of conservatives in the GOP and decrease in liberals, but it's hard to credit anything with causing it.
The GOP fucked up the economy so hard in 1920s that from 1933-1995 they only controlled the house + senate at once for a total of 4 years for that 62 year period. So everyone had to work with democrats to get anything done, even if they happened to be republican presidents.
This is in part why the ideology didn't matter that much : the US was effectively a one party system for 6 decades on a legislative level.
This is also why "both sides are the same!" resonates so strongly with people above a certain age : it used to be true, in the literal sense.
The presidency was a different story, and that's part of where we get into the modern day candidates. Democrats had run liberal candidates several times and they kept losing to conservative republicans - Reagan, specifically, who was very popular (and Reagan was probably similar to Obama in a lot of his policies, to give you an idea of how much things have shifted since then) and handily beat the liberal Carter and Mondale, and Bush Sr beat Dukakis. Nixon was also a conservative and had won the last truly contested election.
So democrats nominated a centrist, "new democrat" (or third way), Clinton, who ran as a centrist/conservative. The 94-95 house takeback was fueled by a perception he was actually governing as a liberal who had lied about being a centrist, so he needed conservatives to act as a restraint on his actions.
That campaign made the house a national rather than local race, and let the GOP effectively regain control of congress for most of the last 30 years (its architect was Gingrich).
Clinton royally pissed off the GOP by appropriating many of the Bush/Reagan's most popular talking points, so many of them moved further right so that they could keep attacking him as a leftist.
Obama ran as a progressive and governed as a centrist technocrat. So his language always sounded very liberal, but his actual actions were always basically a couple millimeters left of Reagan.
So, before 1995, I would say that there was ideologically almost no difference between the parties, and since then, it has steadily opened up. Deregulations, for example, were all passed as easily under Clinton as they were under Bush Sr (with some of the worst ones happening under Clinton rather than Bush Jr's watch).
Trying to cap it off as just a short statement on how one party has become more or less conservative since X time is being a bit too pat and cute.
Democrats moved somewhat right on economics compared to <1995, and left socially since then. Republicans have moved right on both of these things. Biden would probably say he regrets the Anita Hill incident, and that interracial marriage should be legal, but that he wouldn't want to create the same welfare systems we had in 1975.
|
On October 01 2020 11:53 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 05:34 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2020 05:14 StasisField wrote:On October 01 2020 04:53 Danglars wrote: White supremacism and whatever the “nouveau return to western civilization” should be called are also idea.
They should be seen as plug and play ideologies that can be plugged into different groups run by malcontents. The ideas of Antifa themselves didn’t kill a dude in Portland a month ago, it was some hardcore Antifa guy. You do realize why there is a distinction between an idea and an organization, right? The KKK has a national leader that directs the KKK's actions and messages. Power within white supremacist movements like the Klan are centralized in a national leadership. They are an organization. Antifa does not have that. There is no overarching "Antifa" that all other Antifa branches follow and listen to. That's why you can't label Antifa as a terrorist organization or as an organization in general because there is no "Antifa" organization. You have random, independent branches scattered all across the U.S. who are deciding what they believe Antifa stands for and how their branch should go about expressing their independently formed beliefs. They are not even close to the same. You’re confusing the lack of a hierarchical national organizing body, with the lack of organization. The KKK would still be bad if it wasn’t centrally run, and each city instead organized on its own. Their ideology is repugnant. It’s no wonder that so many of these independent bodies have contributed to violence. Biden should condemn Antifa if he really wants to draw a line against Trump. Too bad Trumps too all over the place to articulate the point. I'm not confusing it with a lack of organization though. People trying to argue that you can label anyone who identifies as Antifa as a terrorist are confusing organizations existing with there being an overarching, national organization. Trying to give Antifa in general a terrorist label for something a specific branch did is like trying to give everyone who follows Islam a terrorist label because of something done by ISIS. You can condemn the actions of the branch and even label that branch as a terrorist organization if their core tenants and actions are terrorist in nature but you can't label the general ideology terrorist in nature. That's why "Antifa" is an idea and not an organization. White Supremacist movements like the Klan, however have a national, centralized leadership, and actions done under the name of the Klan reflect the Klan as a whole. They are an organization. I'm not hung up on the idea that you have to label them a terrorist organization. I think they're rightly described as Antifa, something that should be condemned in modern society by presidential candidates of both parties. They have an ideology that says, generally, there's fascists around that must be opposed by any means necessary, including violence. Anarchist, violent extremists hold to that banner, just as militia types on the opposite side of things (in the words of Christopher Wray).
It's like the relationship between million dollar cap AAA game developers and some indie shop with 20 employees. They're both businesses, and they're both in the same business, but just because of the size you can't call one not a video game developer. Antifa is several organizations headquartered in small chapters in cities that organize around opposing right-wing marches and holding their own usually-violent marches against police or capitalism or whatever event. Several of their members, and related groups, get arrested in cities regularly. When I say Antifa, I'm talking about the disparate organizations identifying with that name scattered across major cities in the United States. It doesn't matter to me that Portland Antifa claimed the head of a far-right guy, but some East Bay Antifa guy only managed to bludgeon a right-wing protester by swinging a bike lock, and the best Seattle Antifa members have been able to muster is smashing windows and possession of molotovs. Similar organizations, and a spectrum of crimes and charges. I see no reason to dismiss the commonalities for your insistence that it must be organized nationally to be called an organization.
I wouldn't say they were well-organized, though. Left-wingers tend to try and fail at that part.
|
On October 01 2020 12:27 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 11:34 Zambrah wrote:On October 01 2020 11:13 Introvert wrote:On October 01 2020 05:07 Nebuchad wrote:On October 01 2020 04:30 Introvert wrote:On October 01 2020 04:18 Nebuchad wrote: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: [quote]
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. I'm reading that they had a good reason to do so, not that they didn't do it eh, I put "moderate" in quotes for a reason. Biden the "centrist" is still further left than Biden the "centrist" of the 70s. He's been in politics so long that he actually makes an excellent study for how the Democrat party has moved. It's moved left. The last Democrat president described himself as to the right of Nixon though, Democrats since the 90s seem to have leaned rightwards. And Obama was wrong. I disagree, but I feel I'm not going to make any progress. Biden is out there denouncing or ignoring a whole bunch of stuff from the 90s. I think Democrat vs leftist discussions and arguments from the thread over the years here are probably more helpful than I can be when talking with said Democrats and leftists.
My guess is a lot of what you would describe as the Democrats moving further left is the Democrats moving further socially liberal. This is not something that I take issue with.
To get back to a pre-Reagan state of politics in terms of left vs right, there's still a lot of road ahead. Both for the US and for the world, unfortunately.
|
On October 01 2020 12:09 NrG.Bamboo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 11:27 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2020 05:49 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On October 01 2020 03:51 Danglars wrote: 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. I feel like one of the biggest problems with this sort of a setting (outside of an inability to rein in the speakers) is that either person can just say bold claims that may or may not be true, and it doesn't really get fact-checked by anyone until afterwards (except the opponent who would obviously say things are false if they disagree anyway.) It's mostly making speeches towards each other, and it's on the viewer to believe/deny what's being said until they can research or refresh their memory later, which I suspect most people don't do. A while back when some people were trying to set up Joe Rogan to moderate conversation/debate between the two, I thought that was unironically a great idea. In a setting for which bullshit claims can be fact checked and arguments develop based on facts would be quite a thing to see from our presidential candidates. I think pulling up sources in real-time and going over them together would be a better demonstration of how each person actually intends on moving the country in a particular direction. For what it's worth, Trump agreed to the proposition. I think the candidates themselves bear the responsibility to call out lies or non-answers during the debate itself. A free press then writes articles with a breadth of opinions can then publish articles going through why they think #1-50 statements were lies or half-truths. Right now, this is only accomplished by reading both left-wing and right-wing biased fact checks, as no one source gives a good neutral read at present time. The debates themselves need to show both candidates sustaining their point of view and responding to attacks, not to serve as a venue for instant fact checks. If Trump or Bush or Obama only gives interviews to friendly interviewers, the debate exchanges are a good first time for intense questioning to show voters they can give plausible responses. That's their value. I can understand that there is certainly value in having them stand on their own as a competency evaluation, no doubt. I'd not like to replace or remove these debates at all, however: Show nested quote + I think too much is made of the "dumb voter" hypothesis, in which voters are too stupid to look up the truth or falsehood of states on issues that matter to them. It's essential in a democracy to trust that enough citizens can seek these things out on their own and make evaluations on the arguments that are presented to them. The "real-time" sources and junk are way overrated.
I'm not so sure about this. As you've said, fact checking thoroughly means looking at it from different perspectives, which I don't think most people do. Not doubling down on the "dumb voter" idea in the sense that they don't care enough, but rather pointing out that people might look back to see for themselves what's correct, but overlook the fact that these "fact checkers" are also biased. Most people just want to confirm what they already believe anyway, which is where I see the value of being able to check in real-time to steer the conversation into more productive endeavor. I'm curious why you feel that it is overrated? Maybe the point I think you need to start accepting is that current fact-checking assignments are so polarized by political ideology that real-time fact-checking is impossible to perform. The only fair way to accomplish this is to have several journalistic institutions publish multiple fact checks and let voters assess their value by comparing them. I've had a couple people already talk to me about how many fact checks they saw that diminished Biden's lies but accentuated Trump's lies. That's the whole point! Everyone is going to come into it with their preexisting political views, and some percentage will go on to challenge them with the reverse. I'd like more people to encourage their friends to read hostile media and keep reading it to remedy this problem. Read the Wall Street Journal editorial page after the NYT and WaPo's editorial pages. Live fact checking is a spin-job, and the real alternative option is pairing biased sources from each side.
Encourage voters to consume a variety of media, instead of putting false hope in a universal fact-check, which is too flawed and very unproductive.
|
Danglars, you're advocating labeling a philosophy as terrorism. Just making sure that is your intention? Labeling antifa as a terrorist organization is roughly analogous to making "very conservative libertarian" a terrorist organization.
|
On October 01 2020 12:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 12:09 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On October 01 2020 11:27 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2020 05:49 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On October 01 2020 03:51 Danglars wrote: 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. I feel like one of the biggest problems with this sort of a setting (outside of an inability to rein in the speakers) is that either person can just say bold claims that may or may not be true, and it doesn't really get fact-checked by anyone until afterwards (except the opponent who would obviously say things are false if they disagree anyway.) It's mostly making speeches towards each other, and it's on the viewer to believe/deny what's being said until they can research or refresh their memory later, which I suspect most people don't do. A while back when some people were trying to set up Joe Rogan to moderate conversation/debate between the two, I thought that was unironically a great idea. In a setting for which bullshit claims can be fact checked and arguments develop based on facts would be quite a thing to see from our presidential candidates. I think pulling up sources in real-time and going over them together would be a better demonstration of how each person actually intends on moving the country in a particular direction. For what it's worth, Trump agreed to the proposition. I think the candidates themselves bear the responsibility to call out lies or non-answers during the debate itself. A free press then writes articles with a breadth of opinions can then publish articles going through why they think #1-50 statements were lies or half-truths. Right now, this is only accomplished by reading both left-wing and right-wing biased fact checks, as no one source gives a good neutral read at present time. The debates themselves need to show both candidates sustaining their point of view and responding to attacks, not to serve as a venue for instant fact checks. If Trump or Bush or Obama only gives interviews to friendly interviewers, the debate exchanges are a good first time for intense questioning to show voters they can give plausible responses. That's their value. I can understand that there is certainly value in having them stand on their own as a competency evaluation, no doubt. I'd not like to replace or remove these debates at all, however: I think too much is made of the "dumb voter" hypothesis, in which voters are too stupid to look up the truth or falsehood of states on issues that matter to them. It's essential in a democracy to trust that enough citizens can seek these things out on their own and make evaluations on the arguments that are presented to them. The "real-time" sources and junk are way overrated.
I'm not so sure about this. As you've said, fact checking thoroughly means looking at it from different perspectives, which I don't think most people do. Not doubling down on the "dumb voter" idea in the sense that they don't care enough, but rather pointing out that people might look back to see for themselves what's correct, but overlook the fact that these "fact checkers" are also biased. Most people just want to confirm what they already believe anyway, which is where I see the value of being able to check in real-time to steer the conversation into more productive endeavor. I'm curious why you feel that it is overrated? Maybe the point I think you need to start accepting is that current fact-checking assignments are so polarized by political ideology that real-time fact-checking is impossible to perform. The only fair way to accomplish this is to have several journalistic institutions publish multiple fact checks and let voters assess their value by comparing them. I've had a couple people already talk to me about how many fact checks they saw that diminished Biden's lies but accentuated Trump's lies. That's the whole point! Everyone is going to come into it with their preexisting political views, and some percentage will go on to challenge them with the reverse. I'd like more people to encourage their friends to read hostile media and keep reading it to remedy this problem. Read the Wall Street Journal editorial page after the NYT and WaPo's editorial pages. Live fact checking is a spin-job, and the real alternative option is pairing biased sources from each side. Encourage voters to consume a variety of media, instead of putting false hope in a universal fact-check, which is too flawed and very unproductive. Fair enough.
|
On October 01 2020 12:47 Nevuk wrote: Danglars, you're advocating labeling a philosophy as terrorism. Just making sure that is your intention? Labeling antifa as a terrorist organization is roughly analogous to making "very conservative libertarian" a terrorist organization.
Not only that but this is just another completely pointless act to scare his supporters into needing him to protect them or some garbage.
What will naming it a terrorist organization do? Limit membership? They don't have membership. Stop banks from allowing financial transactions of the group? They don't have members, or a financial organization, hell lots likely don't have bank accounts. Make it hard for the group to get donations and raise money especially internationally? They have no group, nothing to raise money for or place to store it. Make it so the FBI can infiltrate their meetings and learn of all their plans? They don't have meetings or plans.
Trump will shortly name lone gunman, as well as bombers and people who commit arson also to terrorist lists.
|
On October 01 2020 12:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 11:53 StasisField wrote:On October 01 2020 05:34 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2020 05:14 StasisField wrote:On October 01 2020 04:53 Danglars wrote: White supremacism and whatever the “nouveau return to western civilization” should be called are also idea.
They should be seen as plug and play ideologies that can be plugged into different groups run by malcontents. The ideas of Antifa themselves didn’t kill a dude in Portland a month ago, it was some hardcore Antifa guy. You do realize why there is a distinction between an idea and an organization, right? The KKK has a national leader that directs the KKK's actions and messages. Power within white supremacist movements like the Klan are centralized in a national leadership. They are an organization. Antifa does not have that. There is no overarching "Antifa" that all other Antifa branches follow and listen to. That's why you can't label Antifa as a terrorist organization or as an organization in general because there is no "Antifa" organization. You have random, independent branches scattered all across the U.S. who are deciding what they believe Antifa stands for and how their branch should go about expressing their independently formed beliefs. They are not even close to the same. You’re confusing the lack of a hierarchical national organizing body, with the lack of organization. The KKK would still be bad if it wasn’t centrally run, and each city instead organized on its own. Their ideology is repugnant. It’s no wonder that so many of these independent bodies have contributed to violence. Biden should condemn Antifa if he really wants to draw a line against Trump. Too bad Trumps too all over the place to articulate the point. I'm not confusing it with a lack of organization though. People trying to argue that you can label anyone who identifies as Antifa as a terrorist are confusing organizations existing with there being an overarching, national organization. Trying to give Antifa in general a terrorist label for something a specific branch did is like trying to give everyone who follows Islam a terrorist label because of something done by ISIS. You can condemn the actions of the branch and even label that branch as a terrorist organization if their core tenants and actions are terrorist in nature but you can't label the general ideology terrorist in nature. That's why "Antifa" is an idea and not an organization. White Supremacist movements like the Klan, however have a national, centralized leadership, and actions done under the name of the Klan reflect the Klan as a whole. They are an organization. I'm not hung up on the idea that you have to label them a terrorist organization. I think they're rightly described as Antifa, something that should be condemned in modern society by presidential candidates of both parties. They have an ideology that says, generally, there's fascists around that must be opposed by any means necessary, including violence. Anarchist, violent extremists hold to that banner, just as militia types on the opposite side of things (in the words of Christopher Wray). It's like the relationship between million dollar cap AAA game developers and some indie shop with 20 employees. They're both businesses, and they're both in the same business, but just because of the size you can't call one not a video game developer. Antifa is several organizations headquartered in small chapters in cities that organize around opposing right-wing marches and holding their own usually-violent marches against police or capitalism or whatever event. Several of their members, and related groups, get arrested in cities regularly. When I say Antifa, I'm talking about the disparate organizations identifying with that name scattered across major cities in the United States. It doesn't matter to me that Portland Antifa claimed the head of a far-right guy, but some East Bay Antifa guy only managed to bludgeon a right-wing protester by swinging a bike lock, and the best Seattle Antifa members have been able to muster is smashing windows and possession of molotovs. Similar organizations, and a spectrum of crimes and charges. I see no reason to dismiss the commonalities for your insistence that it must be organized nationally to be called an organization. I wouldn't say they were well-organized, though. Left-wingers tend to try and fail at that part.
I think the part people struggle with is that there's no governing body for Antifa, and therefore no structure saying "This person is Antifa, this person is not." and no accountability.
Compare it to the Proud Boys. I could declare myself a Proud Boy, go out and absolutely fuck up an old person because violence is "Our M.O.", and Proud Boys could issue a statement along the lines of "We have no idea who that is, but they fucked up an old person and we think that's funny and cool. They're not a Proud Boy but good effort." because they're an actual organization.
Similarly, I could declare myself ANTIFA (or, really, anyone could) and go set fire to a building or fuck up an old person, and there's no central agency to condemn or condone my actions, just reports and reporters who could (fairly) say that I 'was Antifa' and did a shitty thing.
I guess it's actually most similar to feminism, honestly. I consider feminism a very respectable ideal, and have encountered extremist feminists with shitty, toxic ideas that I suspect come from a place of great hurt. Similarly to antifa, there's no 'governing agency' for feminism overall, no president of feminism that can comment on where the message of the more extreme feminists lie, or governing body for the momentum of the movement. People self-declare themselves feminists, and while I'd personally be willing to hear arguments that the entire movement comes from a bad place or whatever, I would (and do) quickly correct people who want to blanket-declare feminism and feminists as undesireable based on interactions with extremist feminists who don't necessarily represent the core of the idea.
With that as framing, I do not agree with open denouncement of antifa, because antifa ideals as I understand them (Being anti-fascist, anti-homophobia/xenophobia) are things I see as good and would support, and do not believe regarding the entire idea as bad because that envelope contains some ugliness.
As points of clarification, I do recognize that feminism at large engages more bureaucratic methods of invoking change and doesn't endorse violence 'where needed'. I also recognize that I'm ultimately making a "few bad eggs" argument, which is why I mention a willingness to listen to an argument suggesting that antifa is rotten at the core of its ideas. Lastly, I will mention that I see antifa's 'inclusion of violence as an acceptable means of defending their ideals' is conceptually similar, to me, to the citizens of the US having a right to arm themselves against their own government - the idea there not being that US citizens are encouraged toward wanton use of force, but an acknowledgement that there are scenarios in which force is necessary.
|
I have to say Trumps latest defense that he didn't know who the proud boys are is so awful. First because he is obviously does.
But let's pretend he does not because that actually makes him look WAY worse. So Wallace is asking him to condemn white supremacists and Trump says who who? Biden says the proud boys, so he asked for a white supremacist group, got one and then says stand back but stand by. How is that better? First he is saying that he is wildly out of touch with America for not knowing, then he will just say stand by to any white supremacist group? Got to have them all at the ready?
WTF? Who gives him this advice or is it him?
|
On October 01 2020 12:28 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 11:34 Zambrah wrote:On October 01 2020 11:13 Introvert wrote:On October 01 2020 05:07 Nebuchad wrote:On October 01 2020 04:30 Introvert wrote:On October 01 2020 04:18 Nebuchad wrote: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: [quote]
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. I'm reading that they had a good reason to do so, not that they didn't do it eh, I put "moderate" in quotes for a reason. Biden the "centrist" is still further left than Biden the "centrist" of the 70s. He's been in politics so long that he actually makes an excellent study for how the Democrat party has moved. It's moved left. The last Democrat president described himself as to the right of Nixon though, Democrats since the 90s seem to have leaned rightwards. There's a lot of ... not misinformation, but only small facts being bandied about in this conversation that aren't really addressing the whole picture. The parties were not truly ideological delineated for a very long time in the post WW2-era. There were liberal republicans and conservative democrats (still are, on both of these, but they've been dwindling since the early 2000s). There's been ideological realignments, starting most notably with Goldwater in 64 and continued with Nixon's southern strategy where he appealed to conservative democrats in the south. Neither of these did in the liberal republican though. Reagan didn't do it either. The rise of conservative talk radio and fox news coincided with the increase of conservatives in the GOP and decrease in liberals, but it's hard to credit anything with causing it. The GOP fucked up the economy so hard in 1920s that from 1933-1995 they only controlled the house + senate at once for a total of 4 years for that 62 year period. So everyone had to work with democrats to get anything done, even if they happened to be republican presidents. This is in part why the ideology didn't matter that much : the US was effectively a one party system for 6 decades on a legislative level. This is also why "both sides are the same!" resonates so strongly with people above a certain age : it used to be true, in the literal sense. The presidency was a different story, and that's part of where we get into the modern day candidates. Democrats had run liberal candidates several times and they kept losing to conservative republicans - Reagan, specifically, who was very popular (and Reagan was probably similar to Obama in a lot of his policies, to give you an idea of how much things have shifted since then) and handily beat the liberal Carter and Mondale, and Bush Sr beat Dukakis. Nixon was also a conservative and had won the last truly contested election. So democrats nominated a centrist, "new democrat" (or third way), Clinton, who ran as a centrist/conservative. The 94-95 house takeback was fueled by a perception he was actually governing as a liberal who had lied about being a centrist, so he needed conservatives to act as a restraint on his actions. That campaign made the house a national rather than local race, and let the GOP effectively regain control of congress for most of the last 30 years (its architect was Gingrich). Clinton royally pissed off the GOP by appropriating many of the Bush/Reagan's most popular talking points, so many of them moved further right so that they could keep attacking him as a leftist. Obama ran as a progressive and governed as a centrist technocrat. So his language always sounded very liberal, but his actual actions were always basically a couple millimeters left of Reagan. So, before 1995, I would say that there was ideologically almost no difference between the parties, and since then, it has steadily opened up. Deregulations, for example, were all passed as easily under Clinton as they were under Bush Sr (with some of the worst ones happening under Clinton rather than Bush Jr's watch). Trying to cap it off as just a short statement on how one party has become more or less conservative since X time is being a bit too pat and cute. Democrats moved somewhat right on economics compared to <1995, and left socially since then. Republicans have moved right on both of these things. Biden would probably say he regrets the Anita Hill incident, and that interracial marriage should be legal, but that he wouldn't want to create the same welfare systems we had in 1975.
Eh, I'll let most of this slide, even the parts that are just as absurd today as they were the first time they were said (Reagan millimeters to the right of Obama).
And I agree that the Democrat dominance in Congress also limited a lot of what Republican presidents could do.
...you know what, I had a longer post written up what I think happened, but this isn't even a permanent thread, so I will look for the next available opportunity to post it there, when the topic comes up again. The spoiler is that I think the increasing nationalization, and thus, perhaps, ideological sorting, of the two parties has a very plausible cause. But it's not the left's boogymen of talk radio or Fox.
But again I think I'm just too far from my leftist counterparts in this thread.
edited out a few things, not carrying this on to tomorrow.
|
On October 01 2020 13:39 JimmiC wrote: I have to say Trumps latest defense that he didn't know who the proud boys are is so awful. First because he is obviously does.
But let's pretend he does not because that actually makes him look WAY worse. So Wallace is asking him to condemn white supremacists and Trump says who who? Biden says the proud boys, so he asked for a white supremacist group, got one and then says stand back but stand by. How is that better? First he is saying that he is wildly out of touch with America for not knowing, then he will just say stand by to any white supremacist group? Got to have them all at the ready?
WTF? Who gives him this advice or is it him?
Because of course he courted the Proud Boys to commit violence on his behalf in the same breath where he supposedly condemns the KKK. So now he has to walk it back and say he has no idea who they are - his usual move when he deals with someone super fucked up and people find out.
|
On October 01 2020 13:53 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 13:39 JimmiC wrote: I have to say Trumps latest defense that he didn't know who the proud boys are is so awful. First because he is obviously does.
But let's pretend he does not because that actually makes him look WAY worse. So Wallace is asking him to condemn white supremacists and Trump says who who? Biden says the proud boys, so he asked for a white supremacist group, got one and then says stand back but stand by. How is that better? First he is saying that he is wildly out of touch with America for not knowing, then he will just say stand by to any white supremacist group? Got to have them all at the ready?
WTF? Who gives him this advice or is it him?
Because of course he courted the Proud Boys to commit violence on his behalf in the same breath where he supposedly condemns the KKK. So now he has to walk it back and say he has no idea who they are - his usual move when he deals with someone super fucked up and people find out.
But what a poorly thought out way to walk it back. He was intending to "condem" a white supremacist group they yelled one out he "didn't know" and then he shouted them out instead. Not knowing exactly who they are changes nothing other then it shows an embarrassing lack of knowledge about whats going on in his country.
|
On October 01 2020 13:25 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 12:35 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2020 11:53 StasisField wrote:On October 01 2020 05:34 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2020 05:14 StasisField wrote:On October 01 2020 04:53 Danglars wrote: White supremacism and whatever the “nouveau return to western civilization” should be called are also idea.
They should be seen as plug and play ideologies that can be plugged into different groups run by malcontents. The ideas of Antifa themselves didn’t kill a dude in Portland a month ago, it was some hardcore Antifa guy. You do realize why there is a distinction between an idea and an organization, right? The KKK has a national leader that directs the KKK's actions and messages. Power within white supremacist movements like the Klan are centralized in a national leadership. They are an organization. Antifa does not have that. There is no overarching "Antifa" that all other Antifa branches follow and listen to. That's why you can't label Antifa as a terrorist organization or as an organization in general because there is no "Antifa" organization. You have random, independent branches scattered all across the U.S. who are deciding what they believe Antifa stands for and how their branch should go about expressing their independently formed beliefs. They are not even close to the same. You’re confusing the lack of a hierarchical national organizing body, with the lack of organization. The KKK would still be bad if it wasn’t centrally run, and each city instead organized on its own. Their ideology is repugnant. It’s no wonder that so many of these independent bodies have contributed to violence. Biden should condemn Antifa if he really wants to draw a line against Trump. Too bad Trumps too all over the place to articulate the point. I'm not confusing it with a lack of organization though. People trying to argue that you can label anyone who identifies as Antifa as a terrorist are confusing organizations existing with there being an overarching, national organization. Trying to give Antifa in general a terrorist label for something a specific branch did is like trying to give everyone who follows Islam a terrorist label because of something done by ISIS. You can condemn the actions of the branch and even label that branch as a terrorist organization if their core tenants and actions are terrorist in nature but you can't label the general ideology terrorist in nature. That's why "Antifa" is an idea and not an organization. White Supremacist movements like the Klan, however have a national, centralized leadership, and actions done under the name of the Klan reflect the Klan as a whole. They are an organization. I'm not hung up on the idea that you have to label them a terrorist organization. I think they're rightly described as Antifa, something that should be condemned in modern society by presidential candidates of both parties. They have an ideology that says, generally, there's fascists around that must be opposed by any means necessary, including violence. Anarchist, violent extremists hold to that banner, just as militia types on the opposite side of things (in the words of Christopher Wray). It's like the relationship between million dollar cap AAA game developers and some indie shop with 20 employees. They're both businesses, and they're both in the same business, but just because of the size you can't call one not a video game developer. Antifa is several organizations headquartered in small chapters in cities that organize around opposing right-wing marches and holding their own usually-violent marches against police or capitalism or whatever event. Several of their members, and related groups, get arrested in cities regularly. When I say Antifa, I'm talking about the disparate organizations identifying with that name scattered across major cities in the United States. It doesn't matter to me that Portland Antifa claimed the head of a far-right guy, but some East Bay Antifa guy only managed to bludgeon a right-wing protester by swinging a bike lock, and the best Seattle Antifa members have been able to muster is smashing windows and possession of molotovs. Similar organizations, and a spectrum of crimes and charges. I see no reason to dismiss the commonalities for your insistence that it must be organized nationally to be called an organization. I wouldn't say they were well-organized, though. Left-wingers tend to try and fail at that part. I think the part people struggle with is that there's no governing body for Antifa, and therefore no structure saying "This person is Antifa, this person is not." and no accountability. Compare it to the Proud Boys. I could declare myself a Proud Boy, go out and absolutely fuck up an old person because violence is "Our M.O.", and Proud Boys could issue a statement along the lines of "We have no idea who that is, but they fucked up an old person and we think that's funny and cool. They're not a Proud Boy but good effort." because they're an actual organization. Similarly, I could declare myself ANTIFA (or, really, anyone could) and go set fire to a building or fuck up an old person, and there's no central agency to condemn or condone my actions, just reports and reporters who could (fairly) say that I 'was Antifa' and did a shitty thing. I guess it's actually most similar to feminism, honestly. I consider feminism a very respectable ideal, and have encountered extremist feminists with shitty, toxic ideas that I suspect come from a place of great hurt. Similarly to antifa, there's no 'governing agency' for feminism overall, no president of feminism that can comment on where the message of the more extreme feminists lie, or governing body for the momentum of the movement. People self-declare themselves feminists, and while I'd personally be willing to hear arguments that the entire movement comes from a bad place or whatever, I would (and do) quickly correct people who want to blanket-declare feminism and feminists as undesireable based on interactions with extremist feminists who don't necessarily represent the core of the idea. With that as framing, I do not agree with open denouncement of antifa, because antifa ideals as I understand them (Being anti-fascist, anti-homophobia/xenophobia) are things I see as good and would support, and do not believe regarding the entire idea as bad because that envelope contains some ugliness. As points of clarification, I do recognize that feminism at large engages more bureaucratic methods of invoking change and doesn't endorse violence 'where needed'. I also recognize that I'm ultimately making a "few bad eggs" argument, which is why I mention a willingness to listen to an argument suggesting that antifa is rotten at the core of its ideas. Lastly, I will mention that I see antifa's 'inclusion of violence as an acceptable means of defending their ideals' is conceptually similar, to me, to the citizens of the US having a right to arm themselves against their own government - the idea there not being that US citizens are encouraged toward wanton use of force, but an acknowledgement that there are scenarios in which force is necessary. I don't see any reason why the Proud Boys would disavow, and the local Antifa branch would not. You don't present one.
I think the Antifa ideal should be denounced pretty easily, even by somebody like you. A civil society cannot tolerate actors that appoint themselves to label certain movements fascist and respond with violence. I include violence against property and against persons in this description. They're behaving and have behaved as an advance group taking active measures against who they view as fascists. This should be easily differentiated from time-honored defensive efforts protecting person, family, and property. Street melee and molotovs aren't transferable between arming yourself for self-defense. Maybe some imaginative, reformed Antifa could make better use of their second amendment rights and publish pamphlets denouncing tyranny directed against them ... and I wish you all the luck with that, if you're disposed to it.
|
" A civil society cannot tolerate actors that appoint themselves to label certain movements fascist and respond with violence."
Isnt one of the predominant reasons people have for the Second Amendment that we should have guns in event we require violence against an oppressive (ie fascist) state?
|
On October 01 2020 14:46 Zambrah wrote: " A civil society cannot tolerate actors that appoint themselves to label certain movements fascist and respond with violence."
Isnt one of the predominant reasons people have for the Second Amendment that we should have guns in event we require violence against an oppressive (ie fascist) state?
This is kind of where I end up, though I do agree that molotovs and random violence aren't desireable.
As for why PB should denounce and antifa cannot - I can literally google to find leadership members of PB and see what they have to say. Does antifa have a message channel that they use to communicate, which they could then use to disavow these false members?
|
Yes, you should possess guns in the event that violence is required against an oppressive state. Antifa should be seen against the backdrop of "apocalypse now" imminent end of representative government. Just like other right-wing and kooky movements, they have limited appeal that their grievances are real and not imagined.
Maybe you were thinking that I wanted to take away the gun rights of Antifa? You tell me. Maybe you truly think that's my goal in all this. I caution you that you'll find yourself hard pressed to defend violence directed against a Patriot Prayer march in a city as a necessary response to an oppressive state.
|
I just have a hard time squaring the belief that one must be armed to prevent oppressive governments but also one must not be violent in a civil society against proclaimed fascists.
I mean, that would make the bar... what, the Government would have to come out and literally declare "We are now the United Fascist States" before they could be called fascist?
Antifa seems to come out a lot in situations where police brutality occurs, aka unwarranted state violence against it's own people, that seems like a situation where some anti-fascist ideals might be warranted being considered, and it certainly seems like the kind of situation proponents of the Second Amendment should see and think, "well, this is one of the big reasons I own guns, to prevent the state from enacting unjust violence on us."
|
"well, this is one of the big reasons I own guns, to prevent the state from enacting unjust violence on us." Likely because those specific words don't mean what people who see inconsistency think they mean. Think Cliven "‘Are they better off as slaves?" Bundy
|
On October 01 2020 15:27 Zambrah wrote: I just have a hard time squaring the belief that one must be armed to prevent oppressive governments but also one must not be violent in a civil society against proclaimed fascists.
I mean, that would make the bar... what, the Government would have to come out and literally declare "We are now the United Fascist States" before they could be called fascist?
Antifa seems to come out a lot in situations where police brutality occurs, aka unwarranted state violence against it's own people, that seems like a situation where some anti-fascist ideals might be warranted being considered, and it certainly seems like the kind of situation proponents of the Second Amendment should see and think, "well, this is one of the big reasons I own guns, to prevent the state from enacting unjust violence on us." Because they believe the 2nd amendment exists to protect white people from unjust violence, blacks being allowed to own guns is something they don't agree with, let alone using those guns to protect themselves against whites or the state.
|
The other thread is still blocked so I have to post here, but this is among the most shameless things I've seen.... He did something like earlier this too I believe, I remember seeing it at the time.
Edit : ah yeah, in the quote, about the covid relief checks.
Trump wants the food aid boxes to poor family to compulsorily include a letter with his name :
The letter comes in both English and Spanish on White House letterhead and features Trump’s bold signature: “As President, safeguarding the health and well-being of our citizens is one of my highest priorities,” it reads. “As part of our response to coronavirus, I prioritized sending nutritious food from our farmers to families in need throughout America.”
The move is the latest example of Trump using the levers of government and taxpayer dollars for self-promotion as he runs for re-election. In the early months of the crisis, the president enclosed letters with his signature to millions of Americans getting stimulus money stemming from a congressional aid package – and made sure his name was printed on the checks. His health department is now rushing to push out a $300 million taxpayer-funded ad campaign promoting the administration’s coronavirus response.
Ah yes, I also forgot that 300M taxpayer money funded campaign to laud the administration's coronavirus response. In what world is that acceptable, Republicans??
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/01/trump-letter-food-aid-boxes-424230
|
In what world is that acceptable, Republicans?? Still asking that question?
|
Well, no offense, but calling a healthcare system "OBAMACARE" could be considered worse.
|
On October 01 2020 22:10 dUTtrOACh wrote: Well, no offense, but calling a healthcare system "OBAMACARE" could be considered worse. "Affordable care act" is the law's name.
"Obamacare" The term "Obamacare" was originally coined by opponents as a pejorative. The term emerged in March 2007 when healthcare lobbyist Jeanne Schulte Scott wrote, "We will soon see a 'Giuliani-care' and 'Obama-care' to go along with 'McCain-care', 'Edwards-care', and a totally revamped and remodeled 'Hillary-care' from the 1990s".[314][315] According to research by Elspeth Reeve, the expression was used in early 2007, generally by writers describing the candidate's proposal for expanding coverage for the uninsured.[316] In May 2007 Mitt Romney introduced it to political discourse, saying, "How can we get those people insured without raising taxes and without having government take over healthcare?' And let me tell you, if we don't do it, the Democrats will. If the Democrats do it, it will be socialized medicine; it'll be government-managed care. It'll be what's known as Hillarycare or Barack Obamacare, or whatever you want to call it."[314]
By mid-2012, Obamacare had become the colloquial term used both by supporters and by opponents.[316] Obama endorsed the nickname, saying, "I have no problem with people saying Obama cares. I do care."[317]
Anything else, on topic?
|
On October 01 2020 14:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 13:25 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 01 2020 12:35 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2020 11:53 StasisField wrote:On October 01 2020 05:34 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2020 05:14 StasisField wrote:On October 01 2020 04:53 Danglars wrote: White supremacism and whatever the “nouveau return to western civilization” should be called are also idea.
They should be seen as plug and play ideologies that can be plugged into different groups run by malcontents. The ideas of Antifa themselves didn’t kill a dude in Portland a month ago, it was some hardcore Antifa guy. You do realize why there is a distinction between an idea and an organization, right? The KKK has a national leader that directs the KKK's actions and messages. Power within white supremacist movements like the Klan are centralized in a national leadership. They are an organization. Antifa does not have that. There is no overarching "Antifa" that all other Antifa branches follow and listen to. That's why you can't label Antifa as a terrorist organization or as an organization in general because there is no "Antifa" organization. You have random, independent branches scattered all across the U.S. who are deciding what they believe Antifa stands for and how their branch should go about expressing their independently formed beliefs. They are not even close to the same. You’re confusing the lack of a hierarchical national organizing body, with the lack of organization. The KKK would still be bad if it wasn’t centrally run, and each city instead organized on its own. Their ideology is repugnant. It’s no wonder that so many of these independent bodies have contributed to violence. Biden should condemn Antifa if he really wants to draw a line against Trump. Too bad Trumps too all over the place to articulate the point. I'm not confusing it with a lack of organization though. People trying to argue that you can label anyone who identifies as Antifa as a terrorist are confusing organizations existing with there being an overarching, national organization. Trying to give Antifa in general a terrorist label for something a specific branch did is like trying to give everyone who follows Islam a terrorist label because of something done by ISIS. You can condemn the actions of the branch and even label that branch as a terrorist organization if their core tenants and actions are terrorist in nature but you can't label the general ideology terrorist in nature. That's why "Antifa" is an idea and not an organization. White Supremacist movements like the Klan, however have a national, centralized leadership, and actions done under the name of the Klan reflect the Klan as a whole. They are an organization. I'm not hung up on the idea that you have to label them a terrorist organization. I think they're rightly described as Antifa, something that should be condemned in modern society by presidential candidates of both parties. They have an ideology that says, generally, there's fascists around that must be opposed by any means necessary, including violence. Anarchist, violent extremists hold to that banner, just as militia types on the opposite side of things (in the words of Christopher Wray). It's like the relationship between million dollar cap AAA game developers and some indie shop with 20 employees. They're both businesses, and they're both in the same business, but just because of the size you can't call one not a video game developer. Antifa is several organizations headquartered in small chapters in cities that organize around opposing right-wing marches and holding their own usually-violent marches against police or capitalism or whatever event. Several of their members, and related groups, get arrested in cities regularly. When I say Antifa, I'm talking about the disparate organizations identifying with that name scattered across major cities in the United States. It doesn't matter to me that Portland Antifa claimed the head of a far-right guy, but some East Bay Antifa guy only managed to bludgeon a right-wing protester by swinging a bike lock, and the best Seattle Antifa members have been able to muster is smashing windows and possession of molotovs. Similar organizations, and a spectrum of crimes and charges. I see no reason to dismiss the commonalities for your insistence that it must be organized nationally to be called an organization. I wouldn't say they were well-organized, though. Left-wingers tend to try and fail at that part. I think the part people struggle with is that there's no governing body for Antifa, and therefore no structure saying "This person is Antifa, this person is not." and no accountability. Compare it to the Proud Boys. I could declare myself a Proud Boy, go out and absolutely fuck up an old person because violence is "Our M.O.", and Proud Boys could issue a statement along the lines of "We have no idea who that is, but they fucked up an old person and we think that's funny and cool. They're not a Proud Boy but good effort." because they're an actual organization. Similarly, I could declare myself ANTIFA (or, really, anyone could) and go set fire to a building or fuck up an old person, and there's no central agency to condemn or condone my actions, just reports and reporters who could (fairly) say that I 'was Antifa' and did a shitty thing. I guess it's actually most similar to feminism, honestly. I consider feminism a very respectable ideal, and have encountered extremist feminists with shitty, toxic ideas that I suspect come from a place of great hurt. Similarly to antifa, there's no 'governing agency' for feminism overall, no president of feminism that can comment on where the message of the more extreme feminists lie, or governing body for the momentum of the movement. People self-declare themselves feminists, and while I'd personally be willing to hear arguments that the entire movement comes from a bad place or whatever, I would (and do) quickly correct people who want to blanket-declare feminism and feminists as undesireable based on interactions with extremist feminists who don't necessarily represent the core of the idea. With that as framing, I do not agree with open denouncement of antifa, because antifa ideals as I understand them (Being anti-fascist, anti-homophobia/xenophobia) are things I see as good and would support, and do not believe regarding the entire idea as bad because that envelope contains some ugliness. As points of clarification, I do recognize that feminism at large engages more bureaucratic methods of invoking change and doesn't endorse violence 'where needed'. I also recognize that I'm ultimately making a "few bad eggs" argument, which is why I mention a willingness to listen to an argument suggesting that antifa is rotten at the core of its ideas. Lastly, I will mention that I see antifa's 'inclusion of violence as an acceptable means of defending their ideals' is conceptually similar, to me, to the citizens of the US having a right to arm themselves against their own government - the idea there not being that US citizens are encouraged toward wanton use of force, but an acknowledgement that there are scenarios in which force is necessary. I don't see any reason why the Proud Boys would disavow, and the local Antifa branch would not. You don't present one. I think the Antifa ideal should be denounced pretty easily, even by somebody like you. A civil society cannot tolerate actors that appoint themselves to label certain movements fascist and respond with violence. I include violence against property and against persons in this description. They're behaving and have behaved as an advance group taking active measures against who they view as fascists. This should be easily differentiated from time-honored defensive efforts protecting person, family, and property. Street melee and molotovs aren't transferable between arming yourself for self-defense. Maybe some imaginative, reformed Antifa could make better use of their second amendment rights and publish pamphlets denouncing tyranny directed against them ... and I wish you all the luck with that, if you're disposed to it.
Because there is no such thing as a "local ANTIFA branch." Similarly - there is not an "Office of Affairs for Those Who Prefer Vanilla Ice Cream". There might be a local "Vanilla Ice Cream Lovers" club, but they have no authority over consumers of ice cream at large.
|
On October 01 2020 22:10 dUTtrOACh wrote: Well, no offense, but calling a healthcare system "OBAMACARE" could be considered worse. Agreed. That's why they really didn't.
|
Norway28241 Posts
Yea, Obamacare was the negative term given to it by republicans to build opposition against it. This is why you saw polls indicating that many people were negative towards Obamacare while being positive towards the affordable care act.
|
Meanwhile, people still call it Obamacare.
|
On October 01 2020 22:22 dUTtrOACh wrote: Meanwhile, people still call it Obamacare. How is that comparable to Trump forcing a message saying that the food box is especially from him, one month from an election? Did obama spend tax dollars to have the law nicknamed after himself? Did he ask for it to be named like that? No.
|
According to what you posted, he kind of... did. On an election year.
By mid-2012, Obamacare had become the colloquial term used both by supporters and by opponents.[316] Obama endorsed the nickname, saying, "I have no problem with people saying Obama cares. I do care."[317]
|
On October 01 2020 22:22 dUTtrOACh wrote: Meanwhile, people still call it Obamacare. Yeah, sometime the catchy insult names Republicans come up with backfire. It is really the best way to defeat bullying, own and laugh at the insult.
Question, do you not see a difference between Republicans calling the affordable Healthcare act obamacare and Trump trying to force his name on food boxes?
And you seemed to skip over the worse part of the story.
|
On October 01 2020 22:39 dUTtrOACh wrote:According to what you posted, he kind of... did. On an election year. Show nested quote + By mid-2012, Obamacare had become the colloquial term used both by supporters and by opponents.[316] Obama endorsed the nickname, saying, "I have no problem with people saying Obama cares. I do care."[317]
I assume that you see the difference between a colloquial term that ends up being used by everyone and the government writing "THANK DONALD TRUMP FOR FEEDING YOU" on emergency food stamps.
So what are we talking about here?
|
It's an optional read that probably falls to the bottom of the box and gets thrown out with the rest of the cardboard.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
So it's cool to have an obnoxious "Thank Dear Leader" note in your food provisions then. Because poor people need to be reminded that Trump is president. It's been doing a whole lot for them so far.
|
On October 01 2020 22:39 dUTtrOACh wrote:According to what you posted, he kind of... did. On an election year. Show nested quote + By mid-2012, Obamacare had become the colloquial term used both by supporters and by opponents.[316] Obama endorsed the nickname, saying, "I have no problem with people saying Obama cares. I do care."[317]
I give up that's a bad faith argument.
There is no relation between answering "do you mind that people call that law with your name" (which was originally derogatory) and forcing associations with threat of fines to put papers praising you just before an election. If you can't see the difference, I won't engage more, it's bullshit.
|
One thing I have been thinking about since the election that no one here has talked about is that Donald Trump Claimed the US would have a Vaccine by the election. And he both doubled and Tripled down it, that it would happen.
Did it not make news because everyone including republicans knows it is not true? If so why are you guys OK with him making up serious things like this, at a serious time? Does this not make you question his other claims?
And if you believe he will follow through, will there be any personal consequence if he does not?
|
Northern Ireland20514 Posts
On October 01 2020 21:17 Nouar wrote:The other thread is still blocked so I have to post here, but this is among the most shameless things I've seen.... He did something like earlier this too I believe, I remember seeing it at the time. Edit : ah yeah, in the quote, about the covid relief checks. Trump wants the food aid boxes to poor family to compulsorily include a letter with his name : Show nested quote + The letter comes in both English and Spanish on White House letterhead and features Trump’s bold signature: “As President, safeguarding the health and well-being of our citizens is one of my highest priorities,” it reads. “As part of our response to coronavirus, I prioritized sending nutritious food from our farmers to families in need throughout America.”
The move is the latest example of Trump using the levers of government and taxpayer dollars for self-promotion as he runs for re-election. In the early months of the crisis, the president enclosed letters with his signature to millions of Americans getting stimulus money stemming from a congressional aid package – and made sure his name was printed on the checks. His health department is now rushing to push out a $300 million taxpayer-funded ad campaign promoting the administration’s coronavirus response.
Ah yes, I also forgot that 300M taxpayer money funded campaign to laud the administration's coronavirus response. In what world is that acceptable, Republicans?? https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/01/trump-letter-food-aid-boxes-424230 It’s breathtaking levels of leveraging suffering to feed his narcissism.
I’ve kind of given up on Republicans denouncing even his most egregious behaviour, I hope the thread’s denizens will prove my pessimism wrong here though.
It would be (only slightly) less galling if he wasn’t including a ‘thank your glorious benefactor’ note if his administration’s response to Covid hadn’t been so bloody inadequate in the first place.
|
On October 01 2020 23:19 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 21:17 Nouar wrote:The other thread is still blocked so I have to post here, but this is among the most shameless things I've seen.... He did something like earlier this too I believe, I remember seeing it at the time. Edit : ah yeah, in the quote, about the covid relief checks. Trump wants the food aid boxes to poor family to compulsorily include a letter with his name : The letter comes in both English and Spanish on White House letterhead and features Trump’s bold signature: “As President, safeguarding the health and well-being of our citizens is one of my highest priorities,” it reads. “As part of our response to coronavirus, I prioritized sending nutritious food from our farmers to families in need throughout America.”
The move is the latest example of Trump using the levers of government and taxpayer dollars for self-promotion as he runs for re-election. In the early months of the crisis, the president enclosed letters with his signature to millions of Americans getting stimulus money stemming from a congressional aid package – and made sure his name was printed on the checks. His health department is now rushing to push out a $300 million taxpayer-funded ad campaign promoting the administration’s coronavirus response.
Ah yes, I also forgot that 300M taxpayer money funded campaign to laud the administration's coronavirus response. In what world is that acceptable, Republicans?? https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/01/trump-letter-food-aid-boxes-424230 It’s breathtaking levels of leveraging suffering to feed his narcissism. I’ve kind of given up on Republicans denouncing even his most egregious behaviour, I hope the thread’s denizens will prove my pessimism wrong here though. It would be (only slightly) less galling if he wasn’t including a ‘thank your glorious benefactor’ note if his administration’s response to Covid hadn’t been so bloody inadequate in the first place.
Maybe they should start putting it on covid death certificates too.
|
Trump always finding new ways to lower the bar! Imagine if he had spent that 300 mill on actually providing more food or PPE or paying front line workers more or literally anything other than furthering his own name?
|
It's no worse than when he delayed the COVID paper relief checks so that he could have his names on them
|
It is honestly kind of impressive how much of a narcissistic baby Trump is.
Not as impressive as people actually thinking that this man makes a good president. It was obvious in 2016 that he would make a bad president, it was obvious throughout his presidency that he is a bad president, and it is obvious now that he would continue to be a bad president if elected. Yet somehow a sizeable portion of americans still wants to elect this absolute buffoon.
|
On October 02 2020 00:10 Simberto wrote: It is honestly kind of impressive how much of a narcissistic baby Trump is.
Not as impressive as people actually thinking that this man makes a good president. It was obvious in 2016 that he would make a bad president, it was obvious throughout his presidency that he is a bad president, and it is obvious now that he would continue to be a bad president if elected. Yet somehow a sizeable portion of americans still wants to elect this absolute buffoon. Well in 2016 there was some hope, and well it was presumed it was not confirmed. At this point every decision is just worse and so publicly bad. That he falsely claimed we would have a vaccine by the election over and over, and that was not news just says how much lying and bad shit he does that it is every hard to process it all.
Also, I hope they don't mute the mics. Part of his schtick is everyone is against him and this will play to in, and that seems to excuse for many his obviously shitty behavior. Better to leave it on and let everyone see what type of man he is. And if this is what they want so be it.
|
On October 02 2020 00:10 Simberto wrote: It is honestly kind of impressive how much of a narcissistic baby Trump is.
Not as impressive as people actually thinking that this man makes a good president. It was obvious in 2016 that he would make a bad president, it was obvious throughout his presidency that he is a bad president, and it is obvious now that he would continue to be a bad president if elected. Yet somehow a sizeable portion of americans still wants to elect this absolute buffoon. He's a useful buffoon, he's a useful idiot, and he's a useful narcissist. So none of that stuff matters to his base. They just care about useful. Consequences be damned.
|
I think a mix of muted and open debate sections is appropriate. If you have a time where candidates need to present their views or speak about a topic, ex. coronavirus for 90s, your opponent should be muted. At the end of 90s "Thank you xxx, your time is up <mute xxx>, yyy, what are your views on <topic>, 90s"
If there's a comment/respond section, I don't see any way of selective muting to avoid bias. It's going to be a shitshow unless you clamp down hard to something like 30s, 30s mute/responses at which point it's overly structured.
Just let half the debate be a shitshow, and hope that the other half redeems it.
|
I mean he is a buffoon. The White supremist question was a softball from a Fox news employee moderator. He just had to disavow evil, even something general like. "I disavow all white supremists and racism"
The good news is he is still shooting himself in the foot in the polls. Apparently generally the Reps do fairly well in mail in because of seniors. But this year it is an absolute landslide for the Dems. Turns out telling your base it is full of fraud is very demotivating and he has created yet another disadvantage. Also it is noticeable in battle ground states and will mean more than just the presidential race. He's doing his best to bring the whole party down on top of him.
On October 02 2020 01:28 Lmui wrote: I think a mix of muted and open debate sections is appropriate. If you have a time where candidates need to present their views or speak about a topic, ex. coronavirus for 90s, your opponent should be muted. At the end of 90s "Thank you xxx, your time is up <mute xxx>, yyy, what are your views on <topic>, 90s"
If there's a comment/respond section, I don't see any way of selective muting to avoid bias. It's going to be a shitshow unless you clamp down hard to something like 30s, 30s mute/responses at which point it's overly structured.
Just let half the debate be a shitshow, and hope that the other half redeems it.
It would be better to watch, but I think better for trump as it would help him with his victim of the deep state schitck and protect him from himself.
|
On October 02 2020 01:28 Lmui wrote: I think a mix of muted and open debate sections is appropriate. If you have a time where candidates need to present their views or speak about a topic, ex. coronavirus for 90s, your opponent should be muted. At the end of 90s "Thank you xxx, your time is up <mute xxx>, yyy, what are your views on <topic>, 90s"
If there's a comment/respond section, I don't see any way of selective muting to avoid bias. It's going to be a shitshow unless you clamp down hard to something like 30s, 30s mute/responses at which point it's overly structured.
Just let half the debate be a shitshow, and hope that the other half redeems it.
I’d also like some questions to have a clear time limit and the other guy muted.
Then moderator steps back for crosstalk about each other’s answers. Biden says Trump won’t do anything, didn’t really mean it. Trump says Biden’s record shows he’s lying in his answer and/or incompetent. That kind of stuff. (And it that’s a shitshow of a crosstalk, that’s just the two candidates nominated for the presidency, so suffer through it for the next muted question or turn it off)
|
Does helping Trump with his prosecution complex do anything tho? Is there anyone outside of the people who will vote Trump anyway that buys into it?
|
I doubt even muting Trump's mic would keep him silent, he'd likely just yell and shout regardless so we'll probably hear him anyway
|
Anyone wants another example of Barr's DOJ being a hack? There is a ruckus about the Mueller team wiping their cellphones before giving them back. It stems from a FOIA lawsuit from Judicial Watch, and the DOJ gracefully provided the fact that 15+cellphones were wiped and contained no data. It would in fact be an issue if it was true as is. However, it is misleading.
It seems (and that sounds perfectly normal to me as an IT guy) that everything was backed up in several locations, so the phones being wiped don't mean any data was lost. The information was provided to Judicial Watch and the DOJ, but they surprisingly are not in a hurry to recognize that publicly ;-)
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/andrew-weissmann-says-hes-debunked-conspiracy-theory-about-mueller-team-wiping-cell-phones/?utm_source=mostpopular
|
On October 01 2020 22:53 NewSunshine wrote: So it's cool to have an obnoxious "Thank Dear Leader" note in your food provisions then. Because poor people need to be reminded that Trump is president. It's been doing a whole lot for them so far. Another disgusting act by a disgusting human being. At this point, if you're informed and voting for Trump, you have some morality issue.
|
On October 02 2020 02:16 Nouar wrote:Anyone wants another example of Barr's DOJ being a hack? There is a ruckus about the Mueller team wiping their cellphones before giving them back. It stems from a FOIA lawsuit from Judicial Watch, and the DOJ gracefully provided the fact that 15+cellphones were wiped and contained no data. It would in fact be an issue if it was true as is. However, it is misleading. It seems (and that sounds perfectly normal to me as an IT guy) that everything was backed up in several locations, so the phones being wiped don't mean any data was lost. The information was provided to Judicial Watch and the DOJ, but they surprisingly are not in a hurry to recognize that publicly ;-) https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/andrew-weissmann-says-hes-debunked-conspiracy-theory-about-mueller-team-wiping-cell-phones/?utm_source=mostpopular
Why did they wipe them in the first place
The reasons provided included from hardware issues, damage, and forgotten passwords (if the incorrect password is typed more than ten times, the phone automatically returns to factory settings).
Suuuure...
|
On October 02 2020 02:20 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2020 02:16 Nouar wrote:Anyone wants another example of Barr's DOJ being a hack? There is a ruckus about the Mueller team wiping their cellphones before giving them back. It stems from a FOIA lawsuit from Judicial Watch, and the DOJ gracefully provided the fact that 15+cellphones were wiped and contained no data. It would in fact be an issue if it was true as is. However, it is misleading. It seems (and that sounds perfectly normal to me as an IT guy) that everything was backed up in several locations, so the phones being wiped don't mean any data was lost. The information was provided to Judicial Watch and the DOJ, but they surprisingly are not in a hurry to recognize that publicly ;-) https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/andrew-weissmann-says-hes-debunked-conspiracy-theory-about-mueller-team-wiping-cell-phones/?utm_source=mostpopular Why did they wipe them in the first place Show nested quote +The reasons provided included from hardware issues, damage, and forgotten passwords (if the incorrect password is typed more than ten times, the phone automatically returns to factory settings). Suuuure... As long as the backup date is around the wiping date, and the integrity check of the backup has not been tampered with, it's fine. The information should be very easy for DOJ to find out. However, they only presented the crunchy bits.
I do agree that is something that needs to be verified. I don't agree with how the matter was disclosed.
|
On October 02 2020 02:20 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2020 02:16 Nouar wrote:Anyone wants another example of Barr's DOJ being a hack? There is a ruckus about the Mueller team wiping their cellphones before giving them back. It stems from a FOIA lawsuit from Judicial Watch, and the DOJ gracefully provided the fact that 15+cellphones were wiped and contained no data. It would in fact be an issue if it was true as is. However, it is misleading. It seems (and that sounds perfectly normal to me as an IT guy) that everything was backed up in several locations, so the phones being wiped don't mean any data was lost. The information was provided to Judicial Watch and the DOJ, but they surprisingly are not in a hurry to recognize that publicly ;-) https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/andrew-weissmann-says-hes-debunked-conspiracy-theory-about-mueller-team-wiping-cell-phones/?utm_source=mostpopular Why did they wipe them in the first place Show nested quote +The reasons provided included from hardware issues, damage, and forgotten passwords (if the incorrect password is typed more than ten times, the phone automatically returns to factory settings). Suuuure... Why wouldn't you? Generally security is a big deal for people in government and prosecution. Keeping hardware floating around is recipe for disaster. Backing it up on multiple secure servers sounds way better. What would possibly be the issue? I mean this is pretty standard operating procedure for almost every company that provides a phone and they have way less need to be secure than the FBI.
|
On October 02 2020 02:20 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2020 02:16 Nouar wrote:Anyone wants another example of Barr's DOJ being a hack? There is a ruckus about the Mueller team wiping their cellphones before giving them back. It stems from a FOIA lawsuit from Judicial Watch, and the DOJ gracefully provided the fact that 15+cellphones were wiped and contained no data. It would in fact be an issue if it was true as is. However, it is misleading. It seems (and that sounds perfectly normal to me as an IT guy) that everything was backed up in several locations, so the phones being wiped don't mean any data was lost. The information was provided to Judicial Watch and the DOJ, but they surprisingly are not in a hurry to recognize that publicly ;-) https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/andrew-weissmann-says-hes-debunked-conspiracy-theory-about-mueller-team-wiping-cell-phones/?utm_source=mostpopular Why did they wipe them in the first place Show nested quote +The reasons provided included from hardware issues, damage, and forgotten passwords (if the incorrect password is typed more than ten times, the phone automatically returns to factory settings). Suuuure... Surely when you return a phone that was previously used for classified work (and part of the work on the Mueller investigation included classified material) then surely wiping the phone is standard procedure?
You want a bunch of phones lying in storage with potentially classified information on them? You back up the data to a secure server and then wipe them.
Heck your run of the mill boring company office is likely to purge any laptops you loaned, let alone an organisation like the FBI.
|
On October 02 2020 02:36 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2020 02:20 Sent. wrote:On October 02 2020 02:16 Nouar wrote:Anyone wants another example of Barr's DOJ being a hack? There is a ruckus about the Mueller team wiping their cellphones before giving them back. It stems from a FOIA lawsuit from Judicial Watch, and the DOJ gracefully provided the fact that 15+cellphones were wiped and contained no data. It would in fact be an issue if it was true as is. However, it is misleading. It seems (and that sounds perfectly normal to me as an IT guy) that everything was backed up in several locations, so the phones being wiped don't mean any data was lost. The information was provided to Judicial Watch and the DOJ, but they surprisingly are not in a hurry to recognize that publicly ;-) https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/andrew-weissmann-says-hes-debunked-conspiracy-theory-about-mueller-team-wiping-cell-phones/?utm_source=mostpopular Why did they wipe them in the first place The reasons provided included from hardware issues, damage, and forgotten passwords (if the incorrect password is typed more than ten times, the phone automatically returns to factory settings). Suuuure... Surely when you return a phone that was previously used for classified work (and part of the work on the Mueller investigation included classified material) then surely wiping the phone is standard procedure? You want a bunch of phones lying in storage with potentially classified information on them? You back up the data to a secure server and then wipe them. Heck your run of the mill boring company office is likely to purge any laptops you loaned, let alone an organisation like the FBI. Yes and no. I work on classified systems. There are compulsory data retention periods for *everything*, even the most useless logs. At the secret level it's 5 years for us.
So when you give your equipment back to your IT personnel, usually it's as-is, except maybe in cases where they were working only on network drives/mailboxes/syslogs etc where we can do the retention remotely. However when devices are sent to be destroyed afterwards, by the IT personnel, then yes, they are 100% wiped (7 or 15 passes depending on the levels).
In the US there is the need to keep data for FOIA requests, and for keeping government records at all, and probably some other reasons due to the investigative nature of the thing.
|
On October 02 2020 02:41 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2020 02:36 Gorsameth wrote:On October 02 2020 02:20 Sent. wrote:On October 02 2020 02:16 Nouar wrote:Anyone wants another example of Barr's DOJ being a hack? There is a ruckus about the Mueller team wiping their cellphones before giving them back. It stems from a FOIA lawsuit from Judicial Watch, and the DOJ gracefully provided the fact that 15+cellphones were wiped and contained no data. It would in fact be an issue if it was true as is. However, it is misleading. It seems (and that sounds perfectly normal to me as an IT guy) that everything was backed up in several locations, so the phones being wiped don't mean any data was lost. The information was provided to Judicial Watch and the DOJ, but they surprisingly are not in a hurry to recognize that publicly ;-) https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/andrew-weissmann-says-hes-debunked-conspiracy-theory-about-mueller-team-wiping-cell-phones/?utm_source=mostpopular Why did they wipe them in the first place The reasons provided included from hardware issues, damage, and forgotten passwords (if the incorrect password is typed more than ten times, the phone automatically returns to factory settings). Suuuure... Surely when you return a phone that was previously used for classified work (and part of the work on the Mueller investigation included classified material) then surely wiping the phone is standard procedure? You want a bunch of phones lying in storage with potentially classified information on them? You back up the data to a secure server and then wipe them. Heck your run of the mill boring company office is likely to purge any laptops you loaned, let alone an organisation like the FBI. Yes and no. I work on classified systems. There are compulsory data retention periods for *everything*, even the most useless logs. At the secret level it's 5 years for us. So when you give your equipment back to your IT personnel, usually it's as-is, except maybe in cases where they were working only on network drives/mailboxes/syslogs etc where we can do the retention remotely. However when devices are sent to be destroyed afterwards, by the IT personnel, then yes, they are 100% wiped (7 or 15 passes depending on the levels). In the US there is the need to keep data for FOIA requests, and for keeping government records at all, and probably some other reasons due to the investigative nature of the thing. fortunately the article mentions In an interview with CBS News on Wednesday, former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann said all of the data contained on the phones was intentionally backed-up prior to the phones being wiped. So, all data was backed up and stored as per data retention rules and then they were wiped.
|
Wait, people are defending twelve plus people marking their phones as “accidentally” wiped clean? Perhaps Nouar has an explanation for why double digit numbers agents/investigators sometimes mark these things down as accidental wipes, or Gorsa has some alternative definitions of accidentally.
|
On October 02 2020 02:57 Danglars wrote: Wait, people are defending twelve plus people marking their phones as “accidentally” wiped clean? Perhaps Nouar has an explanation for why double digit numbers agents/investigators sometimes mark these things down as accidental wipes, or Gorsa has some alternative definitions of accidentally. Was the data lost? Because if it was this is a huge issue.
|
On October 02 2020 02:57 Danglars wrote: Wait, people are defending twelve plus people marking their phones as “accidentally” wiped clean? Perhaps Nouar has an explanation for why double digit numbers agents/investigators sometimes mark these things down as accidental wipes, or Gorsa has some alternative definitions of accidentally. no, you know exactly what we are defending because I just spelled it out for you, go read it again and take your time.
|
On October 02 2020 03:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2020 02:57 Danglars wrote: Wait, people are defending twelve plus people marking their phones as “accidentally” wiped clean? Perhaps Nouar has an explanation for why double digit numbers agents/investigators sometimes mark these things down as accidental wipes, or Gorsa has some alternative definitions of accidentally. no, you know exactly what we are defending because I just spelled it out for you, go read it again and take your time. I’d hate so see any logs you generate, if you go about writing “accidentally” for wipes, and the important thing is that the data was backed up previously.
|
On October 02 2020 03:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2020 03:05 Gorsameth wrote:On October 02 2020 02:57 Danglars wrote: Wait, people are defending twelve plus people marking their phones as “accidentally” wiped clean? Perhaps Nouar has an explanation for why double digit numbers agents/investigators sometimes mark these things down as accidental wipes, or Gorsa has some alternative definitions of accidentally. no, you know exactly what we are defending because I just spelled it out for you, go read it again and take your time. I’d hate so see any logs you generate, if you go about writing “accidentally” for wipes, and the important thing is that the data was backed up previously. I'm more concerned with why the AG who is not meant to be partisan is releasing partial information to make things look worse then they should. Transparency is meant to a important part of democracies.
At least Covid won't be a problem in 5 weeks and we have the proud boys standing by to stop whatever bad stuff happens.
|
TBH that's pretty standard. Hardware is always re-used at a company level all the time if the device is still within the support period, and sometimes outside of it. IIRC laptops at my company are always re-used if there's more than 4 months remaining in the support period.
If you have a mandatory retention period for data that should be backed up, whether it's emails or pictures/communication, IT should have a standardized process to do it. The device is wiped, and added to inventory for re-issue. An intern for instance might join and leave within 4-8 months and there's no point in buying hardware like laptops and trashing it after.
The wiping itself is not a problem, the only problem would be if there are missing/irrecoverable backups.
|
This is a document that has just been made available before a hearing on Tuesday about white supremacist infiltration of law enforcement. https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/White_Supremacist_Infiltration_of_Law_Enforcement.pdf Here's the findings:
(U//LES) Although white supremacist groups have historically engaged in strategic efforts to infiltrate and recruit from law enforcement communities, current reporting on attempts reflects self-initiated efforts by individuals, particularly among those already within law enforcement ranks, to volunteer their professional resources to white supremacist causes with which they sympathize. • (U//LES) The primary threat from infiltration or recruitment arises from the areas of intelligence collection and exploitation, which can lead to investigative breaches and can jeopardize the safety of law enforcement sources and personnel. • (U//LES) White supremacist presence among law enforcement personnel is a concern due to the access they may possess to restricted areas vulnerable to sabotage and to elected officials or protected persons, whom they could see as potential targets for violence. In addition, white supremacist infiltration of law enforcement can result in other abuses of authority and passive tolerance of racism within communities served. • (U//LES) The intelligence acquired through the successful infiltration of law enforcement by one white supremacist group can benefit other groups due to the multiple allegiances white supremacists typically hold.
The more evidence comes out the more it becomes clear (if it somehow wasn't already) where the real threat lies in the US.
|
On October 02 2020 05:07 Jockmcplop wrote:This is a document that has just been made available before a hearing on Tuesday about white supremacist infiltration of law enforcement. https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/White_Supremacist_Infiltration_of_Law_Enforcement.pdfHere's the findings: Show nested quote +(U//LES) Although white supremacist groups have historically engaged in strategic efforts to infiltrate and recruit from law enforcement communities, current reporting on attempts reflects self-initiated efforts by individuals, particularly among those already within law enforcement ranks, to volunteer their professional resources to white supremacist causes with which they sympathize. • (U//LES) The primary threat from infiltration or recruitment arises from the areas of intelligence collection and exploitation, which can lead to investigative breaches and can jeopardize the safety of law enforcement sources and personnel. • (U//LES) White supremacist presence among law enforcement personnel is a concern due to the access they may possess to restricted areas vulnerable to sabotage and to elected officials or protected persons, whom they could see as potential targets for violence. In addition, white supremacist infiltration of law enforcement can result in other abuses of authority and passive tolerance of racism within communities served. • (U//LES) The intelligence acquired through the successful infiltration of law enforcement by one white supremacist group can benefit other groups due to the multiple allegiances white supremacists typically hold. The more evidence comes out the more it becomes clear (if it somehow wasn't already) where the real threat lies in the US. Did it happen to mention how much Antifa infiltration into law enforcement there was?
|
On October 02 2020 05:14 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2020 05:07 Jockmcplop wrote:This is a document that has just been made available before a hearing on Tuesday about white supremacist infiltration of law enforcement. https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/White_Supremacist_Infiltration_of_Law_Enforcement.pdfHere's the findings: (U//LES) Although white supremacist groups have historically engaged in strategic efforts to infiltrate and recruit from law enforcement communities, current reporting on attempts reflects self-initiated efforts by individuals, particularly among those already within law enforcement ranks, to volunteer their professional resources to white supremacist causes with which they sympathize. • (U//LES) The primary threat from infiltration or recruitment arises from the areas of intelligence collection and exploitation, which can lead to investigative breaches and can jeopardize the safety of law enforcement sources and personnel. • (U//LES) White supremacist presence among law enforcement personnel is a concern due to the access they may possess to restricted areas vulnerable to sabotage and to elected officials or protected persons, whom they could see as potential targets for violence. In addition, white supremacist infiltration of law enforcement can result in other abuses of authority and passive tolerance of racism within communities served. • (U//LES) The intelligence acquired through the successful infiltration of law enforcement by one white supremacist group can benefit other groups due to the multiple allegiances white supremacists typically hold. The more evidence comes out the more it becomes clear (if it somehow wasn't already) where the real threat lies in the US. Did it happen to mention how much Antifa infiltration into law enforcement there was?
Has that ever been an issue anywhere at any time? I have never heard of any credible left wing infiltration of police in any country but historically right wing groups have frequently been an issue.
|
Yeah I don't think that's a thing. The scope of this document is limited to white supremacy anyway.
|
That is what I figured. But given the massive play antifa gets in the media and on these threads I thought it would be interesting to contrast the 0 to what the white supremists are up too.
|
On October 02 2020 05:56 JimmiC wrote: That is what I figured. But given the massive play antifa gets in the media and on these threads I thought it would be interesting to contrast the 0 to what the white supremists are up too.
It's a given though. Antifa by doctrine doesn't like state-mandated police for... obvious reasons. You won't find any groups associated with Antifa that are pro law-enforcement. The entire reason they come together is the feeling that the state isn't doing enough to stop fascism.
|
It's a total philosophical contradiction to their position to even pretend to work as police. If they were less staunch in their beliefs, they wouldn't be doing anything they are doing. They're idealists.
This isn't true of police and white supremacy, so it's not surprising that they infiltrate each other. Police also infiltrate left wing groups, though there's generally less cause for it in the antifa style groups... it's just a short hand for leftist anti-authoritarians who aren't avowed pacifists. Anti-authoritarians (many of whom are anti-hierarchies in general) won't centralize as a group and generally won't travel, either.
This isn't to say that there aren't dangerous leftist groups - ELF, weather underground types, PETA-style groups, etc. are a lot more dangerous but generally have been falling in relevance, and are almost certainly targets for undercover work - just that antifa is literally nothing but a name for individuals occupying a certain area of political beliefs.
Asking antifa to disavow something is like asking clouds to disavow donuts. It's a completely nonsensical demand. Be specific when talking about them. There are individual groups responsible for various acts, and it is laziness from the MSM and opportunism from right wing media to use antifa instead.
edit: Also, Trump has lost Scott Adams, the creator of dilbert, over how bad his white supremacy answer was. Adams was the last intellectual(pseudo or not - he was always capable of being thought provoking in a non-partisan way) I know of on Trump's side, so that's a pretty bad sign.
|
Northern Ireland20514 Posts
I wonder how much subterfuge it takes for white supremacists to infiltrate the police :rolls eyes:
|
On October 02 2020 06:40 Nevuk wrote:It's a total philosophical contradiction to their position to even pretend to work as police. If they were less staunch in their beliefs, they wouldn't be doing anything they are doing. They're idealists. This isn't true of police and white supremacy, so it's not surprising that they infiltrate each other. Police also infiltrate left wing groups, though there's generally less cause for it in the antifa style groups... it's just a short hand for leftist anti-authoritarians who aren't avowed pacifists. Anti-authoritarians (many of whom are anti-hierarchies in general) won't centralize as a group and generally won't travel, either. This isn't to say that there aren't dangerous leftist groups - ELF, weather underground types, PETA-style groups, etc. are a lot more dangerous but generally have been falling in relevance, and are almost certainly targets for undercover work - just that antifa is literally nothing but a name for individuals occupying a certain area of political beliefs. Asking antifa to disavow something is like asking clouds to disavow donuts. It's a completely nonsensical demand. Be specific when talking about them. There are individual groups responsible for various acts, and it is laziness from the MSM and opportunism from right wing media to use antifa instead. edit: Also, Trump has lost Scott Adams, the creator of dilbert, over how bad his white supremacy answer was. Adams was the last intellectual(pseudo or not - he was always capable of being thought provoking in a non-partisan way) I know of on Trump's side, so that's a pretty bad sign. https://twitter.com/thejd800/status/1311735674161131520
I'm really unsure how you can be on his side and not hold values that white supremacy is good. He got a soft ball question from a friendly moderator and instead of disavowing he gave them a shout out and a battle cry.
I personally think he meant to dog whistle but because he is not smart or subtle he just went all in. Now maybe I'm wrong and he just full out supports them but there is no denying that at the very best he is pro whoever votes for him no matter what they stand for.
|
On October 02 2020 06:40 Nevuk wrote: It's a total philosophical contradiction to their position to even pretend to work as police. If they were less staunch in their beliefs, they wouldn't be doing anything they are doing. They're idealists.
This isn't true of police and white supremacy, so it's not surprising that they infiltrate each other. Police also infiltrate left wing groups, though there's generally less cause for it in the antifa style groups... it's just a short hand for leftist anti-authoritarians who aren't avowed pacifists. Anti-authoritarians (many of whom are anti-hierarchies in general) won't centralize as a group and generally won't travel, either.
This isn't to say that there aren't dangerous leftist groups - ELF, weather underground types, PETA-style groups, etc. are a lot more dangerous but generally have been falling in relevance, and are almost certainly targets for undercover work - just that antifa is literally nothing but a name for individuals occupying a certain area of political beliefs.
Asking antifa to disavow something is like asking clouds to disavow donuts. It's a completely nonsensical demand. Be specific when talking about them. There are individual groups responsible for various acts, and it is laziness from the MSM and opportunism from right wing media to use antifa instead.
Totally anecdotal. I was actually at an anarchist cafe years ago here in pdx where an animal liberation group was holding a meeting/event and they threw out 2 suspected cops, which then revealed themselves to be cops. It’s crazy what police get up to lol.
|
On October 02 2020 06:43 WombaT wrote: I wonder how much subterfuge it takes for white supremacists to infiltrate the police :rolls eyes: The joke goes that police don’t do nudie calendars like their firemen counterparts because they wouldn’t be able to cover up all the fashy tattoos
|
On October 02 2020 06:48 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2020 06:40 Nevuk wrote: It's a total philosophical contradiction to their position to even pretend to work as police. If they were less staunch in their beliefs, they wouldn't be doing anything they are doing. They're idealists.
This isn't true of police and white supremacy, so it's not surprising that they infiltrate each other. Police also infiltrate left wing groups, though there's generally less cause for it in the antifa style groups... it's just a short hand for leftist anti-authoritarians who aren't avowed pacifists. Anti-authoritarians (many of whom are anti-hierarchies in general) won't centralize as a group and generally won't travel, either.
This isn't to say that there aren't dangerous leftist groups - ELF, weather underground types, PETA-style groups, etc. are a lot more dangerous but generally have been falling in relevance, and are almost certainly targets for undercover work - just that antifa is literally nothing but a name for individuals occupying a certain area of political beliefs.
Asking antifa to disavow something is like asking clouds to disavow donuts. It's a completely nonsensical demand. Be specific when talking about them. There are individual groups responsible for various acts, and it is laziness from the MSM and opportunism from right wing media to use antifa instead. Totally anecdotal. I was actually at an anarchist cafe years ago here in pdx where an animal liberation group was holding a meeting/event and they threw out 2 suspected cops, which then revealed themselves to be cops. It’s crazy what police get up to lol. CPUSA probably has more dues paying members from law enforcement than actual communists.
|
Northern Ireland20514 Posts
On October 02 2020 06:51 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2020 06:43 WombaT wrote: I wonder how much subterfuge it takes for white supremacists to infiltrate the police :rolls eyes: The joke goes that police don’t do nudie calendars like their firemen counterparts because they wouldn’t be able to cover up all the fashy tattoos Joke? :O
|
Northern Ireland20514 Posts
On October 02 2020 06:40 Nevuk wrote:It's a total philosophical contradiction to their position to even pretend to work as police. If they were less staunch in their beliefs, they wouldn't be doing anything they are doing. They're idealists. This isn't true of police and white supremacy, so it's not surprising that they infiltrate each other. Police also infiltrate left wing groups, though there's generally less cause for it in the antifa style groups... it's just a short hand for leftist anti-authoritarians who aren't avowed pacifists. Anti-authoritarians (many of whom are anti-hierarchies in general) won't centralize as a group and generally won't travel, either. This isn't to say that there aren't dangerous leftist groups - ELF, weather underground types, PETA-style groups, etc. are a lot more dangerous but generally have been falling in relevance, and are almost certainly targets for undercover work - just that antifa is literally nothing but a name for individuals occupying a certain area of political beliefs. Asking antifa to disavow something is like asking clouds to disavow donuts. It's a completely nonsensical demand. Be specific when talking about them. There are individual groups responsible for various acts, and it is laziness from the MSM and opportunism from right wing media to use antifa instead. edit: Also, Trump has lost Scott Adams, the creator of dilbert, over how bad his white supremacy answer was. Adams was the last intellectual(pseudo or not - he was always capable of being thought provoking in a non-partisan way) I know of on Trump's side, so that's a pretty bad sign. https://twitter.com/thejd800/status/1311735674161131520 Scott Adams greatly confuses me. He’s an obviously bright guy but yet has this overly generous perception of the Trump phenomenon and can’t seem to join the dots as to why Trump isn’t willing to disavow white supremacy.
He can simultaneously break down the atypical nature of Trump and his popularity despite breaking untold number of historical conventions re civility etc quite well, but not that Trump doesn’t disavow white supremacists because it suits him to not alienate that part of his base.
|
It is super freaking weird seeing Proud Boys somehow normalized to conservatives. It is fascinating to watch how people who used to say Trump will never represent the party, over years of being conditioned, are at a point where they defend Proud Boys. And its like they don't even realize anything changed in any of their beliefs. Since they continued to think...what they themselves think, it feels continuous to them. They never have a sensation of having changed beliefs, since to them, it is just a difference of circumstances now.
I can't wait to read about eventually. Some super interesting psychology in conservative circles right now.
|
On October 02 2020 07:08 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2020 06:40 Nevuk wrote:It's a total philosophical contradiction to their position to even pretend to work as police. If they were less staunch in their beliefs, they wouldn't be doing anything they are doing. They're idealists. This isn't true of police and white supremacy, so it's not surprising that they infiltrate each other. Police also infiltrate left wing groups, though there's generally less cause for it in the antifa style groups... it's just a short hand for leftist anti-authoritarians who aren't avowed pacifists. Anti-authoritarians (many of whom are anti-hierarchies in general) won't centralize as a group and generally won't travel, either. This isn't to say that there aren't dangerous leftist groups - ELF, weather underground types, PETA-style groups, etc. are a lot more dangerous but generally have been falling in relevance, and are almost certainly targets for undercover work - just that antifa is literally nothing but a name for individuals occupying a certain area of political beliefs. Asking antifa to disavow something is like asking clouds to disavow donuts. It's a completely nonsensical demand. Be specific when talking about them. There are individual groups responsible for various acts, and it is laziness from the MSM and opportunism from right wing media to use antifa instead. edit: Also, Trump has lost Scott Adams, the creator of dilbert, over how bad his white supremacy answer was. Adams was the last intellectual(pseudo or not - he was always capable of being thought provoking in a non-partisan way) I know of on Trump's side, so that's a pretty bad sign. https://twitter.com/thejd800/status/1311735674161131520 Scott Adams greatly confuses me. He’s an obviously bright guy but yet has this overly generous perception of the Trump phenomenon and can’t seem to join the dots as to why Trump isn’t willing to disavow white supremacy. He can simultaneously break down the atypical nature of Trump and his popularity despite breaking untold number of historical conventions re civility etc quite well, but not that Trump doesn’t disavow white supremacists because it suits him to not alienate that part of his base. Probably because he doesn't want to accept what that concept might say about his as a fellow Trump follower?
|
Northern Ireland20514 Posts
On October 02 2020 07:22 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2020 07:08 WombaT wrote:On October 02 2020 06:40 Nevuk wrote:It's a total philosophical contradiction to their position to even pretend to work as police. If they were less staunch in their beliefs, they wouldn't be doing anything they are doing. They're idealists. This isn't true of police and white supremacy, so it's not surprising that they infiltrate each other. Police also infiltrate left wing groups, though there's generally less cause for it in the antifa style groups... it's just a short hand for leftist anti-authoritarians who aren't avowed pacifists. Anti-authoritarians (many of whom are anti-hierarchies in general) won't centralize as a group and generally won't travel, either. This isn't to say that there aren't dangerous leftist groups - ELF, weather underground types, PETA-style groups, etc. are a lot more dangerous but generally have been falling in relevance, and are almost certainly targets for undercover work - just that antifa is literally nothing but a name for individuals occupying a certain area of political beliefs. Asking antifa to disavow something is like asking clouds to disavow donuts. It's a completely nonsensical demand. Be specific when talking about them. There are individual groups responsible for various acts, and it is laziness from the MSM and opportunism from right wing media to use antifa instead. edit: Also, Trump has lost Scott Adams, the creator of dilbert, over how bad his white supremacy answer was. Adams was the last intellectual(pseudo or not - he was always capable of being thought provoking in a non-partisan way) I know of on Trump's side, so that's a pretty bad sign. https://twitter.com/thejd800/status/1311735674161131520 Scott Adams greatly confuses me. He’s an obviously bright guy but yet has this overly generous perception of the Trump phenomenon and can’t seem to join the dots as to why Trump isn’t willing to disavow white supremacy. He can simultaneously break down the atypical nature of Trump and his popularity despite breaking untold number of historical conventions re civility etc quite well, but not that Trump doesn’t disavow white supremacists because it suits him to not alienate that part of his base. Probably because he doesn't want to accept what that concept might say about his as a fellow Trump follower? Well indeed, just a strange psychological phenomenon to me.
I can sort of comprehend some of the arguments for candidate Trump, the outsider who isn’t afraid to challenge sacred cows yadda yadda, I’m not sure how any of that remotely stands up now we’ve seen President Trump
|
On October 02 2020 07:20 Mohdoo wrote: It is super freaking weird seeing Proud Boys somehow normalized to conservatives. It is fascinating to watch how people who used to say Trump will never represent the party, over years of being conditioned, are at a point where they defend Proud Boys. And its like they don't even realize anything changed in any of their beliefs. Since they continued to think...what they themselves think, it feels continuous to them. They never have a sensation of having changed beliefs, since to them, it is just a difference of circumstances now.
I can't wait to read about eventually. Some super interesting psychology in conservative circles right now. They're cringey larping "defenders of western civilization," anti-semitic, misogynists. White supremacist ... a little less clear. Their founder's gone. The people accusing them of white supremacy or white nationalism usually just appeal to the things that overlap with white supremacy like anti-semitism.
Obviously, the clear negatives of the group are enough to condemn them.
|
On October 02 2020 07:08 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2020 06:40 Nevuk wrote:It's a total philosophical contradiction to their position to even pretend to work as police. If they were less staunch in their beliefs, they wouldn't be doing anything they are doing. They're idealists. This isn't true of police and white supremacy, so it's not surprising that they infiltrate each other. Police also infiltrate left wing groups, though there's generally less cause for it in the antifa style groups... it's just a short hand for leftist anti-authoritarians who aren't avowed pacifists. Anti-authoritarians (many of whom are anti-hierarchies in general) won't centralize as a group and generally won't travel, either. This isn't to say that there aren't dangerous leftist groups - ELF, weather underground types, PETA-style groups, etc. are a lot more dangerous but generally have been falling in relevance, and are almost certainly targets for undercover work - just that antifa is literally nothing but a name for individuals occupying a certain area of political beliefs. Asking antifa to disavow something is like asking clouds to disavow donuts. It's a completely nonsensical demand. Be specific when talking about them. There are individual groups responsible for various acts, and it is laziness from the MSM and opportunism from right wing media to use antifa instead. edit: Also, Trump has lost Scott Adams, the creator of dilbert, over how bad his white supremacy answer was. Adams was the last intellectual(pseudo or not - he was always capable of being thought provoking in a non-partisan way) I know of on Trump's side, so that's a pretty bad sign. https://twitter.com/thejd800/status/1311735674161131520 Scott Adams greatly confuses me. He’s an obviously bright guy but yet has this overly generous perception of the Trump phenomenon and can’t seem to join the dots as to why Trump isn’t willing to disavow white supremacy. He can simultaneously break down the atypical nature of Trump and his popularity despite breaking untold number of historical conventions re civility etc quite well, but not that Trump doesn’t disavow white supremacists because it suits him to not alienate that part of his base. He actually addressed some of this and why he's so partial to Trump once, a long time ago. Basically they have a ton of similarities in their background : they're from the same areas in NY, are of a similar age, and had similar formative experiences.
They also overlap some in the way they portray their adult lives : businessmen who built up an empire from not very much. They even both made a living out of mocking the normal business environment (if viewed as a satirical take on the standard format of corporate world, The Apprentice is brilliant. Trump doesn't seem to have been in on the joke, though). Now, Adams is impressive even after being dug into a little, while the more Trump is dug into the less the way he presents himself holds true, but the point is that he saw a lot of similarities between himself and the version of Trump that Trump presented to the public.
Basically, he reads Trump's words in the most positive ways possible.
|
This astonishing gaslighting that Trump is a secret white supremacist, and that so many people on this forum seem to believe is completely devoid of reason. It took me 5 minutes of youtube search to find multiple videos of Trump "disavowing" white supremacy in clear terms trough the years.
+ Show Spoiler +4 years ago: 3 years ago: Compilation:
On the debate he clearly said "sure, I'll do that" when asked to disavow it (again) and wanted to move the ball to Biden who keeps flip flopping on issues and avoiding them to appeal both the moderate and radical parts of the dem party, anyone trying to understand something else is just intelectually dishonest. He could have been more clear but it's pretty obvious what he meant. Moreover, Yesterday's clarification: + Show Spoiler +
Dude was basically a moderate democrat from NY most of his life, the idea that he is some secret southern confederate itching to harm black people is so stupid it's really painful to watch, otherwise smart people, believe it (or pretend to believe it?)
I honestly think this smear campaign actually helps him because of how absurd and lame it is (they tried the same in 2016); the covid line of atack is by far the best the dems have, name calling, not so much. The same goes to Trump; instead of calling Biden senile and weak, he should focus exclusively on him being a supporters of rioters and looters that will raise taxes and pack the courts, destroying the american way of life.
|
Northern Ireland20514 Posts
On October 02 2020 08:09 GoTuNk! wrote:This astonishing gaslighting that Trump is a secret white supremacist, and that so many people on this forum seem to believe is completely devoid of reason. It took me 5 minutes of youtube search to find multiple videos of Trump "disavowing" white supremacy in clear terms trough the years. + Show Spoiler +On the debate he clearly said "sure, I'll do that" when asked to disavow it (again) and wanted to move the ball to Biden who keeps flip flopping on issues and avoiding them to appeal both the moderate and radical parts of the dem party, anyone trying to understand something else is just intelectually dishonest. He could have been more clear but it's pretty obvious what he meant. Moreover, Yesterday's clarification: + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/_OICS7BW3vg Dude was basically a moderate democrat from NY most of his life, the idea that he is some secret southern confederate itching to harm black people is so stupid it's really painful to watch, otherwise smart people, believe it (or pretend to believe it?) I honestly think this smear campaign actually helps him because of how absurd and lame it is (they tried the same in 2016); the covid line of atack is by far the best the dems have, name calling, not so much. The same goes to Trump; instead of calling Biden senile and weak, he should focus exclusively on him being a supporters of rioters and looters that will raise taxes and pack the courts, destroying the american way of life. Trump would back Antifa if it politically suited him. The (sensible) charge isn’t that he’s a white supremacist, but that’s he’s willing to enable such groups.
I don’t think one needs to be a seasoned Trump watcher or have a vague grasp of human psychology to see he has almost no ideological convictions whatsoever. His past points to not being a Klan member, but his willingness to court such forces is almost worse than him himself being a wholesale racist. I’d wager quite a few posters in here have some similar variation in terms of their view on Trump in this domain.
If we’re talking gaslighting I mean you’re asking us to overlook the whole birther thing, ‘some, I assume are good people’ and all sorts of interjections with plausible race connotations.
|
There is no smear campaign. He did say sure I'll disavow them, then he asked who which white supremist and Biden said proud boys and he said "proudboys stand back and stand by". Which is not disavowing its shouting them out. It was a solfball question that he whiffed on huge. Trump failed hard on the debate no one is talking about his oneliners because they were awful and he came off like a terrible person and the biggest moment he had the biggest Gaffe. Pretty embarrassing to get embarrassed by a "senile" old man.
As to him not knowing them, um LOL, OK so he didn't know them, asked for a white supremist group, heard the name and said stand back and stand by to them? IS that better? No it is worse because it is just as racist but super embarrassing that a sitting president wouldn't know a group of its size and prominence. I mean he could have slept through all the briefings but the still have been talked about on Fox news. So if you think he that dumb, which is even dumber than I think he is, and I think he is pretty dumb.
It has hurt him in the polls not helped him, but not sure a two party candidate can fall much lower.
Biden has not supported looters or rioters, he has supported peaceful protest. Trump yelling it does not make it true.
The markets are excited for Biden and hopeful for a Dem senate, this almost never happens, but this time they want stability, and any raise in taxes will be offset by the 2 trillion dollar stimulus package.
Sounds like he is going to finish packing the court, I guess we will see if the Dems pack it themselves. It is too bad that instead of people bragging about how partisan he is in doing this, they were bragging about the great judges being put in place. Judges are not supposed to support the parties, that is kinda the point of the judiciary. Look for it to lose some power as it becomes obvious to everyone (lots do to Trump and other republican bragging) that it is no longer serving that purpose.
edit: @ wombat the birther THINGS, he has also said it about Harris. Clearly it is one of his gotos
|
So a couple days out and it seem pretty clear that Joe Biden came on top from the debate in that his numbers have improved and even is pulling in more fundraising then before the debate. While the VP generally does not move the needle much i think Harris is going to trounce Penice so hard it might this time. Trump is also getting mad at the debate committee for update the rules and could pull out which would be disastrous for him. Both this debates are going to be final stand to turn his numbers around.
|
The awesome Michigan AG is bringing felony charges against Jacob Wohl, and is alleging that he and others engaged in voter intimidation by placing targeted calls conveying fraudulent voting information.
The conservative conspiracists Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman were charged on Thursday with coordinating robocalls to suppress voters in the upcoming general election.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced the charges, which include intimidating voters and conspiracy to violate election law. Nessel said the two specifically targeted minority voters to discourage them from voting. The calls allegedly told voters that voter information would be collected in a database to track down old police warrants and outstanding credit card debts, according to a news release.
“We’re all well aware of the frustrations caused by the millions of nuisance robocalls flooding our cell phones and landlines each day, but this particular message poses grave consequences for our democracy and the principles upon which it was built,” Nessel said in the release on Thursday. “Michigan voters are entitled to a full, free and fair election in November and my office will not hesitate to pursue those who jeopardize that.”
The Michigan charges relate to calls focused in the Detroit area, but other similar robocalls were also reported in New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Illinois, according to the release.
Wohl and Burkman have been involved in a number of deceptive practices to debase those they view as adversaries to conservatives. They fabricated sexual assault allegations against former Democratic candidate Pete Buttigieg, White House coronavirus task force member Anthony Fauci and former special counsel Robert Mueller.
Conservative conspiracists Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman charged in voter suppression probe
|
Northern Ireland20514 Posts
On October 02 2020 08:33 JimmiC wrote: There is no smear campaign. He did say sure I'll disavow them, then he asked who which white supremist and Biden said proud boys and he said "proudboys stand back and stand by". Which is not disavowing its shouting them out. It was a solfball question that he whiffed on huge. Trump failed hard on the debate no one is talking about his oneliners because they were awful and he came off like a terrible person and the biggest moment he had the biggest Gaffe. Pretty embarrassing to get embarrassed by a "senile" old man.
As to him not knowing them, um LOL, OK so he didn't know them, asked for a white supremist group, heard the name and said stand back and stand by to them? IS that better? No it is worse because it is just as racist but super embarrassing that a sitting president wouldn't know a group of its size and prominence. I mean he could have slept through all the briefings but the still have been talked about on Fox news. So if you think he that dumb, which is even dumber than I think he is, and I think he is pretty dumb.
It has hurt him in the polls not helped him, but not sure a two party candidate can fall much lower.
Biden has not supported looters or rioters, he has supported peaceful protest. Trump yelling it does not make it true.
The markets are excited for Biden and hopeful for a Dem senate, this almost never happens, but this time they want stability, and any raise in taxes will be offset by the 2 trillion dollar stimulus package.
Sounds like he is going to finish packing the court, I guess we will see if the Dems pack it themselves. It is too bad that instead of people bragging about how partisan he is in doing this, they were bragging about the great judges being put in place. Judges are not supposed to support the parties, that is kinda the point of the judiciary. Look for it to lose some power as it becomes obvious to everyone (lots do to Trump and other republican bragging) that it is no longer serving that purpose.
edit: @ wombat the birther THINGS, he has also said it about Harris. Clearly it is one of his gotos He’s that fucking bad that I’d forgot about that, plus I think he cast aspersions about Ilhan Omar as well?
The real gaslighting is the idea Trump is playing 4D chess rather than just being earnest about such things. Occam’s Razor doesn’t always apply but it certainly does when applied to that particular individual.
|
His father was also arrested during a KKK march. Being a democrat in the 90s doesn't mean you aren't racist in 2020. White supremacists tend to raise white supremacists. Trump also faced many racial discrimination lawsuits in the 70s and 80s. Him doing racist shit was not new, even before his 2015 speech about Rapists and Murderer immigrants.
There's no solid evidence that Trump isn't one aside from him stating that he isn't, and plenty of evidence that he is one. Normally, there doesn't need to be evidence that someone isn't a white supremacist for that assumption to be a decent one (I don't even assume most of Trump's defenders are racists). Trump is an exception, due to the volume and frequency of his appeals.
"Very fine people on both sides" about literal goddamn nazis puts to rest any notion that he can get away with only his insistence that he isn't a white supremacist as sufficient.
Trump being a racist isn't the focus of anyone's attacks in particular, because it's already baked in to his numbers. His refusal to disavow the Proud boys was a self-inflicted wound, and just a continuation of a pattern of openly racist behavior.
I doubt his refusal to disavow Proud boys affected his polling. The terrible, all over the place debate performance did.
Those who still support him are either fine with him being a racist, don't care about the issue in the slightest, or are mister magoo level blind to the evidence. There's little point in re-litigating the issue, and I doubt democrats are interested in doing so.
|
Northern Ireland20514 Posts
On October 02 2020 08:52 Nevuk wrote: His father was also arrested during a KKK march. Being a democrat in the 90s doesn't mean you aren't racist in 2020. White supremacists tend to raise white supremacists. Trump also faced many racial discrimination lawsuits in the 70s and 80s. Him doing racist shit was not new, even before his 2015 speech about Rapists and Murderer immigrants.
There's no solid evidence that Trump isn't one aside from him stating that he isn't, and plenty of evidence that he is one. Normally, there doesn't need to be evidence that someone isn't a white supremacist for that assumption to be a decent one (I don't even assume most of Trump's defenders are racists). Trump is an exception, due to the volume and frequency of his appeals.
"Very fine people on both sides" about literal goddamn nazis puts to rest any notion that he can get away with only his insistence that he isn't a white supremacist as sufficient.
Trump being a racist isn't the focus of anyone's attacks in particular, because it's already baked in to his numbers. His refusal to disavow the Proud boys was a self-inflicted wound, and just a continuation of a pattern of openly racist behavior.
I doubt his refusal to disavow Proud boys affected his polling. The terrible, all over the place debate performance did.
Those who still support him are either fine with him being a racist, don't care about the issue in the slightest, or are mister magoo level blind to the evidence. There's little point in re-litigating the issue, and I doubt democrats are interested in doing so. Hey Donald Sterling paid a lot of black guys good salaries so how could he be racist?
|
On October 02 2020 08:09 GoTuNk! wrote:This astonishing gaslighting that Trump is a secret white supremacist, and that so many people on this forum seem to believe is completely devoid of reason. It took me 5 minutes of youtube search to find multiple videos of Trump "disavowing" white supremacy in clear terms trough the years. + Show Spoiler +On the debate he clearly said "sure, I'll do that" when asked to disavow it (again) and wanted to move the ball to Biden who keeps flip flopping on issues and avoiding them to appeal both the moderate and radical parts of the dem party, anyone trying to understand something else is just intelectually dishonest. He could have been more clear but it's pretty obvious what he meant. Moreover, Yesterday's clarification: + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/_OICS7BW3vg Dude was basically a moderate democrat from NY most of his life, the idea that he is some secret southern confederate itching to harm black people is so stupid it's really painful to watch, otherwise smart people, believe it (or pretend to believe it?) I honestly think this smear campaign actually helps him because of how absurd and lame it is (they tried the same in 2016); the covid line of atack is by far the best the dems have, name calling, not so much. The same goes to Trump; instead of calling Biden senile and weak, he should focus exclusively on him being a supporters of rioters and looters that will raise taxes and pack the courts, destroying the american way of life. Debates aren't fair and he did an unforced error on that one (after doing two-three disavowals correctly just before it).
I don't really think it moved most people, because Biden's so far up his own ass on Antifa that he couldn't manage some generic "violence on all sides" platitude. Polling supports this for now. The guys that think he's the second coming of Hitler here to bring down democracy and kill people while doing it won't change their mind on better denials, and people that hear the whole exchange aren't going to suddenly think this is the big exposé. A few might stay home instead of voting, though, for that fumble along with the way he conducted himself.
|
On October 02 2020 08:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2020 08:09 GoTuNk! wrote:This astonishing gaslighting that Trump is a secret white supremacist, and that so many people on this forum seem to believe is completely devoid of reason. It took me 5 minutes of youtube search to find multiple videos of Trump "disavowing" white supremacy in clear terms trough the years. + Show Spoiler +On the debate he clearly said "sure, I'll do that" when asked to disavow it (again) and wanted to move the ball to Biden who keeps flip flopping on issues and avoiding them to appeal both the moderate and radical parts of the dem party, anyone trying to understand something else is just intelectually dishonest. He could have been more clear but it's pretty obvious what he meant. Moreover, Yesterday's clarification: + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/_OICS7BW3vg Dude was basically a moderate democrat from NY most of his life, the idea that he is some secret southern confederate itching to harm black people is so stupid it's really painful to watch, otherwise smart people, believe it (or pretend to believe it?) I honestly think this smear campaign actually helps him because of how absurd and lame it is (they tried the same in 2016); the covid line of atack is by far the best the dems have, name calling, not so much. The same goes to Trump; instead of calling Biden senile and weak, he should focus exclusively on him being a supporters of rioters and looters that will raise taxes and pack the courts, destroying the american way of life. Debates aren't fair and he did an unforced error on that one (after doing two-three disavowals correctly just before it). I don't really think it moved most people, because Biden's so far up his own ass on Antifa that he couldn't manage some generic "violence on all sides" platitude. Polling supports this for now. The guys that think he's the second coming of Hitler here to bring down democracy and kill people while doing it won't change their mind on better denials, and people that hear the whole exchange aren't going to suddenly think this is the big exposé. A few might stay home instead of voting, though, for that fumble along with the way he conducted himself. Antifa doesn't mean what you think it means. It's getting extremely tiring to see you continually repost misinformation, even after being corrected, in a way that suggests that you are aware that you are doing so, purely to score political points on an issue you think Biden is vulnerable on. He's not, because ANTIFA IS NOT A FUCKING THING. IT DOESN'T EXIST. Biden doesn't need to disavow them anymore than he does actual unicorns that live on mars.
Even if we go by the people that you mean by saying antifa, they have killed literally only 1 person in the past 20 years, and we don't know what happened there, because the police killed the guy instead of arresting him (he claimed it was self-defense in an interview shortly before his death, and that he was going to be killed by cops. Hey, guess he was right?). Right wing extremism has killed 397 as of June in a 20 year time span.
Trump being asked to disavow Proud Boys because they've been linked to murders and engage in terrorism. One is an actual threat to people's lives, the other is less real than a child's bogeyman.
|
I do think Biden missed a bit of a layup on that question himself. As someone who goes with "well technically..." far too often in my day-to-day, I can see when that card is a bad idea.
He was absolutely correct, the premise of the question is flawed, but it also wouldn't have cost him anything to wave the premise through and go "yes, I condemn anarchists of all kinds. Next question. How about you ask him if he condemns the alt-right?"
If the other guy comes back with "but antifa aren't anarchists they're [X]", that's the time for the line about it being an idea. But that debate is happening in a parallel universe where truth still matters, not the one we occupy.
|
Probably doesn't matter but I see Biden as more closely aligned with "law and order" and opposition to the protests than as a supporter/defender of protesters (let alone antifa). Depends on the particular protest, but that's generally been the sense at the ones I've attended.
If Biden wins, the protests won't stop and the repressive state violence won't stop either, only there won't be a sensible way to blame Trump and Republicans anymore (at least exclusively).
|
On October 02 2020 08:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2020 08:09 GoTuNk! wrote:This astonishing gaslighting that Trump is a secret white supremacist, and that so many people on this forum seem to believe is completely devoid of reason. It took me 5 minutes of youtube search to find multiple videos of Trump "disavowing" white supremacy in clear terms trough the years. + Show Spoiler +On the debate he clearly said "sure, I'll do that" when asked to disavow it (again) and wanted to move the ball to Biden who keeps flip flopping on issues and avoiding them to appeal both the moderate and radical parts of the dem party, anyone trying to understand something else is just intelectually dishonest. He could have been more clear but it's pretty obvious what he meant. Moreover, Yesterday's clarification: + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/_OICS7BW3vg Dude was basically a moderate democrat from NY most of his life, the idea that he is some secret southern confederate itching to harm black people is so stupid it's really painful to watch, otherwise smart people, believe it (or pretend to believe it?) I honestly think this smear campaign actually helps him because of how absurd and lame it is (they tried the same in 2016); the covid line of atack is by far the best the dems have, name calling, not so much. The same goes to Trump; instead of calling Biden senile and weak, he should focus exclusively on him being a supporters of rioters and looters that will raise taxes and pack the courts, destroying the american way of life. Debates aren't fair and he did an unforced error on that one (after doing two-three disavowals correctly just before it). I don't really think it moved most people, because Biden's so far up his own ass on Antifa that he couldn't manage some generic "violence on all sides" platitude. Polling supports this for now. The guys that think he's the second coming of Hitler here to bring down democracy and kill people while doing it won't change their mind on better denials, and people that hear the whole exchange aren't going to suddenly think this is the big exposé. A few might stay home instead of voting, though, for that fumble along with the way he conducted himself.
Can you provide some sort of source on Biden being up his own ass on Antifa? You keep writing it over and over as if it is a fact with little or no support.
I mean it is clear you can't grasp what Antifa is, since it has been explained by double digit people and many sources and it still evades you. But can you at least provide some evidence to this claim.
|
On October 02 2020 09:12 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2020 08:58 Danglars wrote:On October 02 2020 08:09 GoTuNk! wrote:This astonishing gaslighting that Trump is a secret white supremacist, and that so many people on this forum seem to believe is completely devoid of reason. It took me 5 minutes of youtube search to find multiple videos of Trump "disavowing" white supremacy in clear terms trough the years. + Show Spoiler +On the debate he clearly said "sure, I'll do that" when asked to disavow it (again) and wanted to move the ball to Biden who keeps flip flopping on issues and avoiding them to appeal both the moderate and radical parts of the dem party, anyone trying to understand something else is just intelectually dishonest. He could have been more clear but it's pretty obvious what he meant. Moreover, Yesterday's clarification: + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/_OICS7BW3vg Dude was basically a moderate democrat from NY most of his life, the idea that he is some secret southern confederate itching to harm black people is so stupid it's really painful to watch, otherwise smart people, believe it (or pretend to believe it?) I honestly think this smear campaign actually helps him because of how absurd and lame it is (they tried the same in 2016); the covid line of atack is by far the best the dems have, name calling, not so much. The same goes to Trump; instead of calling Biden senile and weak, he should focus exclusively on him being a supporters of rioters and looters that will raise taxes and pack the courts, destroying the american way of life. Debates aren't fair and he did an unforced error on that one (after doing two-three disavowals correctly just before it). I don't really think it moved most people, because Biden's so far up his own ass on Antifa that he couldn't manage some generic "violence on all sides" platitude. Polling supports this for now. The guys that think he's the second coming of Hitler here to bring down democracy and kill people while doing it won't change their mind on better denials, and people that hear the whole exchange aren't going to suddenly think this is the big exposé. A few might stay home instead of voting, though, for that fumble along with the way he conducted himself. Antifa doesn't mean what you think it means. It's getting extremely tiring to see you continually repost misinformation, even after being corrected, in a way that suggests that you are aware that you are doing so, purely to score political points on an issue you think Biden is vulnerable on. He's not, because ANTIFA IS NOT A FUCKING THING. IT DOESN'T EXIST. Biden doesn't need to disavow them anymore than he does actual unicorns that live on mars. Even if we go by the people that you mean by saying antifa, they have killed literally only 1 person in the past 20 years, and we don't know what happened there, because the police killed the guy instead of arresting him (he claimed it was self-defense in an interview shortly before his death, and that he was going to be killed by cops. Hey, guess he was right?). Right wing extremism has killed 397 as of June in a 20 year time span. Trump being asked to disavow Proud Boys because they've been linked to murders and engage in terrorism. One is an actual threat to people's lives, the other is less real than a child's bogeyman. Yeah, the left wing's infamous ability to dissemble and give plausible deniability. You can (apparently) get away with murder if you're doing it in the name of racial injustice and you operate in small groups. Maybe we can get some sociologist to adopt a more pleasing name for the Antifa, Black Bloc, combo anarchist and loopy leftist groups that congregate in major metros and like setting things on fire and throwing bricks at cops. I don't really see such a need, since the basic problem is not semantic pedants arguing about what constitutes an organization, but the excusing of burning down neighborhoods and violence against cops if its done by the right kind of viewpoint.
Yeah, so your fellow travelers haven't racked up quite the same body count. They're more into sending cops into hospitals, or blinding federal officers, or burning down immigrant businesses, or smashing downtown areas. The actual process of shooting someone and disappearing into the riotous atmosphere doesn't lead to much chalking up of another death in the Antifa column. Rest in peace, David Dorn, for defending a pawn shop that didn't matter to some, and whose looting isn't a tabulated left-winger body count. But they're definitely more into beating people up and causing just enough violence to provoke police response and a propaganda victory. I have a different perspective on the threat of Antifa/Black-bloc/radical left-wing groups on people's lives. People forced to move, businesses no longer able to afford their property insurance, and police that are just a little slower to answer the inner-city call. It's not the neat right-wing penchant for easily tabulated losses. It gets a little messy. I'm talking about revising your entire mindset on what constitutes danger and a threat level of messy. And I doubt you or any of a similar mindset on Antifa within this forum will recognize that basic fact until it shows up on your doorstep. The courthouse downtown and a town out in Wisconsin give enough distance to avoid confronting unpleasant facts. It wasn't your business torched, or your neighborhood with windows smashed and facades tagged, and your brother isn't a police officer that had a firework explode just close enough to his skin to cause injury. (Consoling him that Antifa doesn't exist, and reminding him that he's luckily not dead might not go over so well with him as it doesn't with me)
You may get your body count the next time they try to set a police station on fire and barricade the exits. I won't be cheering that maybe some left-wing radical is gonna change his mind from it, (frankly, because as you point it out, it might take more) and the country sees the problem on their TVs and we don't need everyone to come around. But keep on with your all caps and how one isn't an actual threat to people's lives ... I have people tell me that people of your opinion only exist in extremist groups themselves.
|
On October 02 2020 10:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2020 09:12 Nevuk wrote:On October 02 2020 08:58 Danglars wrote:On October 02 2020 08:09 GoTuNk! wrote:This astonishing gaslighting that Trump is a secret white supremacist, and that so many people on this forum seem to believe is completely devoid of reason. It took me 5 minutes of youtube search to find multiple videos of Trump "disavowing" white supremacy in clear terms trough the years. + Show Spoiler +On the debate he clearly said "sure, I'll do that" when asked to disavow it (again) and wanted to move the ball to Biden who keeps flip flopping on issues and avoiding them to appeal both the moderate and radical parts of the dem party, anyone trying to understand something else is just intelectually dishonest. He could have been more clear but it's pretty obvious what he meant. Moreover, Yesterday's clarification: + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/_OICS7BW3vg Dude was basically a moderate democrat from NY most of his life, the idea that he is some secret southern confederate itching to harm black people is so stupid it's really painful to watch, otherwise smart people, believe it (or pretend to believe it?) I honestly think this smear campaign actually helps him because of how absurd and lame it is (they tried the same in 2016); the covid line of atack is by far the best the dems have, name calling, not so much. The same goes to Trump; instead of calling Biden senile and weak, he should focus exclusively on him being a supporters of rioters and looters that will raise taxes and pack the courts, destroying the american way of life. Debates aren't fair and he did an unforced error on that one (after doing two-three disavowals correctly just before it). I don't really think it moved most people, because Biden's so far up his own ass on Antifa that he couldn't manage some generic "violence on all sides" platitude. Polling supports this for now. The guys that think he's the second coming of Hitler here to bring down democracy and kill people while doing it won't change their mind on better denials, and people that hear the whole exchange aren't going to suddenly think this is the big exposé. A few might stay home instead of voting, though, for that fumble along with the way he conducted himself. Antifa doesn't mean what you think it means. It's getting extremely tiring to see you continually repost misinformation, even after being corrected, in a way that suggests that you are aware that you are doing so, purely to score political points on an issue you think Biden is vulnerable on. He's not, because ANTIFA IS NOT A FUCKING THING. IT DOESN'T EXIST. Biden doesn't need to disavow them anymore than he does actual unicorns that live on mars. Even if we go by the people that you mean by saying antifa, they have killed literally only 1 person in the past 20 years, and we don't know what happened there, because the police killed the guy instead of arresting him (he claimed it was self-defense in an interview shortly before his death, and that he was going to be killed by cops. Hey, guess he was right?). Right wing extremism has killed 397 as of June in a 20 year time span. Trump being asked to disavow Proud Boys because they've been linked to murders and engage in terrorism. One is an actual threat to people's lives, the other is less real than a child's bogeyman. Yeah, the left wing's infamous ability to dissemble and give plausible deniability. You can (apparently) get away with murder if you're doing it in the name of racial injustice and you operate in small groups. Maybe we can get some sociologist to adopt a more pleasing name for the Antifa, Black Bloc, combo anarchist and loopy leftist groups that congregate in major metros and like setting things on fire and throwing bricks at cops. I don't really see such a need, since the basic problem is not semantic pedants arguing about what constitutes an organization, but the excusing of burning down neighborhoods and violence against cops if its done by the right kind of viewpoint. Yeah, so your fellow travelers haven't racked up quite the same body count. They're more into sending cops into hospitals, or blinding federal officers, or burning down immigrant businesses, or smashing downtown areas. The actual process of shooting someone and disappearing into the riotous atmosphere doesn't lead to much chalking up of another death in the Antifa column. Rest in peace, David Dorn, for defending a pawn shop that didn't matter to some, and whose looting isn't a tabulated left-winger body count. But they're definitely more into beating people up and causing just enough violence to provoke police response and a propaganda victory. I have a different perspective on the threat of Antifa/Black-bloc/radical left-wing groups on people's lives. People forced to move, businesses no longer able to afford their property insurance, and police that are just a little slower to answer the inner-city call. It's not the neat right-wing penchant for easily tabulated losses. It gets a little messy. I'm talking about revising your entire mindset on what constitutes danger and a threat level of messy. And I doubt you or any of a similar mindset on Antifa within this forum will recognize that basic fact until it shows up on your doorstep. The courthouse downtown and a town out in Wisconsin give enough distance to avoid confronting unpleasant facts. It wasn't your business torched, or your neighborhood with windows smashed and facades tagged, and your brother isn't a police officer that had a firework explode just close enough to his skin to cause injury. (Consoling him that Antifa doesn't exist, and reminding him that he's luckily not dead might not go over so well with him as it doesn't with me) You may get your body count the next time they try to set a police station on fire and barricade the exits. I won't be cheering that maybe some left-wing radical is gonna change his mind from it, (frankly, because as you point it out, it might take more) and the country sees the problem on their TVs and we don't need everyone to come around. But keep on with your all caps and how one isn't an actual threat to people's lives ... I have people tell me that people of your opinion only exist in extremist groups themselves.
So since you continue to ignore reality.
On Sept. 7, 2020, Biden conducted an interview with WGAL’s Barbara Barr in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Barr asked Biden for his views on violent unrest, to which Biden replied: “I’ve condemned it across the board. The president still hasn’t condemned the far-right folks coming out and protesting and using violence.”
Barr then asked Biden “Do you condemn antifa?” To which Biden answered: “Yes I do. Violence, no matter who it is.”
“…Protesting brutality is a right, and absolutely necessary. But burning down communities is not protest, it’s needless violence — violence that endangers lives, violence that guts businesses and shutters businesses that serve the community. That’s wrong.”
“The deadly violence we saw overnight in Portland is unacceptable. Shooting in the streets of a great American city is unacceptable. I condemn this violence unequivocally. I condemn violence of every kind by any one, whether on the left or the right.”
“I’ve said from the outset of the recent protests that there’s no place for violence or destruction of property. Peaceful protesters should be protected, and arsonists and anarchists should be prosecuted. And local law enforcement can do that.”
“There’s no place for violence, no place for looting or destroying property or burning churches or destroying businesses, many of them built by the very people of color who, for the first time in their lives, are beginning to realize their dreams and build wealth for their families. Nor is it acceptable for our police, sworn to protect and serve all people, to escalate tension or resort to excessive violence.”
“These last few days have laid bare that we are a nation furious at injustice. Every person of conscience can understand the rawness of the trauma people of color experience in this country, from the daily indignities to the extreme violence, like the horrific killing of George Floyd. Protesting such brutality is right and necessary. It’s an utterly American response. But burning down communities and needless destruction is not. Violence that endangers lives is not. Violence that guts and shutters businesses that serve the community is not.”
Was not hard to find.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-fail-condemn-antifa/
|
Please stop, you're hurting Danglars' ability to whatabout. Don't you realize that some people throwing bricks at buildings are the real enemy, not the POTUS inciting a civil war? They have the real power!
|
On October 02 2020 10:57 WarSame wrote: Please stop, you're hurting Danglars' ability to whatabout. Don't you realize that some people throwing bricks at buildings are the real enemy, not the POTUS inciting a civil war? They have the real power!
Genuine question - is it still whataboutism if Danglars has openly condemned the Proud Boys?
I think Danglars' frustration comes from us being much, much slower to condemn antifa (I know I sure am) despite them (whatever 'them' means) engaging in violence and vandalism. I can appreciate that frustration.
Props to JimmiC for that post, though. I didn't know that Biden had openly spoken out about the violence. I'm assuming that's the statement that I've heard talked about as coming too late / only after consideration, though?
|
It's whataboutism to suggest the Proud Boys and Antifa are the same thing, or even the same type of thing. There is no "local branch" of Antifa, because there is no organizational structure, and there's no leader or unifying message. It's an ideology, that's pretty obvious based on the name. It's an attempt to muddy the waters by confusing the issue when the far right shuts down general anti-fascism.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36622 Posts
Everyone, thank you for participating in the debate thread! Thread will now be locked and USPMT will get unlocked.
The debate thread will reopen on October 7 for the VP debate between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris. We'll lock USPMT again on that date. See you all then!
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36622 Posts
Reminder that the VP debate is set to take place in 20 minutes.
|
Pence is right to start on the xenophobic comment that showed Biden used early on.
Plagiarism comment nice zing. Biden was laughed out of town in one of his presidential runs for that reputation.
|
This debate start is already 100x better then what the main ticket debate
|
2 adults actually debating is a much better watch.
|
This feels like a proper debate instead of a yelling match. The standard run over time, but with a modicum of respect for the concept of taking turns.
|
Pence is such a disgusting piece of trash.
What a fucking snake. Every word from him oozes "manipulative shitbag".
Also Harris is way too much a "typical politician". Didn't answer the question at all and just gave a stump speech.
|
'Mr Pence, Trump is old as fuck, have you talked about the What If's'
'Let me talk about swine flu'
|
Well Pence just avoided answering the question on any protocol regarding Trump's health.
|
Wait, this can't be american politics, these guys are forming coherent sentences
|
If he confidence in people making the best decisions with the best information, but they have admitted not giving it out. Not to mention all the other miss information, is this not insulting?
Also are we really still pretending that China was the only place spreading the virus when they shut.travel down then? Were they even the most? I guess they are betting people don't remember?
|
Ugh can't stand this crap from Harris.
|
The VP debate is already better than the first P debate, although Pence is pretty unbelievable with how he straight-up shushed the moderator as she was moving on to the second topic, away from coronavirus.
|
On October 08 2020 10:23 Nebuchad wrote: Wait, this can't be american politics, these guys are forming coherent sentences
To be fair, most pre-Trump presidential candidates could form coherent sentences... Clinton, Obama, Romney, McCain, etc. Trump is relatively unique in that regard.
|
Pence is now promising vaccine by year end, Trump said by election. Was Trump lying? Or what went wrong?
|
Remember, Harris raised boatloads of cash and still dropped out before the first votes were cast. She isn't very good at this, but I assume at this point tone is more important than the exact words. And Pence is meh as well.
But then again I'm listening in the background this time not watching, so idk.
|
Wait the doctors were transparent? Umm?
|
Harris making Pence look like the definition of a mansplaining prick. He looks so much worse debating a woman.
|
Feels like pence is at a giant disadvantage here. Having to defend Trump while appearing reasonable is just not possible. The Trump doctrine needs the craziness
|
Pence just referred to our plummeting economy as V-shaped... even though only the first half of that V has been observed, and it hasn't stopped yet >.>
|
tHe clEaNest AiR aNd wAter
|
On October 08 2020 10:32 JimmiC wrote: Pence is now promising vaccine by year end, Trump said by election. Was Trump lying? Or what went wrong? Trump is lieing. There was an October 28th date circled that could have been the day that the vaccine could have been certified or something but that's firmly out the window now.
The antibody cocktails that trump got however will be out by years end and ramp up significantly. That'll probably make the difference with the deathrate but trump isnt smart enough for that anymore.
|
I expected a bit more fire from Kamala. She was probably prepped to be chill after the debate last week. But there's plenty to passionately attack Pence with. Just laughing is a bit lame.
Also the Biden/Harris centrist compromise on the green new deal is not a good sounding thing. Fighting for fracking and fighting for the environment at the same time is yikes.
|
Have either of them actually answered the question they've been asked yet?
|
Harris nailing Pence to the wall on Trump's stupid trade shit.
|
On October 08 2020 10:46 WarSame wrote: Have either of them actually answered the question they've been asked yet?
I think Harris half-answered one early coronavirus question, but overall, no, no not really. They're each just parroting their rehearsed talking points.
|
On October 08 2020 10:46 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I expected a bit more fire from Kamala. She was probably prepped to be chill after the debate last week. But there's plenty to passionately attack Pence with. Just laughing is a bit lame.
Also the Biden/Harris centrist compromise on the green new deal is not a good sounding thing. Fighting for fracking and fighting for the environment at the same time is yikes. I think it's hard to strike the fiery balance as a woman in a way that it isn't for a man. Especially in the US.
|
Both definitely have a tendency to pivot their answers to another topic or largely ignore the question into something else.
|
I honestly can't tell which I hate more. Pence's policies, or Kamala's lies.
|
On October 08 2020 10:46 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I expected a bit more fire from Kamala. She was probably prepped to be chill after the debate last week. But there's plenty to passionately attack Pence with. Just laughing is a bit lame.
Also the Biden/Harris centrist compromise on the green new deal is not a good sounding thing. Fighting for fracking and fighting for the environment at the same time is yikes.
A black woman has absolutely no freedom to be loud or mean, else offend a sad portion of the country. It is unfortunate, but she is being very smart. She doesn't need to body slam Pence, just talk up Biden.
|
On October 08 2020 10:49 Cricketer12 wrote: I honestly can't tell which I hate more. Pence's policies, or Kamala's lies.
I'm not a fan of Harris but Pence had told far more lies.
|
On October 08 2020 10:49 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 10:46 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I expected a bit more fire from Kamala. She was probably prepped to be chill after the debate last week. But there's plenty to passionately attack Pence with. Just laughing is a bit lame.
Also the Biden/Harris centrist compromise on the green new deal is not a good sounding thing. Fighting for fracking and fighting for the environment at the same time is yikes. A black woman has absolutely no freedom to be loud or mean, else offend a sad portion of the country. It is unfortunate, but she is being very smart. She doesn't need to body slam Pence, just talk up Biden.
Yeah I agree with this. She's talking slowly and deliberately and carefully on purpose, or else she'll just be written off as a token angry, black woman. It's a terrible stereotype, especially when you have to keep it in mind against someone like Pence.
|
On October 08 2020 10:49 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 10:46 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I expected a bit more fire from Kamala. She was probably prepped to be chill after the debate last week. But there's plenty to passionately attack Pence with. Just laughing is a bit lame.
Also the Biden/Harris centrist compromise on the green new deal is not a good sounding thing. Fighting for fracking and fighting for the environment at the same time is yikes. A black woman has absolutely no freedom to be loud or mean, else offend a sad portion of the country. It is unfortunate, but she is being very smart. She doesn't need to body slam Pence, just talk up Biden. Well in general, if you are loud and abrasive, and the other person just sits there calmly you'll look bad regardless of ethnicity, but yes she was prepped well to calm it a bit.
|
On October 08 2020 10:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 10:49 Cricketer12 wrote: I honestly can't tell which I hate more. Pence's policies, or Kamala's lies. I'm not a fan of Harris but Pence had told far more lies. I don't know that he's told more lies, but he's certainly been very clear in admitting to agreeing to flat out idiocy.
|
On October 08 2020 10:51 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 10:49 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 10:46 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I expected a bit more fire from Kamala. She was probably prepped to be chill after the debate last week. But there's plenty to passionately attack Pence with. Just laughing is a bit lame.
Also the Biden/Harris centrist compromise on the green new deal is not a good sounding thing. Fighting for fracking and fighting for the environment at the same time is yikes. A black woman has absolutely no freedom to be loud or mean, else offend a sad portion of the country. It is unfortunate, but she is being very smart. She doesn't need to body slam Pence, just talk up Biden. Well in general, if you are loud and abrasive, and the other person just sits there calmly you'll look bad regardless of ethnicity, but yes she was prepped well to calm it a bit.
There's a very clear and undeniable strain of racism and sexism that limits how Harris can act in public.
Harris finally answers a question clearly and strongly.
|
I'm happy that Harris is now actually somewhat answering questions. She goes astray a bit but she brings it back by the end. Pence literally immediately goes away from the question and forgets what it even was in the first place.
|
I wonder how many Americans think daily, ' well this sucks but at least we moved that embassy in Israel'
It's the dumbest republican talking point
|
Harris had a nice, relevant response to the question about American leadership, when she discussed foreign relationships and building trust.
|
On October 08 2020 10:57 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I wonder how many Americans think daily, ' well this sucks but at least we moved that embassy in Israel'
It's the dumbest republican talking point
Especially because Trump's conduct with Israel has really pissed off a lot of people and isn't something you want to bring up.
This moderator is so pathetic.
|
"THANK YOU VICE PRESIDENT PENCE" x50
Jesus Christ. Pence just doesn't stop. Just keeps steamrolling the moderator. And it's way more than the standard politician.
|
On October 08 2020 10:49 Cricketer12 wrote: I honestly can't tell which I hate more. Pence's policies, or Kamala's lies. Pence said they are following the science on the climate.... his supporters even know this is a lie, they like that they are not. And him pretending the others are about alternative facts is such a joke.
|
Not that VP debates ever make any real difference, but this debate has pretty much just turned into Pence lying constantly to try to Warp the narrative while Harris just brings up just some of the countless horrible things Trump has done.
|
don't understand why they are forming this Russia v China line as if both aren't problematic
|
Here comes Pence dodging abortion question
|
Looks like the moderator was finally able to reel in Pence for one second. I was just about to post about how little control she had over the debate, but I'm happy she didn't back down this time around. I just wish Pence would answer ANY question.
|
Moderator letting herself get walked over
|
Respectfully, Susan, we don't care for your questions
|
On October 08 2020 11:03 IyMoon wrote: Here comes Pence dodging abortion question Whoops, guess I ran out of time! Maybe next time!
|
Harris has answered almost every question in the time allotted. Pence constantly interrupting and going over time makes him look even worse in light of last week.
|
The moderator is shit if she doesn't dog him on abortion. He just talked about something completely different.
|
Pence slid away on answering the abortion part of the question. At least he answered it later.
|
On October 08 2020 11:05 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: The moderator is shit is she doesn't dog him on abortion. He just talked about something completely different. I feel like Harris has to call that out. It's gotten a bit silly an hour into the debate now.
|
Alright I think I'm done. I think I get it.
|
Not sure why not a single person can have a reasonable view on abortion
|
On October 08 2020 11:08 Cricketer12 wrote: Not sure why not a single person can have a reasonable view on abortion It's really hard to walk a line of any nuance in a TV debate. Especially because one misstep will be quoted on TV for days and weeks. It's one of the major things that has led to the decline of American democracy.
In Canada we hardly even care about our TV debate. Maybe it's because there tends to be 5-6 parties competing in the debate, maybe partly because we tend to read up on platforms a lot.
|
On October 08 2020 11:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Looks like the moderator was finally able to reel in Pence for one second. I was just about to post about how little control she had over the debate, but I'm happy she didn't back down this time around. I just wish Pence would answer ANY question. Its super annoying. He does not even pretend too. Have the time he starts with I'm just going to respond to this, then never gets to it all.
|
Can't wait to hear how Kamala dodges the court packing question.
edit: and Pence had the comeback. This question in particular is just yikes. They simply won't say yes or no. it's revealing.
|
On October 08 2020 11:09 WarSame wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:08 Cricketer12 wrote: Not sure why not a single person can have a reasonable view on abortion It's really hard to walk a line of any nuance in a TV debate. Especially because one misstep will be quoted on TV for days and weeks. It's one of the major things that has led to the decline of American democracy. In Canada we hardly even care about our TV debate. Maybe it's because there tends to be 5-6 parties competing in the debate, maybe partly because we tend to read up on platforms a lot. It would really help if we cut out debates and just had solo one on one interviews with them instead.
|
On October 08 2020 11:10 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Looks like the moderator was finally able to reel in Pence for one second. I was just about to post about how little control she had over the debate, but I'm happy she didn't back down this time around. I just wish Pence would answer ANY question. Its super annoying. He does not even pretend too. Have the time he starts with I'm just going to respond to this, then never gets to it all.
"Thank you for that question, Susan, but actually I'm not going to answer your question." ~Pence, every question, in this debate
|
On October 08 2020 11:10 Introvert wrote: Can't wait to hear how Kamala dodges the court packing question.
I gotta say that, for dodging a question, that was about the best possible way to do it. She looks far better than Pence does.
|
Interesting way to dodge answering on Supreme Court packing.
|
On October 08 2020 11:10 Introvert wrote: Can't wait to hear how Kamala dodges the court packing question.
Apparently by wrecking Pence over a history lesson, because Pence didn't know that Lincoln would disagree with Pence/Trump.
|
On October 08 2020 11:12 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:10 Introvert wrote: Can't wait to hear how Kamala dodges the court packing question. I gotta say that, for dodging a question, that was about the best possible way to do it. She looks far better than Pence does.
They've certainly found the best possible dodge, but I think Pence's "they are voting and they want to know if you are going to pack the court" is right to the point.
|
On October 08 2020 11:12 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:10 Introvert wrote: Can't wait to hear how Kamala dodges the court packing question. I gotta say that, for dodging a question, that was about the best possible way to do it. She looks far better than Pence does. because question dodging is praise worthy because it's done somewhat more tactfully
|
On October 08 2020 11:11 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:09 WarSame wrote:On October 08 2020 11:08 Cricketer12 wrote: Not sure why not a single person can have a reasonable view on abortion It's really hard to walk a line of any nuance in a TV debate. Especially because one misstep will be quoted on TV for days and weeks. It's one of the major things that has led to the decline of American democracy. In Canada we hardly even care about our TV debate. Maybe it's because there tends to be 5-6 parties competing in the debate, maybe partly because we tend to read up on platforms a lot. It would really help if we cut out debates and just had solo one on one interviews with them instead. Yup, but then no one would watch. The Townhalls all of the candidates do are very informative and answer way more policy questions than these debates ever will yet we don't focus on them.
|
On October 08 2020 11:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:12 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 08 2020 11:10 Introvert wrote: Can't wait to hear how Kamala dodges the court packing question. I gotta say that, for dodging a question, that was about the best possible way to do it. She looks far better than Pence does. They've certainly found the best possible dodge, but I think Pence's "they are voting and they want to know if you are going to pack the court" is right to the point.
It rings hollow when he hasn't answered a single question.
He ran like a child from the abortion question.
|
On October 08 2020 11:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:10 JimmiC wrote:On October 08 2020 11:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Looks like the moderator was finally able to reel in Pence for one second. I was just about to post about how little control she had over the debate, but I'm happy she didn't back down this time around. I just wish Pence would answer ANY question. Its super annoying. He does not even pretend too. Have the time he starts with I'm just going to respond to this, then never gets to it all. "Thank you for that question, Susan, but actually I'm not going to answer your question." ~Pence, every question, in this debate Like it would be actually interesting to hear if they considered China enemies, rivals or so on. Instead all BS and ends with "we want to improve relationships but hold them responsible for the virus" wtf? Maybe with 2 mins it might have made sense, but who knows.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
Missed most of this, but got here just in time for the court packing debate. Can't say I'm impressed with what I saw so far, but at least it's not the circus from last time.
I'd say Pence looks better overall, but that most people will probably say that whoever they like the most won this one. I don't see anything groundbreaking today.
|
On October 08 2020 11:14 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:11 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 08 2020 11:09 WarSame wrote:On October 08 2020 11:08 Cricketer12 wrote: Not sure why not a single person can have a reasonable view on abortion It's really hard to walk a line of any nuance in a TV debate. Especially because one misstep will be quoted on TV for days and weeks. It's one of the major things that has led to the decline of American democracy. In Canada we hardly even care about our TV debate. Maybe it's because there tends to be 5-6 parties competing in the debate, maybe partly because we tend to read up on platforms a lot. It would really help if we cut out debates and just had solo one on one interviews with them instead. Yup, but then no one would watch. The Townhalls all of the candidates do are very informative and answer way more policy questions than these debates ever will yet we don't focus on them. I would prefer two town halls and one 1v1 debate rather than the reverse. I'd rather listen to presidents answer directly to their constituents rather than confront each other in a made for TV spectacle.
|
On October 08 2020 11:14 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:11 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 08 2020 11:09 WarSame wrote:On October 08 2020 11:08 Cricketer12 wrote: Not sure why not a single person can have a reasonable view on abortion It's really hard to walk a line of any nuance in a TV debate. Especially because one misstep will be quoted on TV for days and weeks. It's one of the major things that has led to the decline of American democracy. In Canada we hardly even care about our TV debate. Maybe it's because there tends to be 5-6 parties competing in the debate, maybe partly because we tend to read up on platforms a lot. It would really help if we cut out debates and just had solo one on one interviews with them instead. Yup, but then no one would watch. The Townhalls all of the candidates do are very informative and answer way more policy questions than these debates ever will yet we don't focus on them. Well that's why last week's debate became such a meme. People don't recognize their civic duty.
|
Pence has 0% chance to win any question on race. He needs to change course hard.
|
At least we have a fly land on the shitstain that Pence is
|
On October 08 2020 11:15 LegalLord wrote: Missed most of this, but got here just in time for the court packing debate. Can't say I'm impressed with what I saw so far, but at least it's not the circus from last time.
I'd say Pence looks better overall, but that most people will probably say that whoever they like the most won this one. I don't see anything groundbreaking today.
Oh absolutely. Neither VP candidate is so stellar to persuade anyone, although to be fair, that's nearly impossible right now anyway... pretty much everyone has picked a side.
|
Literally the most interesting thing about Mike Pence is that there's a bug in his hair.
|
Lol shutting Pence down hard on the law enforcement experience.
You walked into her trap card, Pence.
|
inb4 15 fly memes tomorrow morning...
|
PENCE JUST SAID THAT TRUMP CAN'T BE RACIST BECAUSE TRUMP HAS JEWISH GRANDCHILDREN. Pence literally played the "I have a black friend" card.
|
Didn't Trump condemn white supremacists after the debate at the White House? Is having Jewish grandchildren and children in law the best Pence had to bring up?
|
Trump is super proud about how many people he has packed into the court, and he brags about it. And now he's talking about how wrong it would be to.pack it. Just lol.
|
This moderator is so weak and either shows clear bias or an abject failure in controlling Pence and then just redirecting to controlling Harris.
|
On October 08 2020 11:22 PhoenixVoid wrote: Didn't Trump condemn white supremacists after the debate at the White House? Is having Jewish grandchildren and children in law the best Pence had to bring up? I'm honestly shocked Kamala hasn't responded with "Stephen Miller"
|
On October 08 2020 11:23 Stratos_speAr wrote: This moderator is so weak and either shows clear bias or an abject failure in controlling Pence and then just redirecting to controlling Harris. huh?
|
On October 08 2020 11:22 PhoenixVoid wrote: Didn't Trump condemn white supremacists after the debate at the White House? Is having Jewish grandchildren and children in law the best Pence had to bring up?
Given that Trump has given white supremacists and/or fascists and/or far-right cults a pass on like the other 99 out of the 100 instances - including telling the Proud Boys to stand by during the debate - I'd say yeah, Pence really doesn't have much to go on.
|
On October 08 2020 11:24 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:23 Stratos_speAr wrote: This moderator is so weak and either shows clear bias or an abject failure in controlling Pence and then just redirecting to controlling Harris. huh?
Pence has been interrupting and repeating himself constantly but she hasn't called him out once like she just called out Harris.
|
On October 08 2020 11:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:24 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 08 2020 11:23 Stratos_speAr wrote: This moderator is so weak and either shows clear bias or an abject failure in controlling Pence and then just redirecting to controlling Harris. huh? Pence has been interrupting and repeating himself constantly but she hasn't called him out once like she just called out Harris. she...has? and im pretty sure first half of the debate she cut of Pence early too unless I'm mistaking. Not saying she's good, she's terrible, but idk about bias against Harris
|
Wow decriminalization of Marijuana is a huge promise.
|
On October 08 2020 11:27 JimmiC wrote: Wow decriminalization of Marijuana is a huge promise.
What do you mean? Sarcasm?
|
On October 08 2020 11:27 JimmiC wrote: Wow decriminalization of Marijuana is a huge promise. It should be legalized. Decriminalization is not that big.
|
Huh. Solid answer, Pence. Surprising.
|
On October 08 2020 11:32 Fleetfeet wrote: Huh. Solid answer, Pence. Surprising. yeah that was the answer I would hope for...that said it shouldn't be that hard an answer to come up with
|
On October 08 2020 11:28 WarSame wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:27 JimmiC wrote: Wow decriminalization of Marijuana is a huge promise. It should be legalized. Decriminalization is not that big. I agree but decriminalization and reversing all convictions is a huge first step. Especially for a country so proud of the "war on drugs". The Marijuana convictions combined with three strike and other laws are massive.
|
It was nice to see boring politics again. No matter what we think of dodging questions , this was so much better than the P debate
|
Next debate is Thursday, October 15th. Another unpresidential showdown.
|
Pence really hit the finishing question out of the park.
I think Pence was way ahead at the start, then Kamala came back, but Pence just killed it at the end.
Overall I think Pence won hands down.
|
Just listening, with interruptions, I thought Pence did ok and Harris reminded people who she dropped out before Iowa.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
If the first hour is anything like the last 20 minutes, then Pence performed better, but not in a way that matters. I continue to see it as a head-scratcher why people hype up Harris as if she's anything other than a gutter-tier candidate, but honestly at this point none of this matters compared to Trump and what people think about him.
Time to go back and watch the first hour and see if it's anything like the end of it.
|
On October 08 2020 11:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Next debate is Thursday, October 15th. Another unpresidential showdown.
IMO there's no chance it happens.
|
Poll: Who won?Harris (12) 41% Pence (11) 38% Tie (6) 21% 29 total votes Your vote: Who won? (Vote): Harris (Vote): Pence (Vote): Tie
|
On October 08 2020 11:09 WarSame wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:08 Cricketer12 wrote: Not sure why not a single person can have a reasonable view on abortion It's really hard to walk a line of any nuance in a TV debate. Especially because one misstep will be quoted on TV for days and weeks. It's one of the major things that has led to the decline of American democracy. In Canada we hardly even care about our TV debate. Maybe it's because there tends to be 5-6 parties competing in the debate, maybe partly because we tend to read up on platforms a lot.
I'm so jealous of this.
|
I think the people expecting prosecutor Harris to verbally smackdown Pence were quite disappointed. She had a habit of sticking to some generic stump speech type answers and slipped away on committal answers on certain issues like on packing the Supreme Court. Pence gave a fairly measured defence of Trump and had some good responses, but he also gave a few slippery answers and my biases mean I can't exactly take his Trump apologia seriously. Overall, Pence did fine and Harris was more spotty today.
Next debate is a town hall btw.
|
On October 08 2020 11:42 JimmiC wrote:Poll: Who won?Harris (12) 41% Pence (11) 38% Tie (6) 21% 29 total votes Your vote: Who won? (Vote): Harris (Vote): Pence (Vote): Tie
I would say they both did a good job but Pence had a much harder job to do.
|
I felt like Harris did better over the first hour, but the last half hour I felt like Pence did okay. It does annoy me he literally didn't answer any actual question, and never got called out on that by Harris or the moderator. I think this shows the difference between a VP candidate and normal Presidential candidate - have the solid platform, but then adding the disciplined aggression and assertion.
She did have a lot to attack, but honestly that kind of wears away over 1.5 hours because there's just so much to attack.
|
On October 08 2020 11:39 LegalLord wrote: If the first hour is anything like the last 20 minutes, then Pence performed better, but not in a way that matters. I continue to see it as a head-scratcher why people hype up Harris as if she's anything other than a gutter-tier candidate, but honestly at this point none of this matters compared to Trump and what people think about him.
Time to go back and watch the first hour and see if it's anything like the end of it. Yeah Kamala was a huge mistake on Biden's part...really unfortunate Klob fucked it all up in June
|
On October 08 2020 11:36 Monochromatic wrote: Pence really hit the finishing question out of the park.
I think Pence was way ahead at the start, then Kamala came back, but Pence just killed it at the end.
Overall I think Pence won hands down.
Iunno, Kamala leaned pretty heavily into reinforcing that she's earned her position and isn't just there because she's there, where Pence felt like he's what Biden is accused of often - an empty shell and a puppet for other forces.
Pence really did nail that last question, though. Ironically, there was an opportunity for either of them to answer the question honestly and sympathetically, and he nailed it. It genuinely felt like he was answering an 8th grader, and not trying to earn her parents' vote.
|
I think Pence excelled in sincerity which Harris really struggles with. He interrupted to his detriment, and overtalked the moderator, but it was relatively reasonable compared to previous non-Trump debates.
I think Pence struggled with the fact that... his platform and President is honestly garbage, and tons to defend. He also slipped just about every question. He didn't answer a single question, but maybe that's a good approach when you're in a situation like he was, where you're forced to defend the indefensible.
|
On October 08 2020 11:48 WarSame wrote: I think Pence excelled in sincerity which Harris really struggles with. He interrupted to his detriment, and overtalked the moderator, but it was relatively reasonable compared to previous non-Trump debates.
I think Pence struggled with the fact that... his platform and President is honestly garbage, and tons to defend. He also slipped just about every question. He didn't answer a single question, but maybe that's a good approach when you're in a situation like he was, where you're forced to defend the indefensible. still don't understand how Kamala got here.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On October 08 2020 11:49 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:48 WarSame wrote: I think Pence excelled in sincerity which Harris really struggles with. He interrupted to his detriment, and overtalked the moderator, but it was relatively reasonable compared to previous non-Trump debates.
I think Pence struggled with the fact that... his platform and President is honestly garbage, and tons to defend. He also slipped just about every question. He didn't answer a single question, but maybe that's a good approach when you're in a situation like he was, where you're forced to defend the indefensible. still don't understand how Kamala got here. The Democratic party likes her for some reason, and by putting her on the VP ticket they have the best option they're ever going to get to force her through by bundling her in with the "must stop Trump" option.
|
On October 08 2020 11:42 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:42 JimmiC wrote:Poll: Who won?Harris (12) 41% Pence (11) 38% Tie (6) 21% 29 total votes Your vote: Who won? (Vote): Harris (Vote): Pence (Vote): Tie
I would say they both did a good job but Pence had a much harder job to do. I think unlike the last one, this moved no needles. No one won or lost enough to change minds.
|
On October 08 2020 11:49 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:48 WarSame wrote: I think Pence excelled in sincerity which Harris really struggles with. He interrupted to his detriment, and overtalked the moderator, but it was relatively reasonable compared to previous non-Trump debates.
I think Pence struggled with the fact that... his platform and President is honestly garbage, and tons to defend. He also slipped just about every question. He didn't answer a single question, but maybe that's a good approach when you're in a situation like he was, where you're forced to defend the indefensible. still don't understand how Kamala got here.
I know it's a bit controversial, but I think it's pretty clear that it's due to the color of her skin among the backdrop of the racial tension.
|
On October 08 2020 11:49 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:48 WarSame wrote: I think Pence excelled in sincerity which Harris really struggles with. He interrupted to his detriment, and overtalked the moderator, but it was relatively reasonable compared to previous non-Trump debates.
I think Pence struggled with the fact that... his platform and President is honestly garbage, and tons to defend. He also slipped just about every question. He didn't answer a single question, but maybe that's a good approach when you're in a situation like he was, where you're forced to defend the indefensible. still don't understand how Kamala got here. Biden picked her as his running mate. The same way Pence got there.
|
Pence is the leader of the corona taskforce. He shouldn't be able to leave this debate without getting ravaged for his and Trumps failure. Harris failed in that regard.
|
On October 08 2020 11:49 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:48 WarSame wrote: I think Pence excelled in sincerity which Harris really struggles with. He interrupted to his detriment, and overtalked the moderator, but it was relatively reasonable compared to previous non-Trump debates.
I think Pence struggled with the fact that... his platform and President is honestly garbage, and tons to defend. He also slipped just about every question. He didn't answer a single question, but maybe that's a good approach when you're in a situation like he was, where you're forced to defend the indefensible. still don't understand how Kamala got here.
Kamala is the next in line for the Presidency after Bidens term(s) are over, imo
|
On October 08 2020 11:49 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:48 WarSame wrote: I think Pence excelled in sincerity which Harris really struggles with. He interrupted to his detriment, and overtalked the moderator, but it was relatively reasonable compared to previous non-Trump debates.
I think Pence struggled with the fact that... his platform and President is honestly garbage, and tons to defend. He also slipped just about every question. He didn't answer a single question, but maybe that's a good approach when you're in a situation like he was, where you're forced to defend the indefensible. still don't understand how Kamala got here. She was the Hillary aligned party establishment favorite and dropped out before she got crushed in her home state primary (which would have made sure she wasn't a VP possibility).
|
Historically, VP has been about securing the region as a favoured son, matching desired demographics and performing well in the VP debate.
KH doesn't really lock down much of an area, since California is deep blue.
She does really match desired demographics, especially after this summer, as a black/Indian woman.
She performed alright in the debate, which was enough for her. I'm a little disappointed, but not too much. I doubt the needle moves at all, which is fine for Democrats I think.
|
On October 08 2020 11:55 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Pence is the leader of the corona taskforce. He shouldn't be able to leave this debate without getting ravaged for his and Trumps failure. Harris failed in that regard. Hard to ravage him when he just makes shit up and says it convincingly. The ravage will happen as people point out all the lies but those in the flock won't read or belive it, so does it even matter? At this point they just needed no major gaffe and she succeeded.
|
On October 08 2020 11:49 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:48 WarSame wrote: I think Pence excelled in sincerity which Harris really struggles with. He interrupted to his detriment, and overtalked the moderator, but it was relatively reasonable compared to previous non-Trump debates.
I think Pence struggled with the fact that... his platform and President is honestly garbage, and tons to defend. He also slipped just about every question. He didn't answer a single question, but maybe that's a good approach when you're in a situation like he was, where you're forced to defend the indefensible. still don't understand how Kamala got here. She's a safe embodiment of the Democratic Party. Being a half-black half-Indian woman with a record as the tough on crime prosecutor who is also progressive ticks off a lot of the boxes on acceptability for the moderates and progressives.
On October 08 2020 11:56 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:49 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 08 2020 11:48 WarSame wrote: I think Pence excelled in sincerity which Harris really struggles with. He interrupted to his detriment, and overtalked the moderator, but it was relatively reasonable compared to previous non-Trump debates.
I think Pence struggled with the fact that... his platform and President is honestly garbage, and tons to defend. He also slipped just about every question. He didn't answer a single question, but maybe that's a good approach when you're in a situation like he was, where you're forced to defend the indefensible. still don't understand how Kamala got here. Kamala is the next in line for the Presidency after Bidens term(s) are over, imo This is absolutely being telegraphed by Biden and the Democrats as a whole. I believe Biden's said he's only taking up one term, and picking Harris for VP was a clear sign she's been chosen as the future of the party.
|
On October 08 2020 11:49 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:48 WarSame wrote: I think Pence excelled in sincerity which Harris really struggles with. He interrupted to his detriment, and overtalked the moderator, but it was relatively reasonable compared to previous non-Trump debates.
I think Pence struggled with the fact that... his platform and President is honestly garbage, and tons to defend. He also slipped just about every question. He didn't answer a single question, but maybe that's a good approach when you're in a situation like he was, where you're forced to defend the indefensible. still don't understand how Kamala got here. She was the furthest left candidate who wasn't Bernie (who has all of Biden's weaknesses on age amped up) or Warren (Biden and her mutually loathe each other).
In addition, there was pressure to pick a black female VP from african american groups, who felt like they deserved a reward for keeping Biden in the primary.
She was a super strong candidate on paper but really weak in person. So, good VP material. She'll never overshadow Biden and I doubt she'll ever become a nominee picked in a primary.
On October 08 2020 11:58 PhoenixVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:49 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 08 2020 11:48 WarSame wrote: I think Pence excelled in sincerity which Harris really struggles with. He interrupted to his detriment, and overtalked the moderator, but it was relatively reasonable compared to previous non-Trump debates.
I think Pence struggled with the fact that... his platform and President is honestly garbage, and tons to defend. He also slipped just about every question. He didn't answer a single question, but maybe that's a good approach when you're in a situation like he was, where you're forced to defend the indefensible. still don't understand how Kamala got here. She's a safe embodiment of the Democratic Party. Being a half-black half-Indian woman with a record as the tough on crime prosecutor who is also progressive ticks off a lot of the boxes on acceptability for the moderates and progressives. Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:56 Zambrah wrote:On October 08 2020 11:49 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 08 2020 11:48 WarSame wrote: I think Pence excelled in sincerity which Harris really struggles with. He interrupted to his detriment, and overtalked the moderator, but it was relatively reasonable compared to previous non-Trump debates.
I think Pence struggled with the fact that... his platform and President is honestly garbage, and tons to defend. He also slipped just about every question. He didn't answer a single question, but maybe that's a good approach when you're in a situation like he was, where you're forced to defend the indefensible. still don't understand how Kamala got here. Kamala is the next in line for the Presidency after Bidens term(s) are over, imo This is absolutely being telegraphed by Biden and the Democrats as a whole. I believe Biden's said he's only taking up one term, and picking Harris for VP was a clear sign she's been chosen as the future of the party. It'll never happen. She's just not charismatic enough to become President unless Biden literally dies in office. Not saying they don't want it, just that they're vastly overestimating her if that's a real plan.
|
On October 08 2020 11:54 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:49 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 08 2020 11:48 WarSame wrote: I think Pence excelled in sincerity which Harris really struggles with. He interrupted to his detriment, and overtalked the moderator, but it was relatively reasonable compared to previous non-Trump debates.
I think Pence struggled with the fact that... his platform and President is honestly garbage, and tons to defend. He also slipped just about every question. He didn't answer a single question, but maybe that's a good approach when you're in a situation like he was, where you're forced to defend the indefensible. still don't understand how Kamala got here. Biden picked her as his running mate. The same way Pence got here. Ok but what value does Kamala as a VP add? What votes is Biden hoping to gain through her? California? Something tells me Cali was blue regardless. Not to mention the Party still doesn't want the Bernie-AOC sect to have any authority or power, which is why Biden is here...and yet they allowed him to pick Kamala? makes no sense at all
|
Yeah, she's a solid VP pick but not a great President. I think Trump has exposed something in American, and maybe Canadian, democracy for me. He has to be voted out on the basis of how terrible he is. At the same time, this establishment Democrat party line does not align with me past this election. There needs to be deeper reform to the system, and this doesn't seem like it'll be it.
|
On October 08 2020 12:08 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:54 JimmiC wrote:On October 08 2020 11:49 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 08 2020 11:48 WarSame wrote: I think Pence excelled in sincerity which Harris really struggles with. He interrupted to his detriment, and overtalked the moderator, but it was relatively reasonable compared to previous non-Trump debates.
I think Pence struggled with the fact that... his platform and President is honestly garbage, and tons to defend. He also slipped just about every question. He didn't answer a single question, but maybe that's a good approach when you're in a situation like he was, where you're forced to defend the indefensible. still don't understand how Kamala got here. Biden picked her as his running mate. The same way Pence got here. Ok but what value does Kamala as a VP add? What votes is Biden hoping to gain through her? California? Something tells me Cali was blue regardless. Not to mention the Party still doesn't want the Bernie-AOC sect to have any authority or power, which is why Biden is here...and yet they allowed him to pick Kamala? makes no sense at all They also have a strong personal relationship since Beau and AG Harris worked together. I think she can also serve in office as a congressional liaison, which is extremely useful for the President.
|
On October 08 2020 12:08 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:54 JimmiC wrote:On October 08 2020 11:49 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 08 2020 11:48 WarSame wrote: I think Pence excelled in sincerity which Harris really struggles with. He interrupted to his detriment, and overtalked the moderator, but it was relatively reasonable compared to previous non-Trump debates.
I think Pence struggled with the fact that... his platform and President is honestly garbage, and tons to defend. He also slipped just about every question. He didn't answer a single question, but maybe that's a good approach when you're in a situation like he was, where you're forced to defend the indefensible. still don't understand how Kamala got here. Biden picked her as his running mate. The same way Pence got here. Ok but what value does Kamala as a VP add? What votes is Biden hoping to gain through her? California? Something tells me Cali was blue regardless. Not to mention the Party still doesn't want the Bernie-AOC sect to have any authority or power, which is why Biden is here...and yet they allowed him to pick Kamala? makes no sense at all
Nevuk just explained it really well. They were not looking for geographic votes. Which was not what Pence brought either.
|
Harris should be dead in the water as the next nominee because Biden's presidency will be mediocre if he's extremely lucky and she's bad at campaigning.
But other than Warren maybe, there's not anyone to challenge her and the establishment support she'll hold. Warren should be pissed as hell at the party and ready to blow it up if they coronate Kamala, but she won't.
The biggest problem with banking on Kamala's identity is that she was one of the worse performers with Black voters.
|
Pence tonight:
Here is a question on X.
Well before X, let me spend 45 seconds on Y.
Now as you know, gives random anecdote, for 30 seconds.
With the last 15 seconds let me bring up AOC and the GND and cross talk, something cross talk something cross talk.
So he never really answered one of the main questions. I dont know about you but when you have dodge 90% of the questions asked of you that is not winning a debate. Shows he can lie and spew garage well though. Kamala outside of the supreme court question was at least somewhat on the page of the questions. She should of gone after pence more on his BS but that would of made her seem like the angry black women with the moderator going after her way more then pence.
|
On October 08 2020 11:49 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:48 WarSame wrote: I think Pence excelled in sincerity which Harris really struggles with. He interrupted to his detriment, and overtalked the moderator, but it was relatively reasonable compared to previous non-Trump debates.
I think Pence struggled with the fact that... his platform and President is honestly garbage, and tons to defend. He also slipped just about every question. He didn't answer a single question, but maybe that's a good approach when you're in a situation like he was, where you're forced to defend the indefensible. still don't understand how Kamala got here.
She was picked from the start wasn't she.
Like years ago I remember hearing that she was going to be one of the top picks for the establishment.
Politics are simple, the people with power get what they want.
|
She's definitely a political animal and establishment heavy. Don't expect any revolution out of her. At the same time, that makes her hard to attack, which can be good for a VP.
|
I thought she did fine, she was at least as sincere as Pence. I'm sure there was a bit of owning the conservatives as well, since for some reason she gets to them.
@neb what are you getting at? Who should get to pick the vp nomination if not the person who won the primary?
|
I agree though this debate probably does not move the needle which is a disaster for trump. His numbers on in free fall right now and meh debate is not what he needs. A average debate for Kamala is great in all she needed to do was not mess up. Little disappointing as she should of been better but it is what it is.
|
In another unprecedented move the new England journal of medicine released a scathing editorial on the Trump government handling of the pandemic. It was the first time they've done it and all editors signed it.
Anyone else who recklessly squandered lives and money in this way would be suffering legal consequences. Our leaders have largely claimed immunity for their actions. But this election gives us the power to render judgment," the editorial says. "When it comes to the response to the largest public health crisis of our time, our current political leaders have demonstrated that they are dangerously incompetent. We should not abet them and enable the deaths of thousands more Americans by allowing them to keep their jobs."
The reason we've never published an editorial about elections is we're not a political journal and I don't think that we want to be a political journal -- but the issue here is around fact, not around opinion. There have been many mistakes made that were not only foolish but reckless and I think we want people to realize that there are truths here, not just opinions," Rubin said.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/us/new-england-journal-of-medicine-calls-for-us-leadership-to-be-voted-out-over-covid-19-failure/ar-BB19NP22?li=AAggFp4
Edit: another group of scientists saying they disagree with Pence and Trump on the basis of fact.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
My thoughts on what I've seen so far:
1. Pence has an obvious honesty problem, Harris has an even bigger authenticity problem. She comes off as sleazy, which very much negates any of the advantage she would have over Pence.
2. The whole discussion on climate change should've been a really brutal moment for Pence, but Harris completely failed to deliver. A lack of a message, a lack of charisma, and so on. Pence did well on most answers, but that was one that I really could've seen him getting smacked down on - and it didn't work out.
3. The moderator didn't give Harris a single hardball question, whereas Pence got plenty. The presidential debate was more even in that regard.
4. I like how hard the Biden ticket is trying to prove that it's no different than a conservative administration. The whole discussion about how they don't want big environmental regulations, they don't want to get rid of fracking, supporting the Green New Deal or universal healthcare is fake news, they love the police, and so on.
5. Obviously Pence is playing the role of Trump apologist for a lot of these questions. It's a hell of a job, and he's doing it pretty well. He certainly has an honesty problem, but he's not at all unique in that regard.
Harris is a deeply disappointing candidate and today confirms everything that a lot of us have said about her. Pence has done what he's always done: cover for Trump. None of this really provides any confidence that a Biden administration, which is very likely at this point, would be meaningfully different from your standard Republican fare sans Trump circus.
|
I like how hard the Biden ticket is trying to prove that it's no different than a conservative administration. The whole discussion about how they don't want big environmental regulations, they don't want to get rid of fracking, supporting the Green New Deal or universal healthcare is fake news, they love the police, and so on.
Yeah the "I'll tell them both and they can believe the one they don't like is the lie for votes" works better with charisma, sincerity, or at least bluster.
|
On October 08 2020 11:21 Cricketer12 wrote: inb4 15 fly memes tomorrow morning...
They're actually insane already... Including "Pence's only black friend" and "Pretty fly for a white guy" lmao
|
On October 08 2020 12:33 LegalLord wrote: My thoughts on what I've seen so far:
1. Pence has an obvious honesty problem, Harris has an even bigger authenticity problem. She comes off as sleazy, which very much negates any of the advantage she would have over Pence.
2. The whole discussion on climate change should've been a really brutal moment for Pence, but Harris completely failed to deliver. A lack of a message, a lack of charisma, and so on. Pence did well on most answers, but that was one that I really could've seen him getting smacked down on - and it didn't work out.
3. The moderator didn't give Harris a single hardball question, whereas Pence got plenty. The presidential debate was more even in that regard.
4. I like how hard the Biden ticket is trying to prove that it's no different than a conservative administration. The whole discussion about how they don't want big environmental regulations, they don't want to get rid of fracking, supporting the Green New Deal or universal healthcare is fake news, they love the police, and so on.
5. Obviously Pence is playing the role of Trump apologist for a lot of these questions. It's a hell of a job, and he's doing it pretty well. He certainly has an honesty problem, but he's not at all unique in that regard.
Harris is a deeply disappointing candidate and today confirms everything that a lot of us have said about her. Pence has done what he's always done: cover for Trump. None of this really provides any confidence that a Biden administration, which is very likely at this point, would be meaningfully different from your standard Republican fare sans Trump circus. Pretty fair assessment, I agree with this.
|
On October 08 2020 12:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:21 Cricketer12 wrote: inb4 15 fly memes tomorrow morning... They're actually insane already... Including "Pence's only black friend" and "Pretty fly for a white guy" lmao God that's great.
|
On October 08 2020 12:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:21 Cricketer12 wrote: inb4 15 fly memes tomorrow morning... They're actually insane already... Including "Pence's only black friend" and "Pretty fly for a white guy" lmao
Most of the "black friend' stuff is coming down when people realize it's racist.
|
On October 08 2020 12:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:21 Cricketer12 wrote: inb4 15 fly memes tomorrow morning... They're actually insane already... Including "Pence's only black friend" and "Pretty fly for a white guy" lmao
Biden store already selling "Truth over flies fly swatter". Whoever is in charge of the biden store knows how to throw that shade
|
Would you guys prefer Pence over Trump? I agree Harris was deeply disappointing. Pence did very well considering he had the job of defending 4 years of utter crap. Unlike Trump at least Pence can behave in a civil manner and doesn't suck all the oxygen out of a room. Even though he'd still have the same regressive social policies I think it would at least take the temperature down in the nation to below boiling for once. Once again I'm wishing we had better Democratic candidates and the only choice wasn't merely not Trump and the GOP.
|
Why is it so hard to get an answer as to whether democrats will pack the Supreme Court? Yes or no will be fine.
|
On October 08 2020 13:20 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Why is it so hard to get an answer as to whether democrats will pack the Supreme Court? Yes or no will be fine. Why wont Pence answer question x,y or z?
|
On October 08 2020 13:20 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Why is it so hard to get an answer as to whether democrats will pack the Supreme Court? Yes or no will be fine. Honestly, it feels like gloating. They don't have to answer, because they don't need to in order to win.
True from a perspective of who-wins-or-loses-the-debates-doesn't-matter.
|
I'd like it if we could just cancel the next election VP debate.
|
On October 08 2020 13:20 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Why is it so hard to get an answer as to whether democrats will pack the Supreme Court? Yes or no will be fine.
Wow, it's almost like it's politics or something and you avoid committing to a position when it is disadvantageous to do so. Like it's the reason Pence asked the question in the first place, or something.
The better question is why are you echoing one of Pence's talking points instead of having any actual self-generated criticism of the American political system.
|
On October 08 2020 16:03 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 13:20 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Why is it so hard to get an answer as to whether democrats will pack the Supreme Court? Yes or no will be fine. Wow, it's almost like it's politics or something and you avoid committing to a position when it is disadvantageous to do so. Like it's the reason Pence asked the question in the first place, or something.The better question is why are you echoing one of Pence's talking points instead of having any actual self-generated criticism of the American political system.
I hate that politics has to be about waffling between positions without ever revealing your intentions though.
I'm so tired of disingenuous politicians that appear to have no beliefs, it's just so... I mean, don't we, as citizens deserve better? Don't we DESERVE TO KNOW what our politicians plan to do?
I don't think we should justify these sorts of games in politics at all, when asked a question there should be an answer, even if its, "thats a tough question, I'm not sure, I'll get back to you on that in the future after I've looked into it."
|
Absolutely. Dodging a question should not be acceptable. Your journalists have become far too accepting of not getting an answer to the question they asked, and are letting your politicians get away with not answering far too easy.
In an interview, after dodging a question, they should just immediately get asked the same question, until they answer. And in a debate like this one, if they are not talking about the question after 10 seconds, the moderator should cut them off and mute their mike, remind them of the question, then give them another 5 seconds to get on topic, and then just cut of the remainder of their talking time if they don't start answering. Then, for their next question, instead of a new question they get the same one again, with the same treatment, until they answer it or the debate is over.
These are the people who should represent the voters. How are the voters supposed to make a good, informed decision if their representatives refuse to say what they represent?
|
On October 08 2020 16:57 Simberto wrote: Absolutely. Dodging a question should not be acceptable. Your journalists have become far too accepting of not getting an answer to the question they asked, and are letting your politicians get away with not answering far too easy.
In an interview, after dodging a question, they should just immediately get asked the same question, until they answer. And in a debate like this one, if they are not talking about the question after 10 seconds, the moderator should cut them off and mute their mike, remind them of the question, then give them another 5 seconds to get on topic, and then just cut of the remainder of their talking time if they don't start answering. Then, for their next question, instead of a new question they get the same one again, with the same treatment, until they answer it or the debate is over.
These are the people who should represent the voters. How are the voters supposed to make a good, informed decision if their representatives refuse to say what they represent?
Because it isn't that simple, I think.
Take the thing in question - Pence asked whether or not Harris and Biden intend to pack the court, and Harris' response was, effectively, a coy "I don't know... are -you-?"
I agree with the overall premise that US politics has a fuckload more room for honesty, the problem is the first party to do that disadvantages themselves severely, as (arguably) voters -aren't- making good informed decisions on who to vote for in the first place. You'd end up with an honest "Yeah, we want to ban fracking, and here's why" versus "Banning fracking will cost ELEVEN BILLION american jobs! If you elect us instead, we'll NEVER ban fracking and also give poor americans 1,000 dollars for every frack we do!" with no accountability for the dishonesty, so no real disadvantage for doing so.
I mean look at the format for these debates - you have two minutes to go over your talking points, and 30 seconds to rebut it. All we end up getting is "No, that's a lie" as a response from either side - there's no actual hashing out of ideas or real debate of policy going on, just trying to sell your party and your ticket.
I honestly think this is why Pence's answer to the final question was so refreshing - it actually felt like he was answering the 8th grader's question in an honest way, and not trying to earn her parents' vote or talk up Trump or anything.
|
It's refreshing to hear Pence lie, he does a much better job at it than Trump.
|
Northern Ireland20514 Posts
On October 08 2020 17:37 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 16:57 Simberto wrote: Absolutely. Dodging a question should not be acceptable. Your journalists have become far too accepting of not getting an answer to the question they asked, and are letting your politicians get away with not answering far too easy.
In an interview, after dodging a question, they should just immediately get asked the same question, until they answer. And in a debate like this one, if they are not talking about the question after 10 seconds, the moderator should cut them off and mute their mike, remind them of the question, then give them another 5 seconds to get on topic, and then just cut of the remainder of their talking time if they don't start answering. Then, for their next question, instead of a new question they get the same one again, with the same treatment, until they answer it or the debate is over.
These are the people who should represent the voters. How are the voters supposed to make a good, informed decision if their representatives refuse to say what they represent? Because it isn't that simple, I think. Take the thing in question - Pence asked whether or not Harris and Biden intend to pack the court, and Harris' response was, effectively, a coy "I don't know... are -you-?" I agree with the overall premise that US politics has a fuckload more room for honesty, the problem is the first party to do that disadvantages themselves severely, as (arguably) voters -aren't- making good informed decisions on who to vote for in the first place. You'd end up with an honest "Yeah, we want to ban fracking, and here's why" versus "Banning fracking will cost ELEVEN BILLION american jobs! If you elect us instead, we'll NEVER ban fracking and also give poor americans 1,000 dollars for every frack we do!" with no accountability for the dishonesty, so no real disadvantage for doing so. I mean look at the format for these debates - you have two minutes to go over your talking points, and 30 seconds to rebut it. All we end up getting is "No, that's a lie" as a response from either side - there's no actual hashing out of ideas or real debate of policy going on, just trying to sell your party and your ticket. I honestly think this is why Pence's answer to the final question was so refreshing - it actually felt like he was answering the 8th grader's question in an honest way, and not trying to earn her parents' vote or talk up Trump or anything. It works on specifics and really makes politicians look slimy and disingenuous, should be done more Exhibit A
On the other hand I agree that it’s borderline impossible to discuss complex, multi-layered issues and policy or rebut in a minute, or half a minute or whatever.
The media format and our ever-decreasing attention spans in consuming it even between the televisual age and the social media age in terms of condensing things into sound bites make things even worse.
I don’t think it’s a particularly new quirk of human psychology that many people gravitate to those who promise simple solutions for complex issues over the person saying ‘well it’s a complicated issue’, but the actual format of these debates and how they’re packaged and consumed certainly exacerbates the problem .
|
On October 08 2020 11:14 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 11:11 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 08 2020 11:09 WarSame wrote:On October 08 2020 11:08 Cricketer12 wrote: Not sure why not a single person can have a reasonable view on abortion It's really hard to walk a line of any nuance in a TV debate. Especially because one misstep will be quoted on TV for days and weeks. It's one of the major things that has led to the decline of American democracy. In Canada we hardly even care about our TV debate. Maybe it's because there tends to be 5-6 parties competing in the debate, maybe partly because we tend to read up on platforms a lot. It would really help if we cut out debates and just had solo one on one interviews with them instead. Yup, but then no one would watch. The Townhalls all of the candidates do are very informative and answer way more policy questions than these debates ever will yet we don't focus on them. Because most voters don't care about actual policy. They have shown this time and time and time and time again. They want spectacle, they want to be lied to and told all their dreams will come true. They don't want to be bored with what the candidate actually wants to do.
|
On October 08 2020 16:57 Simberto wrote: Absolutely. Dodging a question should not be acceptable. Your journalists have become far too accepting of not getting an answer to the question they asked, and are letting your politicians get away with not answering far too easy.
In an interview, after dodging a question, they should just immediately get asked the same question, until they answer. And in a debate like this one, if they are not talking about the question after 10 seconds, the moderator should cut them off and mute their mike, remind them of the question, then give them another 5 seconds to get on topic, and then just cut of the remainder of their talking time if they don't start answering. Then, for their next question, instead of a new question they get the same one again, with the same treatment, until they answer it or the debate is over.
These are the people who should represent the voters. How are the voters supposed to make a good, informed decision if their representatives refuse to say what they represent? I don't think they are. This is part of why Trump won. If you intentionally strip a populace of any critical thinking they are much easier to manipulate. You just run the risk of someone like Trump coming along and out manipulating you because he's not bound by making sure the system doesn't collapse upon discovery of its absurdity.
|
What was up with Harris' stupid smirk? I get it lady, you are a good margin ahead in the polls but get a grip. Even if your opponent is just a bland Trump sock puppet defending the indefensible, that 's not a good look.
She also missed key opportunity to massively dunk on Trump/Pence when she did not even mention Trump's walkout on the stimulus talks. What a terrible waste. Vice versa, I know who would have run with it 24/7 until you eventually believed him if he just promised to stop talking about it.
Alas, historically VP debates are low key and most voters are decided anyway. So I dunno, mixed bag for me. Pence seemed like he ran a decent administration when you listened to him, too bad it must have been a different one than the one he is in now.
|
I think the fact that the debate was civil just puts in perspective how much of a dumpster fire Trump / Biden was, and I don't think anyone with a functional brain is blaming Biden for how terrible it was.
I might be naive and Americans have proven time and time again that they could have an abysmally stupid take on what's going on in their country, but I don't see a way out for Trump. Biden is a slippery target and Trump has virtually nothing going on for him, neither politically nor personally. He can't even sell his "roll of the dice" crap anymore because this time he has exposed how shit he is at virtually everything.
|
On October 08 2020 13:20 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Why is it so hard to get an answer as to whether democrats will pack the Supreme Court? Yes or no will be fine. It is not hard to answer, it is that Dems are now starting to "own the cons". What better way to stress out a bunch of conservatives than to have them think that maybe their 4 years of packing the court with the most partisan people, instead of the best people, will be undone and them some by the Dems. It is better strategy to keep it open that it is something they might do. Their voters don't care if they commit right now so why would they commit for conservative voters?
What would be in it for her or Biden to answer?
|
On October 08 2020 13:20 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Why is it so hard to get an answer as to whether democrats will pack the Supreme Court? Yes or no will be fine. Because they don't know yet what the republicans are going to do? Manage to confirm before the election, during lame duck, not at all... So they just don't have to answer since for now there is not 9 justices. Depending on the way the confirmation goes, or not, then they will decide what to do...
|
Next debate has been moved to be virtual because of Trump and his Covid. And of course Trump says he won't participate. LOL the hubris and lack of awareness is well. I'm sure his base won't care. But all the independents who are mad about him not taking responsibility for... well anything, I'm sure this is going to be another drop in the polls. Biden should show up and just spend the hour talking with saying how nice it is to not be interrupted.
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/08/921538492/second-presidential-debate-to-be-virtual-commission-says
|
Your run of the mill republican senator asserting that democracy isn't the objective. No problem there.
Be happy with *our* rule, we don't care if the majority thinks otherwise. Nice views.
|
On October 08 2020 22:05 JimmiC wrote:Next debate has been moved to be virtual because of Trump and his Covid. And of course Trump says he won't participate. LOL the hubris and lack of awareness is well. I'm sure his base won't care. But all the independents who are mad about him not taking responsibility for... well anything, I'm sure this is going to be another drop in the polls. Biden should show up and just spend the hour talking with saying how nice it is to not be interrupted. https://www.npr.org/2020/10/08/921538492/second-presidential-debate-to-be-virtual-commission-says Is he going to be in a position to have a debate in a week if he is still ill? What is worse for him, dodging the debate with a bad excuse or stand infront of the camera's for all the country to see while struggling to breath and wheezing?
|
On October 08 2020 22:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 22:05 JimmiC wrote:Next debate has been moved to be virtual because of Trump and his Covid. And of course Trump says he won't participate. LOL the hubris and lack of awareness is well. I'm sure his base won't care. But all the independents who are mad about him not taking responsibility for... well anything, I'm sure this is going to be another drop in the polls. Biden should show up and just spend the hour talking with saying how nice it is to not be interrupted. https://www.npr.org/2020/10/08/921538492/second-presidential-debate-to-be-virtual-commission-says Is he going to be in a position to have a debate in a week if he is still ill? What is worse for him, dodging the debate with a bad excuse or stand infront of the camera's for all the country to see while struggling to breath and wheezing? Good point, but he is toast either way in that scenario since he needs the debates way more than biden every day his support dwindles!
|
Bestest democracy in the world btw.
|
Republicans don't see democracy as an objective, nor do they want massive voting turnout. Remember, the lower the turnout, the better it has always been for republicans. An illiterate southerner's vote has more weight than the rest, cuz if it wasn't this way, republicans wouldn't be represented. Just like in most western democracies.
|
Democracy isn't the objective has been Mitch McConnells slogan for years tbh
|
I would actually possibly agree that democracy itself isn't the final objective. But you cannot achieve or guarantee that you maintain any of the real final objectives (like those that guy stated, liberty, peace and prosperity) without democracy. So democracy is still an important objective.
|
On October 08 2020 22:52 Simberto wrote: I would actually possibly agree that democracy itself isn't the final objective. But you cannot achieve or guarantee that you maintain any of the real final objectives (like those that guy stated, liberty, peace and prosperity) without democracy. So democracy is still an important objective. yeah, Democracy just happens to be the best way to achieve liberty, peace and prosperity.
|
On October 08 2020 22:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 22:52 Simberto wrote: I would actually possibly agree that democracy itself isn't the final objective. But you cannot achieve or guarantee that you maintain any of the real final objectives (like those that guy stated, liberty, peace and prosperity) without democracy. So democracy is still an important objective. yeah, Democracy just happens to be the best way to achieve liberty, peace and prosperity. Exactly.
|
So, it's been announced that the second debate on Oct 15th will be virtual, and Trump called into a show to say he wouldn't do a virtual debate. Not sure what will happen, but there's a very good chance it doesn't happen at all.
|
Obscenely tone deaf. I wonder to what conclusion average people would come if they polled them whose time was wasted last time around Trump was "live" on the debate stage.
|
CNN reported that the plan is to just have a townhall without Trump now.
Trump is planning on holding a rally instead.
|
Is it even democracy if half the population doesn't vote?
|
On October 08 2020 22:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 22:52 Simberto wrote: I would actually possibly agree that democracy itself isn't the final objective. But you cannot achieve or guarantee that you maintain any of the real final objectives (like those that guy stated, liberty, peace and prosperity) without democracy. So democracy is still an important objective. yeah, Democracy just happens to be the best way to achieve liberty, peace and prosperity. So far it appears to also be the only way.
On October 08 2020 23:44 GreenHorizons wrote: Is it even democracy if half the population doesn't vote?
Yes, lots of authoritarian countries have higher % of voters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_North_Korea
Summary of the 10 March 2019 North Korea Supreme People's Assembly election results Alliance Party Votes % Seats Democratic Front for the Reunification of Korea General Association of Korean Residents in Japan 5 Others 682 Total 100 687 Registered voters/turnout 99.99 – Source:[18][17]
|
On October 08 2020 22:52 Simberto wrote: I would actually possibly agree that democracy itself isn't the final objective. But you cannot achieve or guarantee that you maintain any of the real final objectives (like those that guy stated, liberty, peace and prosperity) without democracy. So democracy is still an important objective.
I don't think it makes a ton of sense for rightwingers to support democracy, it's the opposite of a meritocratic system. Benevolent AI that leads society in the right direction is what's more logical there in terms of ideology.
|
On October 08 2020 23:48 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 22:52 Simberto wrote: I would actually possibly agree that democracy itself isn't the final objective. But you cannot achieve or guarantee that you maintain any of the real final objectives (like those that guy stated, liberty, peace and prosperity) without democracy. So democracy is still an important objective. I don't think it makes a ton of sense for rightwingers to support democracy, it's the opposite of a meritocratic system. Benevolent AI that leads society in the right direction is what's more logical there in terms of ideology. Why do rightwingers want a meritocracy and how can you say that with a strait face while looking at the clusterfuck of unqualified people that is the Trump administration.
|
On October 09 2020 00:01 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 23:48 Nebuchad wrote:On October 08 2020 22:52 Simberto wrote: I would actually possibly agree that democracy itself isn't the final objective. But you cannot achieve or guarantee that you maintain any of the real final objectives (like those that guy stated, liberty, peace and prosperity) without democracy. So democracy is still an important objective. I don't think it makes a ton of sense for rightwingers to support democracy, it's the opposite of a meritocratic system. Benevolent AI that leads society in the right direction is what's more logical there in terms of ideology. Why do rightwingers want a meritocracy and how can you say that with a strait face while looking at the clusterfuck of unqualified people that is the Trump administration.
Those are far right, not rightwingers. They don't want a meritocracy, they want them and their friends to be on top regardless of merit. A simple dictatorship is a better system for them.
|
I know plenty of right wing people who absolutely believe in democracy and quite a few left wingers who don't.
It's clear that the american right is becoming authoritarian though. That's incredibly worrying.
|
On October 08 2020 23:44 GreenHorizons wrote: Is it even democracy if half the population doesn't vote?
If it amounts to a random sample of the population (yes, that's an absolutely giant if), then yeah, you don't need even 1% of the pop voting for it to be a democratic process that correctly identifies the will of the people.
Sure, a large % of the pop voting might indicate there isn't disenfranchisement of minorities, but it's also no guarantee.
|
On October 08 2020 23:44 GreenHorizons wrote: Is it even democracy if half the population doesn't vote? Depends. If they just can't be bothered to do it, yes. If they are suppressed, no.
|
On October 09 2020 00:13 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 23:44 GreenHorizons wrote: Is it even democracy if half the population doesn't vote? If it amounts to a random sample of the population (yes, that's an absolutely giant if), then yeah, you don't need even 1% of the pop voting for it to be a democratic process that correctly identifies the will of the people. That's fair. We know it's not a random sample in the US though, so we can't use that to call it democracy.
|
A democracy that doesn't engage its citizen or where many people don't vote is an unhealthy democracy. It's still a democracy though.
|
US has always been a polity at best. Was originally a form of Oligarchy, really, with it getting more democratic over time (from only white landowners to all non-felon adults and felons in some states currently).
Democratic Republic I think was the preferred nomenclature in the beginning, but it got shortened to democracy over time. Same as the democratic-republican to democratic party.
|
On October 09 2020 00:17 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 23:44 GreenHorizons wrote: Is it even democracy if half the population doesn't vote? Depends. If they just can't be bothered to do it, yes. If they are suppressed, no. Depends on what "can't be bothered" and "suppressed" mean. Like if it's technically not impossible are they being suppressed? How about if they have to wait 2 hours? 4 hours? Voter ID? Felony disenfranchisement? and so on.
|
There is no reason a debate should be in person. Trump just wants to infect biden lol
|
On October 09 2020 00:39 Mohdoo wrote: There is no reason a debate should be in person. Trump just wants to infect biden lol For the safety of the country. Best to have the candidates immune from the ongoing pandemic. /s
|
On October 08 2020 14:26 Mohdoo wrote: I'd like it if we could just cancel the next election VP debate. Why is that?
|
On October 09 2020 00:39 Mohdoo wrote: There is no reason a debate should be in person. Trump just wants to infect biden lol Trump is like a oppositional defiant child who fights everything it really does not matter if it makes sense or not.
|
On October 09 2020 00:41 NrG.Bamboo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 14:26 Mohdoo wrote: I'd like it if we could just cancel the next election VP debate. Why is that?
Can you name a single thing of value you have ever gotten out of a single VP debate? Its just VP playing defense for big poppa every time. What would be interesting would be to have a VP debate where the topic of the presidential candidate was strictly forbidden.
|
The main VP debate I found satisfying was the Biden/Paul Ryan debate, I think, and that's less because of any real results and more because it completely validated my opinion that Ryan was pretty much the exact opposite of the "policy wonk wunderkind" the GOP spent millions trying to spin him as. Which is kind of expected from someone who claims he was inspired to become a politician by someone who I think at one point described them as the lowest form of scum in her books.
|
The most notable VP debate historically was Cheney v Edwards. It's the only one that actually resulted in noticeable poll movement, and even then, it was 1%. Cheney was brilliant at debating and Edwards was awful. Cheney may be an evil SOB, but he was always very intelligent. Short of a massive mismatch like that there's almost never going to be movement.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On October 09 2020 00:39 Mohdoo wrote: There is no reason a debate should be in person. Trump just wants to infect biden lol Ideally we're not in the middle of a plague with one of the debate participants being a reckless plaguespreader. But you can't have everything you want.
|
On October 09 2020 00:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2020 00:41 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On October 08 2020 14:26 Mohdoo wrote: I'd like it if we could just cancel the next election VP debate. Why is that? Can you name a single thing of value you have ever gotten out of a single VP debate? Its just VP playing defense for big poppa every time. What would be interesting would be to have a VP debate where the topic of the presidential candidate was strictly forbidden. The discussion generated by the viewers is valuable to me. But I agree that it would be more fruitful if they focused more on their own points.
|
Pelosi just said that we're going to be talking about the 25th amendment tomorrow. Does she know something we don't or is this just (unusual) trolling from her?
This comes on the heels of a report that Trump forced Drs that treated him in 2019 to sign an (unenforceable) NDA
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On October 09 2020 00:53 Nevuk wrote: The most notable VP debate historically was Cheney v Edwards. It's the only one that actually resulted in noticeable poll movement, and even then, it was 1%. Cheney was brilliant at debating and Edwards was awful. Cheney may be an evil SOB, but he was always very intelligent. Short of a massive mismatch like that there's almost never going to be movement. There were also other ones that were a total stomp, like Bentsen vs Quayle, that didn't matter because the presidential candidates were more important.
Although, I'd say that at least qualitatively it seemed like Biden vs Ryan at least blunted the momentum that Romney got in the first debate in 2012. That, or the really poorly timed "47 percent" video.
|
On October 09 2020 00:57 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2020 00:53 Nevuk wrote: The most notable VP debate historically was Cheney v Edwards. It's the only one that actually resulted in noticeable poll movement, and even then, it was 1%. Cheney was brilliant at debating and Edwards was awful. Cheney may be an evil SOB, but he was always very intelligent. Short of a massive mismatch like that there's almost never going to be movement. There were also other ones that were a total stomp, like Bentsen vs Quayle, that didn't matter because the presidential candidates were more important. Although, I'd say that at least qualitatively it seemed like Biden vs Ryan at least blunted the momentum that Romney got in the first debate in 2012. That, or the really poorly timed "47 percent" video. Possibly. Cheney was perceived as much more important than the average VP even in 2004, though not as important as we later came to realize he was. As memorable as the potato thing was, no other VP debate has ever provably moved the polls at all. There's a 538 article on this, I'll go find it.
|
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On October 09 2020 00:59 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2020 00:57 LegalLord wrote:On October 09 2020 00:53 Nevuk wrote: The most notable VP debate historically was Cheney v Edwards. It's the only one that actually resulted in noticeable poll movement, and even then, it was 1%. Cheney was brilliant at debating and Edwards was awful. Cheney may be an evil SOB, but he was always very intelligent. Short of a massive mismatch like that there's almost never going to be movement. There were also other ones that were a total stomp, like Bentsen vs Quayle, that didn't matter because the presidential candidates were more important. Although, I'd say that at least qualitatively it seemed like Biden vs Ryan at least blunted the momentum that Romney got in the first debate in 2012. That, or the really poorly timed "47 percent" video. Possibly. Cheney was perceived as much more important than the average VP even in 2004, though not as important as we later came to realize he was. As memorable as the potato thing was, no other VP debate has ever provably moved the polls at all. There's a 538 article on this, I'll go find it. Although Quayle certainly made a fool of himself with the potato thing, the debate moment of interest was "You're No Jack Kennedy." Deeply memorable, but ultimately irrelevant.
|
On October 09 2020 00:57 Nevuk wrote: Pelosi just said that we're going to be talking about the 25th amendment tomorrow. Does she know something we don't or is this just (unusual) trolling from her? I don't think she knows anything special and assume this is purely political bluster but the President is on a bunch of medication that can potentially influence his mental state and this administration cannot be trusted to handle it privately so asking questions publicly is what needs to happen.
|
On October 09 2020 00:57 Nevuk wrote:Pelosi just said that we're going to be talking about the 25th amendment tomorrow. Does she know something we don't or is this just (unusual) trolling from her? This comes on the heels of a report that Trump forced Drs that treated him in 2019 to sign an (unenforceable) NDA https://twitter.com/adallos/status/1314155510782980096
It's a good grenade to chuck over the fence. "Talking" about it is the responsible thing to do. It is important for the conversation to take place. Anyone even talking about the idea of the 25th amendment is purely positive for Biden. Just like when Trump says things like "people are talking about Clinton being a rapist, its what I hear", he is making no indication he believes Clinton is a rapist, technically. He's just saying people ought to talk about it. Same with Pelosi here. Saying she plans to hold a vote regarding the 25th amendment would be a TERRIBLE idea, but saying its being discussed is purely positive from a propaganda perspective.
|
No. This is quite simple, Trump will say everything and anything in hopes that his supporters will cherry pick the part they like. Remember: Fine people on both sides + Soros is backing antifa + Qanon is clearly antisemitism. But then he also moved the embassy to Jerusalem to get better relations with them. In the end, he is just a liar. eu.detroitnews.com + Show Spoiler +The court filing also alleges the conspirators twice conducted surveillance at Whitmer's vacation home and discussed kidnapping her to a remote location in Wisconsin to stand "trial" for treason prior to the Nov. 3 election.
"Several members talked about murdering 'tyrants' or 'taking' a sitting governor," an FBI agent wrote in the affidavit. "The group decided they needed to increase their numbers and encouraged each other to talk to their neighbors and spread their message." Far right terrorism is expanding like never before under Trump.
|
|
|
Yeah it sounds like, in addition to kidnapping the governor at her vacation home, they planned on blowing up a nearby bridge
|
God that is freaky about the kidnapping plot. It's a scary time right now. In other news I feel very sorry for the people of Iran for what our government is doing to them:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-08/u-s-sanctions-18-iranian-banks-in-move-to-choke-off-economy
The new sanctions were revealed in a web posting by the Office of Foreign Assets Control. They had been telegraphed in advance by U.S. officials, who have been weighing the move for weeks.
“Today’s action to identify the financial sector and sanction eighteen major Iranian banks reflects our commitment to stop illicit access to U.S. dollars,” said Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin in a statement. “Our sanctions programs will continue until Iran stops its support of terrorist activities and ends its nuclear programs.”...
The move all but severs Iran from the global financial system, slashing the few remaining legal links it has and making it more dependent on informal or illicit trade. The country’s economy has already been crushed by the loss of oil sales and most other trade thanks to existing American restrictions imposed after Trump quit the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.
I can only imagine what it would be like if our already devastated economy were being strangled by outside pressure as well.
|
|
Northern Ireland20514 Posts
Well, indeed.
Guy’s a joke let’s be real.
|
|
On October 09 2020 04:33 WombaT wrote:Well, indeed. Guy’s a joke let’s be real. I mean at that point WHO listen to this crap and be like "ye that's legit, gonna vote for him?" We are past policy and partisanship there, it's just pathetic.
|
Why are media calling the people arrested for planning to kidnap the Gov. Whitmer, detonate explosives and take hostages, a militia and not a terrorist cell?
|
He also said that he "is extremely young" in the same sentence - so he's obviously joking. But, sure, even joking in that way is not very dignified for president.
|
On October 09 2020 05:29 Neneu wrote: Why are media calling the people arrested for planning to kidnap the Gov. Whitmer, detonate explosives and take hostages, a militia and not a terrorist cell?
Because rightwing terrorists are never called terrorists. Only brown people and leftists can be terrorists.
|
On October 09 2020 05:40 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2020 05:29 Neneu wrote: Why are media calling the people arrested for planning to kidnap the Gov. Whitmer, detonate explosives and take hostages, a militia and not a terrorist cell? Because rightwing terrorists are never called terrorists. Only brown people and leftists can be terrorists.
And muslims, lets not forget about their primary culprit. Imagine what would happen if that were 13 muslims and the governor were a republican.
|
On October 09 2020 05:29 Neneu wrote: Why are media calling the people arrested for planning to kidnap the Gov. Whitmer, detonate explosives and take hostages, a militia and not a terrorist cell?
Because their goal wasn't to instill fear?
|
On October 09 2020 05:45 Sr18 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2020 05:29 Neneu wrote: Why are media calling the people arrested for planning to kidnap the Gov. Whitmer, detonate explosives and take hostages, a militia and not a terrorist cell? Because their goal wasn't to instill fear?
Terrorist definition: a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Example: Breivik's goal in Norway were never to instill fear. His goal were to change the political and judicial system through violence.
|
On October 09 2020 05:54 Neneu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2020 05:45 Sr18 wrote:On October 09 2020 05:29 Neneu wrote: Why are media calling the people arrested for planning to kidnap the Gov. Whitmer, detonate explosives and take hostages, a militia and not a terrorist cell? Because their goal wasn't to instill fear? Terrorist definition: a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. Example: Breivik's goal in Norway were never to instill fear. His goal were to change the political and judicial system through violence.
You could argue that both Breivik and this Michigan group do have the goal to instill fear. Specifically instill fear in the politicians that go against their goals.
|
Northern Ireland20514 Posts
On October 09 2020 05:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2020 04:33 WombaT wrote:Well, indeed. Guy’s a joke let’s be real. I mean at that point WHO listen to this crap and be like "ye that's legit, gonna vote for him?" We are past policy and partisanship there, it's just pathetic. Perhaps not necessarily the politics, ideology and cohort he represents (although I still think so) but to actually support a Trump the man and candidate I mean, it’s so ridiculous as to be unfathomable for me.
Which of course will be parsed into some comment about Euros or the liberal SJW elite or whatever but I very much stand by it.
I wouldn’t want the guy to be my line manager at work and frankly I think he would fail in that job as at a low level people would just call him on his shit. With the office of the Presidency he’s afforded all sorts of wriggle room he frankly does not merit
|
Trump's White House is now trying to say Governor Whitmer is responsible for the attempted kidnapping/murder, by saying she's "stoking divisions".
She's supposed to be responsible for a violent, organized group of White Far-Right terrorists attempting a violent coup in her state. Let's just say we know why the fly was so keen to hang out with Pence last night.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36622 Posts
The VP debate was nice, but it didn't generate as much hype and discussion afterwards, so we will go ahead and lock this thread a little early and unlock USPMT.
We will unlock this thread on October 15 for the... Joe Biden town hall debate...?
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36622 Posts
My bad... Forgot to lock USPMT and unlock this thread :/
|
DAMMIT SEEKER! I thought someone nuked the thread! I'm watching the debate and Biden isn't even trying. trump is imploding.
|
Trump getting caught, yet again, with no healthcare plan.
|
Trump is getting fucking destroyed.
LOL Harris is apparently more liberal than Sanders.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
|
Wait, is the argument that Joe didn't do anything for healthcare?
Who was VP during obamacare again?
|
Coming from someone who's not rabidly pro-Biden, this is the first topic where I think Biden did come out a clear favorite.
|
The 'much better, much cheaper, always protecting pre-existing conditions' plan to replace Obamacare. It's a real plan folks, believe me.
How many years can they keep on saying this without a plan lmao
|
Trump has still not said a single thing he is going to do.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
Trump is falling into his old bad habits again.
If the Clinton debates were any indication, this happens when his opponent says something that he gets really upset by. I think that that moment in this debate was when Biden criticized his relationship with North Korea?
|
Biden whipped out the dick and slapped him with it. That was brutal.
|
On October 23 2020 10:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Trump getting caught, yet again, with no healthcare plan.
The GOP has only spent ten years railing against Obamacare. How could they have a plan?
|
...Is social security really going to "go bankrupt" in 2023? I honestly don't believe that.
|
Biden is dunking so hard on Trump right now.
"But you're the president"
Moderator calling him on his bullshit.
|
So this is going to be on those debates where everyone think they won, which is better than the last debate where everyone knows they lost lol.
|
On October 23 2020 10:53 Stratos_speAr wrote: Trump is getting fucking destroyed.
LOL Harris is apparently more liberal than Sanders.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
According to their senate voting records and the most frequently used metrics this is actually true. As laughably ridiculous as it sounds.
I expect that quote from Trump to be part of her 2024 campaign and the media to treat it seriously though.
|
|
On October 23 2020 10:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 10:53 Stratos_speAr wrote: Trump is getting fucking destroyed.
LOL Harris is apparently more liberal than Sanders.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 According to their senate voting records and the most frequently used metrics this is actually true. As laughably ridiculous as it sounds. I expect that quote from Trump to be part of her 2024 campaign and the media to treat it seriously though.
Except that Harris ran much farther right than Sanders.
And sweet Jesus this is Biden's best performance of his entire career. He has a good response to everything.
Trump completely lost the plot on the immigration topic.
|
Trump got the question about the 545 immigrant children who are now orphaned because the Trump administration misplaced their parents, and Trump's response was "We're taking great care of these children".
|
"Only low IQ immigrants would come back" uh...what?
|
Every section i have low expectations for Trump and he underperforms.
|
On October 23 2020 10:59 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 10:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 10:53 Stratos_speAr wrote: Trump is getting fucking destroyed.
LOL Harris is apparently more liberal than Sanders.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 According to their senate voting records and the most frequently used metrics this is actually true. As laughably ridiculous as it sounds. I expect that quote from Trump to be part of her 2024 campaign and the media to treat it seriously though. Except that Harris ran much farther right than Sanders. And sweet Jesus this is Biden's best performance of his entire career. He has a good response to everything.
Of course she did, as was her career. Absolutely won't stop media and liberals from citing Trump's quote to argue Harris should be embraced by former Bernie supporters in 2024 (while dismissing it as ridiculous when appealing to moderates).
Biden avoided his biggest risk of getting sucked into shit flinging over Hunter.
|
your Country52793 Posts
On October 23 2020 11:08 Stratos_speAr wrote: Every section i have low expectations for Trump and he underperforms. Honestly, he's surpassing my expectations, but that had to happen eventually given that I keep lowering them.
|
Trump looks so despicable when he says he's done more for the black community than anyone.
|
On October 23 2020 11:12 Stratos_speAr wrote: Trump looks so despicable when he says he's done more for the black community than anyone.
Apparently, Trump thinks he freed the slaves. Oh ffs.
|
On October 23 2020 11:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 11:12 Stratos_speAr wrote: Trump looks so despicable when he says he's done more for the black community than anyone. Apparently, Trump thinks he freed the slaves. Oh ffs.
Don't forget the civil rights act. He also beat that
|
On October 23 2020 11:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 11:12 Stratos_speAr wrote: Trump looks so despicable when he says he's done more for the black community than anyone. Apparently, Trump thinks he freed the slaves. Oh ffs.
2020 isn't over yet. Plenty of time to proclaim that he's reinstituting slavery and immediately repealing his declaration and triumphantly bragging about being the only living president to end slavery.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
Has the alleged microphone muting feature been used at all during this debate? I don't recall such a thing being done yet.
|
Trump has great relationships with people (thats why everyone he used to work with loves him so much) LEAST RACIST PERSON IN THE ROOM! lol
|
"Abraham Lincoln over here" LOL okay that got a chuckle
Edit: Now the "poor boys" callout hahaha
|
Biden just bitch-slapped Trump for Trump's dumb Lincoln comment LOL. Trump looks so bad.
|
This shit grows in levels of absurdity every time trump speaks.
|
"I take full responsibility. But its not my fault" Trump on covid
|
He's just doubling and tripling down on this abraham lincoln thing lol. It's amazing.
|
On October 23 2020 11:17 LegalLord wrote: Has the alleged microphone muting feature been used at all during this debate? I don't recall such a thing being done yet.
Yeah, a couple of times Trump was going over time and he was cut.
Mostly the two have stayed on topic so its not happened a ton
|
On October 23 2020 11:17 LegalLord wrote: Has the alleged microphone muting feature been used at all during this debate? I don't recall such a thing being done yet.
Yes they cut him off in section 3(?).
God damn Trump looks so despicable when talking about race.
And the debate is finally going off the rails.
|
On October 23 2020 11:17 LegalLord wrote: Has the alleged microphone muting feature been used at all during this debate? I don't recall such a thing being done yet. Couple times I think I noticed Trump's mic not being unmuted yet after Biden had finished but nothing to intentionally silence either that I've noticed.
Yes they cut him off in section 3(?)
I'm sure there's a clip up somewhere of this but I believe it.
|
Does Trump not realize he is a politician?
|
On October 23 2020 11:20 JimmiC wrote: Does Trump not realize he is a politician?
It doesn't matter what he is, his supporters don't care
|
All Biden has to say is that "every time we tried something, the GOP held house/senate would not cooperate and stalled everything." That would shut that down.
Edit: There goes that hahaha.
|
On October 23 2020 11:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: All Biden has to say is that "every time we tried something, the GOP held house/senate would not cooperate and stalled everything." That would shut that down.
Edit: There goes that hahaha.
To be fair wasn't it democrats who killed the public option?
|
Trump asks a question, gets answered, asks the same question again. Feels familiar.
Oo climate change, I hope you get promised crystal clear air again.
-edit- wow that happened sooner than I expected.
|
On October 23 2020 11:22 mierin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 11:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: All Biden has to say is that "every time we tried something, the GOP held house/senate would not cooperate and stalled everything." That would shut that down.
Edit: There goes that hahaha. To be fair wasn't it democrats who killed the public option? Because they compromised to get the rest in.
|
On October 23 2020 11:22 Fleetfeet wrote: Trump asks a question, gets answered, asks the same question again. Feels familiar.
Oo climate change, I hope you get promised crystal clear air again.
Are you from the future?
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
With all these climate change induced wildfires, I must have missed the part where we have this supposed "crystal clear" air.
|
Fucking mic drop on the Republican congress.
Not that it's entirely true, but it makes a great sound byte.
|
I think it was a bit weak actually. Seemed more an exhausted handoff than a mic drop to me.
I can't even imagine how exasperating it must be to be trying to respond to trump's nonsense, but I think that was a bit of a missed opportunity.
I'd have preferred something more like "you know who hasn't got anything done? mcconnel. he considers it his actual job to not get anything done, apart from confirm your pet justices, of course."
|
Trump pretending that he's pro-environment >.>
|
On October 23 2020 11:24 Belisarius wrote: I think it was a bit weak actually. Seemed more an exhausted handoff than a mic drop to me.
I can't even imagine how exasperating it must be to be trying to respond to trump's nonsense, but I think that was a bit of a missed opportunity. "you know who hasn't got anything done? mcconnel. he considers it his actual job to not get anything done, apart from confirm your pet justices, of course." Weak, but straight to the point. No point in fluff. People have short memories but they remember who was running the house/senate for 4-6 years.
|
Trump has a fetish for small windows, apparently.
|
On October 23 2020 11:24 Belisarius wrote: I think it was a bit weak actually. Seemed more an exhausted handoff than a mic drop to me.
I can't even imagine how exasperating it must be to be trying to respond to trump's nonsense, but I think that was a bit of a missed opportunity.
I'd have preferred something more like "you know who hasn't got anything done? mcconnel. he considers it his actual job to not get anything done, apart from confirm your pet justices, of course."
Yea its not a great answer when you think about it but, as I said, I think it makes a good advertising sound byte.
|
Small windows will destroy your country!
|
Those must be incredible windows for $100T haha.
EDIT: Kills all the birds okay now we're going off the rails
|
On October 23 2020 11:22 mierin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 11:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: All Biden has to say is that "every time we tried something, the GOP held house/senate would not cooperate and stalled everything." That would shut that down.
Edit: There goes that hahaha. To be fair wasn't it democrats who killed the public option?
Yes. Ben Nelson (went on to become a CEO of one of the nations largest health insurers)
And Joe Lieberman who recently said I'm counting on Biden if he wins to stop this kind of excessive left movement in the Democratic Party, and I believe he will
|
Trump: Windmills cause cancer and wind kills birds.
|
your Country52793 Posts
On October 23 2020 11:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 11:22 mierin wrote:On October 23 2020 11:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: All Biden has to say is that "every time we tried something, the GOP held house/senate would not cooperate and stalled everything." That would shut that down.
Edit: There goes that hahaha. To be fair wasn't it democrats who killed the public option? Yes. Ben Nelson (went on to become a CEO of one of the nations largest health insurers) And Joe Lieberman who recently said Show nested quote + I'm counting on Biden if he wins to stop this kind of excessive left movement in the Democratic Party, and I believe he will What he calls "excessive left movement", I call "diversity of opinion".
|
That damn AOC wants to kill all the birds and remove all the windows
|
|
I think this moderator is doing a great job, and she's asking solid questions.
|
On October 23 2020 11:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think this moderator is doing a great job, and she's asking solid questions.
Honestly I liked her much more than Wallace. I didn't get to watch the 2nd one though so can't comment.
|
That last question about the hypothetical inaugural address was the final nail in the coffin. Biden killed it and Trump died.
|
On October 23 2020 11:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think this moderator is doing a great job, and she's asking solid questions.
She did great, I am not sure if it was because of the mute button being an option but she was great
|
On October 23 2020 11:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: That last question about the hypothetical inaugural address was the final nail in the coffin. Biden killed it and Trump died.
100%. Biden looked great. Trump looked like his terrible lying self.
|
On October 23 2020 11:36 mierin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 11:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think this moderator is doing a great job, and she's asking solid questions. Honestly I liked her much more than Wallace. I didn't get to watch the 2nd one though so can't comment.
Agreed. There wasn't a second one (Trump dodged). Or did you mean the VP debate? That moderator was fine imo.
|
It must be because of me being all around depressed, after losing my job and home and having to relocate, but this debate, though much more civil compared to the others, after I am hearing are these 2 all I can think of is why? Why are these our candidates? Literally right off the bat the woman asked what will be your plan,
Trump: repeats shit he says hes done in the past, no plan.
Biden: says Trump didn't do those things says he has a plan doesn't talk about it.
This was right at the damn start. Why are these 2 up here? This goes back and forth in this debate to the part were I just was so stupifiyed with Trump talking of clean air, I just couldn't take listening to them anymore. Whats going on with me? Am I just crazy in thinking like this? How if I'm not crazy do we get to this point?
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
Biden was the clear winner in this one. Not much more to say than that, Trump got pretty badly stomped on both the issues and on presentation.
|
your Country52793 Posts
On October 23 2020 11:38 Kenthros wrote: It must be because of me being all around depressed, after losing my job and home and having to relocate, but this debate, though much more civil compared to the others, after I am hearing are these 2 all I can think of is why? Why are these our candidates? Literally right off the bat the woman asked what will be your plan,
Trump: repeats shit he says hes done in the past, no plan.
Biden: says Trump didn't do those things says he has a plan doesn't talk about it.
This was right at the damn start. Why are these 2 up here? This goes back and forth in this debate to the part were I just was so stupifiyed with Trump talking of clean air, I just couldn't take listening to them anymore. Whats going on with me? Am I just crazy in thinking like this? How if I'm not crazy do we get to this point? This pretty much summarizes why I hate the debate meta.
|
Ah fuck, I don't like this. The line on transitioning from the oil industry is absolutely needed and good but that is going to sink his chances in Texas so hard
|
Everyone did better, Trump, Biden and the moderator
Unfortunately for Trump he still has a lot of bullshit to sell so even if his demeanor and talking candence was a lot more reasonable he still looked insane at times.
Biden started strong, became weaker after a while when it got chaotic but still held himself well compared to other appearances I've seen of him.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On October 23 2020 11:41 plasmidghost wrote: Ah fuck, I don't like this. The line on transitioning from the oil industry is absolutely needed and good but that is going to sink his chances in Texas so hard He's already running as a Republican in all but name; that's a little too much pandering even for Biden.
|
On October 23 2020 11:38 Kenthros wrote: It must be because of me being all around depressed, after losing my job and home and having to relocate, but this debate, though much more civil compared to the others, after I am hearing are these 2 all I can think of is why? Why are these our candidates? Literally right off the bat the woman asked what will be your plan,
Trump: repeats shit he says hes done in the past, no plan.
Biden: says Trump didn't do those things says he has a plan doesn't talk about it.
This was right at the damn start. Why are these 2 up here? This goes back and forth in this debate to the part were I just was so stupifiyed with Trump talking of clean air, I just couldn't take listening to them anymore. Whats going on with me? Am I just crazy in thinking like this? How if I'm not crazy do we get to this point?
Trump is the candidate because he won last time, and Biden is the candidate because the most influential people in the country want the system to remain neoliberal and capitalist, and one of the best ways for a democratic system (more or less) to consistently produce that result is if your options are either the crazy dude that wants bad things or the status quo. If you want something better for the world, you are to be discouraged, told that you are asking for something too perfect, and then asked to get in line. It's a pretty effective mind prison.
That's the jist of it, anyway.
|
On October 23 2020 11:41 plasmidghost wrote: Ah fuck, I don't like this. The line on transitioning from the oil industry is absolutely needed and good but that is going to sink his chances in Texas so hard He doesn't need Texas to win and D's haven't won there since 76.
|
On October 23 2020 11:43 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 11:41 plasmidghost wrote: Ah fuck, I don't like this. The line on transitioning from the oil industry is absolutely needed and good but that is going to sink his chances in Texas so hard He's already running as a Republican in all but name; that's a little too much pandering even for Biden. Fair enough. Plus, he doesn't need Texas to win by any means
|
On October 23 2020 11:45 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 11:41 plasmidghost wrote: Ah fuck, I don't like this. The line on transitioning from the oil industry is absolutely needed and good but that is going to sink his chances in Texas so hard He doesn't need Texas to win and D's haven't won there since 76. Beat me to it lol. I know a lot of younger voters are rightfully terrified of the climate change and if this gets more of them to vote for him in swing states, then I'll gladly sacrifice my state being blue
|
On October 23 2020 11:45 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 11:41 plasmidghost wrote: Ah fuck, I don't like this. The line on transitioning from the oil industry is absolutely needed and good but that is going to sink his chances in Texas so hard He doesn't need Texas to win and D's haven't won there since 76. Well it was an interesting circumstance for Texas to be trending as it has so far (more blue than many would expect iirc.) Oil is a specific nerve though, a big one.
|
On October 23 2020 11:50 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 11:45 CorsairHero wrote:On October 23 2020 11:41 plasmidghost wrote: Ah fuck, I don't like this. The line on transitioning from the oil industry is absolutely needed and good but that is going to sink his chances in Texas so hard He doesn't need Texas to win and D's haven't won there since 76. Beat me to it lol. I know a lot of younger voters are rightfully terrified of the climate change and if this gets more of them to vote for him in swing states, then I'll gladly sacrifice my state being blue I live in Texas too, but Texas turning blue felt like a far shot even in this election cycle. I'm hoping the closeness of this race here is indicative of a demographic shift that could have a better chance of turning blue in future elections, but it could also be the general unpopularity of Trump currently.
|
Biden doesn't need to talk about his plans when trump is a train wreck that just keeps rolling.
If he gives specifics he gives points of attack, and he doesn't need to take the risk when he can snake through. He only needs to present plans when his own side would fence-bust him if he dodges.
Exhibit A:
On October 23 2020 11:41 plasmidghost wrote: Ah fuck, I don't like this. The line on transitioning from the oil industry is absolutely needed and good but that is going to sink his chances in Texas so hard Here's a vague plan, but it hurts him in specific areas. However, he has to make the statement because his base half-believes he's a DINO on the issue.
EDIT: seriously how was Biden = dino not a thing? that works on several levels.
|
I just don't understand how these guys are so terrible at debating. How was it not obvious for biden to go after Trump's nepotism when Trump brought up his. How did biden not bring up flint or newark or california during the clean air and water comments. How does biden not bring up the settlements against Trump's racist practices in residential buildings in the 80s after trump brought up the drug legislation. It's so disappointing to watch the ineptitude on both sides.
When Trump said who built the cages all biden had to say was i built the cages but you're the one that put babies in them after ripping them from their parents. Fuckin nuf said. I would have also ridden that abraham line home. That was one of the two moderately good comebacks.
|
On October 23 2020 10:54 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: The 'much better, much cheaper, always protecting pre-existing conditions' plan to replace Obamacare. It's a real plan folks, believe me.
How many years can they keep on saying this without a plan lmao
Well, it could actually exist. Would probably have to be some version of general healthcare. The US is just spending much more money than anyone else on healthcare without actually getting anything out of it than anyone else. So it shouldn't be impossible to have a plan which is better, cheaper and protects pre-existing conditions. All of Europe has those.
On October 23 2020 11:24 LegalLord wrote: With all these climate change induced wildfires, I must have missed the part where we have this supposed "crystal clear" air.
Graphite is a crystal, too.
|
Nice to have a more substantive debate that didn't leave me feeling physically ill. Trump was surprisingly restrained by his standards. Was nice to see some genuine emotion from Biden, especially regarding held up covid relief bill. Of course we don't get much on nitty gritty details but that's just the fault of the format.
|
/r/conservative is of course foaming at the mouth and insisting Trump won. Does anyone here agree? It feels like Trump needed a lot more than that to get anything done. Biden doesn't need 400 to win, he just needs more than Donald.
|
On October 23 2020 14:18 Mohdoo wrote: /r/conservative is of course foaming at the mouth and insisting Trump won. Does anyone here agree? It feels like Trump needed a lot more than that to get anything done. Biden doesn't need 400 to win, he just needs more than Donald. Can he win the debate, yet not win hard enough to make it win the election? The early voting is already massive, and it definitely doesn't take into account whether or not Trump won a debate a couple days later.
|
On October 23 2020 14:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 14:18 Mohdoo wrote: /r/conservative is of course foaming at the mouth and insisting Trump won. Does anyone here agree? It feels like Trump needed a lot more than that to get anything done. Biden doesn't need 400 to win, he just needs more than Donald. Can he win the debate, yet not win hard enough to make it win the election? The early voting is already massive, and it definitely doesn't take into account whether or not Trump won a debate a couple days later.
2 separate things I guess. First, did he win, second, does this make people think he might win?
|
On October 23 2020 14:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 14:22 Danglars wrote:On October 23 2020 14:18 Mohdoo wrote: /r/conservative is of course foaming at the mouth and insisting Trump won. Does anyone here agree? It feels like Trump needed a lot more than that to get anything done. Biden doesn't need 400 to win, he just needs more than Donald. Can he win the debate, yet not win hard enough to make it win the election? The early voting is already massive, and it definitely doesn't take into account whether or not Trump won a debate a couple days later. 2 separate things I guess. First, did he win, second, does this make people think he might win? I'll finish the debate after work Friday for a full answer. For what it's worth, my right-leaning friends tell me Trump won the debate, but it probably won't move the needle. Pennsylvania got a lot tougher with the oil comment and the fracking. Biden's full on all Obama's "successes," but only the VP for the failures.
Further comment if anybody asks once I finish the whole thing.
|
On October 23 2020 14:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 14:24 Mohdoo wrote:On October 23 2020 14:22 Danglars wrote:On October 23 2020 14:18 Mohdoo wrote: /r/conservative is of course foaming at the mouth and insisting Trump won. Does anyone here agree? It feels like Trump needed a lot more than that to get anything done. Biden doesn't need 400 to win, he just needs more than Donald. Can he win the debate, yet not win hard enough to make it win the election? The early voting is already massive, and it definitely doesn't take into account whether or not Trump won a debate a couple days later. 2 separate things I guess. First, did he win, second, does this make people think he might win? I'll finish the debate after work Friday for a full answer. For what it's worth, my right-leaning friends tell me Trump won the debate, but it probably won't move the needle. Pennsylvania got a lot tougher with the oil comment and the fracking. Biden's full on all Obama's "successes," but only the VP for the failures. Further comment if anybody asks once I finish the whole thing.
It seems the right really think Trump won while everyone else thinks it was a tie or Biden won.
I don't think the oil comments move anything because he also came out and said hes not banning fracking, came out like 2 or 3 times against if iI remember correctly
|
On October 23 2020 14:51 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 14:33 Danglars wrote:On October 23 2020 14:24 Mohdoo wrote:On October 23 2020 14:22 Danglars wrote:On October 23 2020 14:18 Mohdoo wrote: /r/conservative is of course foaming at the mouth and insisting Trump won. Does anyone here agree? It feels like Trump needed a lot more than that to get anything done. Biden doesn't need 400 to win, he just needs more than Donald. Can he win the debate, yet not win hard enough to make it win the election? The early voting is already massive, and it definitely doesn't take into account whether or not Trump won a debate a couple days later. 2 separate things I guess. First, did he win, second, does this make people think he might win? I'll finish the debate after work Friday for a full answer. For what it's worth, my right-leaning friends tell me Trump won the debate, but it probably won't move the needle. Pennsylvania got a lot tougher with the oil comment and the fracking. Biden's full on all Obama's "successes," but only the VP for the failures. Further comment if anybody asks once I finish the whole thing. It seems the right really think Trump won while everyone else thinks it was a tie or Biden won. I don't think the oil comments move anything because he also came out and said hes not banning fracking, came out like 2 or 3 times against if iI remember correctly He's said he's banning fracking too many times on the campaign trail to not explain why he's changed his thinking on it. You don't get to pick up climate change credits for taking such an aggressive stance, then also collect pragmatist vote share for moving back on the same stance. He's overdue for a "here's how my thinking on this issue has evolved in the last 6 months" pitch--both him and Kamala.
|
On October 23 2020 11:38 Kenthros wrote: It must be because of me being all around depressed, after losing my job and home and having to relocate, but this debate, though much more civil compared to the others, after I am hearing are these 2 all I can think of is why? Why are these our candidates? Literally right off the bat the woman asked what will be your plan,
Trump: repeats shit he says hes done in the past, no plan.
Biden: says Trump didn't do those things says he has a plan doesn't talk about it.
This was right at the damn start. Why are these 2 up here? This goes back and forth in this debate to the part were I just was so stupifiyed with Trump talking of clean air, I just couldn't take listening to them anymore. Whats going on with me? Am I just crazy in thinking like this? How if I'm not crazy do we get to this point?
No you're not crazy I think a lot of people feel the same way. The good thing is that the president is not the entire government. After the elections there should be a big personnel change regardless of who wins the presidency, so hopefully relief will be on the way. My number one gripe with Trump is how he obstructs competent people from doing their jobs and thinks he knows better than experts in their fields. Whatever Biden's faults I don't think he has that level of hubris that has gutted the federal government of its competent workers.
|
On October 23 2020 14:51 IyMoon wrote: I don't think the oil comments move anything because he also came out and said hes not banning fracking, came out like 2 or 3 times against if iI remember correctly Read on twitter that PA moved from 68 Biden to 64 Biden on predictit after the debate but it's not a big shift. For sure, if you want to see if theres any effect check the betting markets.
|
On October 23 2020 11:38 Kenthros wrote: It must be because of me being all around depressed, after losing my job and home and having to relocate, but this debate, though much more civil compared to the others, after I am hearing are these 2 all I can think of is why? Why are these our candidates? Literally right off the bat the woman asked what will be your plan,
Trump: repeats shit he says hes done in the past, no plan.
Biden: says Trump didn't do those things says he has a plan doesn't talk about it.
This was right at the damn start. Why are these 2 up here? This goes back and forth in this debate to the part were I just was so stupifiyed with Trump talking of clean air, I just couldn't take listening to them anymore. Whats going on with me? Am I just crazy in thinking like this? How if I'm not crazy do we get to this point? Americans (in general) have repeatedly not cared about actual policies so there is little point in politicians talking about it.
Hillary had some great plans that would have genuinely helped a lot of poorer Americans, no one gave a shit. If the voters don't care, the politicians don't have a reason to care either.
|
On October 23 2020 18:28 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 11:38 Kenthros wrote: It must be because of me being all around depressed, after losing my job and home and having to relocate, but this debate, though much more civil compared to the others, after I am hearing are these 2 all I can think of is why? Why are these our candidates? Literally right off the bat the woman asked what will be your plan,
Trump: repeats shit he says hes done in the past, no plan.
Biden: says Trump didn't do those things says he has a plan doesn't talk about it.
This was right at the damn start. Why are these 2 up here? This goes back and forth in this debate to the part were I just was so stupifiyed with Trump talking of clean air, I just couldn't take listening to them anymore. Whats going on with me? Am I just crazy in thinking like this? How if I'm not crazy do we get to this point? Americans (in general) have repeatedly not cared about actual policies so there is little point in politicians talking about it. Hillary had some great plans that would have genuinely helped a lot of poorer Americans, no one gave a shit. If the voters don't care, the politicians don't have a reason to care either. I think those threads are a perfect example of disregard to policies that actually make a world of difference. It's all hyperboles and radical proposals that don't make sense, or burst.
Like, it's not worth choosing between Democrats and Republicans on climate change be because the improvements democrats are aiming for are not enough and so anyway the planet is doomed and it makes no difference. "Significant improvement that might not be enough" or "the worst you can possibly do" are worth the same when you have abandoned all nuances and disregard all constraints.
If that's the level if immaturity of the political debate, policies indeed don't matter at all. It's all about telling people what they want yo hear and promising them radical changes that will not happen.
The tragic thing is the countless people who are suffering very real, life changing consequences while people like that play Starbucks revolutionaries or Starbucks doomsday prophets.
|
Like, it's not worth choosing between Democrats and Republicans on climate change be because the improvements democrats are aiming for are not enough and so anyway the planet is doomed and it makes no difference. "Significant improvement that might not be enough" or "the worst you can possibly do" are worth the same when you have abandoned all nuances and disregard all constraints.
The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons.
|
On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +Like, it's not worth choosing between Democrats and Republicans on climate change be because the improvements democrats are aiming for are not enough and so anyway the planet is doomed and it makes no difference. "Significant improvement that might not be enough" or "the worst you can possibly do" are worth the same when you have abandoned all nuances and disregard all constraints. The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. Obviously you don't give a damn about Joe Doe whose cancer will be untreated because of your refusal to do the obvious right thing. What is Joe Doe's cancer compared to your priviledge to condescendingly call everyone enablers and insult anyone who doesn't stand on your little moral highground platform?
All of that calling for an obviously democratic (rofl) marxist leninist (quadruple rofl) revolution because that has proven to be such a great solution. Obviously.
John Doe will be happy to learn that his death was not in vain and that after the glorious communist revolution, there won't be any cancer because we will have eliminated every evil from society.
Even Chomsky and Zizek say that obviousfuckingly leftists should vote Biden.
But anyway. It's not about you. It's the whole political debate that has degenerated into this kind of infantile broad ideological division with complete disregard to the actual effect of those boring policies that we won't take time to discuss because apparently Lenin or Ayn Rand are clearly the solution.
|
On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Like, it's not worth choosing between Democrats and Republicans on climate change be because the improvements democrats are aiming for are not enough and so anyway the planet is doomed and it makes no difference. "Significant improvement that might not be enough" or "the worst you can possibly do" are worth the same when you have abandoned all nuances and disregard all constraints. The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief).
|
On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Like, it's not worth choosing between Democrats and Republicans on climate change be because the improvements democrats are aiming for are not enough and so anyway the planet is doomed and it makes no difference. "Significant improvement that might not be enoughwhAtever" or "the worst you can possibly do" are worth the same when you have abandoned all nuances and disregard all constraints. The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better.
|
On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Like, it's not worth choosing between Democrats and Republicans on climate change be because the improvements democrats are aiming for are not enough and so anyway the planet is doomed and it makes no difference. "Significant improvement that might not be enoughwhAtever" or "the worst you can possibly do" are worth the same when you have abandoned all nuances and disregard all constraints. The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against.
EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one).
|
On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Like, it's not worth choosing between Democrats and Republicans on climate change be because the improvements democrats are aiming for are not enough and so anyway the planet is doomed and it makes no difference. "Significant improvement that might not be enoughwhAtever" or "the worst you can possibly do" are worth the same when you have abandoned all nuances and disregard all constraints. The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one).
This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency.
Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum.
But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling.
|
On October 23 2020 12:55 Starlightsun wrote: Nice to have a more substantive debate that didn't leave me feeling physically ill. Trump was surprisingly restrained by his standards. Was nice to see some genuine emotion from Biden, especially regarding held up covid relief bill. Of course we don't get much on nitty gritty details but that's just the fault of the format. I can't imagine it moved the needle for any one not on his side. The memorable moments are all bad for Trump.
"Best president for blacks since Lincoln"
"Vaccine in weeks"
"Least racist in room"
"Lowest IQs will return"
Not to mention Biden overall did a good job. I'm not even sure the oil comments hurt him, most riggers were voting Trump no matter what. And it is "100% fake" news that the difference between Biden and Trump on the environment does not matter, whoever says this has no idea. The environment is system and a continuum, not an on off system, everything matters especially this big a difference in this big of a country. It is ignorant to suggest otherwise.
|
The post-debate CNN poll was 53-39 for Biden. That's better than last time for Trump, but still indicates no one besides his supporters thought he won.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Like, it's not worth choosing between Democrats and Republicans on climate change be because the improvements democrats are aiming for are not enough and so anyway the planet is doomed and it makes no difference. "Significant improvement that might not be enoughwhAtever" or "the worst you can possibly do" are worth the same when you have abandoned all nuances and disregard all constraints. The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. We're going to need some serious incremental improvements to get out of this lesser evilism hole we've dug ourselves into as a country.
Unfortunate that it's come to this, but "major party consensus against the will of the people" is a global phenomenon, including in the US.
|
Yah, unfortunately I found myself about as eager to listen to this vacuous exchange as I was the previous bombastic one. I turned it off pretty quickly. I'm really just super depressed about the state of US politics in general and the lack of direction.
In the words of Jack Aubrey;
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On October 23 2020 23:03 Nevuk wrote: The post-debate CNN poll was 52-39 for Biden. That's better than last time for Trump, but still indicates no one besides his supporters thought he won. Yahoo's was 62% Biden, 24% trump, 9 % neither and 5% both.
|
National geographic has a great detailed breakdown (including sort summaries of each topic if you don't want to read all the detail) on the two candidates in regards to the environment, and the differences are dramatic and stark. Not just when talking about climate change but also when you talk about water, conservation, plastics, renewables, pollution and so on. It really is as different as night and day and impactful.
And you get 3 free articles month with NG.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/10/trump-vs-biden-environment-heres-where-they-stand/#close
|
On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Like, it's not worth choosing between Democrats and Republicans on climate change be because the improvements democrats are aiming for are not enough and so anyway the planet is doomed and it makes no difference. "Significant improvement that might not be enoughwhAtever" or "the worst you can possibly do" are worth the same when you have abandoned all nuances and disregard all constraints. The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931.
For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though.
It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote.
|
On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Like, it's not worth choosing between Democrats and Republicans on climate change be because the improvements democrats are aiming for are not enough and so anyway the planet is doomed and it makes no difference. "Significant improvement that might not be enoughwhAtever" or "the worst you can possibly do" are worth the same when you have abandoned all nuances and disregard all constraints. The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling.
The differences between the current Democrat and Republican policies are significant. It is the height of ignorant privilege to just say, "but my life hasn't been that different between Trump and Obama". There are millions of people whose lives have been dramatically affected by Trump's policies.
You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against.
I would think that your vote, motivated entirely by your selfish desire to keep your ego safe and secure, is far more prone to being an "error" than someone who is willing to compromise on their political desires in order to enact real, beneficial change for those around them.
|
I don't know how you guys manage to have this discussion over and over again without ever discussing how we escape the neoliberal political framework.
|
On October 24 2020 00:17 Nebuchad wrote: I don't know how you guys manage to have this discussion over and over again without ever discussing how we escape the neoliberal political framework.
The first step is simple, and we've said it countless times.
Get rid of the Electoral College.
Alternatives to the two party system cannot and will not ever succeed in any way while the Electoral College is in place as it is currently designed.
|
At which point we reach the same impassé as always. The US system is shit. But the people with the power to change it are the people who win in that shitty system. They have no incentives to change it, and i am not even certain if changing that shitty system would even have a majority in the population of the US.
There are many ways one could make the system less shitty, but implementing any of those is basically impossible due to the way the shitty system is set up to protect its own shittyness.
|
People seriously still considering not voting for Biden? lul
User was warned for this post.
|
While Biden's climate plan doesn't go far enough, it buys time. That time can be used to develop better plans, technology, politicians, etc. to deal with climate change. Trump's plan is the same as accelerating climate change.
On October 24 2020 00:22 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 00:17 Nebuchad wrote: I don't know how you guys manage to have this discussion over and over again without ever discussing how we escape the neoliberal political framework. The first step is simple, and we've said it countless times. Get rid of the Electoral College. Alternatives to the two party system cannot and will not ever succeed in any way while the Electoral College is in place as it is currently designed.
The compromise here is to eliminate the reapportionment act of 1929 and increase the cap on the house massively. That makes the electoral college more evenly distributed, as it's partially based on the rep number.
|
On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Like, it's not worth choosing between Democrats and Republicans on climate change be because the improvements democrats are aiming for are not enough and so anyway the planet is doomed and it makes no difference. "Significant improvement that might not be enoughwhAtever" or "the worst you can possibly do" are worth the same when you have abandoned all nuances and disregard all constraints. The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote.
Please, enlighten me, when the Republicans have their 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court and Biden refuses to add justices, what has voting accomplished for the women who need access to abortions? To people who rely on the ACA?
Fuck all, because your "incremental progress" bullshit obviously is not functioning in America.
So yes, keep believing America's problems are solved by the likes of Joe Biden and maybe in 200+ years Americans might be able to get an abortion again after compromising with the Neo-Republican party!
On October 24 2020 00:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Like, it's not worth choosing between Democrats and Republicans on climate change be because the improvements democrats are aiming for are not enough and so anyway the planet is doomed and it makes no difference. "Significant improvement that might not be enoughwhAtever" or "the worst you can possibly do" are worth the same when you have abandoned all nuances and disregard all constraints. The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. The differences between the current Democrat and Republican policies are significant. It is the height of ignorant privilege to just say, "but my life hasn't been that different between Trump and Obama". There are millions of people whose lives have been dramatically affected by Trump's policies.
They're "significant" on paper, except Democrats regularly fold to the Republicans over any and everything and as a result their "differences" don't actually amount to anything.
For every 8 years Democrats might be in office they accomplish maybe half of what a Republican would accomplish in 4 years.
A lot of America's problems existed under Obama, police brutality was still grotesque and shitty, white supremacists were still out there being awful shitbags, gun violence was still prevelant, we were still bombing innocents, these things are not unique to Republicans, Democrats may be against them in an abstract way but they do nothing to actually put a stop to any of it, they seem to actively engage in the shitty behavior themselves sometimes, a la Obama's deportations.
Democrats are a Brunch party. Get into power so everyone can go back to brunch and feel safe and comfortable ignoring the glaring issues in American society.
On October 24 2020 00:29 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 00:17 Nebuchad wrote: I don't know how you guys manage to have this discussion over and over again without ever discussing how we escape the neoliberal political framework. Speaking personally, I think the path forward involves the Left learning how to power grab as well as the Right does, and I think that involves duplicity that many interested in doing the right thing find distasteful. Therein lies the rub.
If politicians play any real role in change this will be it, as hopeless as I find even that prospect these days. I expect a ton of pushback and complaints that their lack of compromise is ruining everything and that we shouldn't demand change! We should compromise, we should work with the Republicans (after all, we NEED a strong Republican party according to a prominent Democrat leader.)
|
On October 24 2020 00:17 Nebuchad wrote: I don't know how you guys manage to have this discussion over and over again without ever discussing how we escape the neoliberal political framework. Speaking personally, I think the path forward involves the Left learning how to power grab as well as the Right does, and I think that involves duplicity that many interested in doing the right thing find distasteful. Therein lies the rub.
|
I think it has to be talked about how even the capitalism part of the US is broken. In the ideal US system the best and the brightest would rise to the top. Donald Trump is a big loud symbol that it is not happening that way. It who and where you are born that matters. Fixing nepotism should be a a priority for all Americas because it fucks up socialism and capitalism.
|
On October 24 2020 00:28 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Like, it's not worth choosing between Democrats and Republicans on climate change be because the improvements democrats are aiming for are not enough and so anyway the planet is doomed and it makes no difference. "Significant improvement that might not be enoughwhAtever" or "the worst you can possibly do" are worth the same when you have abandoned all nuances and disregard all constraints. The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Please, enlighten me, when the Republicans have their 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court and Biden refuses to add justices, what has voting accomplished for the women who need access to abortions? To people who rely on the ACA? Fuck all, because your "incremental progress" bullshit obviously is not functioning in America. So yes, keep believing America's problems are solved by the likes of Joe Biden and maybe in 200+ years Americans might be able to get an abortion again after compromising with the Neo-Republican party!
The ACA was meaningful incremental progress enacted by a more conservative Democratic bloc than what would be in Congress were the Democrats to win the White House and Senate this year.
This is the same kind of historical ignorance that people show towards economic regulations.
"When has incremental progress ever helped me?!?!"
All the time. Literally all the time. Most legislative gains in terms of rights for women, POC, workers, education, healthcare access, environmental regulations, etc. etc. etc. were compromises from an initially more progressive stance that were enacted within the system. Most of them weren't ideal and have many flaws that need to be fixed, but they have been meaningful change that has helped people's lives in innumerable ways.
Sure, you can protest outside of the system to create external pressure, you can push to reshape the system so that it is better, but you can't just throw a temper tantrum and refuse to work within the system. People's lives are actually affected every day by that system, regardless of your moral stance on working within it or not. All that time that you sit comfortably in your privilege, refusing to act within the system because you don't like it, results in countless people's lives being deeply affected or ended when working within the system could have helped them.
|
On October 24 2020 00:35 JimmiC wrote: I think it has to be talked about how even the capitalism part of the US is broken. In the ideal US system the best and the brightest would rise to the top. Donald Trump is a big loud symbol that it is not happening that way. It who and where you are born that matters. Fixing nepotism should be a a priority for all Americas because it fucks up socialism and capitalism.
I think its even deeper than nepotism, KwarK talked about how he could have made as much money as Trump claims to have by investing in (correct me if Im wrong I know fuck-all about financial anything and the post was old) extremely safe things.
How people can fail upwards in America is grotesque.
|
On October 24 2020 00:29 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 00:17 Nebuchad wrote: I don't know how you guys manage to have this discussion over and over again without ever discussing how we escape the neoliberal political framework. Speaking personally, I think the path forward involves the Left learning how to power grab as well as the Right does, and I think that involves duplicity that many interested in doing the right thing find distasteful. Therein lies the rub.
The right has material conditions that make it easier for them to do power grabs. It's not just that we suck at it, it's not a level playing field.
But yes, in fairness I do believe you're going to need to seize the democratic party. When you do that, you will need to be aware that it makes it more likely that a republican gets elected in the short term, and you'll have to be okay with it.
|
On October 24 2020 00:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 00:28 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Like, it's not worth choosing between Democrats and Republicans on climate change be because the improvements democrats are aiming for are not enough and so anyway the planet is doomed and it makes no difference. "Significant improvement that might not be enoughwhAtever" or "the worst you can possibly do" are worth the same when you have abandoned all nuances and disregard all constraints. The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Please, enlighten me, when the Republicans have their 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court and Biden refuses to add justices, what has voting accomplished for the women who need access to abortions? To people who rely on the ACA? Fuck all, because your "incremental progress" bullshit obviously is not functioning in America. So yes, keep believing America's problems are solved by the likes of Joe Biden and maybe in 200+ years Americans might be able to get an abortion again after compromising with the Neo-Republican party! The ACA was meaningful incremental progress enacted by a more conservative Democratic bloc than what would be in Congress were the Democrats to win the White House and Senate this year. This is the same kind of historical ignorance that people show towards economic regulations. "When has incremental progress ever helped me?!?!" All the time. Literally all the time. Most legislative gains in terms of rights for women, POC, workers, education, healthcare access, environmental regulations, etc. etc. etc. were compromises from an initially more progressive stance that were enacted within the system. Sure, you can protest outside of the system to create external pressure, you can push to reshape the system so that it is better, but you can't just throw a temper tantrum and refuse to work within the system. People's lives are actually affected every day by that system, regardless of your moral stance on working within it or not. All that time that you sit comfortably in your privilege, refusing to act within the system because you don't like it, results in countless people's lives being deeply affected or ended when working within the system could have helped them.
I'll be frank, this is fucking stupid, I vote, I've always voted, and I'll continue to vote on the extremely off chance something might actually happen.
My issue is pretending that that lone simple fucking action is going to do anything, its ignorant as hell, rights for POCs is a great example, where would we be if, say Lincoln said, "well, we have to work with the Confederates! We'll slowly fade out slavery over time," or if MLK just didn't happen. War. Riots. REAL action that didn't rely on duplicitous politicians finding it within their hearts to throw the average person a bone.
Hell we'd still be living under a god damned MONARCHY if working within the system was the only way to make change happen.
|
On October 24 2020 00:42 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 00:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 24 2020 00:28 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Please, enlighten me, when the Republicans have their 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court and Biden refuses to add justices, what has voting accomplished for the women who need access to abortions? To people who rely on the ACA? Fuck all, because your "incremental progress" bullshit obviously is not functioning in America. So yes, keep believing America's problems are solved by the likes of Joe Biden and maybe in 200+ years Americans might be able to get an abortion again after compromising with the Neo-Republican party! The ACA was meaningful incremental progress enacted by a more conservative Democratic bloc than what would be in Congress were the Democrats to win the White House and Senate this year. This is the same kind of historical ignorance that people show towards economic regulations. "When has incremental progress ever helped me?!?!" All the time. Literally all the time. Most legislative gains in terms of rights for women, POC, workers, education, healthcare access, environmental regulations, etc. etc. etc. were compromises from an initially more progressive stance that were enacted within the system. Sure, you can protest outside of the system to create external pressure, you can push to reshape the system so that it is better, but you can't just throw a temper tantrum and refuse to work within the system. People's lives are actually affected every day by that system, regardless of your moral stance on working within it or not. All that time that you sit comfortably in your privilege, refusing to act within the system because you don't like it, results in countless people's lives being deeply affected or ended when working within the system could have helped them. I'll be frank, this is fucking stupid, I vote, I've always voted, and I'll continue to vote on the extremely off chance something might actually happen. My issue is pretending that that lone simple fucking action is going to do anything, its ignorant as hell, rights for POCs is a great example, where would we be if, say Lincoln said, "well, we have to work with the Confederates! We'll slowly fade out slavery over time," or if MLK just didn't happen. War. Riots. REAL action that didn't rely on duplicitous politicians finding it within their hearts to throw the average person a bone. Hell we'd still be living under a god damned MONARCHY if working within the system was the only way to make change happen.
No one here has said it is the only way.
Literally no one.
This is a lazy, half-assed strawman you made to try to shift the goal posts after realizing that the point that you were arguing is weak.
They're "significant" on paper, except Democrats regularly fold to the Republicans over any and everything and as a result their "differences" don't actually amount to anything.
For every 8 years Democrats might be in office they accomplish maybe half of what a Republican would accomplish in 4 years.
A lot of America's problems existed under Obama, police brutality was still grotesque and shitty, white supremacists were still out there being awful shitbags, gun violence was still prevelant, we were still bombing innocents, these things are not unique to Republicans, Democrats may be against them in an abstract way but they do nothing to actually put a stop to any of it, they seem to actively engage in the shitty behavior themselves sometimes, a la Obama's deportations.
Democrats are a Brunch party. Get into power so everyone can go back to brunch and feel safe and comfortable ignoring the glaring issues in American society.
All you're doing is exposing how clueless you are to the lives of everyday people that are actually affected by policy changes.
The amount of political ignorance that you have to hold to maintain that there is no meaningful difference between the parties or accomplishments done by the Democratic party is mind-blowing.
Is the party disappointing? Immensely so.
Are they useless and/or effectively the same as Republicans? No, and this isn't even up for debate in a sane world.
|
On October 24 2020 00:22 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 00:17 Nebuchad wrote: I don't know how you guys manage to have this discussion over and over again without ever discussing how we escape the neoliberal political framework. The first step is simple, and we've said it countless times. Get rid of the Electoral College.
I'll confess that reading that it's simple to get rid of the electoral college was a bit funny.
|
On October 24 2020 00:49 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 00:22 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 24 2020 00:17 Nebuchad wrote: I don't know how you guys manage to have this discussion over and over again without ever discussing how we escape the neoliberal political framework. The first step is simple, and we've said it countless times. Get rid of the Electoral College. I'll confess that reading that it's simple to get rid of the electoral college was a bit funny.
Heh, I may have phrased it a bit flippantly.
Knowing what to do is simple, but actually doing it is very difficult (politically).
|
On October 24 2020 00:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 00:42 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 24 2020 00:28 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote: [quote] Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Please, enlighten me, when the Republicans have their 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court and Biden refuses to add justices, what has voting accomplished for the women who need access to abortions? To people who rely on the ACA? Fuck all, because your "incremental progress" bullshit obviously is not functioning in America. So yes, keep believing America's problems are solved by the likes of Joe Biden and maybe in 200+ years Americans might be able to get an abortion again after compromising with the Neo-Republican party! The ACA was meaningful incremental progress enacted by a more conservative Democratic bloc than what would be in Congress were the Democrats to win the White House and Senate this year. This is the same kind of historical ignorance that people show towards economic regulations. "When has incremental progress ever helped me?!?!" All the time. Literally all the time. Most legislative gains in terms of rights for women, POC, workers, education, healthcare access, environmental regulations, etc. etc. etc. were compromises from an initially more progressive stance that were enacted within the system. Sure, you can protest outside of the system to create external pressure, you can push to reshape the system so that it is better, but you can't just throw a temper tantrum and refuse to work within the system. People's lives are actually affected every day by that system, regardless of your moral stance on working within it or not. All that time that you sit comfortably in your privilege, refusing to act within the system because you don't like it, results in countless people's lives being deeply affected or ended when working within the system could have helped them. I'll be frank, this is fucking stupid, I vote, I've always voted, and I'll continue to vote on the extremely off chance something might actually happen. My issue is pretending that that lone simple fucking action is going to do anything, its ignorant as hell, rights for POCs is a great example, where would we be if, say Lincoln said, "well, we have to work with the Confederates! We'll slowly fade out slavery over time," or if MLK just didn't happen. War. Riots. REAL action that didn't rely on duplicitous politicians finding it within their hearts to throw the average person a bone. Hell we'd still be living under a god damned MONARCHY if working within the system was the only way to make change happen. No one here has said it is the only way. Literally no one. This is a lazy, half-assed strawman you made to try to shift the goal posts.
Does it change my point that even in some of your examples the way change actually happened was through things like riots and the bloodiest war in American history?
American history is full of examples where action had to be taken beyond voting, if youre pro-riots, etc. in order to accomplish things like more pro-active climate change, dealing with police brutality properly, making sure people are paid living wages, everyone have proper actual healthcare, etc. then we probably don't disagree on much more than how effective voting is.
That being said voting is relying on AMERICAN POLITICIANS to do things for the betterment of the populace, and when we encounter things like Biden's climate plans that extend into 2050 I have to ask how you expect these slow changes to hold up to the swift brutal reprisals they'll experience when the next Republican is in office? 2050 might work out if Biden or a Democrat would be president for 30 years, but let's be honest, that isn't going to happen and Republicans are infinitely more efficient at this back and forth than the Democrats are, so what kind of time scale are we really looking at when we factor in Democrats incremental progress + Republican fuckery? Probably beyond the lifespan of anyone on this forum.
All you're doing is exposing how clueless you are to the lives of everyday people that are actually affected by policy changes.
The amount of political ignorance that you have to hold to maintain that there is no meaningful difference between the parties or accomplishments done by the Democratic party is mind-blowing.
Is the party disappointing? Immensely so.
Are they useless and/or effectively the same as Republicans? No, and this isn't even up for debate in a sane world.
No you?
When we have that 6-3 Supreme Court that gets rid of the ACA and Roe v Wade we can tally up just how great the Democrats have been for the US in the last twenty years.
EDIT: To be SLIGHTLY less of a dismissive asshole, I've seen people here argue for pages on pages with Doodsmack about fucking Hunter Biden, so the idea that this "isnt even up for debate" is silly.
|
On October 24 2020 00:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 00:49 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 00:22 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 24 2020 00:17 Nebuchad wrote: I don't know how you guys manage to have this discussion over and over again without ever discussing how we escape the neoliberal political framework. The first step is simple, and we've said it countless times. Get rid of the Electoral College. I'll confess that reading that it's simple to get rid of the electoral college was a bit funny. Heh, I may have phrased it a bit flippantly. Knowing what to do is simple, but actually doing it is very difficult (politically).
In my opinion the kind of people that would get rid of the electoral college are the kind of people that can't get in power right now because of the neoliberal political framework.
|
I think the periods of US history where "progress" occurred were full of acts performed both within and outside "the system," which is why I'm not especially keen on that approach to the problem in the first place.
|
Northern Ireland20514 Posts
On October 24 2020 00:17 Nebuchad wrote: I don't know how you guys manage to have this discussion over and over again without ever discussing how we escape the neoliberal political framework. It’s a easy, you just escape the neoliberal political framework.
|
On October 24 2020 00:52 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 00:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 24 2020 00:42 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 24 2020 00:28 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Please, enlighten me, when the Republicans have their 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court and Biden refuses to add justices, what has voting accomplished for the women who need access to abortions? To people who rely on the ACA? Fuck all, because your "incremental progress" bullshit obviously is not functioning in America. So yes, keep believing America's problems are solved by the likes of Joe Biden and maybe in 200+ years Americans might be able to get an abortion again after compromising with the Neo-Republican party! The ACA was meaningful incremental progress enacted by a more conservative Democratic bloc than what would be in Congress were the Democrats to win the White House and Senate this year. This is the same kind of historical ignorance that people show towards economic regulations. "When has incremental progress ever helped me?!?!" All the time. Literally all the time. Most legislative gains in terms of rights for women, POC, workers, education, healthcare access, environmental regulations, etc. etc. etc. were compromises from an initially more progressive stance that were enacted within the system. Sure, you can protest outside of the system to create external pressure, you can push to reshape the system so that it is better, but you can't just throw a temper tantrum and refuse to work within the system. People's lives are actually affected every day by that system, regardless of your moral stance on working within it or not. All that time that you sit comfortably in your privilege, refusing to act within the system because you don't like it, results in countless people's lives being deeply affected or ended when working within the system could have helped them. I'll be frank, this is fucking stupid, I vote, I've always voted, and I'll continue to vote on the extremely off chance something might actually happen. My issue is pretending that that lone simple fucking action is going to do anything, its ignorant as hell, rights for POCs is a great example, where would we be if, say Lincoln said, "well, we have to work with the Confederates! We'll slowly fade out slavery over time," or if MLK just didn't happen. War. Riots. REAL action that didn't rely on duplicitous politicians finding it within their hearts to throw the average person a bone. Hell we'd still be living under a god damned MONARCHY if working within the system was the only way to make change happen. No one here has said it is the only way. Literally no one. This is a lazy, half-assed strawman you made to try to shift the goal posts. Does it change my point that even in some of your examples the way change actually happened was through things like riots and the bloodiest war in American history? American history is full of examples where action had to be taken beyond voting, if youre pro-riots, etc. in order to accomplish things like more pro-active climate change, dealing with police brutality properly, making sure people are paid living wages, everyone have proper actual healthcare, etc. then we probably don't disagree on much more than how effective voting is. That being said voting is relying on AMERICAN POLITICIANS to do things for the betterment of the populace, and when we encounter things like Biden's climate plans that extend into 2050 I have to ask how you expect these slow changes to hold up to the swift brutal reprisals they'll experience when the next Republican is in office? 2050 might work out if Biden or a Democrat would be president for 30 years, but let's be honest, that isn't going to happen and Republicans are infinitely more efficient at this back and forth than the Democrats are, so what kind of time scale are we really looking at when we factor in Democrats incremental progress + Republican fuckery? Probably beyond the lifespan of anyone on this forum.
I'm just going to quote myself and highlight the important points in my post that answer your question:
All the time. Literally all the time. **Most** LEGISLATIVE gains in terms of rights for women, POC, workers, education, healthcare access, environmental regulations, etc. etc. etc. were compromises from an initially more progressive stance that were enacted within the system.
Sure, you can ***protest outside of the system to create external pressure, you can push to reshape the system so that it is better***, but you can't just throw a temper tantrum and refuse to work within the system. People's lives are actually affected every day by that system, regardless of your moral stance on working within it or not. All that time that you sit comfortably in your privilege, refusing to act within the system because you don't like it, results in countless people's lives being deeply affected or ended when working within the system could have helped them.
Things like the Civil Rights Act still relied on legislative action and largely working within the system. Protests and riots created public/political pressure. They didn't actually change the system in-and-of-itself.
The Civil War is a unique example and is also a war that was instigated by the people trying to maintain the system instead of the people trying to change it, so it is pretty hard to talk about the Civil War in relation to this discussion.
|
It's impossible to eliminate the electoral college, but it's not very hard to decrease its effect to almost zero.
Set the house of representatives size to 50k people, and there are suddenly 50,103 members of the college. The college is simply # of representatives + 2 for each state and 3 for DC.
That can be done by a simple majority with a trifecta. Sure, it's ridiculous and stupid, but it's doable. Setting the size so massively reduces the effect of geography + states.
|
On October 24 2020 00:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 00:52 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 24 2020 00:42 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 24 2020 00:28 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote: [quote] Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Please, enlighten me, when the Republicans have their 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court and Biden refuses to add justices, what has voting accomplished for the women who need access to abortions? To people who rely on the ACA? Fuck all, because your "incremental progress" bullshit obviously is not functioning in America. So yes, keep believing America's problems are solved by the likes of Joe Biden and maybe in 200+ years Americans might be able to get an abortion again after compromising with the Neo-Republican party! The ACA was meaningful incremental progress enacted by a more conservative Democratic bloc than what would be in Congress were the Democrats to win the White House and Senate this year. This is the same kind of historical ignorance that people show towards economic regulations. "When has incremental progress ever helped me?!?!" All the time. Literally all the time. Most legislative gains in terms of rights for women, POC, workers, education, healthcare access, environmental regulations, etc. etc. etc. were compromises from an initially more progressive stance that were enacted within the system. Sure, you can protest outside of the system to create external pressure, you can push to reshape the system so that it is better, but you can't just throw a temper tantrum and refuse to work within the system. People's lives are actually affected every day by that system, regardless of your moral stance on working within it or not. All that time that you sit comfortably in your privilege, refusing to act within the system because you don't like it, results in countless people's lives being deeply affected or ended when working within the system could have helped them. I'll be frank, this is fucking stupid, I vote, I've always voted, and I'll continue to vote on the extremely off chance something might actually happen. My issue is pretending that that lone simple fucking action is going to do anything, its ignorant as hell, rights for POCs is a great example, where would we be if, say Lincoln said, "well, we have to work with the Confederates! We'll slowly fade out slavery over time," or if MLK just didn't happen. War. Riots. REAL action that didn't rely on duplicitous politicians finding it within their hearts to throw the average person a bone. Hell we'd still be living under a god damned MONARCHY if working within the system was the only way to make change happen. No one here has said it is the only way. Literally no one. This is a lazy, half-assed strawman you made to try to shift the goal posts. Does it change my point that even in some of your examples the way change actually happened was through things like riots and the bloodiest war in American history? American history is full of examples where action had to be taken beyond voting, if youre pro-riots, etc. in order to accomplish things like more pro-active climate change, dealing with police brutality properly, making sure people are paid living wages, everyone have proper actual healthcare, etc. then we probably don't disagree on much more than how effective voting is. That being said voting is relying on AMERICAN POLITICIANS to do things for the betterment of the populace, and when we encounter things like Biden's climate plans that extend into 2050 I have to ask how you expect these slow changes to hold up to the swift brutal reprisals they'll experience when the next Republican is in office? 2050 might work out if Biden or a Democrat would be president for 30 years, but let's be honest, that isn't going to happen and Republicans are infinitely more efficient at this back and forth than the Democrats are, so what kind of time scale are we really looking at when we factor in Democrats incremental progress + Republican fuckery? Probably beyond the lifespan of anyone on this forum. I'm just going to quote myself and highlight the important points in my post that answer your question: Show nested quote +All the time. Literally all the time. Most LEGISLATIVE gains in terms of rights for women, POC, workers, education, healthcare access, environmental regulations, etc. etc. etc. were compromises from an initially more progressive stance that were enacted within the system.
Sure, you can ***protest outside of the system to create external pressure, you can push to reshape the system so that it is better***, but you can't just throw a temper tantrum and refuse to work within the system. People's lives are actually affected every day by that system, regardless of your moral stance on working within it or not. All that time that you sit comfortably in your privilege, refusing to act within the system because you don't like it, results in countless people's lives being deeply affected or ended when working within the system could have helped them. Things like the Civil Rights Act still relied on legislative action and largely working within the system. Protests and riots created public/political pressure. They didn't actually change the system in-and-of-itself. The Civil War is a unique example and is also a war that was instigated by the people trying to maintain the system instead of the people trying to change it, so it is pretty hard to talk about the Civil War in relation to this discussion.
What person in the US Politics Thread has ever said they refuse to work within the system?
Every politically active person in that thread would probably admit to voting, even those of us who believe it means fuck all given what we've seen of US politics in our life time. The difference is whether or not people agree with external action looking more promising.
An example of the kind of "compromise from an initially more progressive stance" is Plessy v. Ferguson. We shouldnt be settling for Plessy v. Ferguson, we should be demanding Brown vs. Board of Education.
Nothing will change the system we have short of another Revolutionary War, which, again, another example of a major change that wasn't done by compromising with the King of England.
As to the Civil War, yes, the Confederacy tried to take their ball and leave, however they likely wouldnt have if they would've been appeased via slavery. Hell, even the slow compromise actions of trying to strangle out slavery had to eventually culminate in violent action to stop it because the people who HAVE power will not let power go as easily as "oops we lost an election or two."
|
On October 24 2020 00:52 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 00:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 24 2020 00:42 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 24 2020 00:28 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Please, enlighten me, when the Republicans have their 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court and Biden refuses to add justices, what has voting accomplished for the women who need access to abortions? To people who rely on the ACA? Fuck all, because your "incremental progress" bullshit obviously is not functioning in America. So yes, keep believing America's problems are solved by the likes of Joe Biden and maybe in 200+ years Americans might be able to get an abortion again after compromising with the Neo-Republican party! The ACA was meaningful incremental progress enacted by a more conservative Democratic bloc than what would be in Congress were the Democrats to win the White House and Senate this year. This is the same kind of historical ignorance that people show towards economic regulations. "When has incremental progress ever helped me?!?!" All the time. Literally all the time. Most legislative gains in terms of rights for women, POC, workers, education, healthcare access, environmental regulations, etc. etc. etc. were compromises from an initially more progressive stance that were enacted within the system. Sure, you can protest outside of the system to create external pressure, you can push to reshape the system so that it is better, but you can't just throw a temper tantrum and refuse to work within the system. People's lives are actually affected every day by that system, regardless of your moral stance on working within it or not. All that time that you sit comfortably in your privilege, refusing to act within the system because you don't like it, results in countless people's lives being deeply affected or ended when working within the system could have helped them. I'll be frank, this is fucking stupid, I vote, I've always voted, and I'll continue to vote on the extremely off chance something might actually happen. My issue is pretending that that lone simple fucking action is going to do anything, its ignorant as hell, rights for POCs is a great example, where would we be if, say Lincoln said, "well, we have to work with the Confederates! We'll slowly fade out slavery over time," or if MLK just didn't happen. War. Riots. REAL action that didn't rely on duplicitous politicians finding it within their hearts to throw the average person a bone. Hell we'd still be living under a god damned MONARCHY if working within the system was the only way to make change happen. No one here has said it is the only way. Literally no one. This is a lazy, half-assed strawman you made to try to shift the goal posts. Does it change my point that even in some of your examples the way change actually happened was through things like riots and the bloodiest war in American history? American history is full of examples where action had to be taken beyond voting, if youre pro-riots, etc. in order to accomplish things like more pro-active climate change, dealing with police brutality properly, making sure people are paid living wages, everyone have proper actual healthcare, etc. then we probably don't disagree on much more than how effective voting is. That being said voting is relying on AMERICAN POLITICIANS to do things for the betterment of the populace, and when we encounter things like Biden's climate plans that extend into 2050 I have to ask how you expect these slow changes to hold up to the swift brutal reprisals they'll experience when the next Republican is in office? 2050 might work out if Biden or a Democrat would be president for 30 years, but let's be honest, that isn't going to happen and Republicans are infinitely more efficient at this back and forth than the Democrats are, so what kind of time scale are we really looking at when we factor in Democrats incremental progress + Republican fuckery? Probably beyond the lifespan of anyone on this forum. Its a plan that extends into 2050 because you can't fix climate change in 5 weeks.
Fuck me what is with this burning need for instant gratification these days. Fixing climate change over the course of 30 years? fuck that. Incremental change not working by tomorrow? lets have a civil war instead.
You come off like GH in this, "have a riot or civil war and everything will be golden on the other side".
Yes the American system is fucked, yes working within the system is unlikely to actually fix the system because those in charge are the ones that benefit, and electing a 3e party is unlikely to work either because once they are big enough to win they are the ones that benefit from it continuing (not to mention it would probably require a constitutional amendment and LOL gl getting that passed by 3/4 of states).
If you actually want to do something then convince people the system needs to change so that there is a big enough majority that want it to actually put pressure on politicians to do something. But there is little point preaching here, basically everyone agrees the US system is shit. You need to convince the rest of the US that are not as left leaning or have quite so many Europeans in it.
|
On October 24 2020 01:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 00:52 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 24 2020 00:42 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 24 2020 00:28 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote: [quote] Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Please, enlighten me, when the Republicans have their 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court and Biden refuses to add justices, what has voting accomplished for the women who need access to abortions? To people who rely on the ACA? Fuck all, because your "incremental progress" bullshit obviously is not functioning in America. So yes, keep believing America's problems are solved by the likes of Joe Biden and maybe in 200+ years Americans might be able to get an abortion again after compromising with the Neo-Republican party! The ACA was meaningful incremental progress enacted by a more conservative Democratic bloc than what would be in Congress were the Democrats to win the White House and Senate this year. This is the same kind of historical ignorance that people show towards economic regulations. "When has incremental progress ever helped me?!?!" All the time. Literally all the time. Most legislative gains in terms of rights for women, POC, workers, education, healthcare access, environmental regulations, etc. etc. etc. were compromises from an initially more progressive stance that were enacted within the system. Sure, you can protest outside of the system to create external pressure, you can push to reshape the system so that it is better, but you can't just throw a temper tantrum and refuse to work within the system. People's lives are actually affected every day by that system, regardless of your moral stance on working within it or not. All that time that you sit comfortably in your privilege, refusing to act within the system because you don't like it, results in countless people's lives being deeply affected or ended when working within the system could have helped them. I'll be frank, this is fucking stupid, I vote, I've always voted, and I'll continue to vote on the extremely off chance something might actually happen. My issue is pretending that that lone simple fucking action is going to do anything, its ignorant as hell, rights for POCs is a great example, where would we be if, say Lincoln said, "well, we have to work with the Confederates! We'll slowly fade out slavery over time," or if MLK just didn't happen. War. Riots. REAL action that didn't rely on duplicitous politicians finding it within their hearts to throw the average person a bone. Hell we'd still be living under a god damned MONARCHY if working within the system was the only way to make change happen. No one here has said it is the only way. Literally no one. This is a lazy, half-assed strawman you made to try to shift the goal posts. Does it change my point that even in some of your examples the way change actually happened was through things like riots and the bloodiest war in American history? American history is full of examples where action had to be taken beyond voting, if youre pro-riots, etc. in order to accomplish things like more pro-active climate change, dealing with police brutality properly, making sure people are paid living wages, everyone have proper actual healthcare, etc. then we probably don't disagree on much more than how effective voting is. That being said voting is relying on AMERICAN POLITICIANS to do things for the betterment of the populace, and when we encounter things like Biden's climate plans that extend into 2050 I have to ask how you expect these slow changes to hold up to the swift brutal reprisals they'll experience when the next Republican is in office? 2050 might work out if Biden or a Democrat would be president for 30 years, but let's be honest, that isn't going to happen and Republicans are infinitely more efficient at this back and forth than the Democrats are, so what kind of time scale are we really looking at when we factor in Democrats incremental progress + Republican fuckery? Probably beyond the lifespan of anyone on this forum. Its a plan that extends into 2050 because you can't fix climate change in 5 weeks. Fuck me what is with this burning need for instant gratification these days. Fixing climate change over the course of 30 years? fuck that. Incremental change not working by tomorrow? lets have a civil war instead. You come off like GH in this, "have a riot or civil war and everything will be golden on the other side". Yes the American system is fucked, yes working within the system is unlikely to actually fix the system because those in charge are the ones that benefit, and electing a 3e party is unlikely to work either because once they are big enough to win they are the ones that benefit from it continuing (not to mention it would probably require a constitutional amendment and LOL gl getting that passed by 3/4 of states). If you actually want to do something then convince people the system needs to change so that there is a big enough majority that want it to actually put pressure on politicians to do something. But there is little point preaching here, basically everyone agrees the US system is shit. You need to convince the rest of the US that are not as left leaning or have quite so many Europeans in it.
The issue with your framing is that it's based on living in a country that is functional.
You act as if the US is getting incrementally better from a left vs right standpoint, when it's getting incrementally worse. It's getting better on social issues but it's getting worse for humans in general.
You can convince people the system needs to change, and that way they'll put pressure on politicians for things to change! And then the politicians will do nothing about it, like they did when 90+% of Americans wanted more gun control.
|
On October 24 2020 01:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 00:52 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 24 2020 00:42 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 24 2020 00:28 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote: [quote] Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Please, enlighten me, when the Republicans have their 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court and Biden refuses to add justices, what has voting accomplished for the women who need access to abortions? To people who rely on the ACA? Fuck all, because your "incremental progress" bullshit obviously is not functioning in America. So yes, keep believing America's problems are solved by the likes of Joe Biden and maybe in 200+ years Americans might be able to get an abortion again after compromising with the Neo-Republican party! The ACA was meaningful incremental progress enacted by a more conservative Democratic bloc than what would be in Congress were the Democrats to win the White House and Senate this year. This is the same kind of historical ignorance that people show towards economic regulations. "When has incremental progress ever helped me?!?!" All the time. Literally all the time. Most legislative gains in terms of rights for women, POC, workers, education, healthcare access, environmental regulations, etc. etc. etc. were compromises from an initially more progressive stance that were enacted within the system. Sure, you can protest outside of the system to create external pressure, you can push to reshape the system so that it is better, but you can't just throw a temper tantrum and refuse to work within the system. People's lives are actually affected every day by that system, regardless of your moral stance on working within it or not. All that time that you sit comfortably in your privilege, refusing to act within the system because you don't like it, results in countless people's lives being deeply affected or ended when working within the system could have helped them. I'll be frank, this is fucking stupid, I vote, I've always voted, and I'll continue to vote on the extremely off chance something might actually happen. My issue is pretending that that lone simple fucking action is going to do anything, its ignorant as hell, rights for POCs is a great example, where would we be if, say Lincoln said, "well, we have to work with the Confederates! We'll slowly fade out slavery over time," or if MLK just didn't happen. War. Riots. REAL action that didn't rely on duplicitous politicians finding it within their hearts to throw the average person a bone. Hell we'd still be living under a god damned MONARCHY if working within the system was the only way to make change happen. No one here has said it is the only way. Literally no one. This is a lazy, half-assed strawman you made to try to shift the goal posts. Does it change my point that even in some of your examples the way change actually happened was through things like riots and the bloodiest war in American history? American history is full of examples where action had to be taken beyond voting, if youre pro-riots, etc. in order to accomplish things like more pro-active climate change, dealing with police brutality properly, making sure people are paid living wages, everyone have proper actual healthcare, etc. then we probably don't disagree on much more than how effective voting is. That being said voting is relying on AMERICAN POLITICIANS to do things for the betterment of the populace, and when we encounter things like Biden's climate plans that extend into 2050 I have to ask how you expect these slow changes to hold up to the swift brutal reprisals they'll experience when the next Republican is in office? 2050 might work out if Biden or a Democrat would be president for 30 years, but let's be honest, that isn't going to happen and Republicans are infinitely more efficient at this back and forth than the Democrats are, so what kind of time scale are we really looking at when we factor in Democrats incremental progress + Republican fuckery? Probably beyond the lifespan of anyone on this forum. Its a plan that extends into 2050 because you can't fix climate change in 5 weeks. Fuck me what is with this burning need for instant gratification these days. Fixing climate change over the course of 30 years? fuck that. Incremental change not working by tomorrow? lets have a civil war instead. You come off like GH in this, "have a riot or civil war and everything will be golden on the other side". Yes the American system is fucked, yes working within the system is unlikely to actually fix the system because those in charge are the ones that benefit, and electing a 3e party is unlikely to work either because once they are big enough to win they are the ones that benefit from it continuing (not to mention it would probably require a constitutional amendment and LOL gl getting that passed by 3/4 of states). If you actually want to do something then convince people the system needs to change so that there is a big enough majority that want it to actually put pressure on politicians to do something. But there is little point preaching here, basically everyone agrees the US system is shit. You need to convince the rest of the US that are not as left leaning or have quite so many Europeans in it.
We can and should attempt to better than zero emissions by 2050, we shouldn't accept that the climate plans of someone like Joe Biden are good enough, we should absolutely push for better. I don't need instant gratification I need some fuckin' hope that theres gratification coming AT ALL. As I've said, a 2050 timeline almost assuredly isn't accounting for all of the Republican interference thats going to happen. If Democrats were displaying even an ounce of the ruthlessness Republicans display on a daily basis I might have some faith in the plans their milquetoast candidates claim to want to implement, instead I see things like Nancy Pelosi declaring we need a strong Republican party, I see Joe Biden thinking of tapping Republicans for cabinet positions (yes I know its how it usually goes, how things usually go in the US sucks and we need to stop playing ball with fucking Republicans period), Joe Biden dunking on a Bernie who is actively campaigning for him, clips of Harris insulting young people, Joe Biden saying he doesn't empathize with the struggles of millenials. I mean come on how am I supposed to have any faith in Democrats to do anything when they seem actively contemptuous towards young people, and poor people, and POC?
|
On October 24 2020 00:59 Nevuk wrote: It's impossible to eliminate the electoral college, but it's not very hard to decrease its effect to almost zero.
Set the house of representatives size to 50k people, and there are suddenly 50,103 members of the college. The college is simply # of representatives + 2 for each state and 3 for DC.
That can be done by a simple majority with a trifecta. Sure, it's ridiculous and stupid, but it's doable. Setting the size so massively reduces the effect of geography + states. The part where it's ridiculous and stupid makes the "it's not very hard" a lie.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Like, it's not worth choosing between Democrats and Republicans on climate change be because the improvements democrats are aiming for are not enough and so anyway the planet is doomed and it makes no difference. "Significant improvement that might not be enoughwhAtever" or "the worst you can possibly do" are worth the same when you have abandoned all nuances and disregard all constraints. The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Are you sure you're not just hyping up token improvements and ignoring larger negative trends, because doing so preserves a status quo that is comfortable to you personally? This entire line of argument reeks of hypocrisy.
|
It is the height of ignorant privilege to just say ... This is the same kind of historical ignorance that people show towards ...
Imagine my surprise that the leftist Democrats against far-left "the two party system is corrupt and must be abandoned now" is rancorous.
When you stop having Republicans to talk down to, I guess you do that to each other.
For every 8 years Democrats might be in office they accomplish maybe half of what a Republican would accomplish in 4 years.
Can't even get rid of Obamacare almost a decade later, but somehow the Democrats are bad at wielding power. Your side just has too many dreams that can't be sold to the American people. The multitudinous number of your dreams is an incredibly poor basis for pretending Democrats suck at wielding power compared to Republicans. Your ideas just suck and your movement sucks at selling those ideas to the American people.
|
On October 24 2020 01:11 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 01:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 00:52 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 24 2020 00:42 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 24 2020 00:28 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Please, enlighten me, when the Republicans have their 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court and Biden refuses to add justices, what has voting accomplished for the women who need access to abortions? To people who rely on the ACA? Fuck all, because your "incremental progress" bullshit obviously is not functioning in America. So yes, keep believing America's problems are solved by the likes of Joe Biden and maybe in 200+ years Americans might be able to get an abortion again after compromising with the Neo-Republican party! The ACA was meaningful incremental progress enacted by a more conservative Democratic bloc than what would be in Congress were the Democrats to win the White House and Senate this year. This is the same kind of historical ignorance that people show towards economic regulations. "When has incremental progress ever helped me?!?!" All the time. Literally all the time. Most legislative gains in terms of rights for women, POC, workers, education, healthcare access, environmental regulations, etc. etc. etc. were compromises from an initially more progressive stance that were enacted within the system. Sure, you can protest outside of the system to create external pressure, you can push to reshape the system so that it is better, but you can't just throw a temper tantrum and refuse to work within the system. People's lives are actually affected every day by that system, regardless of your moral stance on working within it or not. All that time that you sit comfortably in your privilege, refusing to act within the system because you don't like it, results in countless people's lives being deeply affected or ended when working within the system could have helped them. I'll be frank, this is fucking stupid, I vote, I've always voted, and I'll continue to vote on the extremely off chance something might actually happen. My issue is pretending that that lone simple fucking action is going to do anything, its ignorant as hell, rights for POCs is a great example, where would we be if, say Lincoln said, "well, we have to work with the Confederates! We'll slowly fade out slavery over time," or if MLK just didn't happen. War. Riots. REAL action that didn't rely on duplicitous politicians finding it within their hearts to throw the average person a bone. Hell we'd still be living under a god damned MONARCHY if working within the system was the only way to make change happen. No one here has said it is the only way. Literally no one. This is a lazy, half-assed strawman you made to try to shift the goal posts. Does it change my point that even in some of your examples the way change actually happened was through things like riots and the bloodiest war in American history? American history is full of examples where action had to be taken beyond voting, if youre pro-riots, etc. in order to accomplish things like more pro-active climate change, dealing with police brutality properly, making sure people are paid living wages, everyone have proper actual healthcare, etc. then we probably don't disagree on much more than how effective voting is. That being said voting is relying on AMERICAN POLITICIANS to do things for the betterment of the populace, and when we encounter things like Biden's climate plans that extend into 2050 I have to ask how you expect these slow changes to hold up to the swift brutal reprisals they'll experience when the next Republican is in office? 2050 might work out if Biden or a Democrat would be president for 30 years, but let's be honest, that isn't going to happen and Republicans are infinitely more efficient at this back and forth than the Democrats are, so what kind of time scale are we really looking at when we factor in Democrats incremental progress + Republican fuckery? Probably beyond the lifespan of anyone on this forum. Its a plan that extends into 2050 because you can't fix climate change in 5 weeks. Fuck me what is with this burning need for instant gratification these days. Fixing climate change over the course of 30 years? fuck that. Incremental change not working by tomorrow? lets have a civil war instead. You come off like GH in this, "have a riot or civil war and everything will be golden on the other side". Yes the American system is fucked, yes working within the system is unlikely to actually fix the system because those in charge are the ones that benefit, and electing a 3e party is unlikely to work either because once they are big enough to win they are the ones that benefit from it continuing (not to mention it would probably require a constitutional amendment and LOL gl getting that passed by 3/4 of states). If you actually want to do something then convince people the system needs to change so that there is a big enough majority that want it to actually put pressure on politicians to do something. But there is little point preaching here, basically everyone agrees the US system is shit. You need to convince the rest of the US that are not as left leaning or have quite so many Europeans in it. The issue with your framing is that it's based on living in a country that is functional. You act as if the US is getting incrementally better from a left vs right standpoint, when it's getting incrementally worse. It's getting better on social issues but it's getting worse for humans in general. You can convince people the system needs to change, and that way they'll put pressure on politicians for things to change! And then the politicians will do nothing about it, like they did when 90+% of Americans wanted more gun control. Because I don't think they actually care all that much.
Shandy Hook showed me that, 20 dead children age 6-7 shot at school. The country cried for a minute, shrugged and went on with their lives. When classrooms full of dead children don't cause a country to rise up and say "this far and no further" then I don't know how to react to that other then "apparently they don't care that much".
|
On October 24 2020 01:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 01:11 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 00:52 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 24 2020 00:42 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 24 2020 00:28 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote: [quote]
This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency.
Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum.
But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Please, enlighten me, when the Republicans have their 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court and Biden refuses to add justices, what has voting accomplished for the women who need access to abortions? To people who rely on the ACA? Fuck all, because your "incremental progress" bullshit obviously is not functioning in America. So yes, keep believing America's problems are solved by the likes of Joe Biden and maybe in 200+ years Americans might be able to get an abortion again after compromising with the Neo-Republican party! The ACA was meaningful incremental progress enacted by a more conservative Democratic bloc than what would be in Congress were the Democrats to win the White House and Senate this year. This is the same kind of historical ignorance that people show towards economic regulations. "When has incremental progress ever helped me?!?!" All the time. Literally all the time. Most legislative gains in terms of rights for women, POC, workers, education, healthcare access, environmental regulations, etc. etc. etc. were compromises from an initially more progressive stance that were enacted within the system. Sure, you can protest outside of the system to create external pressure, you can push to reshape the system so that it is better, but you can't just throw a temper tantrum and refuse to work within the system. People's lives are actually affected every day by that system, regardless of your moral stance on working within it or not. All that time that you sit comfortably in your privilege, refusing to act within the system because you don't like it, results in countless people's lives being deeply affected or ended when working within the system could have helped them. I'll be frank, this is fucking stupid, I vote, I've always voted, and I'll continue to vote on the extremely off chance something might actually happen. My issue is pretending that that lone simple fucking action is going to do anything, its ignorant as hell, rights for POCs is a great example, where would we be if, say Lincoln said, "well, we have to work with the Confederates! We'll slowly fade out slavery over time," or if MLK just didn't happen. War. Riots. REAL action that didn't rely on duplicitous politicians finding it within their hearts to throw the average person a bone. Hell we'd still be living under a god damned MONARCHY if working within the system was the only way to make change happen. No one here has said it is the only way. Literally no one. This is a lazy, half-assed strawman you made to try to shift the goal posts. Does it change my point that even in some of your examples the way change actually happened was through things like riots and the bloodiest war in American history? American history is full of examples where action had to be taken beyond voting, if youre pro-riots, etc. in order to accomplish things like more pro-active climate change, dealing with police brutality properly, making sure people are paid living wages, everyone have proper actual healthcare, etc. then we probably don't disagree on much more than how effective voting is. That being said voting is relying on AMERICAN POLITICIANS to do things for the betterment of the populace, and when we encounter things like Biden's climate plans that extend into 2050 I have to ask how you expect these slow changes to hold up to the swift brutal reprisals they'll experience when the next Republican is in office? 2050 might work out if Biden or a Democrat would be president for 30 years, but let's be honest, that isn't going to happen and Republicans are infinitely more efficient at this back and forth than the Democrats are, so what kind of time scale are we really looking at when we factor in Democrats incremental progress + Republican fuckery? Probably beyond the lifespan of anyone on this forum. Its a plan that extends into 2050 because you can't fix climate change in 5 weeks. Fuck me what is with this burning need for instant gratification these days. Fixing climate change over the course of 30 years? fuck that. Incremental change not working by tomorrow? lets have a civil war instead. You come off like GH in this, "have a riot or civil war and everything will be golden on the other side". Yes the American system is fucked, yes working within the system is unlikely to actually fix the system because those in charge are the ones that benefit, and electing a 3e party is unlikely to work either because once they are big enough to win they are the ones that benefit from it continuing (not to mention it would probably require a constitutional amendment and LOL gl getting that passed by 3/4 of states). If you actually want to do something then convince people the system needs to change so that there is a big enough majority that want it to actually put pressure on politicians to do something. But there is little point preaching here, basically everyone agrees the US system is shit. You need to convince the rest of the US that are not as left leaning or have quite so many Europeans in it. The issue with your framing is that it's based on living in a country that is functional. You act as if the US is getting incrementally better from a left vs right standpoint, when it's getting incrementally worse. It's getting better on social issues but it's getting worse for humans in general. You can convince people the system needs to change, and that way they'll put pressure on politicians for things to change! And then the politicians will do nothing about it, like they did when 90+% of Americans wanted more gun control. Because I don't think they actually care all that much. Shandy Hook showed me that, 20 dead children age 6-7 shot at school. The country cried for a minute, shrugged and went on with their lives. When classrooms full of dead children don't cause a country to rise up and say "this far and no further" then I don't know how to react to that other then "apparently they don't care that much".
But it did cause the country to rise up. It's just that when Americans rise up, the system doesn't care.
|
On October 24 2020 01:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 00:59 Nevuk wrote: It's impossible to eliminate the electoral college, but it's not very hard to decrease its effect to almost zero.
Set the house of representatives size to 50k people, and there are suddenly 50,103 members of the college. The college is simply # of representatives + 2 for each state and 3 for DC.
That can be done by a simple majority with a trifecta. Sure, it's ridiculous and stupid, but it's doable. Setting the size so massively reduces the effect of geography + states. The part where it's ridiculous and stupid makes the "it's not very hard" a lie. It's not harder than passing any other legislation. I'm sure we've passed dumber things.
Regardless, it's totally feasible to dilute the power somewhat, and it probably should be. I gave the most ridiculous example to illustrate how it works at diluting the electoral college's power. There's many proposals out there about how large the house should be. I think the wyoming plan sets it so that no congressional district can be larger than wyomings and would increase it by 200 or so people.
|
On October 24 2020 01:20 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Like, it's not worth choosing between Democrats and Republicans on climate change be because the improvements democrats are aiming for are not enough and so anyway the planet is doomed and it makes no difference. "Significant improvement that might not be enoughwhAtever" or "the worst you can possibly do" are worth the same when you have abandoned all nuances and disregard all constraints. The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Are you sure you're not just hyping up token improvements and ignoring larger negative trends, because doing so preserves a status quo that is comfortable to you personally? This entire line of argument reeks of hypocrisy.
It's not oppressed younger Black folks trying to shame people into supporting Biden. It's almost exclusively the affluent white (/white adjacent) liberals. Speaking on their behalf (and usually over them when they disagree).
|
On October 24 2020 01:25 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +It is the height of ignorant privilege to just say ... This is the same kind of historical ignorance that people show towards ...
Imagine my surprise that the leftist Democrats against far-left "the two party system is corrupt and must be abandoned now" is rancorous. When you stop having Republicans to talk down to, I guess you do that to each other. Show nested quote +For every 8 years Democrats might be in office they accomplish maybe half of what a Republican would accomplish in 4 years.
Can't even get rid of Obamacare almost a decade later, but somehow the Democrats are bad at wielding power. Your side just has too many dreams that can't be sold to the American people. The multitudinous number of your dreams is an incredibly poor basis for pretending Democrats suck at wielding power compared to Republicans. Your ideas just suck and your movement sucks at selling those ideas to the American people. They Republicans could have gotten rid of the ACA at any point but that would mean they needed something to replace it with that was not worse on every front. And they don't want to make a better plan then the ACA because that would be socialism.
Leaving the ACA is not a sign of impotence, its a deliberate choice because now they get to complain about how the ACA is bad, instead of having to defend why their own system is worse.
Other then that I actually agree with your point that the far left gets lost in their own dreams. They focus to much on the unreachable and end up fighting those who for the most part agree with them because they are not willing to be radical enough. GH does it almost all the time.
|
On October 24 2020 00:17 Nebuchad wrote: I don't know how you guys manage to have this discussion over and over again without ever discussing how we escape the neoliberal political framework.
They don't have or want to build a plan to do that. They want to vote for the status quo and hope things get better, but expect they'll be alright even if they don't.
Gor:Other then that I actually agree with your point that the far left gets lost in their own dreams. They focus to much on the unreachable and end up fighting those who for the most part agree with them because they are not willing to be radical enough. GH does it almost all the time.
No. I totally would have accepted a Sanders nomination while still finding it inadequate. Biden is unacceptable for dozens of reasons I've mentioned.
It's not about dreams, it's about not ignoring that the science Democrats allegedly listen to when it rejects their plan (which they literally have no plan to get past Republicans) as inadequate.
|
On October 24 2020 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 01:30 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:11 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 00:52 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 24 2020 00:42 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 24 2020 00:28 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote: [quote] Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931.
For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though.
It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Please, enlighten me, when the Republicans have their 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court and Biden refuses to add justices, what has voting accomplished for the women who need access to abortions? To people who rely on the ACA? Fuck all, because your "incremental progress" bullshit obviously is not functioning in America. So yes, keep believing America's problems are solved by the likes of Joe Biden and maybe in 200+ years Americans might be able to get an abortion again after compromising with the Neo-Republican party! The ACA was meaningful incremental progress enacted by a more conservative Democratic bloc than what would be in Congress were the Democrats to win the White House and Senate this year. This is the same kind of historical ignorance that people show towards economic regulations. "When has incremental progress ever helped me?!?!" All the time. Literally all the time. Most legislative gains in terms of rights for women, POC, workers, education, healthcare access, environmental regulations, etc. etc. etc. were compromises from an initially more progressive stance that were enacted within the system. Sure, you can protest outside of the system to create external pressure, you can push to reshape the system so that it is better, but you can't just throw a temper tantrum and refuse to work within the system. People's lives are actually affected every day by that system, regardless of your moral stance on working within it or not. All that time that you sit comfortably in your privilege, refusing to act within the system because you don't like it, results in countless people's lives being deeply affected or ended when working within the system could have helped them. I'll be frank, this is fucking stupid, I vote, I've always voted, and I'll continue to vote on the extremely off chance something might actually happen. My issue is pretending that that lone simple fucking action is going to do anything, its ignorant as hell, rights for POCs is a great example, where would we be if, say Lincoln said, "well, we have to work with the Confederates! We'll slowly fade out slavery over time," or if MLK just didn't happen. War. Riots. REAL action that didn't rely on duplicitous politicians finding it within their hearts to throw the average person a bone. Hell we'd still be living under a god damned MONARCHY if working within the system was the only way to make change happen. No one here has said it is the only way. Literally no one. This is a lazy, half-assed strawman you made to try to shift the goal posts. Does it change my point that even in some of your examples the way change actually happened was through things like riots and the bloodiest war in American history? American history is full of examples where action had to be taken beyond voting, if youre pro-riots, etc. in order to accomplish things like more pro-active climate change, dealing with police brutality properly, making sure people are paid living wages, everyone have proper actual healthcare, etc. then we probably don't disagree on much more than how effective voting is. That being said voting is relying on AMERICAN POLITICIANS to do things for the betterment of the populace, and when we encounter things like Biden's climate plans that extend into 2050 I have to ask how you expect these slow changes to hold up to the swift brutal reprisals they'll experience when the next Republican is in office? 2050 might work out if Biden or a Democrat would be president for 30 years, but let's be honest, that isn't going to happen and Republicans are infinitely more efficient at this back and forth than the Democrats are, so what kind of time scale are we really looking at when we factor in Democrats incremental progress + Republican fuckery? Probably beyond the lifespan of anyone on this forum. Its a plan that extends into 2050 because you can't fix climate change in 5 weeks. Fuck me what is with this burning need for instant gratification these days. Fixing climate change over the course of 30 years? fuck that. Incremental change not working by tomorrow? lets have a civil war instead. You come off like GH in this, "have a riot or civil war and everything will be golden on the other side". Yes the American system is fucked, yes working within the system is unlikely to actually fix the system because those in charge are the ones that benefit, and electing a 3e party is unlikely to work either because once they are big enough to win they are the ones that benefit from it continuing (not to mention it would probably require a constitutional amendment and LOL gl getting that passed by 3/4 of states). If you actually want to do something then convince people the system needs to change so that there is a big enough majority that want it to actually put pressure on politicians to do something. But there is little point preaching here, basically everyone agrees the US system is shit. You need to convince the rest of the US that are not as left leaning or have quite so many Europeans in it. The issue with your framing is that it's based on living in a country that is functional. You act as if the US is getting incrementally better from a left vs right standpoint, when it's getting incrementally worse. It's getting better on social issues but it's getting worse for humans in general. You can convince people the system needs to change, and that way they'll put pressure on politicians for things to change! And then the politicians will do nothing about it, like they did when 90+% of Americans wanted more gun control. Because I don't think they actually care all that much. Shandy Hook showed me that, 20 dead children age 6-7 shot at school. The country cried for a minute, shrugged and went on with their lives. When classrooms full of dead children don't cause a country to rise up and say "this far and no further" then I don't know how to react to that other then "apparently they don't care that much". But it did cause the country to rise up. It's just that when Americans rise up, the system doesn't care. Did the country get crippled by strikes and protests for weeks until politicians relented or the economy burned to the ground to the point where corporations made the politicians listen, when the gun reform bills died in Congress? I don't think that happened, so no I don't think Americans "rose up".
|
On October 24 2020 01:41 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:30 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:11 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 00:52 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 24 2020 00:42 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 24 2020 00:28 Zambrah wrote: [quote]
Please, enlighten me, when the Republicans have their 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court and Biden refuses to add justices, what has voting accomplished for the women who need access to abortions? To people who rely on the ACA?
Fuck all, because your "incremental progress" bullshit obviously is not functioning in America.
So yes, keep believing America's problems are solved by the likes of Joe Biden and maybe in 200+ years Americans might be able to get an abortion again after compromising with the Neo-Republican party! The ACA was meaningful incremental progress enacted by a more conservative Democratic bloc than what would be in Congress were the Democrats to win the White House and Senate this year. This is the same kind of historical ignorance that people show towards economic regulations. "When has incremental progress ever helped me?!?!" All the time. Literally all the time. Most legislative gains in terms of rights for women, POC, workers, education, healthcare access, environmental regulations, etc. etc. etc. were compromises from an initially more progressive stance that were enacted within the system. Sure, you can protest outside of the system to create external pressure, you can push to reshape the system so that it is better, but you can't just throw a temper tantrum and refuse to work within the system. People's lives are actually affected every day by that system, regardless of your moral stance on working within it or not. All that time that you sit comfortably in your privilege, refusing to act within the system because you don't like it, results in countless people's lives being deeply affected or ended when working within the system could have helped them. I'll be frank, this is fucking stupid, I vote, I've always voted, and I'll continue to vote on the extremely off chance something might actually happen. My issue is pretending that that lone simple fucking action is going to do anything, its ignorant as hell, rights for POCs is a great example, where would we be if, say Lincoln said, "well, we have to work with the Confederates! We'll slowly fade out slavery over time," or if MLK just didn't happen. War. Riots. REAL action that didn't rely on duplicitous politicians finding it within their hearts to throw the average person a bone. Hell we'd still be living under a god damned MONARCHY if working within the system was the only way to make change happen. No one here has said it is the only way. Literally no one. This is a lazy, half-assed strawman you made to try to shift the goal posts. Does it change my point that even in some of your examples the way change actually happened was through things like riots and the bloodiest war in American history? American history is full of examples where action had to be taken beyond voting, if youre pro-riots, etc. in order to accomplish things like more pro-active climate change, dealing with police brutality properly, making sure people are paid living wages, everyone have proper actual healthcare, etc. then we probably don't disagree on much more than how effective voting is. That being said voting is relying on AMERICAN POLITICIANS to do things for the betterment of the populace, and when we encounter things like Biden's climate plans that extend into 2050 I have to ask how you expect these slow changes to hold up to the swift brutal reprisals they'll experience when the next Republican is in office? 2050 might work out if Biden or a Democrat would be president for 30 years, but let's be honest, that isn't going to happen and Republicans are infinitely more efficient at this back and forth than the Democrats are, so what kind of time scale are we really looking at when we factor in Democrats incremental progress + Republican fuckery? Probably beyond the lifespan of anyone on this forum. Its a plan that extends into 2050 because you can't fix climate change in 5 weeks. Fuck me what is with this burning need for instant gratification these days. Fixing climate change over the course of 30 years? fuck that. Incremental change not working by tomorrow? lets have a civil war instead. You come off like GH in this, "have a riot or civil war and everything will be golden on the other side". Yes the American system is fucked, yes working within the system is unlikely to actually fix the system because those in charge are the ones that benefit, and electing a 3e party is unlikely to work either because once they are big enough to win they are the ones that benefit from it continuing (not to mention it would probably require a constitutional amendment and LOL gl getting that passed by 3/4 of states). If you actually want to do something then convince people the system needs to change so that there is a big enough majority that want it to actually put pressure on politicians to do something. But there is little point preaching here, basically everyone agrees the US system is shit. You need to convince the rest of the US that are not as left leaning or have quite so many Europeans in it. The issue with your framing is that it's based on living in a country that is functional. You act as if the US is getting incrementally better from a left vs right standpoint, when it's getting incrementally worse. It's getting better on social issues but it's getting worse for humans in general. You can convince people the system needs to change, and that way they'll put pressure on politicians for things to change! And then the politicians will do nothing about it, like they did when 90+% of Americans wanted more gun control. Because I don't think they actually care all that much. Shandy Hook showed me that, 20 dead children age 6-7 shot at school. The country cried for a minute, shrugged and went on with their lives. When classrooms full of dead children don't cause a country to rise up and say "this far and no further" then I don't know how to react to that other then "apparently they don't care that much". But it did cause the country to rise up. It's just that when Americans rise up, the system doesn't care. Did the country get crippled by strikes and protests for weeks until politicians relented or the economy burned to the ground to the point where corporations made the politicians listen, when the gun reform bills died in Congress? I don't think that happened, so no I don't think Americans "rose up".
You have integrated at the same time that in order to get something that you want in America (a democracy), you need riots, otherwise you aren't even trying, AND that the people who are doing the riots, who are mainly to your (far) left, are crazy people who want unreachable things and are getting in the way of incremental progress. This is legit magical thinking.
|
On October 24 2020 01:45 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 01:41 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:30 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:11 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 00:52 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 24 2020 00:42 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:37 Stratos_speAr wrote: [quote]
The ACA was meaningful incremental progress enacted by a more conservative Democratic bloc than what would be in Congress were the Democrats to win the White House and Senate this year.
This is the same kind of historical ignorance that people show towards economic regulations.
"When has incremental progress ever helped me?!?!"
All the time. Literally all the time. Most legislative gains in terms of rights for women, POC, workers, education, healthcare access, environmental regulations, etc. etc. etc. were compromises from an initially more progressive stance that were enacted within the system.
Sure, you can protest outside of the system to create external pressure, you can push to reshape the system so that it is better, but you can't just throw a temper tantrum and refuse to work within the system. People's lives are actually affected every day by that system, regardless of your moral stance on working within it or not. All that time that you sit comfortably in your privilege, refusing to act within the system because you don't like it, results in countless people's lives being deeply affected or ended when working within the system could have helped them. I'll be frank, this is fucking stupid, I vote, I've always voted, and I'll continue to vote on the extremely off chance something might actually happen. My issue is pretending that that lone simple fucking action is going to do anything, its ignorant as hell, rights for POCs is a great example, where would we be if, say Lincoln said, "well, we have to work with the Confederates! We'll slowly fade out slavery over time," or if MLK just didn't happen. War. Riots. REAL action that didn't rely on duplicitous politicians finding it within their hearts to throw the average person a bone. Hell we'd still be living under a god damned MONARCHY if working within the system was the only way to make change happen. No one here has said it is the only way. Literally no one. This is a lazy, half-assed strawman you made to try to shift the goal posts. Does it change my point that even in some of your examples the way change actually happened was through things like riots and the bloodiest war in American history? American history is full of examples where action had to be taken beyond voting, if youre pro-riots, etc. in order to accomplish things like more pro-active climate change, dealing with police brutality properly, making sure people are paid living wages, everyone have proper actual healthcare, etc. then we probably don't disagree on much more than how effective voting is. That being said voting is relying on AMERICAN POLITICIANS to do things for the betterment of the populace, and when we encounter things like Biden's climate plans that extend into 2050 I have to ask how you expect these slow changes to hold up to the swift brutal reprisals they'll experience when the next Republican is in office? 2050 might work out if Biden or a Democrat would be president for 30 years, but let's be honest, that isn't going to happen and Republicans are infinitely more efficient at this back and forth than the Democrats are, so what kind of time scale are we really looking at when we factor in Democrats incremental progress + Republican fuckery? Probably beyond the lifespan of anyone on this forum. Its a plan that extends into 2050 because you can't fix climate change in 5 weeks. Fuck me what is with this burning need for instant gratification these days. Fixing climate change over the course of 30 years? fuck that. Incremental change not working by tomorrow? lets have a civil war instead. You come off like GH in this, "have a riot or civil war and everything will be golden on the other side". Yes the American system is fucked, yes working within the system is unlikely to actually fix the system because those in charge are the ones that benefit, and electing a 3e party is unlikely to work either because once they are big enough to win they are the ones that benefit from it continuing (not to mention it would probably require a constitutional amendment and LOL gl getting that passed by 3/4 of states). If you actually want to do something then convince people the system needs to change so that there is a big enough majority that want it to actually put pressure on politicians to do something. But there is little point preaching here, basically everyone agrees the US system is shit. You need to convince the rest of the US that are not as left leaning or have quite so many Europeans in it. The issue with your framing is that it's based on living in a country that is functional. You act as if the US is getting incrementally better from a left vs right standpoint, when it's getting incrementally worse. It's getting better on social issues but it's getting worse for humans in general. You can convince people the system needs to change, and that way they'll put pressure on politicians for things to change! And then the politicians will do nothing about it, like they did when 90+% of Americans wanted more gun control. Because I don't think they actually care all that much. Shandy Hook showed me that, 20 dead children age 6-7 shot at school. The country cried for a minute, shrugged and went on with their lives. When classrooms full of dead children don't cause a country to rise up and say "this far and no further" then I don't know how to react to that other then "apparently they don't care that much". But it did cause the country to rise up. It's just that when Americans rise up, the system doesn't care. Did the country get crippled by strikes and protests for weeks until politicians relented or the economy burned to the ground to the point where corporations made the politicians listen, when the gun reform bills died in Congress? I don't think that happened, so no I don't think Americans "rose up". You have integrated at the same time that in order to get something that you want in America (a democracy), you need riots, otherwise you aren't even trying, AND that the people who are doing the riots, who are mainly to your (far) left, are crazy people who want unreachable things and are getting in the way of incremental progress. This is legit magical thinking. I would not equate decent gun control or police not murder blacks when they feel like it to wanting, to abolish the Electoral collage or changing Capitalism for a Communist utopia.
And if the majority of the country would support the latter in the way they seemingly support the former, it wouldn't be an unreachable goal. But last I checked GH's Communist utopia is a little less popular then he might hope.
|
On October 24 2020 01:45 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 01:41 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:30 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:11 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 00:52 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 24 2020 00:42 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:37 Stratos_speAr wrote: [quote]
The ACA was meaningful incremental progress enacted by a more conservative Democratic bloc than what would be in Congress were the Democrats to win the White House and Senate this year.
This is the same kind of historical ignorance that people show towards economic regulations.
"When has incremental progress ever helped me?!?!"
All the time. Literally all the time. Most legislative gains in terms of rights for women, POC, workers, education, healthcare access, environmental regulations, etc. etc. etc. were compromises from an initially more progressive stance that were enacted within the system.
Sure, you can protest outside of the system to create external pressure, you can push to reshape the system so that it is better, but you can't just throw a temper tantrum and refuse to work within the system. People's lives are actually affected every day by that system, regardless of your moral stance on working within it or not. All that time that you sit comfortably in your privilege, refusing to act within the system because you don't like it, results in countless people's lives being deeply affected or ended when working within the system could have helped them. I'll be frank, this is fucking stupid, I vote, I've always voted, and I'll continue to vote on the extremely off chance something might actually happen. My issue is pretending that that lone simple fucking action is going to do anything, its ignorant as hell, rights for POCs is a great example, where would we be if, say Lincoln said, "well, we have to work with the Confederates! We'll slowly fade out slavery over time," or if MLK just didn't happen. War. Riots. REAL action that didn't rely on duplicitous politicians finding it within their hearts to throw the average person a bone. Hell we'd still be living under a god damned MONARCHY if working within the system was the only way to make change happen. No one here has said it is the only way. Literally no one. This is a lazy, half-assed strawman you made to try to shift the goal posts. Does it change my point that even in some of your examples the way change actually happened was through things like riots and the bloodiest war in American history? American history is full of examples where action had to be taken beyond voting, if youre pro-riots, etc. in order to accomplish things like more pro-active climate change, dealing with police brutality properly, making sure people are paid living wages, everyone have proper actual healthcare, etc. then we probably don't disagree on much more than how effective voting is. That being said voting is relying on AMERICAN POLITICIANS to do things for the betterment of the populace, and when we encounter things like Biden's climate plans that extend into 2050 I have to ask how you expect these slow changes to hold up to the swift brutal reprisals they'll experience when the next Republican is in office? 2050 might work out if Biden or a Democrat would be president for 30 years, but let's be honest, that isn't going to happen and Republicans are infinitely more efficient at this back and forth than the Democrats are, so what kind of time scale are we really looking at when we factor in Democrats incremental progress + Republican fuckery? Probably beyond the lifespan of anyone on this forum. Its a plan that extends into 2050 because you can't fix climate change in 5 weeks. Fuck me what is with this burning need for instant gratification these days. Fixing climate change over the course of 30 years? fuck that. Incremental change not working by tomorrow? lets have a civil war instead. You come off like GH in this, "have a riot or civil war and everything will be golden on the other side". Yes the American system is fucked, yes working within the system is unlikely to actually fix the system because those in charge are the ones that benefit, and electing a 3e party is unlikely to work either because once they are big enough to win they are the ones that benefit from it continuing (not to mention it would probably require a constitutional amendment and LOL gl getting that passed by 3/4 of states). If you actually want to do something then convince people the system needs to change so that there is a big enough majority that want it to actually put pressure on politicians to do something. But there is little point preaching here, basically everyone agrees the US system is shit. You need to convince the rest of the US that are not as left leaning or have quite so many Europeans in it. The issue with your framing is that it's based on living in a country that is functional. You act as if the US is getting incrementally better from a left vs right standpoint, when it's getting incrementally worse. It's getting better on social issues but it's getting worse for humans in general. You can convince people the system needs to change, and that way they'll put pressure on politicians for things to change! And then the politicians will do nothing about it, like they did when 90+% of Americans wanted more gun control. Because I don't think they actually care all that much. Shandy Hook showed me that, 20 dead children age 6-7 shot at school. The country cried for a minute, shrugged and went on with their lives. When classrooms full of dead children don't cause a country to rise up and say "this far and no further" then I don't know how to react to that other then "apparently they don't care that much". But it did cause the country to rise up. It's just that when Americans rise up, the system doesn't care. Did the country get crippled by strikes and protests for weeks until politicians relented or the economy burned to the ground to the point where corporations made the politicians listen, when the gun reform bills died in Congress? I don't think that happened, so no I don't think Americans "rose up". You have integrated at the same time that in order to get something that you want in America (a democracy), you need riots, otherwise you aren't even trying, AND that the people who are doing the riots, who are mainly to your (far) left, are crazy people who want unreachable things and are getting in the way of incremental progress. This is legit magical thinking. Black people in the US have been listening to this from liberals since always. Then we tell them to stfu, riot, and they coincidentally get their shit together enough to at least stop the riots for a bit. Then they write some swiss cheese legislation, claim credit for any progress won by those on the streets, and white wash history.
|
On October 24 2020 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Like, it's not worth choosing between Democrats and Republicans on climate change be because the improvements democrats are aiming for are not enough and so anyway the planet is doomed and it makes no difference. "Significant improvement that might not be enoughwhAtever" or "the worst you can possibly do" are worth the same when you have abandoned all nuances and disregard all constraints. The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Are you sure you're not just hyping up token improvements and ignoring larger negative trends, because doing so preserves a status quo that is comfortable to you personally? This entire line of argument reeks of hypocrisy. It's not oppressed younger Black folks trying to shame people into supporting Biden. It's almost exclusively the affluent white (/white adjacent) liberals. Speaking on their behalf (and usually over them when they disagree). Don't the numbers show the opposite. That Biden has much better support than Bernie with Black people? And that Bernie's support is mostly made of educated white people?
|
On October 24 2020 01:50 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 01:45 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:41 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:30 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:11 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 00:52 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 24 2020 00:42 Zambrah wrote: [quote]
I'll be frank, this is fucking stupid, I vote, I've always voted, and I'll continue to vote on the extremely off chance something might actually happen.
My issue is pretending that that lone simple fucking action is going to do anything, its ignorant as hell, rights for POCs is a great example, where would we be if, say Lincoln said, "well, we have to work with the Confederates! We'll slowly fade out slavery over time," or if MLK just didn't happen. War. Riots. REAL action that didn't rely on duplicitous politicians finding it within their hearts to throw the average person a bone.
Hell we'd still be living under a god damned MONARCHY if working within the system was the only way to make change happen.
No one here has said it is the only way. Literally no one. This is a lazy, half-assed strawman you made to try to shift the goal posts. Does it change my point that even in some of your examples the way change actually happened was through things like riots and the bloodiest war in American history? American history is full of examples where action had to be taken beyond voting, if youre pro-riots, etc. in order to accomplish things like more pro-active climate change, dealing with police brutality properly, making sure people are paid living wages, everyone have proper actual healthcare, etc. then we probably don't disagree on much more than how effective voting is. That being said voting is relying on AMERICAN POLITICIANS to do things for the betterment of the populace, and when we encounter things like Biden's climate plans that extend into 2050 I have to ask how you expect these slow changes to hold up to the swift brutal reprisals they'll experience when the next Republican is in office? 2050 might work out if Biden or a Democrat would be president for 30 years, but let's be honest, that isn't going to happen and Republicans are infinitely more efficient at this back and forth than the Democrats are, so what kind of time scale are we really looking at when we factor in Democrats incremental progress + Republican fuckery? Probably beyond the lifespan of anyone on this forum. Its a plan that extends into 2050 because you can't fix climate change in 5 weeks. Fuck me what is with this burning need for instant gratification these days. Fixing climate change over the course of 30 years? fuck that. Incremental change not working by tomorrow? lets have a civil war instead. You come off like GH in this, "have a riot or civil war and everything will be golden on the other side". Yes the American system is fucked, yes working within the system is unlikely to actually fix the system because those in charge are the ones that benefit, and electing a 3e party is unlikely to work either because once they are big enough to win they are the ones that benefit from it continuing (not to mention it would probably require a constitutional amendment and LOL gl getting that passed by 3/4 of states). If you actually want to do something then convince people the system needs to change so that there is a big enough majority that want it to actually put pressure on politicians to do something. But there is little point preaching here, basically everyone agrees the US system is shit. You need to convince the rest of the US that are not as left leaning or have quite so many Europeans in it. The issue with your framing is that it's based on living in a country that is functional. You act as if the US is getting incrementally better from a left vs right standpoint, when it's getting incrementally worse. It's getting better on social issues but it's getting worse for humans in general. You can convince people the system needs to change, and that way they'll put pressure on politicians for things to change! And then the politicians will do nothing about it, like they did when 90+% of Americans wanted more gun control. Because I don't think they actually care all that much. Shandy Hook showed me that, 20 dead children age 6-7 shot at school. The country cried for a minute, shrugged and went on with their lives. When classrooms full of dead children don't cause a country to rise up and say "this far and no further" then I don't know how to react to that other then "apparently they don't care that much". But it did cause the country to rise up. It's just that when Americans rise up, the system doesn't care. Did the country get crippled by strikes and protests for weeks until politicians relented or the economy burned to the ground to the point where corporations made the politicians listen, when the gun reform bills died in Congress? I don't think that happened, so no I don't think Americans "rose up". You have integrated at the same time that in order to get something that you want in America (a democracy), you need riots, otherwise you aren't even trying, AND that the people who are doing the riots, who are mainly to your (far) left, are crazy people who want unreachable things and are getting in the way of incremental progress. This is legit magical thinking. I would not equate decent gun control or police not murder blacks when they feel like it to wanting, to abolish the Electoral collage or changing Capitalism for a Communist utopia. And if the majority of the country would support the latter in the way they seemingly support the former, it wouldn't be an unreachable goal. But last I checked GH's Communist utopia is a little less popular then he might hope.
You think abolishing the electoral college is an unpopular idea?
|
On October 24 2020 01:20 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Like, it's not worth choosing between Democrats and Republicans on climate change be because the improvements democrats are aiming for are not enough and so anyway the planet is doomed and it makes no difference. "Significant improvement that might not be enoughwhAtever" or "the worst you can possibly do" are worth the same when you have abandoned all nuances and disregard all constraints. The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Are you sure you're not just hyping up token improvements and ignoring larger negative trends, because doing so preserves a status quo that is comfortable to you personally? This entire line of argument reeks of hypocrisy. I live in Norway and have zero stake in anything happening in the US. What the hell are you talking about. I mean take 15 seconds to think before insulting people ffs.
|
On October 24 2020 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Like, it's not worth choosing between Democrats and Republicans on climate change be because the improvements democrats are aiming for are not enough and so anyway the planet is doomed and it makes no difference. "Significant improvement that might not be enoughwhAtever" or "the worst you can possibly do" are worth the same when you have abandoned all nuances and disregard all constraints. The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Are you sure you're not just hyping up token improvements and ignoring larger negative trends, because doing so preserves a status quo that is comfortable to you personally? This entire line of argument reeks of hypocrisy. I live in Norway and have zero stake in anything happening in the US. What the hell are you talking about. I mean take 15 seconds to think before insulting people ffs.
Are you under the impression that refutes rather than supports his point?
|
On October 24 2020 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 01:50 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:45 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:41 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:30 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:11 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 00:52 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:46 Stratos_speAr wrote: [quote]
No one here has said it is the only way.
Literally no one.
This is a lazy, half-assed strawman you made to try to shift the goal posts. Does it change my point that even in some of your examples the way change actually happened was through things like riots and the bloodiest war in American history? American history is full of examples where action had to be taken beyond voting, if youre pro-riots, etc. in order to accomplish things like more pro-active climate change, dealing with police brutality properly, making sure people are paid living wages, everyone have proper actual healthcare, etc. then we probably don't disagree on much more than how effective voting is. That being said voting is relying on AMERICAN POLITICIANS to do things for the betterment of the populace, and when we encounter things like Biden's climate plans that extend into 2050 I have to ask how you expect these slow changes to hold up to the swift brutal reprisals they'll experience when the next Republican is in office? 2050 might work out if Biden or a Democrat would be president for 30 years, but let's be honest, that isn't going to happen and Republicans are infinitely more efficient at this back and forth than the Democrats are, so what kind of time scale are we really looking at when we factor in Democrats incremental progress + Republican fuckery? Probably beyond the lifespan of anyone on this forum. Its a plan that extends into 2050 because you can't fix climate change in 5 weeks. Fuck me what is with this burning need for instant gratification these days. Fixing climate change over the course of 30 years? fuck that. Incremental change not working by tomorrow? lets have a civil war instead. You come off like GH in this, "have a riot or civil war and everything will be golden on the other side". Yes the American system is fucked, yes working within the system is unlikely to actually fix the system because those in charge are the ones that benefit, and electing a 3e party is unlikely to work either because once they are big enough to win they are the ones that benefit from it continuing (not to mention it would probably require a constitutional amendment and LOL gl getting that passed by 3/4 of states). If you actually want to do something then convince people the system needs to change so that there is a big enough majority that want it to actually put pressure on politicians to do something. But there is little point preaching here, basically everyone agrees the US system is shit. You need to convince the rest of the US that are not as left leaning or have quite so many Europeans in it. The issue with your framing is that it's based on living in a country that is functional. You act as if the US is getting incrementally better from a left vs right standpoint, when it's getting incrementally worse. It's getting better on social issues but it's getting worse for humans in general. You can convince people the system needs to change, and that way they'll put pressure on politicians for things to change! And then the politicians will do nothing about it, like they did when 90+% of Americans wanted more gun control. Because I don't think they actually care all that much. Shandy Hook showed me that, 20 dead children age 6-7 shot at school. The country cried for a minute, shrugged and went on with their lives. When classrooms full of dead children don't cause a country to rise up and say "this far and no further" then I don't know how to react to that other then "apparently they don't care that much". But it did cause the country to rise up. It's just that when Americans rise up, the system doesn't care. Did the country get crippled by strikes and protests for weeks until politicians relented or the economy burned to the ground to the point where corporations made the politicians listen, when the gun reform bills died in Congress? I don't think that happened, so no I don't think Americans "rose up". You have integrated at the same time that in order to get something that you want in America (a democracy), you need riots, otherwise you aren't even trying, AND that the people who are doing the riots, who are mainly to your (far) left, are crazy people who want unreachable things and are getting in the way of incremental progress. This is legit magical thinking. I would not equate decent gun control or police not murder blacks when they feel like it to wanting, to abolish the Electoral collage or changing Capitalism for a Communist utopia. And if the majority of the country would support the latter in the way they seemingly support the former, it wouldn't be an unreachable goal. But last I checked GH's Communist utopia is a little less popular then he might hope. You think abolishing the electoral college is an unpopular idea? I thought it was lower then it apparently is (61%) but its still a very partisan issue 89% of Democrats, 68% of Independents and 23% of Republicans support amending the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College and base the presidential election on the popular vote, according to the poll, which was conducted between August 31 and September 13. and if it takes an amendment and therefor 3/4 state approval you need a 'bit' more then 23% of Republicans to be something that is viable.
And 61% is a far cry from the 90+% who are in favour of something like background checks for all gun sales.
|
On October 24 2020 02:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:50 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:45 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:41 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:30 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:11 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 00:52 Zambrah wrote: [quote]
Does it change my point that even in some of your examples the way change actually happened was through things like riots and the bloodiest war in American history?
American history is full of examples where action had to be taken beyond voting, if youre pro-riots, etc. in order to accomplish things like more pro-active climate change, dealing with police brutality properly, making sure people are paid living wages, everyone have proper actual healthcare, etc. then we probably don't disagree on much more than how effective voting is.
That being said voting is relying on AMERICAN POLITICIANS to do things for the betterment of the populace, and when we encounter things like Biden's climate plans that extend into 2050 I have to ask how you expect these slow changes to hold up to the swift brutal reprisals they'll experience when the next Republican is in office? 2050 might work out if Biden or a Democrat would be president for 30 years, but let's be honest, that isn't going to happen and Republicans are infinitely more efficient at this back and forth than the Democrats are, so what kind of time scale are we really looking at when we factor in Democrats incremental progress + Republican fuckery? Probably beyond the lifespan of anyone on this forum. Its a plan that extends into 2050 because you can't fix climate change in 5 weeks. Fuck me what is with this burning need for instant gratification these days. Fixing climate change over the course of 30 years? fuck that. Incremental change not working by tomorrow? lets have a civil war instead. You come off like GH in this, "have a riot or civil war and everything will be golden on the other side". Yes the American system is fucked, yes working within the system is unlikely to actually fix the system because those in charge are the ones that benefit, and electing a 3e party is unlikely to work either because once they are big enough to win they are the ones that benefit from it continuing (not to mention it would probably require a constitutional amendment and LOL gl getting that passed by 3/4 of states). If you actually want to do something then convince people the system needs to change so that there is a big enough majority that want it to actually put pressure on politicians to do something. But there is little point preaching here, basically everyone agrees the US system is shit. You need to convince the rest of the US that are not as left leaning or have quite so many Europeans in it. The issue with your framing is that it's based on living in a country that is functional. You act as if the US is getting incrementally better from a left vs right standpoint, when it's getting incrementally worse. It's getting better on social issues but it's getting worse for humans in general. You can convince people the system needs to change, and that way they'll put pressure on politicians for things to change! And then the politicians will do nothing about it, like they did when 90+% of Americans wanted more gun control. Because I don't think they actually care all that much. Shandy Hook showed me that, 20 dead children age 6-7 shot at school. The country cried for a minute, shrugged and went on with their lives. When classrooms full of dead children don't cause a country to rise up and say "this far and no further" then I don't know how to react to that other then "apparently they don't care that much". But it did cause the country to rise up. It's just that when Americans rise up, the system doesn't care. Did the country get crippled by strikes and protests for weeks until politicians relented or the economy burned to the ground to the point where corporations made the politicians listen, when the gun reform bills died in Congress? I don't think that happened, so no I don't think Americans "rose up". You have integrated at the same time that in order to get something that you want in America (a democracy), you need riots, otherwise you aren't even trying, AND that the people who are doing the riots, who are mainly to your (far) left, are crazy people who want unreachable things and are getting in the way of incremental progress. This is legit magical thinking. I would not equate decent gun control or police not murder blacks when they feel like it to wanting, to abolish the Electoral collage or changing Capitalism for a Communist utopia. And if the majority of the country would support the latter in the way they seemingly support the former, it wouldn't be an unreachable goal. But last I checked GH's Communist utopia is a little less popular then he might hope. You think abolishing the electoral college is an unpopular idea? I thought it was lower then it apparently is (61%) but its still a very partisan issue Show nested quote +89% of Democrats, 68% of Independents and 23% of Republicans support amending the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College and base the presidential election on the popular vote, according to the poll, which was conducted between August 31 and September 13. and if it takes an amendment and therefor 3/4 state approval you need a 'bit' more then 23% of Republicans to be something that is viable. And 61% is a far cry from the 90+% who are in favour of something like background checks for all gun sales.
Looks like women will have to chalk up abortion rights as too pie in the sky since it's only got 61% support and is very partisan.
www.pewforum.org
|
On October 24 2020 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 02:09 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:50 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:45 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:41 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:30 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:11 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:06 Gorsameth wrote: [quote]Its a plan that extends into 2050 because you can't fix climate change in 5 weeks.
Fuck me what is with this burning need for instant gratification these days. Fixing climate change over the course of 30 years? fuck that. Incremental change not working by tomorrow? lets have a civil war instead.
You come off like GH in this, "have a riot or civil war and everything will be golden on the other side".
Yes the American system is fucked, yes working within the system is unlikely to actually fix the system because those in charge are the ones that benefit, and electing a 3e party is unlikely to work either because once they are big enough to win they are the ones that benefit from it continuing (not to mention it would probably require a constitutional amendment and LOL gl getting that passed by 3/4 of states).
If you actually want to do something then convince people the system needs to change so that there is a big enough majority that want it to actually put pressure on politicians to do something. But there is little point preaching here, basically everyone agrees the US system is shit. You need to convince the rest of the US that are not as left leaning or have quite so many Europeans in it. The issue with your framing is that it's based on living in a country that is functional. You act as if the US is getting incrementally better from a left vs right standpoint, when it's getting incrementally worse. It's getting better on social issues but it's getting worse for humans in general. You can convince people the system needs to change, and that way they'll put pressure on politicians for things to change! And then the politicians will do nothing about it, like they did when 90+% of Americans wanted more gun control. Because I don't think they actually care all that much. Shandy Hook showed me that, 20 dead children age 6-7 shot at school. The country cried for a minute, shrugged and went on with their lives. When classrooms full of dead children don't cause a country to rise up and say "this far and no further" then I don't know how to react to that other then "apparently they don't care that much". But it did cause the country to rise up. It's just that when Americans rise up, the system doesn't care. Did the country get crippled by strikes and protests for weeks until politicians relented or the economy burned to the ground to the point where corporations made the politicians listen, when the gun reform bills died in Congress? I don't think that happened, so no I don't think Americans "rose up". You have integrated at the same time that in order to get something that you want in America (a democracy), you need riots, otherwise you aren't even trying, AND that the people who are doing the riots, who are mainly to your (far) left, are crazy people who want unreachable things and are getting in the way of incremental progress. This is legit magical thinking. I would not equate decent gun control or police not murder blacks when they feel like it to wanting, to abolish the Electoral collage or changing Capitalism for a Communist utopia. And if the majority of the country would support the latter in the way they seemingly support the former, it wouldn't be an unreachable goal. But last I checked GH's Communist utopia is a little less popular then he might hope. You think abolishing the electoral college is an unpopular idea? I thought it was lower then it apparently is (61%) but its still a very partisan issue 89% of Democrats, 68% of Independents and 23% of Republicans support amending the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College and base the presidential election on the popular vote, according to the poll, which was conducted between August 31 and September 13. and if it takes an amendment and therefor 3/4 state approval you need a 'bit' more then 23% of Republicans to be something that is viable. And 61% is a far cry from the 90+% who are in favour of something like background checks for all gun sales. Looks like women will have to chalk up abortion rights as too pie in the sky since it's only got 61% support and is very partisan. www.pewforum.org It is magnitudes easier to keep something than to change things.
|
On October 24 2020 02:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 24 2020 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Are you sure you're not just hyping up token improvements and ignoring larger negative trends, because doing so preserves a status quo that is comfortable to you personally? This entire line of argument reeks of hypocrisy. I live in Norway and have zero stake in anything happening in the US. What the hell are you talking about. I mean take 15 seconds to think before insulting people ffs. Are you under the impression that refutes rather than supports his point? I am hypocritical because the status quo is personally comfortable to me because I have personally no stakes in US politics. That makes perfect sense.
You guys need to get your ad hominem together. You forgot to call me racist by the way, I'm disappointed.
|
On October 24 2020 02:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:50 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:45 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:41 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:30 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:11 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 00:52 Zambrah wrote: [quote]
Does it change my point that even in some of your examples the way change actually happened was through things like riots and the bloodiest war in American history?
American history is full of examples where action had to be taken beyond voting, if youre pro-riots, etc. in order to accomplish things like more pro-active climate change, dealing with police brutality properly, making sure people are paid living wages, everyone have proper actual healthcare, etc. then we probably don't disagree on much more than how effective voting is.
That being said voting is relying on AMERICAN POLITICIANS to do things for the betterment of the populace, and when we encounter things like Biden's climate plans that extend into 2050 I have to ask how you expect these slow changes to hold up to the swift brutal reprisals they'll experience when the next Republican is in office? 2050 might work out if Biden or a Democrat would be president for 30 years, but let's be honest, that isn't going to happen and Republicans are infinitely more efficient at this back and forth than the Democrats are, so what kind of time scale are we really looking at when we factor in Democrats incremental progress + Republican fuckery? Probably beyond the lifespan of anyone on this forum. Its a plan that extends into 2050 because you can't fix climate change in 5 weeks. Fuck me what is with this burning need for instant gratification these days. Fixing climate change over the course of 30 years? fuck that. Incremental change not working by tomorrow? lets have a civil war instead. You come off like GH in this, "have a riot or civil war and everything will be golden on the other side". Yes the American system is fucked, yes working within the system is unlikely to actually fix the system because those in charge are the ones that benefit, and electing a 3e party is unlikely to work either because once they are big enough to win they are the ones that benefit from it continuing (not to mention it would probably require a constitutional amendment and LOL gl getting that passed by 3/4 of states). If you actually want to do something then convince people the system needs to change so that there is a big enough majority that want it to actually put pressure on politicians to do something. But there is little point preaching here, basically everyone agrees the US system is shit. You need to convince the rest of the US that are not as left leaning or have quite so many Europeans in it. The issue with your framing is that it's based on living in a country that is functional. You act as if the US is getting incrementally better from a left vs right standpoint, when it's getting incrementally worse. It's getting better on social issues but it's getting worse for humans in general. You can convince people the system needs to change, and that way they'll put pressure on politicians for things to change! And then the politicians will do nothing about it, like they did when 90+% of Americans wanted more gun control. Because I don't think they actually care all that much. Shandy Hook showed me that, 20 dead children age 6-7 shot at school. The country cried for a minute, shrugged and went on with their lives. When classrooms full of dead children don't cause a country to rise up and say "this far and no further" then I don't know how to react to that other then "apparently they don't care that much". But it did cause the country to rise up. It's just that when Americans rise up, the system doesn't care. Did the country get crippled by strikes and protests for weeks until politicians relented or the economy burned to the ground to the point where corporations made the politicians listen, when the gun reform bills died in Congress? I don't think that happened, so no I don't think Americans "rose up". You have integrated at the same time that in order to get something that you want in America (a democracy), you need riots, otherwise you aren't even trying, AND that the people who are doing the riots, who are mainly to your (far) left, are crazy people who want unreachable things and are getting in the way of incremental progress. This is legit magical thinking. I would not equate decent gun control or police not murder blacks when they feel like it to wanting, to abolish the Electoral collage or changing Capitalism for a Communist utopia. And if the majority of the country would support the latter in the way they seemingly support the former, it wouldn't be an unreachable goal. But last I checked GH's Communist utopia is a little less popular then he might hope. You think abolishing the electoral college is an unpopular idea? And 61% is a far cry from the 90+% who are in favour of something like background checks for all gun sales.
Fair, but if you need a riot to get something that has 90+% passed anyway, does the difference really matter?
|
On October 24 2020 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 02:09 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:50 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:45 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:41 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:30 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:11 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:06 Gorsameth wrote: [quote]Its a plan that extends into 2050 because you can't fix climate change in 5 weeks.
Fuck me what is with this burning need for instant gratification these days. Fixing climate change over the course of 30 years? fuck that. Incremental change not working by tomorrow? lets have a civil war instead.
You come off like GH in this, "have a riot or civil war and everything will be golden on the other side".
Yes the American system is fucked, yes working within the system is unlikely to actually fix the system because those in charge are the ones that benefit, and electing a 3e party is unlikely to work either because once they are big enough to win they are the ones that benefit from it continuing (not to mention it would probably require a constitutional amendment and LOL gl getting that passed by 3/4 of states).
If you actually want to do something then convince people the system needs to change so that there is a big enough majority that want it to actually put pressure on politicians to do something. But there is little point preaching here, basically everyone agrees the US system is shit. You need to convince the rest of the US that are not as left leaning or have quite so many Europeans in it. The issue with your framing is that it's based on living in a country that is functional. You act as if the US is getting incrementally better from a left vs right standpoint, when it's getting incrementally worse. It's getting better on social issues but it's getting worse for humans in general. You can convince people the system needs to change, and that way they'll put pressure on politicians for things to change! And then the politicians will do nothing about it, like they did when 90+% of Americans wanted more gun control. Because I don't think they actually care all that much. Shandy Hook showed me that, 20 dead children age 6-7 shot at school. The country cried for a minute, shrugged and went on with their lives. When classrooms full of dead children don't cause a country to rise up and say "this far and no further" then I don't know how to react to that other then "apparently they don't care that much". But it did cause the country to rise up. It's just that when Americans rise up, the system doesn't care. Did the country get crippled by strikes and protests for weeks until politicians relented or the economy burned to the ground to the point where corporations made the politicians listen, when the gun reform bills died in Congress? I don't think that happened, so no I don't think Americans "rose up". You have integrated at the same time that in order to get something that you want in America (a democracy), you need riots, otherwise you aren't even trying, AND that the people who are doing the riots, who are mainly to your (far) left, are crazy people who want unreachable things and are getting in the way of incremental progress. This is legit magical thinking. I would not equate decent gun control or police not murder blacks when they feel like it to wanting, to abolish the Electoral collage or changing Capitalism for a Communist utopia. And if the majority of the country would support the latter in the way they seemingly support the former, it wouldn't be an unreachable goal. But last I checked GH's Communist utopia is a little less popular then he might hope. You think abolishing the electoral college is an unpopular idea? And 61% is a far cry from the 90+% who are in favour of something like background checks for all gun sales. Fair, but if you need a riot to get something that has 90+% passed anyway, does the difference really matter? This question doesn't make any sense.
|
I know, I know, it's more Texas, but I think that it's interesting to see that our under-30 voting population so far is 500k and Biden's comments might be able to get more of them to come out since most of my pretty far-left friends are desperate to have climate change stopped and are (begrudgingly, admittedly) going to vote for Biden. I still think the amount of people that will be swayed by the oil comments is high here, but should hopefully be enough to tip the scales in other swing states.
https://www.kut.org/post/texas-currently-leading-nation-youth-voter-turnout
|
On October 24 2020 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 02:09 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:50 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:45 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:41 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:30 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:11 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:06 Gorsameth wrote: [quote]Its a plan that extends into 2050 because you can't fix climate change in 5 weeks.
Fuck me what is with this burning need for instant gratification these days. Fixing climate change over the course of 30 years? fuck that. Incremental change not working by tomorrow? lets have a civil war instead.
You come off like GH in this, "have a riot or civil war and everything will be golden on the other side".
Yes the American system is fucked, yes working within the system is unlikely to actually fix the system because those in charge are the ones that benefit, and electing a 3e party is unlikely to work either because once they are big enough to win they are the ones that benefit from it continuing (not to mention it would probably require a constitutional amendment and LOL gl getting that passed by 3/4 of states).
If you actually want to do something then convince people the system needs to change so that there is a big enough majority that want it to actually put pressure on politicians to do something. But there is little point preaching here, basically everyone agrees the US system is shit. You need to convince the rest of the US that are not as left leaning or have quite so many Europeans in it. The issue with your framing is that it's based on living in a country that is functional. You act as if the US is getting incrementally better from a left vs right standpoint, when it's getting incrementally worse. It's getting better on social issues but it's getting worse for humans in general. You can convince people the system needs to change, and that way they'll put pressure on politicians for things to change! And then the politicians will do nothing about it, like they did when 90+% of Americans wanted more gun control. Because I don't think they actually care all that much. Shandy Hook showed me that, 20 dead children age 6-7 shot at school. The country cried for a minute, shrugged and went on with their lives. When classrooms full of dead children don't cause a country to rise up and say "this far and no further" then I don't know how to react to that other then "apparently they don't care that much". But it did cause the country to rise up. It's just that when Americans rise up, the system doesn't care. Did the country get crippled by strikes and protests for weeks until politicians relented or the economy burned to the ground to the point where corporations made the politicians listen, when the gun reform bills died in Congress? I don't think that happened, so no I don't think Americans "rose up". You have integrated at the same time that in order to get something that you want in America (a democracy), you need riots, otherwise you aren't even trying, AND that the people who are doing the riots, who are mainly to your (far) left, are crazy people who want unreachable things and are getting in the way of incremental progress. This is legit magical thinking. I would not equate decent gun control or police not murder blacks when they feel like it to wanting, to abolish the Electoral collage or changing Capitalism for a Communist utopia. And if the majority of the country would support the latter in the way they seemingly support the former, it wouldn't be an unreachable goal. But last I checked GH's Communist utopia is a little less popular then he might hope. You think abolishing the electoral college is an unpopular idea? And 61% is a far cry from the 90+% who are in favour of something like background checks for all gun sales. Fair, but if you need a riot to get something that has 90+% passed anyway, does the difference really matter? Riots need broad public support to work, so yes?? Not quite sure what you mean with this question.
On October 24 2020 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 02:09 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:50 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:45 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:41 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:30 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:11 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:06 Gorsameth wrote: [quote]Its a plan that extends into 2050 because you can't fix climate change in 5 weeks.
Fuck me what is with this burning need for instant gratification these days. Fixing climate change over the course of 30 years? fuck that. Incremental change not working by tomorrow? lets have a civil war instead.
You come off like GH in this, "have a riot or civil war and everything will be golden on the other side".
Yes the American system is fucked, yes working within the system is unlikely to actually fix the system because those in charge are the ones that benefit, and electing a 3e party is unlikely to work either because once they are big enough to win they are the ones that benefit from it continuing (not to mention it would probably require a constitutional amendment and LOL gl getting that passed by 3/4 of states).
If you actually want to do something then convince people the system needs to change so that there is a big enough majority that want it to actually put pressure on politicians to do something. But there is little point preaching here, basically everyone agrees the US system is shit. You need to convince the rest of the US that are not as left leaning or have quite so many Europeans in it. The issue with your framing is that it's based on living in a country that is functional. You act as if the US is getting incrementally better from a left vs right standpoint, when it's getting incrementally worse. It's getting better on social issues but it's getting worse for humans in general. You can convince people the system needs to change, and that way they'll put pressure on politicians for things to change! And then the politicians will do nothing about it, like they did when 90+% of Americans wanted more gun control. Because I don't think they actually care all that much. Shandy Hook showed me that, 20 dead children age 6-7 shot at school. The country cried for a minute, shrugged and went on with their lives. When classrooms full of dead children don't cause a country to rise up and say "this far and no further" then I don't know how to react to that other then "apparently they don't care that much". But it did cause the country to rise up. It's just that when Americans rise up, the system doesn't care. Did the country get crippled by strikes and protests for weeks until politicians relented or the economy burned to the ground to the point where corporations made the politicians listen, when the gun reform bills died in Congress? I don't think that happened, so no I don't think Americans "rose up". You have integrated at the same time that in order to get something that you want in America (a democracy), you need riots, otherwise you aren't even trying, AND that the people who are doing the riots, who are mainly to your (far) left, are crazy people who want unreachable things and are getting in the way of incremental progress. This is legit magical thinking. I would not equate decent gun control or police not murder blacks when they feel like it to wanting, to abolish the Electoral collage or changing Capitalism for a Communist utopia. And if the majority of the country would support the latter in the way they seemingly support the former, it wouldn't be an unreachable goal. But last I checked GH's Communist utopia is a little less popular then he might hope. You think abolishing the electoral college is an unpopular idea? I thought it was lower then it apparently is (61%) but its still a very partisan issue 89% of Democrats, 68% of Independents and 23% of Republicans support amending the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College and base the presidential election on the popular vote, according to the poll, which was conducted between August 31 and September 13. and if it takes an amendment and therefor 3/4 state approval you need a 'bit' more then 23% of Republicans to be something that is viable. And 61% is a far cry from the 90+% who are in favour of something like background checks for all gun sales. Looks like women will have to chalk up abortion rights as too pie in the sky since it's only got 61% support and is very partisan. www.pewforum.org Are you trying to equate basic human rights to a voting system?
|
On October 24 2020 02:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 02:09 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:50 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:45 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:41 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:30 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:11 Nebuchad wrote: [quote]The issue with your framing is that it's based on living in a country that is functional.
You act as if the US is getting incrementally better from a left vs right standpoint, when it's getting incrementally worse. It's getting better on social issues but it's getting worse for humans in general.
You can convince people the system needs to change, and that way they'll put pressure on politicians for things to change! And then the politicians will do nothing about it, like they did when 90+% of Americans wanted more gun control. Because I don't think they actually care all that much. Shandy Hook showed me that, 20 dead children age 6-7 shot at school. The country cried for a minute, shrugged and went on with their lives. When classrooms full of dead children don't cause a country to rise up and say "this far and no further" then I don't know how to react to that other then "apparently they don't care that much". But it did cause the country to rise up. It's just that when Americans rise up, the system doesn't care. Did the country get crippled by strikes and protests for weeks until politicians relented or the economy burned to the ground to the point where corporations made the politicians listen, when the gun reform bills died in Congress? I don't think that happened, so no I don't think Americans "rose up". You have integrated at the same time that in order to get something that you want in America (a democracy), you need riots, otherwise you aren't even trying, AND that the people who are doing the riots, who are mainly to your (far) left, are crazy people who want unreachable things and are getting in the way of incremental progress. This is legit magical thinking. I would not equate decent gun control or police not murder blacks when they feel like it to wanting, to abolish the Electoral collage or changing Capitalism for a Communist utopia. And if the majority of the country would support the latter in the way they seemingly support the former, it wouldn't be an unreachable goal. But last I checked GH's Communist utopia is a little less popular then he might hope. You think abolishing the electoral college is an unpopular idea? And 61% is a far cry from the 90+% who are in favour of something like background checks for all gun sales. Fair, but if you need a riot to get something that has 90+% passed anyway, does the difference really matter? This question doesn't make any sense.
Hi there DMCD!
Gorsameth started this argument by explaining to us that if we wanted leftist stuff to happen in the US, we needed to convince more people to be on our side, that way things would happen.
I pointed out that there are things that have 90%+ support and still aren't done, so I thought his faith in convincing people was misplaced in the case of the US.
He said that this shows the US doesn't actually want to ban guns because if they did they would riot.
I think this coincides with my argument, as it shows Gorsameth has integrated that you need a riot to get things done even if you have 90% support.
He says there's a difference between electoral college and gun control based on popularity.
I ask him if that difference is really relevant since the most popular stuff won't get passed either without riots.
I hope things are clearer for you now.
Regards,
Nebuchad
|
On October 24 2020 02:22 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 02:09 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:50 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:45 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:41 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:30 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:11 Nebuchad wrote: [quote]The issue with your framing is that it's based on living in a country that is functional.
You act as if the US is getting incrementally better from a left vs right standpoint, when it's getting incrementally worse. It's getting better on social issues but it's getting worse for humans in general.
You can convince people the system needs to change, and that way they'll put pressure on politicians for things to change! And then the politicians will do nothing about it, like they did when 90+% of Americans wanted more gun control. Because I don't think they actually care all that much. Shandy Hook showed me that, 20 dead children age 6-7 shot at school. The country cried for a minute, shrugged and went on with their lives. When classrooms full of dead children don't cause a country to rise up and say "this far and no further" then I don't know how to react to that other then "apparently they don't care that much". But it did cause the country to rise up. It's just that when Americans rise up, the system doesn't care. Did the country get crippled by strikes and protests for weeks until politicians relented or the economy burned to the ground to the point where corporations made the politicians listen, when the gun reform bills died in Congress? I don't think that happened, so no I don't think Americans "rose up". You have integrated at the same time that in order to get something that you want in America (a democracy), you need riots, otherwise you aren't even trying, AND that the people who are doing the riots, who are mainly to your (far) left, are crazy people who want unreachable things and are getting in the way of incremental progress. This is legit magical thinking. I would not equate decent gun control or police not murder blacks when they feel like it to wanting, to abolish the Electoral collage or changing Capitalism for a Communist utopia. And if the majority of the country would support the latter in the way they seemingly support the former, it wouldn't be an unreachable goal. But last I checked GH's Communist utopia is a little less popular then he might hope. You think abolishing the electoral college is an unpopular idea? And 61% is a far cry from the 90+% who are in favour of something like background checks for all gun sales. Fair, but if you need a riot to get something that has 90+% passed anyway, does the difference really matter? Riots need broad public support to work, so yes?? Not quite sure what you mean with this question.
Do riots need broad public support to work? I seem to remember MLK had way less than that.
Regardless, 61% is pretty broad. It's higher than most election results worldwide.
|
United States40729 Posts
Here is a reminder that after starting a trade war with a large number of tariffs on Chinese imports Trump still doesn’t know what a tariff is.
"China is paying," Trump said. "They're paying billions and billions of dollars. I just gave $28 billion to our farmers — "
Taxpayers' money," Democratic nominee Joe Biden interjected.
"It was China — " Trump paused. "It's what?"
"Taxpayers' money," Biden reiterated. "It didn't come from China."
"Yeah, you know who the taxpayer is? It's called China," Trump crowed. "China paid $28 million, and you know what they did to pay it, Joe? They devalued their currency, and they also paid up. And you know who got the money? Our farmers. Our great farmers, because they were targeted."
Can any Trump supporters defend this? How is it okay that we have a leader enacting policy that he clearly doesn’t understand? It’s not about whether you support the tariffs or not, it’s about whether the guy writing the tariffs should be required to know what a tariff is.
For the record, it’s basically a surcharge tax on Chinese goods sold in the US to make them more expensive for US consumers and therefore less desirable relative to US manufactured goods.
|
Trump supporters also claim $28 billion to farmers isn't socialist.
|
On October 24 2020 03:05 ShoCkeyy wrote: Trump supporters also claim $28 billion to farmers isn't socialist.
As soon as you mention farm subsidies to rural folks, they foam at the mouth and scream "do you like eating? THANK a farmer for that!!"
They basically see themselves as some sort of divine providers for the planet, as if all the other parts necessary for a functioning society aren't actually necessary.
|
And that is just one of many examples where he shows total lack of understanding yet complete confidence in dictating policy unilaterally. That's why it would be nice to have an actual debate to show just how feeble his grasp of the concepts are. I'd love to see Trump have to spend an hour going in to fine detail about the science of climate change, or the healthcare system or any other complex topic where he acts like an expert yet spouts total bullshit.
|
On October 24 2020 03:05 ShoCkeyy wrote: Trump supporters also claim $28 billion to farmers isn't socialist. It isn't (though I doubt they agree with why). It's liberalism or "welfare capitalism".
|
The sad part of that is, I highly doubt that it would change any minds. I don't know of a single concept that he has a good grasp on (maybe tax avoidance) after listening to him the past five years.
|
Its a general thing not limited to just farmers. They want to the GOP to take away the welfare of those do nothing liberals who just sit on their couch all day, but not touch their own welfare that they get despite working hard.
|
On October 24 2020 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 03:05 ShoCkeyy wrote: Trump supporters also claim $28 billion to farmers isn't socialist. It isn't (though I doubt they agree with why). It's liberalism or "welfare capitalism". The same people would not agree with with "welfare capitalism" either. It comes down to that a bunch of us humans do not like handouts heading anywhere but to us. There is very few people who believe they have "good luck" and even fewer who think they have it fair. Almost everyone has a easier time looking at people who have it better than them, then they are to look at all those that have it worse.
On October 24 2020 03:16 plasmidghost wrote: The sad part of that is, I highly doubt that it would change any minds. I don't know of a single concept that he has a good grasp on (maybe tax avoidance) after listening to him the past five years.
No sure he did say in the debate "they didn't tell him about prepaying" so I don't has a very good grasp on his taxes either.
|
On October 24 2020 03:25 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2020 03:05 ShoCkeyy wrote: Trump supporters also claim $28 billion to farmers isn't socialist. It isn't (though I doubt they agree with why). It's liberalism or "welfare capitalism". The same people would not agree with with "welfare capitalism" either. It comes down to that a bunch of us humans do not like handouts heading anywhere but to us. There is very few people who believe they have "good luck" and even fewer who think they have it fair. Almost everyone has a easier time looking at people who have it better than them, then they are to look at all those that have it worse. Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 03:16 plasmidghost wrote: The sad part of that is, I highly doubt that it would change any minds. I don't know of a single concept that he has a good grasp on (maybe tax avoidance) after listening to him the past five years. No sure he did say in the debate "they didn't tell him about prepaying" so I don't has a very good grasp on his taxes either. Very true lol. I'm honestly shocked that people believe that someone like him (or really, anyone for that matter) would prepay taxes. To be fair, I'm sure that there may be some sort of incentive to do that but I'd need to look into it more
|
Charges: Boogaloo Bois fired on Minneapolis police precinct, shouted 'Justice for Floyd'
In the wake of protests following the May 25 killing of George Floyd, a member of the “Boogaloo Bois” opened fire on Minneapolis Police Third Precinct with an AK-47-style gun and screamed “Justice for Floyd” as he ran away, according to a federal complaint made public Friday.
A sworn affidavit by the FBI underlying the complaint reveals new details about a far-right anti-government group’s coordinated role in the violence that roiled through civil unrest over Floyd’s death while in police custody.
Ivan Harrison Hunter, a 26-year-old from Boerne, Texas, is charged with one count of interstate travel to incite a riot for his alleged role in ramping up violence during the protests in Minneapolis on May 27 and 28. According to charges, Hunter, wearing a skull mask and tactical gear, shot 13 rounds at the south Minneapolis police headquarters while people were inside. He also looted and helped set the building ablaze, according to the complaint, which was filed Monday under seal.
https://www.startribune.com/charges-boogaloo-bois-fired-on-mpls-precinct-shouted-justice-for-floyd/572843802/
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On October 24 2020 02:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 02:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2020 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 24 2020 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote: [quote] Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Are you sure you're not just hyping up token improvements and ignoring larger negative trends, because doing so preserves a status quo that is comfortable to you personally? This entire line of argument reeks of hypocrisy. I live in Norway and have zero stake in anything happening in the US. What the hell are you talking about. I mean take 15 seconds to think before insulting people ffs. Are you under the impression that refutes rather than supports his point? I am hypocritical because the status quo is personally comfortable to me because I have personally no stakes in US politics. That makes perfect sense. You guys need to get your ad hominem together. You forgot to call me racist by the way, I'm disappointed. Evidently you do seem to have some stake in it by virtue of being consistently interested in chiming in with an opinion on the whole matter. Being in Norway insulates you from some of the consequences of what happens in the US, true, but so does being well-off in the US itself.
You call someone out for ignoring the situation of others unlike himself, saying that “we” have to act in their best interests, but you’re not a hypocrite because you’re similarly insulated from the negative consequences that you choose to ignore in pursuit of your own obvious self interest? GH is right, that’s exactly what hypocrisy looks like.
|
On October 24 2020 03:05 ShoCkeyy wrote: Trump supporters also claim $28 billion to farmers isn't socialist. Well, of course. Everyone knows that things are only socialist government handouts when it's given to groups you don't like. Everyone else is receiving government assistance and are hardworking Americans that are integral to society.
|
On October 24 2020 01:54 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2020 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Are you sure you're not just hyping up token improvements and ignoring larger negative trends, because doing so preserves a status quo that is comfortable to you personally? This entire line of argument reeks of hypocrisy. It's not oppressed younger Black folks trying to shame people into supporting Biden. It's almost exclusively the affluent white (/white adjacent) liberals. Speaking on their behalf (and usually over them when they disagree). Don't the numbers show the opposite. That Biden has much better support than Bernie with Black people? And that Bernie's support is mostly made of educated white people? Correct, this is why South Carolina happened
|
On October 24 2020 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Like, it's not worth choosing between Democrats and Republicans on climate change be because the improvements democrats are aiming for are not enough and so anyway the planet is doomed and it makes no difference. "Significant improvement that might not be enoughwhAtever" or "the worst you can possibly do" are worth the same when you have abandoned all nuances and disregard all constraints. The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Are you sure you're not just hyping up token improvements and ignoring larger negative trends, because doing so preserves a status quo that is comfortable to you personally? This entire line of argument reeks of hypocrisy. It's not oppressed younger Black folks trying to shame people into supporting Biden. It's almost exclusively the affluent white (/white adjacent) liberals. Speaking on their behalf (and usually over them when they disagree).
Gonna have to second JimmiC's comments and say that this seems like you're trying to project your desired reality to justify your stance on the issue.
Not only does Biden have much stronger minority support than Bernie or Warren did, but almost every BIPOC or LGBTQ+ individual in my social circles (which have been made very large due to the intersection of the military, three post-secondary institutions, and the national jazz dancing/music scene) are aggressively pushing people to vote for Biden in a "lesser of two evils" manner.
They're also the ones that tend to make the most personal appeals about the issue (e.g. "as an XXX person, not voting for Biden affects me personally").
|
On October 24 2020 06:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2020 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Are you sure you're not just hyping up token improvements and ignoring larger negative trends, because doing so preserves a status quo that is comfortable to you personally? This entire line of argument reeks of hypocrisy. It's not oppressed younger Black folks trying to shame people into supporting Biden. It's almost exclusively the affluent white (/white adjacent) liberals. Speaking on their behalf (and usually over them when they disagree). Gonna have to second JimmiC's comments and say that this seems like you trying to project your desired reality to justify your stance on the issue. Not only does Biden have much stronger minority support than Bernie or Warren did, but almost every BIPOC or LGBTQ+ individual in my social circles (which have been made very large due to the intersection of the military, three post-secondary institutions, and the national jazz dancing/music scene) are aggressively pushing people to vote for Biden in a "lesser of two evils" manner. They're also the ones that tend to make the most personal appeals about the issue (e.g. "as an XXX person, not voting for Biden affects me personally"). That's accurate. I know that I've been reaching out to my fellow LGBT community members to get them to vote Biden. I think the best thing he did was during that town hall last week where he spoke specifically about transgender issues and actually sounded like he wanted to do something about our situation. Sure, some of them are still being stubborn or voting third-party (a mistake I myself made in 2016), but I've got avowed socialists, communists, and anarchists in my friends circle going to cast their votes for Biden
|
On October 24 2020 03:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 02:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 24 2020 02:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2020 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 24 2020 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Are you sure you're not just hyping up token improvements and ignoring larger negative trends, because doing so preserves a status quo that is comfortable to you personally? This entire line of argument reeks of hypocrisy. I live in Norway and have zero stake in anything happening in the US. What the hell are you talking about. I mean take 15 seconds to think before insulting people ffs. Are you under the impression that refutes rather than supports his point? I am hypocritical because the status quo is personally comfortable to me because I have personally no stakes in US politics. That makes perfect sense. You guys need to get your ad hominem together. You forgot to call me racist by the way, I'm disappointed. Evidently you do seem to have some stake in it by virtue of being consistently interested in chiming in with an opinion on the whole matter. Being in Norway insulates you from some of the consequences of what happens in the US, true, but so does being well-off in the US itself. You call someone out for ignoring the situation of others unlike himself, saying that “we” have to act in their best interests, but you’re not a hypocrite because you’re similarly insulated from the negative consequences that you choose to ignore in pursuit of your own obvious self interest? GH is right, that’s exactly what hypocrisy looks like. I am interested in the conversation and in politics in general. There is no self interest at stake here. What's your point?
It just makes me laugh that someone who takes constantly the moral high ground and attacks rather viciously anyone who doesn't join him there completely disregard the actual consequences of his position on actual people.
I have no problem with armchair revolutionaries and talks about the Communist Paradise that is definitely going to happen, as long as you don't pretend that you care about the people who are losing their lifeline when the ACA or Roe vs Wade are repelled. And don't pretend that you care about the environment if you refuse to chose between an administration taking very big steps in the right direction and one destroying decades of efforts. You don't.
I was a Starbuck communist myself. I stopped when I realize it is not all about me, my purity, my revolt, my ideas, but about guys somewhere, that I would never meet, who are about to lose their health insurance.
|
On October 24 2020 06:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2020 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Are you sure you're not just hyping up token improvements and ignoring larger negative trends, because doing so preserves a status quo that is comfortable to you personally? This entire line of argument reeks of hypocrisy. It's not oppressed younger Black folks trying to shame people into supporting Biden. It's almost exclusively the affluent white (/white adjacent) liberals. Speaking on their behalf (and usually over them when they disagree). Gonna have to second JimmiC's comments and say that this seems like you're trying to project your desired reality to justify your stance on the issue. Not only does Biden have much stronger minority support than Bernie or Warren did, but almost every BIPOC or LGBTQ+ individual in my social circles (which have been made very large due to the intersection of the military, three post-secondary institutions, and the national jazz dancing/music scene) are aggressively pushing people to vote for Biden in a "lesser of two evils" manner. They're also the ones that tend to make the most personal appeals about the issue (e.g. "as an XXX person, not voting for Biden affects me personally").
It's important to read what I said.
It's not oppressed younger Black folks trying to shame people into supporting Biden. It wasn't about popularity?
But among the younger Black folks I was referencing (not older, Black, more conservative Dem primary voters) Bernie Sanders Is Three Times More Popular Than Joe Biden Among Young Black Voters
Starbucks communists are white btw Biff. American's know Black people get arrested for hanging out at Starbucks.
|
On October 24 2020 07:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 03:49 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 02:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 24 2020 02:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2020 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 24 2020 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote: [quote] Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Are you sure you're not just hyping up token improvements and ignoring larger negative trends, because doing so preserves a status quo that is comfortable to you personally? This entire line of argument reeks of hypocrisy. I live in Norway and have zero stake in anything happening in the US. What the hell are you talking about. I mean take 15 seconds to think before insulting people ffs. Are you under the impression that refutes rather than supports his point? I am hypocritical because the status quo is personally comfortable to me because I have personally no stakes in US politics. That makes perfect sense. You guys need to get your ad hominem together. You forgot to call me racist by the way, I'm disappointed. Evidently you do seem to have some stake in it by virtue of being consistently interested in chiming in with an opinion on the whole matter. Being in Norway insulates you from some of the consequences of what happens in the US, true, but so does being well-off in the US itself. You call someone out for ignoring the situation of others unlike himself, saying that “we” have to act in their best interests, but you’re not a hypocrite because you’re similarly insulated from the negative consequences that you choose to ignore in pursuit of your own obvious self interest? GH is right, that’s exactly what hypocrisy looks like. I am interested in the conversation and in politics in general. There is no self interest at stake here. What's your point? It just makes me laugh that someone who takes constantly the moral high ground and attacks rather viciously anyone who doesn't join him there completely disregard the actual consequences of his position on actual people. I have no problem with armchair revolutionaries and talks about the Communist Paradise that is definitely going to happen, as long as you don't pretend that you care about the people who are losing their lifeline when the ACA or Roe vs Wade are repelled. And don't pretend that you care about the environment if you refuse to chose between an administration taking very big steps in the right direction and one destroying decades of efforts. You don't. I was a Starbuck communist myself. I stopped when I realize it is not all about me, my purity, my revolt, my ideas, but about guys somewhere, that I would never meet, who are about to lose their health insurance.
It's kind of impressive that communism used to appeal to someone like you, btw.
|
On October 24 2020 07:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 06:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 24 2020 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2020 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote: [quote] Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Are you sure you're not just hyping up token improvements and ignoring larger negative trends, because doing so preserves a status quo that is comfortable to you personally? This entire line of argument reeks of hypocrisy. It's not oppressed younger Black folks trying to shame people into supporting Biden. It's almost exclusively the affluent white (/white adjacent) liberals. Speaking on their behalf (and usually over them when they disagree). Gonna have to second JimmiC's comments and say that this seems like you're trying to project your desired reality to justify your stance on the issue. Not only does Biden have much stronger minority support than Bernie or Warren did, but almost every BIPOC or LGBTQ+ individual in my social circles (which have been made very large due to the intersection of the military, three post-secondary institutions, and the national jazz dancing/music scene) are aggressively pushing people to vote for Biden in a "lesser of two evils" manner. They're also the ones that tend to make the most personal appeals about the issue (e.g. "as an XXX person, not voting for Biden affects me personally"). It's important to read what I said. Show nested quote +It's not oppressed younger Black folks trying to shame people into supporting Biden. It wasn't about popularity? But among the younger Black folks I was referencing (not older, Black, more conservative Dem primary voters) Bernie Sanders Is Three Times More Popular Than Joe Biden Among Young Black VotersStarbucks communists are white btw Biff. American's know Black people get arrested for hanging out at Starbucks.
It is pretty crazy if news week was right with those numbers on how few people 45 and under must vote. Because Biden got 80% of the black vot in NC and 84% in Mississippi. That would mean people under 45 got out voted about 20-1. No wonder so many politicians more or less ignore the young vote, and under 45 is not that young!
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/03/bernie-sanders-black-voters/607789/
|
as long as you don't pretend that you care about the people who are losing their lifeline when the ACA or Roe vs Wade are repelled.
Just think it's important to point out again that those ships have sailed. Barrett is a "fine person" that Biden doesn't object to being on the supreme court in herself. His objection is simply to the process (which was heard, rejected, and moved past).
So the 6-3 conservative court is done (just a matter of going through the motions now). Democrats can't get the court back for a loooong time without rejecting Biden's opposition to removing the filibuster and stuffing the court. Which is also what they'd have to do to get legislation passed and for it to stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny.
The notion that people are supporting/voting for Biden to protect those things reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government works.
|
On October 24 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +as long as you don't pretend that you care about the people who are losing their lifeline when the ACA or Roe vs Wade are repelled. Just think it's important to point out again that those ships have sailed. Barrett is a "fine person" that Biden doesn't object to being on the supreme court in herself. His objection is simply to the process (which was heard, rejected, and moved past). So the 6-3 conservative court is done (just a matter of going through the motions now). Democrats can't get the court back for a loooong time without rejecting Biden's opposition to removing the filibuster and stuffing the court. Which is also what they'd have to do to get legislation passed and to stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny. The notion that people are supporting/voting for Biden to protect those things reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government works. Lots of presumption them. There is nothing Biden can do about Barrett right now. Throwing a tantrum wouldn't do anything. Since we can't go back in time and unvote Trump, best you can do is take all 3 levels of government and make there be huge consequences for trying to go back on it.
That battle is far from done, intact it has not started.
|
On October 24 2020 08:50 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:as long as you don't pretend that you care about the people who are losing their lifeline when the ACA or Roe vs Wade are repelled. Just think it's important to point out again that those ships have sailed. Barrett is a "fine person" that Biden doesn't object to being on the supreme court in herself. His objection is simply to the process (which was heard, rejected, and moved past). So the 6-3 conservative court is done (just a matter of going through the motions now). Democrats can't get the court back for a loooong time without rejecting Biden's opposition to removing the filibuster and stuffing the court. Which is also what they'd have to do to get legislation passed and to stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny. The notion that people are supporting/voting for Biden to protect those things reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government works. Lots of presumption them. There is nothing Biden can do about Barrett right now. Throwing a tantrum wouldn't do anything. Since we can't go back in time and unvote Trump, best you can do is take all 3 levels of government and make there be huge consequences for trying to go back on it.
That battle is far from done, intact it has not started. What exactly do you mean by this?
|
On October 24 2020 08:51 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 08:50 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:as long as you don't pretend that you care about the people who are losing their lifeline when the ACA or Roe vs Wade are repelled. Just think it's important to point out again that those ships have sailed. Barrett is a "fine person" that Biden doesn't object to being on the supreme court in herself. His objection is simply to the process (which was heard, rejected, and moved past). So the 6-3 conservative court is done (just a matter of going through the motions now). Democrats can't get the court back for a loooong time without rejecting Biden's opposition to removing the filibuster and stuffing the court. Which is also what they'd have to do to get legislation passed and to stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny. The notion that people are supporting/voting for Biden to protect those things reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government works. Lots of presumption them. There is nothing Biden can do about Barrett right now. Throwing a tantrum wouldn't do anything. Since we can't go back in time and unvote Trump, best you can do is take all 3 levels of government and make there be huge consequences for trying to go back on it.
That battle is far from done, intact it has not started. What exactly do you mean by this? Sorry, poorly written. President, senate and congress.
|
On October 24 2020 08:52 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 08:51 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 24 2020 08:50 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:as long as you don't pretend that you care about the people who are losing their lifeline when the ACA or Roe vs Wade are repelled. Just think it's important to point out again that those ships have sailed. Barrett is a "fine person" that Biden doesn't object to being on the supreme court in herself. His objection is simply to the process (which was heard, rejected, and moved past). So the 6-3 conservative court is done (just a matter of going through the motions now). Democrats can't get the court back for a loooong time without rejecting Biden's opposition to removing the filibuster and stuffing the court. Which is also what they'd have to do to get legislation passed and to stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny. The notion that people are supporting/voting for Biden to protect those things reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government works. Lots of presumption them. There is nothing Biden can do about Barrett right now. Throwing a tantrum wouldn't do anything. Since we can't go back in time and unvote Trump, best you can do is take all 3 levels of government and make there be huge consequences for trying to go back on it.
That battle is far from done, intact it has not started. What exactly do you mean by this? Sorry, poorly written. President, senate and congress. Ahh thought you were alluding to packing the courts
|
On October 24 2020 08:59 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 08:52 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 08:51 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 24 2020 08:50 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:as long as you don't pretend that you care about the people who are losing their lifeline when the ACA or Roe vs Wade are repelled. Just think it's important to point out again that those ships have sailed. Barrett is a "fine person" that Biden doesn't object to being on the supreme court in herself. His objection is simply to the process (which was heard, rejected, and moved past). So the 6-3 conservative court is done (just a matter of going through the motions now). Democrats can't get the court back for a loooong time without rejecting Biden's opposition to removing the filibuster and stuffing the court. Which is also what they'd have to do to get legislation passed and to stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny. The notion that people are supporting/voting for Biden to protect those things reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government works. Lots of presumption them. There is nothing Biden can do about Barrett right now. Throwing a tantrum wouldn't do anything. Since we can't go back in time and unvote Trump, best you can do is take all 3 levels of government and make there be huge consequences for trying to go back on it.
That battle is far from done, intact it has not started. What exactly do you mean by this? Sorry, poorly written. President, senate and congress. Ahh thought you were alluding to packing the courts I do think that will be one of the options if the Republicans push for overturning it. I also think they will have many other options. Also, if the Reps get it handed to them in this election I'm not sure they will do anything so unpopular after just losing big. But the big point is presumptions are not facts, lots to happen before that one is lost!
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On October 24 2020 07:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 03:49 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 02:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 24 2020 02:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2020 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 24 2020 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote: [quote] Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Are you sure you're not just hyping up token improvements and ignoring larger negative trends, because doing so preserves a status quo that is comfortable to you personally? This entire line of argument reeks of hypocrisy. I live in Norway and have zero stake in anything happening in the US. What the hell are you talking about. I mean take 15 seconds to think before insulting people ffs. Are you under the impression that refutes rather than supports his point? I am hypocritical because the status quo is personally comfortable to me because I have personally no stakes in US politics. That makes perfect sense. You guys need to get your ad hominem together. You forgot to call me racist by the way, I'm disappointed. Evidently you do seem to have some stake in it by virtue of being consistently interested in chiming in with an opinion on the whole matter. Being in Norway insulates you from some of the consequences of what happens in the US, true, but so does being well-off in the US itself. You call someone out for ignoring the situation of others unlike himself, saying that “we” have to act in their best interests, but you’re not a hypocrite because you’re similarly insulated from the negative consequences that you choose to ignore in pursuit of your own obvious self interest? GH is right, that’s exactly what hypocrisy looks like. I am interested in the conversation and in politics in general. There is no self interest at stake here. What's your point? It just makes me laugh that someone who takes constantly the moral high ground and attacks rather viciously anyone who doesn't join him there completely disregard the actual consequences of his position on actual people. I have no problem with armchair revolutionaries and talks about the Communist Paradise that is definitely going to happen, as long as you don't pretend that you care about the people who are losing their lifeline when the ACA or Roe vs Wade are repelled. And don't pretend that you care about the environment if you refuse to chose between an administration taking very big steps in the right direction and one destroying decades of efforts. You don't. I was a Starbuck communist myself. I stopped when I realize it is not all about me, my purity, my revolt, my ideas, but about guys somewhere, that I would never meet, who are about to lose their health insurance. Well I'm glad that armchair faux pragmatism works better for you than armchair communism. To each their own.
My point was quite simple: that your entire line of argument reeks of hypocrisy. You called out Zambrah for being short-sighted for not rallying around the Democrats by virtue of their lack of commitment to meaningful change, and yet your entire argument is an exercise in short-termism that lionizes the "successes" of the Democrats and fails to highlight their failure. No, the fact that you don't live in the US doesn't change that, nor does it make it any less true that the whole line of thought aligns really conveniently well with your obvious comfort with only very minor variations on the status quo sans Trump.
From what I've seen you're not really one for perspectives contrary to your own, but let's break down a few of the things you mentioned in passing about why Democrats are so necessary:
1. Obamacare/ACA. Previously you'd said that you should support Democrats if you want universal healthcare, but that line has since been dropped since it was accurately pointed out that Democrats are the ones who killed any line of support for universal healthcare. Instead they have this system, created by conservatives and implemented as such (e.g. by Romney in Massachusetts) that maintains the worst aspects of an insurance-based system while masquerading as a solution. Sure, it expands healthcare coverage for some, but fails to improve efficiency in care, leaves many with "coverage" that will do whatever it can to weasel out of paying a dime the moment that there's an expensive emergency (I know many people who had this happen), and generally makes coverage worse for everyone who already had it with a really problematic "individual mandate" that did little more than raise the price of everyone's insurance. Well I don't agree with him on much, but you'll find a lot of people on all sides that will agree that Trump did the right thing by doing away with that.
2. Gay marriage. Well I suppose you could say the Democrats supported that. I mean, prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton only did so when it became a popular position, and never when it would've been an unpopular but important idealistic choice, but I suppose that by 2016 they were on the "right side" of that issue. Maybe a couple decades from now they'll be the flag-bearer-in-hindsight of a currently unpopular group facing social injustice. GH certainly could say a thing or two on that one.
3. Abortion. GH's comment is solid on that one.
4. The environment. My post from a few months back will suffice as my commentary on that one.
Color me underwhelmed with this supposedly gigantic difference that separates the Democrats from the Republicans. All I see is an argument for short-termism masquerading as pragmatism. Hardly a position from which it's justified to call anyone else out for being short-sighted.
|
What exactly do you mean by this? Sorry, poorly written. President, senate and congress.
Not sure if this is helpful, but just as an FYI, congress is made up of 2 branches, Senate and the house of representatives. So it is either Congress, or the senate and house.
Just a random aside, seeing Trudeau on tv with long messy hair has made me feel a lot better about my own. (scared to go to the barber because of corona). Probably not as important as health care, racial justice, ect, but it helped me personally so he has my support. On a more serious note, I feel he did it deliberately to show it is ok that some things are going to shit like not being able to get a haircut. Which in my mind is super cool.
|
2. Gay marriage. Well I suppose you could say the Democrats supported that. I mean, prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton only did so when it became a popular position, and never when it would've been an unpopular but important idealistic choice, but I suppose that by 2016 they were on the "right side" of that issue. Maybe a couple decades from now they'll be the flag-bearer-in-hindsight of a currently unpopular group facing social injustice. GH certainly could say a thing or two on that one.
This is true, but it is better than the Republican side of opposing it despite being popular.
|
I really can't see the Democrats are no different than Republicans stuff. Even if Revolution is the goal, isn't it easier to seek that in a government which isn't inclined to autocracy and violently repressing protest? Or on abortion and gay rights, isn't a party that determines policy based on Christian fundamentalism clearly a greater obstacle than one that does not? I do share the frustration that Democrats pay empty lip service, but they seem at least a better starting point of pushing changes than the conditions of the past four years. Unless the spark of change wanted is pushing people into such misery that they take up arms?
|
In an interesting development Team Trumpism is throwing Lindsey Graham to the wolves, with Lou Dobbs attacking him and saying not to vote for him. Poor Graham put all his principles aside to kiss Trump's ass for years but apparently he's out now?
|
On October 24 2020 10:16 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:In an interesting development Team Trumpism is throwing Lindsey Graham to the wolves, with Lou Dobbs attacking him and saying not to vote for him. Poor Graham put all his principles aside to kiss Trump's ass for years but apparently he's out now? https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1319749236251070466 I completely disagree that Graham had principles.
|
Would be funny if he said fuck it then and held up the Barret confirmation.
|
On October 24 2020 10:04 Starlightsun wrote: I really can't see the Democrats are no different than Republicans stuff. Even if Revolution is the goal, isn't it easier to seek that in a government which isn't inclined to autocracy and violently repressing protest? Or on abortion and gay rights, isn't a party that determines policy based on Christian fundamentalism clearly a greater obstacle than one that does not? I do share the frustration that Democrats pay empty lip service, but they seem at least a better starting point of pushing changes than the conditions of the past four years. Unless the spark of change wanted is pushing people into such misery that they take up arms?
I don't argue that Republicans and Democrats are the same but it's worth noting that if we don't want a revolution then it's going to be very hard to obtain anything under Biden. Any move to push him to his left runs the risk of weakening him, and if he gets weak, then the fascist that they'll have instead of Trump in 2024 will be the one most likely to benefit.
I would personally favor antisystem solutions so I'm "fine" with that risk, but the people who don't and still want progress are going to run into this issue and I don't see any solutions available.
|
On October 24 2020 02:57 KwarK wrote:Here is a reminder that after starting a trade war with a large number of tariffs on Chinese imports Trump still doesn’t know what a tariff is. Show nested quote + "China is paying," Trump said. "They're paying billions and billions of dollars. I just gave $28 billion to our farmers — "
Taxpayers' money," Democratic nominee Joe Biden interjected.
"It was China — " Trump paused. "It's what?"
"Taxpayers' money," Biden reiterated. "It didn't come from China."
"Yeah, you know who the taxpayer is? It's called China," Trump crowed. "China paid $28 million, and you know what they did to pay it, Joe? They devalued their currency, and they also paid up. And you know who got the money? Our farmers. Our great farmers, because they were targeted."
Can any Trump supporters defend this? How is it okay that we have a leader enacting policy that he clearly doesn’t understand? It’s not about whether you support the tariffs or not, it’s about whether the guy writing the tariffs should be required to know what a tariff is. For the record, it’s basically a surcharge tax on Chinese goods sold in the US to make them more expensive for US consumers and therefore less desirable relative to US manufactured goods. What is there to defend if you're not going to post the full quote? .Talking about China devaluing their currency was a lead-in to them dumping cheap steel into the US market. He talked about tariffs on Chinese steel imports in the next paragraph.
Out of all the stuff to get worked up over you chose this? C'mon man!
|
On October 24 2020 10:16 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:In an interesting development Team Trumpism is throwing Lindsey Graham to the wolves, with Lou Dobbs attacking him and saying not to vote for him. Poor Graham put all his principles aside to kiss Trump's ass for years but apparently he's out now? https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1319749236251070466 Is the justification for this from that Woodward interview?
|
Do any conservatives, republicans, or Trump voters post here?
|
On October 24 2020 11:30 AirbladeOrange wrote: Do any conservatives, republicans, or Trump voters post here?
only gamers post here
|
On October 24 2020 10:27 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 10:04 Starlightsun wrote: I really can't see the Democrats are no different than Republicans stuff. Even if Revolution is the goal, isn't it easier to seek that in a government which isn't inclined to autocracy and violently repressing protest? Or on abortion and gay rights, isn't a party that determines policy based on Christian fundamentalism clearly a greater obstacle than one that does not? I do share the frustration that Democrats pay empty lip service, but they seem at least a better starting point of pushing changes than the conditions of the past four years. Unless the spark of change wanted is pushing people into such misery that they take up arms? I don't argue that Republicans and Democrats are the same but it's worth noting that if we don't want a revolution then it's going to be very hard to obtain anything under Biden. Any move to push him to his left runs the risk of weakening him, and if he gets weak, then the fascist that they'll have instead of Trump in 2024 will be the one most likely to benefit. I would personally favor antisystem solutions so I'm "fine" with that risk, but the people who don't and still want progress are going to run into this issue and I don't see any solutions available.
The problem is this is a circular argument. Strong left candidates just don't fly in America. You can blame what you like, but the people had two cracks at Bernie and didn't vote for him enough.
How can you get the change you want when someone comes along proposing it... and he doesn't get the votes?
Ultimately the conclusion of this argument has to be 'just let the Republicans win because it makes no difference'.
|
On October 24 2020 11:39 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 10:27 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 10:04 Starlightsun wrote: I really can't see the Democrats are no different than Republicans stuff. Even if Revolution is the goal, isn't it easier to seek that in a government which isn't inclined to autocracy and violently repressing protest? Or on abortion and gay rights, isn't a party that determines policy based on Christian fundamentalism clearly a greater obstacle than one that does not? I do share the frustration that Democrats pay empty lip service, but they seem at least a better starting point of pushing changes than the conditions of the past four years. Unless the spark of change wanted is pushing people into such misery that they take up arms? I don't argue that Republicans and Democrats are the same but it's worth noting that if we don't want a revolution then it's going to be very hard to obtain anything under Biden. Any move to push him to his left runs the risk of weakening him, and if he gets weak, then the fascist that they'll have instead of Trump in 2024 will be the one most likely to benefit. I would personally favor antisystem solutions so I'm "fine" with that risk, but the people who don't and still want progress are going to run into this issue and I don't see any solutions available. The problem is this is a circular argument. Strong left candidates just don't fly in America. You can blame what you like, but the people had two cracks at Bernie and didn't vote for him enough. How can you get the change you want when someone comes along proposing it... and he doesn't get the votes? Ultimately the conclusion of this argument has to be 'just let the Republicans win because it makes no difference'.
I'm just answering the claim that it's going to be easier to seek any leftist achievements under Biden, that's all. For my big picture I'm entirely convinced that any country that has a neoliberal framework (ie where the left is represented by a (neo)liberal and the right is a far right nutjob, fascist or otherwise) can't achieve anything remotely leftwing without breaking that framework first.
|
On October 24 2020 11:47 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 11:39 iamthedave wrote:On October 24 2020 10:27 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 10:04 Starlightsun wrote: I really can't see the Democrats are no different than Republicans stuff. Even if Revolution is the goal, isn't it easier to seek that in a government which isn't inclined to autocracy and violently repressing protest? Or on abortion and gay rights, isn't a party that determines policy based on Christian fundamentalism clearly a greater obstacle than one that does not? I do share the frustration that Democrats pay empty lip service, but they seem at least a better starting point of pushing changes than the conditions of the past four years. Unless the spark of change wanted is pushing people into such misery that they take up arms? I don't argue that Republicans and Democrats are the same but it's worth noting that if we don't want a revolution then it's going to be very hard to obtain anything under Biden. Any move to push him to his left runs the risk of weakening him, and if he gets weak, then the fascist that they'll have instead of Trump in 2024 will be the one most likely to benefit. I would personally favor antisystem solutions so I'm "fine" with that risk, but the people who don't and still want progress are going to run into this issue and I don't see any solutions available. The problem is this is a circular argument. Strong left candidates just don't fly in America. You can blame what you like, but the people had two cracks at Bernie and didn't vote for him enough. How can you get the change you want when someone comes along proposing it... and he doesn't get the votes? Ultimately the conclusion of this argument has to be 'just let the Republicans win because it makes no difference'. I'm just answering the claim that it's going to be easier to seek any leftist achievements under Biden, that's all. For my big picture I'm entirely convinced that any country that has a neoliberal framework (ie where the left is represented by a (neo)liberal and the right is a far right nutjob, fascist or otherwise) can't achieve anything remotely leftwing without breaking that framework first. This is a key fundamental disagreement between the left and neoliberals as I see it. They want to preserve the framework knowing how ineffective it's been at things like addressing foundational issues for any significant change like reducing the wealth gap between Black and white citizens over the last 60 years or so, as well as policy with overwhelming bipartisan public support for decades like gun reforms.
I agree more or less with gor that it will require even more disruptive protests than we saw immediately after George Floyd was murdered on film in broad daylight. I disagree with people that don't recognize that BLM and the violent suppression of them started under Obama (and was unacceptable to conscientious folks imo then) and certainly won't stop (or be better than Obama) under Biden .
|
United States40729 Posts
On October 24 2020 10:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 02:57 KwarK wrote:Here is a reminder that after starting a trade war with a large number of tariffs on Chinese imports Trump still doesn’t know what a tariff is. "China is paying," Trump said. "They're paying billions and billions of dollars. I just gave $28 billion to our farmers — "
Taxpayers' money," Democratic nominee Joe Biden interjected.
"It was China — " Trump paused. "It's what?"
"Taxpayers' money," Biden reiterated. "It didn't come from China."
"Yeah, you know who the taxpayer is? It's called China," Trump crowed. "China paid $28 million, and you know what they did to pay it, Joe? They devalued their currency, and they also paid up. And you know who got the money? Our farmers. Our great farmers, because they were targeted."
Can any Trump supporters defend this? How is it okay that we have a leader enacting policy that he clearly doesn’t understand? It’s not about whether you support the tariffs or not, it’s about whether the guy writing the tariffs should be required to know what a tariff is. For the record, it’s basically a surcharge tax on Chinese goods sold in the US to make them more expensive for US consumers and therefore less desirable relative to US manufactured goods. What is there to defend if you're not going to post the full quote? .Talking about China devaluing their currency was a lead-in to them dumping cheap steel into the US market. He talked about tariffs on Chinese steel imports in the next paragraph. Out of all the stuff to get worked up over you chose this? C'mon man! The full quote changes nothing. Do you know how tariffs work? What he said is factually untrue. It's like if he started talking about how women are sticking coathangers into their cloacas to abort 2 year olds. It's just not right. There's no context that could make it right. The fundamental facts are incompatible with the words he is using. The money does not come from China, it comes from US consumers. The Chinese government did not write the US a check for the tariffs.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On October 24 2020 09:52 greenturtle23 wrote:Show nested quote + 2. Gay marriage. Well I suppose you could say the Democrats supported that. I mean, prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton only did so when it became a popular position, and never when it would've been an unpopular but important idealistic choice, but I suppose that by 2016 they were on the "right side" of that issue. Maybe a couple decades from now they'll be the flag-bearer-in-hindsight of a currently unpopular group facing social injustice. GH certainly could say a thing or two on that one.
This is true, but it is better than the Republican side of opposing it despite being popular. They oppose it because said position is popular with their own core support base (mainly evangelicals). True, Democrats caught on once their own base became overwhelmingly in favor, but "social justice - if it polls well" is a hilariously uninspiring endorsement for anyone who isn't just looking to contort the facts to justify the status quo.
I mean you do have people like Bernie Sanders who supported it since 1995, back when it was politically harmful to do so, so it's at least theoretically possible to be ahead of the public opinion. Right now, Democrats seem more concerned with trying to prove that they're good Republicans so the "conservatives who don't like Trump" base will vote for them than with making any actual forward progress.
|
On October 24 2020 13:25 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 09:52 greenturtle23 wrote: 2. Gay marriage. Well I suppose you could say the Democrats supported that. I mean, prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton only did so when it became a popular position, and never when it would've been an unpopular but important idealistic choice, but I suppose that by 2016 they were on the "right side" of that issue. Maybe a couple decades from now they'll be the flag-bearer-in-hindsight of a currently unpopular group facing social injustice. GH certainly could say a thing or two on that one.
This is true, but it is better than the Republican side of opposing it despite being popular. They oppose it because said position is popular with their own core support base (mainly evangelicals). True, Democrats caught on once their own base became overwhelmingly in favor, but "social justice - if it polls well" is a hilariously uninspiring endorsement for anyone who isn't just looking to contort the facts to justify the status quo. I mean you do have people like Bernie Sanders who supported it since 1995, back when it was politically harmful to do so, so it's at least theoretically possible to be ahead of the public opinion. Right now, Democrats seem more concerned with trying to prove that they're good Republicans so the "conservatives who don't like Trump" base will vote for them than with making any actual forward progress.
I agree with all of that which is why when the choice was Bernie vs Biden I choose Bernie. He unfortunately lost. Now the choice is between Biden and Trump. It is an easy choice.
|
On October 24 2020 10:16 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:In an interesting development Team Trumpism is throwing Lindsey Graham to the wolves, with Lou Dobbs attacking him and saying not to vote for him. Poor Graham put all his principles aside to kiss Trump's ass for years but apparently he's out now? https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1319749236251070466 Wow I did not expect this to be as clear and devastating as it is. This is like throwing him under the bus and then throwing the planet the road is on, under the sun, then eliminating that solar system from existence.
|
Democrats seem more concerned with trying to prove that they're good Republicans so the "conservatives who don't like Trump" base will vote for them than with making any actual forward progress.
This. Biden shouldn't be being compared to Trump, but to Obama if people want to argue that lesser evil incrementalism in the US isn't a road to hell paved with "good intentions" and "hope".
That's one reason why the "Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same" strawman is used in place of the actual arguments about their functional similarities and what should be (imo) the unacceptable nature of them and their inability to confront the dire challenges we face (regardless of their differences, which do obviously exist).
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On October 24 2020 13:30 greenturtle23 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 13:25 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 09:52 greenturtle23 wrote: 2. Gay marriage. Well I suppose you could say the Democrats supported that. I mean, prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton only did so when it became a popular position, and never when it would've been an unpopular but important idealistic choice, but I suppose that by 2016 they were on the "right side" of that issue. Maybe a couple decades from now they'll be the flag-bearer-in-hindsight of a currently unpopular group facing social injustice. GH certainly could say a thing or two on that one.
This is true, but it is better than the Republican side of opposing it despite being popular. They oppose it because said position is popular with their own core support base (mainly evangelicals). True, Democrats caught on once their own base became overwhelmingly in favor, but "social justice - if it polls well" is a hilariously uninspiring endorsement for anyone who isn't just looking to contort the facts to justify the status quo. I mean you do have people like Bernie Sanders who supported it since 1995, back when it was politically harmful to do so, so it's at least theoretically possible to be ahead of the public opinion. Right now, Democrats seem more concerned with trying to prove that they're good Republicans so the "conservatives who don't like Trump" base will vote for them than with making any actual forward progress. I agree with all of that which is why when the choice was Bernie vs Biden I choose Bernie. He unfortunately lost. Now the choice is between Biden and Trump. It is an easy choice. I don't begrudge anyone for choosing to vote Biden now that it's down to him or Trump. That's not the choice I made (I ultimately went with 3rd party), but I don't think everyone needs to do the same thing I do. Being particularly holier-than-thou about how you're one of the bad people if you don't make the "only acceptable choice" of voting Biden is grossly misguided, though.
|
On October 24 2020 10:27 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 10:04 Starlightsun wrote: I really can't see the Democrats are no different than Republicans stuff. Even if Revolution is the goal, isn't it easier to seek that in a government which isn't inclined to autocracy and violently repressing protest? Or on abortion and gay rights, isn't a party that determines policy based on Christian fundamentalism clearly a greater obstacle than one that does not? I do share the frustration that Democrats pay empty lip service, but they seem at least a better starting point of pushing changes than the conditions of the past four years. Unless the spark of change wanted is pushing people into such misery that they take up arms? I don't argue that Republicans and Democrats are the same but it's worth noting that if we don't want a revolution then it's going to be very hard to obtain anything under Biden. Any move to push him to his left runs the risk of weakening him, and if he gets weak, then the fascist that they'll have instead of Trump in 2024 will be the one most likely to benefit. I would personally favor antisystem solutions so I'm "fine" with that risk, but the people who don't and still want progress are going to run into this issue and I don't see any solutions available.
I would hope that as millennials become majority of the electorate, it won't be considered weakening to go left. It will be interesting to see if the Democrat party changes when Pelosi and Schumer finally retire someday, and if Biden stays true to his word that he is a transitional president to the next generation. If he even wins this election, that is.
|
On October 24 2020 13:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 13:30 greenturtle23 wrote:On October 24 2020 13:25 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 09:52 greenturtle23 wrote: 2. Gay marriage. Well I suppose you could say the Democrats supported that. I mean, prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton only did so when it became a popular position, and never when it would've been an unpopular but important idealistic choice, but I suppose that by 2016 they were on the "right side" of that issue. Maybe a couple decades from now they'll be the flag-bearer-in-hindsight of a currently unpopular group facing social injustice. GH certainly could say a thing or two on that one.
This is true, but it is better than the Republican side of opposing it despite being popular. They oppose it because said position is popular with their own core support base (mainly evangelicals). True, Democrats caught on once their own base became overwhelmingly in favor, but "social justice - if it polls well" is a hilariously uninspiring endorsement for anyone who isn't just looking to contort the facts to justify the status quo. I mean you do have people like Bernie Sanders who supported it since 1995, back when it was politically harmful to do so, so it's at least theoretically possible to be ahead of the public opinion. Right now, Democrats seem more concerned with trying to prove that they're good Republicans so the "conservatives who don't like Trump" base will vote for them than with making any actual forward progress. I agree with all of that which is why when the choice was Bernie vs Biden I choose Bernie. He unfortunately lost. Now the choice is between Biden and Trump. It is an easy choice. I don't begrudge anyone for choosing to vote Biden now that it's down to him or Trump. That's not the choice I made (I ultimately went with 3rd party), but I don't think everyone needs to do the same thing I do. Being particularly holier-than-thou about how you're one of the bad people if you don't make the "only acceptable choice" of voting Biden is grossly misguided, though.
I don't view people hat don't vote for Biden as bad people. I think voting for him is the correct choice, but I understand that others may not see it that way. In a non swing state it doesn't even mater.
Let's hope a Bernie or Bernie like candidate comes along in 2024. Biden may be too old to run again even if he wins his year.
|
On October 24 2020 14:04 greenturtle23 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 13:51 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 13:30 greenturtle23 wrote:On October 24 2020 13:25 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 09:52 greenturtle23 wrote: 2. Gay marriage. Well I suppose you could say the Democrats supported that. I mean, prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton only did so when it became a popular position, and never when it would've been an unpopular but important idealistic choice, but I suppose that by 2016 they were on the "right side" of that issue. Maybe a couple decades from now they'll be the flag-bearer-in-hindsight of a currently unpopular group facing social injustice. GH certainly could say a thing or two on that one.
This is true, but it is better than the Republican side of opposing it despite being popular. They oppose it because said position is popular with their own core support base (mainly evangelicals). True, Democrats caught on once their own base became overwhelmingly in favor, but "social justice - if it polls well" is a hilariously uninspiring endorsement for anyone who isn't just looking to contort the facts to justify the status quo. I mean you do have people like Bernie Sanders who supported it since 1995, back when it was politically harmful to do so, so it's at least theoretically possible to be ahead of the public opinion. Right now, Democrats seem more concerned with trying to prove that they're good Republicans so the "conservatives who don't like Trump" base will vote for them than with making any actual forward progress. I agree with all of that which is why when the choice was Bernie vs Biden I choose Bernie. He unfortunately lost. Now the choice is between Biden and Trump. It is an easy choice. I don't begrudge anyone for choosing to vote Biden now that it's down to him or Trump. That's not the choice I made (I ultimately went with 3rd party), but I don't think everyone needs to do the same thing I do. Being particularly holier-than-thou about how you're one of the bad people if you don't make the "only acceptable choice" of voting Biden is grossly misguided, though. I don't view people hat don't vote for Biden as bad people. I think voting for him is the correct choice, but I understand that others may not see it that way. In a non swing state it doesn't even mater. Let's hope a Bernie or Bernie like candidate comes along in 2024. Biden may be too old to run again even if he wins his year.
I believe Biden has no real intentions of seeking reelection after his term.
If Shahid Buttar dethrones Pelosi I'll be a bit more hopeful in successful progressive challenges to Democrats in the near future though, so heres to hoping Pelosi gets the boot.
Bernie should stop trying, hes too old, I appreciate the man but we're going to need new blood in the electoral realm, and GOD HELP ME if the new blood winds up having to be Pete fucking Buttigieg and Kamala god damned Harris.
|
if Biden stays true to his word that he is a transitional president to the next generation. Harris, O'Rourke, Booker, Bennet, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Delaney, Schiff, etc. That's who comes after the Clinton/Biden/Pelosi generation. You're looking at skipping 1-2 generations (~13-30 years) to get to AOC's and Ilhan Omar's.
Even then you still have the Buttigiegs and Swalwells, carrying the Biden'esque torch into that generation.
|
On October 24 2020 09:02 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 08:59 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 24 2020 08:52 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 08:51 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 24 2020 08:50 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:as long as you don't pretend that you care about the people who are losing their lifeline when the ACA or Roe vs Wade are repelled. Just think it's important to point out again that those ships have sailed. Barrett is a "fine person" that Biden doesn't object to being on the supreme court in herself. His objection is simply to the process (which was heard, rejected, and moved past). So the 6-3 conservative court is done (just a matter of going through the motions now). Democrats can't get the court back for a loooong time without rejecting Biden's opposition to removing the filibuster and stuffing the court. Which is also what they'd have to do to get legislation passed and to stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny. The notion that people are supporting/voting for Biden to protect those things reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government works. Lots of presumption them. There is nothing Biden can do about Barrett right now. Throwing a tantrum wouldn't do anything. Since we can't go back in time and unvote Trump, best you can do is take all 3 levels of government and make there be huge consequences for trying to go back on it.
That battle is far from done, intact it has not started. What exactly do you mean by this? Sorry, poorly written. President, senate and congress. Ahh thought you were alluding to packing the courts I do think that will be one of the options if the Republicans push for overturning it. I also think they will have many other options. Also, if the Reps get it handed to them in this election I'm not sure they will do anything so unpopular after just losing big. But the big point is presumptions are not facts, lots to happen before that one is lost! If they just lost big and are on the way out, what do they have to lose by doing something unpopular?
I fully expect the Republicans to ram through the SC appointment after the election when there is no prize to pay for another 2 years and those who already lost have nothing left to lose.
|
I just saw Biden has spent 582 millon dollars on his campaign, which is a new record and way more than Trump.
I want Trump out of office more than anyone, but that money comes from somewhere, and it is naive to believe they will be content not getting anything in return.
Will the Democrats even try to reform the money game (organized corruption by European standards) when they clearly crush the Republicans in it?
The US democratic problems seem very deep, and go far beyond GOP and Trump.
|
On October 24 2020 18:24 Slydie wrote: I just saw Biden has spent 582 millon dollars on his campaign, which is a new record and way more than Trump.
Nice.
Should be noted though that Mike Bloomberg spent $460 million on his primary campaign in the 1st Q and it didn't help him.He must be hoping the 100 million he is now spending in Florida to help Biden will do more although if the recent polls there are any indication it's another flop.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/us/politics/bloomberg-florida-biden.html
|
On October 24 2020 19:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 18:24 Slydie wrote: I just saw Biden has spent 582 millon dollars on his campaign, which is a new record and way more than Trump.
Nice. Should be noted though that Mike Bloomberg spent $460 million on his primary campaign in the 1st Q and it didn't help him.He must be hoping the 100 million he is now spending in Florida to help Biden will do more although if the recent polls there are any indication it's another flop. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/us/politics/bloomberg-florida-biden.html I read it was money well spent because Trump had to pull a bunch of money from the battle ground states in the north to make sure he could try to hold Florida.
|
On October 24 2020 23:24 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 19:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 24 2020 18:24 Slydie wrote: I just saw Biden has spent 582 millon dollars on his campaign, which is a new record and way more than Trump.
Nice. Should be noted though that Mike Bloomberg spent $460 million on his primary campaign in the 1st Q and it didn't help him.He must be hoping the 100 million he is now spending in Florida to help Biden will do more although if the recent polls there are any indication it's another flop. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/us/politics/bloomberg-florida-biden.html I read it was money well spent because Trump had to pull a bunch of money from the battle ground states in the north to make sure he could try to hold Florida.
That could be true, Trump is low on cash and 100% can not win unless he wins FL.
Then again he cant win unless he wins PA too and polls there seem to have him getting crushe
|
On October 25 2020 00:20 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 23:24 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 19:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 24 2020 18:24 Slydie wrote: I just saw Biden has spent 582 millon dollars on his campaign, which is a new record and way more than Trump.
Nice. Should be noted though that Mike Bloomberg spent $460 million on his primary campaign in the 1st Q and it didn't help him.He must be hoping the 100 million he is now spending in Florida to help Biden will do more although if the recent polls there are any indication it's another flop. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/us/politics/bloomberg-florida-biden.html I read it was money well spent because Trump had to pull a bunch of money from the battle ground states in the north to make sure he could try to hold Florida. That could be true, Trump is low on cash and 100% can not win unless he wins FL. Then again he cant win unless he wins PA too and polls there seem to have him getting crushe The race has tightened in PA and FL.
Say what you want about pollsters updating their likely voters models post-2016, but Trump beat a Hillary +4 PA lead in 2016. He'll need to do even better for unexpected turnout this time around, and Biden close to Hillary levels of reduced turnout.
Trump taking FL and PA are my most likely route to a 269-269 tie.
|
On October 25 2020 01:16 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 00:20 IyMoon wrote:On October 24 2020 23:24 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 19:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 24 2020 18:24 Slydie wrote: I just saw Biden has spent 582 millon dollars on his campaign, which is a new record and way more than Trump.
Nice. Should be noted though that Mike Bloomberg spent $460 million on his primary campaign in the 1st Q and it didn't help him.He must be hoping the 100 million he is now spending in Florida to help Biden will do more although if the recent polls there are any indication it's another flop. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/us/politics/bloomberg-florida-biden.html I read it was money well spent because Trump had to pull a bunch of money from the battle ground states in the north to make sure he could try to hold Florida. That could be true, Trump is low on cash and 100% can not win unless he wins FL. Then again he cant win unless he wins PA too and polls there seem to have him getting crushe The race has tightened in PA and FL. Say what you want about pollsters updating their likely voters models post-2016, but Trump beat a Hillary +4 PA lead in 2016. He'll need to do even better for unexpected turnout this time around, and Biden close to Hillary levels of reduced turnout. Trump taking FL and PA are my most likely route to a 269-269 tie.
FL and PA are absolutely in play for both candidates, and I think that Trump's path to victory is contingent upon winning them both (which, again, is totally possible). I think that if Biden wins either one of these (or both), he'll win the electoral college. Thoughts? Do you see a plausible path to victory for Trump if he loses at least one of these states?
|
On October 25 2020 01:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 01:16 Danglars wrote:On October 25 2020 00:20 IyMoon wrote:On October 24 2020 23:24 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 19:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 24 2020 18:24 Slydie wrote: I just saw Biden has spent 582 millon dollars on his campaign, which is a new record and way more than Trump.
Nice. Should be noted though that Mike Bloomberg spent $460 million on his primary campaign in the 1st Q and it didn't help him.He must be hoping the 100 million he is now spending in Florida to help Biden will do more although if the recent polls there are any indication it's another flop. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/us/politics/bloomberg-florida-biden.html I read it was money well spent because Trump had to pull a bunch of money from the battle ground states in the north to make sure he could try to hold Florida. That could be true, Trump is low on cash and 100% can not win unless he wins FL. Then again he cant win unless he wins PA too and polls there seem to have him getting crushe The race has tightened in PA and FL. Say what you want about pollsters updating their likely voters models post-2016, but Trump beat a Hillary +4 PA lead in 2016. He'll need to do even better for unexpected turnout this time around, and Biden close to Hillary levels of reduced turnout. Trump taking FL and PA are my most likely route to a 269-269 tie. FL and PA are absolutely in play for both candidates, and I think that Trump's path to victory is contingent upon winning them both (which, again, is totally possible). I think that if Biden wins either one of these (or both), he'll win the electoral college. Thoughts? Do you see a plausible path to victory for Trump if he loses at least one of these states? If Trump wins both of those, I think he takes it, but I don't think he will win if he loses either
|
More numbers out of Harris County: Looks like these trends are happening nationwide. I'm glad I'm part of both groups that are coming out way more this cycle.
|
On October 25 2020 01:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 01:16 Danglars wrote:On October 25 2020 00:20 IyMoon wrote:On October 24 2020 23:24 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 19:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 24 2020 18:24 Slydie wrote: I just saw Biden has spent 582 millon dollars on his campaign, which is a new record and way more than Trump.
Nice. Should be noted though that Mike Bloomberg spent $460 million on his primary campaign in the 1st Q and it didn't help him.He must be hoping the 100 million he is now spending in Florida to help Biden will do more although if the recent polls there are any indication it's another flop. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/us/politics/bloomberg-florida-biden.html I read it was money well spent because Trump had to pull a bunch of money from the battle ground states in the north to make sure he could try to hold Florida. That could be true, Trump is low on cash and 100% can not win unless he wins FL. Then again he cant win unless he wins PA too and polls there seem to have him getting crushe The race has tightened in PA and FL. Say what you want about pollsters updating their likely voters models post-2016, but Trump beat a Hillary +4 PA lead in 2016. He'll need to do even better for unexpected turnout this time around, and Biden close to Hillary levels of reduced turnout. Trump taking FL and PA are my most likely route to a 269-269 tie. FL and PA are absolutely in play for both candidates, and I think that Trump's path to victory is contingent upon winning them both (which, again, is totally possible). I think that if Biden wins either one of these (or both), he'll win the electoral college. Thoughts? Do you see a plausible path to victory for Trump if he loses at least one of these states?
While I give you florida is in play PA is not at least for now. Not only is Biden around 50 % but you have to take the whole rust belt into account. There is most no Scenario where only PA goes red by itself. If the rust belt goes red it is going together and Biden is killing it in all of them.
|
On October 25 2020 01:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 01:16 Danglars wrote:On October 25 2020 00:20 IyMoon wrote:On October 24 2020 23:24 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 19:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 24 2020 18:24 Slydie wrote: I just saw Biden has spent 582 millon dollars on his campaign, which is a new record and way more than Trump.
Nice. Should be noted though that Mike Bloomberg spent $460 million on his primary campaign in the 1st Q and it didn't help him.He must be hoping the 100 million he is now spending in Florida to help Biden will do more although if the recent polls there are any indication it's another flop. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/us/politics/bloomberg-florida-biden.html I read it was money well spent because Trump had to pull a bunch of money from the battle ground states in the north to make sure he could try to hold Florida. That could be true, Trump is low on cash and 100% can not win unless he wins FL. Then again he cant win unless he wins PA too and polls there seem to have him getting crushe The race has tightened in PA and FL. Say what you want about pollsters updating their likely voters models post-2016, but Trump beat a Hillary +4 PA lead in 2016. He'll need to do even better for unexpected turnout this time around, and Biden close to Hillary levels of reduced turnout. Trump taking FL and PA are my most likely route to a 269-269 tie. FL and PA are absolutely in play for both candidates, and I think that Trump's path to victory is contingent upon winning them both (which, again, is totally possible). I think that if Biden wins either one of these (or both), he'll win the electoral college. Thoughts? Do you see a plausible path to victory for Trump if he loses at least one of these states? For comparison, the 538 model shows no tightening in PA (87/13) and only small tightening in FL (70/30 vs 71/29). FL is in play, but PA is almost out of reach.
RCP is better at showing faster trends but has the issue that it will overweight frequent or lower accuracy pollsters in comparison.
|
On October 25 2020 01:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 01:16 Danglars wrote:On October 25 2020 00:20 IyMoon wrote:On October 24 2020 23:24 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 19:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 24 2020 18:24 Slydie wrote: I just saw Biden has spent 582 millon dollars on his campaign, which is a new record and way more than Trump.
Nice. Should be noted though that Mike Bloomberg spent $460 million on his primary campaign in the 1st Q and it didn't help him.He must be hoping the 100 million he is now spending in Florida to help Biden will do more although if the recent polls there are any indication it's another flop. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/us/politics/bloomberg-florida-biden.html I read it was money well spent because Trump had to pull a bunch of money from the battle ground states in the north to make sure he could try to hold Florida. That could be true, Trump is low on cash and 100% can not win unless he wins FL. Then again he cant win unless he wins PA too and polls there seem to have him getting crushe The race has tightened in PA and FL. Say what you want about pollsters updating their likely voters models post-2016, but Trump beat a Hillary +4 PA lead in 2016. He'll need to do even better for unexpected turnout this time around, and Biden close to Hillary levels of reduced turnout. Trump taking FL and PA are my most likely route to a 269-269 tie. FL and PA are absolutely in play for both candidates, and I think that Trump's path to victory is contingent upon winning them both (which, again, is totally possible). I think that if Biden wins either one of these (or both), he'll win the electoral college. Thoughts? Do you see a plausible path to victory for Trump if he loses at least one of these states? I don't see him winning unless he takes both. This is heavily reliant on the polling gap and stability over time. The kind of sweeps of +1-10 Dems he'll have to make if he loses one of those two are just too unbelievable. (Then again, a 2016 win of WI-MI-PA was so unbelievable that I second guess myself a lot more these days)
I'd appreciate a few more polls released before election day to see if any races got better with that second debate performance.
Also: Scotusblog has a portal for election lawsuits. The only one I've seen break national news recently is PA's dropping the matched signature requirement for absentee ballots.
In light of all the consternation on court packing and ACB, there's a new podcast started by McConnell's old Chief of Staff and campaign manager. It might be worth a listen for people that wonder how some Republicans about as far right of center as this forum is left of center think about the history of the legislative court battles leading up to Kavanaugh. Playable from Apple's website, "It's Happening" 20 minutes. This comes with a hat tip to dearly departed Doodsmack's efforts to bring inter-echo-chamber combat to the forum.
The Expensify (Vendor of Expense Reporting Software to companies) CEO sent a long email to its entire database of company emails urging people to vote Biden to protect Democracy. They're under fire because companies gave them private employee information including email addresses which were then used for purposes outside of the services they provided. The backlash also includes people worried about the continued intrusion of politics and partisanship into business interactions.
|
United States40729 Posts
It's weird that we have some people saying "the country is falling to fascism, please help stop that" and others responding "maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but I'm tired of people talking about that".
It's such an incomprehensible response. The coherent positions are 1) The country is falling to fascism and we should stop that (Democrats) 2) The country is falling to fascism and we should embrace that (alt right) 3) The country is not falling to fascism (Republicans who don't watch the news and aren't aware that Trump bragged about sending a hit squad to kill an antifa activist a few days ago)
But there isn't a 4) I don't get why it's a big deal and I'm tired of people talking about the fall into fascism, people should stay in their lane
It's just like how if there was a giant meteor heading for Earth then "why is everyone always talking about the end of all life on earth all the time, they should all shut up, a lot of them aren't even astronomers" wouldn't be a coherent position.
Also if you genuinely believe that American democracy is on the verge of collapse then surely emailing your mailing list to ask them to try to stop that is socially responsible. You might disagree with the premise but within the context of the belief it's a commendable action.
|
On October 24 2020 18:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 09:02 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 08:59 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 24 2020 08:52 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 08:51 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 24 2020 08:50 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:as long as you don't pretend that you care about the people who are losing their lifeline when the ACA or Roe vs Wade are repelled. Just think it's important to point out again that those ships have sailed. Barrett is a "fine person" that Biden doesn't object to being on the supreme court in herself. His objection is simply to the process (which was heard, rejected, and moved past). So the 6-3 conservative court is done (just a matter of going through the motions now). Democrats can't get the court back for a loooong time without rejecting Biden's opposition to removing the filibuster and stuffing the court. Which is also what they'd have to do to get legislation passed and to stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny. The notion that people are supporting/voting for Biden to protect those things reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government works. Lots of presumption them. There is nothing Biden can do about Barrett right now. Throwing a tantrum wouldn't do anything. Since we can't go back in time and unvote Trump, best you can do is take all 3 levels of government and make there be huge consequences for trying to go back on it.
That battle is far from done, intact it has not started. What exactly do you mean by this? Sorry, poorly written. President, senate and congress. Ahh thought you were alluding to packing the courts I do think that will be one of the options if the Republicans push for overturning it. I also think they will have many other options. Also, if the Reps get it handed to them in this election I'm not sure they will do anything so unpopular after just losing big. But the big point is presumptions are not facts, lots to happen before that one is lost! If they just lost big and are on the way out, what do they have to lose by doing something unpopular? I fully expect the Republicans to ram through the SC appointment after the election when there is no prize to pay for another 2 years and those who already lost have nothing left to lose.
Just thought I should mention her full confirmation vote is on the senate schedule for Monday, not post election.
|
On October 25 2020 02:53 Danglars wrote:In light of all the consternation on court packing and ACB, there's a new podcast started by McConnell's old Chief of Staff and campaign manager. It might be worth a listen for people that wonder how some Republicans about as far right of center as this forum is left of center think about the history of the legislative court battles leading up to Kavanaugh. Playable from Apple's website, "It's Happening" 20 minutes. This comes with a hat tip to dearly departed Doodsmack's efforts to bring inter-echo-chamber combat to the forum.
I did listen to it but I wish they would go into the history more with less snark and sarcasm. There was a Frontline documentary last year that started with Mitch McConell's experience as a new senator 30 years ago when the Democrats blocked a Supreme Court nominee, and tracing his (and the Federalist Society's) role in court nominations up to the present day. It's kind of long at almost an hour but if anyone cares to watch:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/supreme-revenge/
|
On October 25 2020 04:06 KwarK wrote: It's weird that we have some people saying "the country is falling to fascism, please help stop that" and others responding "maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but I'm tired of people talking about that".
It's such an incomprehensible response. The coherent positions are 1) The country is falling to fascism and we should stop that (Democrats) 2) The country is falling to fascism and we should embrace that (alt right) 3) The country is not falling to fascism (Republicans who don't watch the news and aren't aware that Trump bragged about sending a hit squad to kill an antifa activist a few days ago)
But there isn't a 4) I don't get why it's a big deal and I'm tired of people talking about the fall into fascism, people should stay in their lane
It's just like how if there was a giant meteor heading for Earth then "why is everyone always talking about the end of all life on earth all the time, they should all shut up, a lot of them aren't even astronomers" wouldn't be a coherent position.
Also if you genuinely believe that American democracy is on the verge of collapse then surely emailing your mailing list to ask them to try to stop that is socially responsible. You might disagree with the premise but within the context of the belief it's a commendable action.
well maybe you are misinterpreting it. the letter is obviously a complaint against a business practice he doesn’t like. it’s a complaint that this mass email violates an unspoken norm within American business practices about “trust”, what business data collection should be used for, and about the sacred separation of church and business.
your post just plays around with the different significations “fascism” has and the slippage between them. position four, as you yourself have written it, already implies that anyone who holds it doesn’t think that “fascism” is “a big deal.” maybe they dont think that its a big deal because “fascism” has come to signify something like “politics i don’t like.” many on the right think they couldn’t be farther from fascism; they are committed to the Republic and liberty, and the so-callled “apolitical” who “don’t see the big deal” also might roll their eyes whenever anybody calls trump a fascist. your last paragraph, however, slips in a world-ending asteroid as a metonym for “fascism.” it can just be rejected out-of-hand.
to make another analogy, you might as well say the same thing about abortion. if a company sent out a message about the “murder” of millions of babies and someone with no strong position on abortion sent back a letter saying “hey, i don’t want to hear about abortion from you” we’d be in a similar position. maybe you’d say, “well it makes total sense if you think abortion is baby murder”—and, of course, you are right. but why don’t we see more businesses sending out jeremiads about baby murder? because it’s bad for business? because people don’t like it? if anything the letter is just a reminder to some people that not everyone thinks Trump is a fascist, not everyone even cares about Trump, and if you still feel so moved as to send out a letter like this less than four years after this country elected Trump in the first place, go ahead but know that as a consummately “independent,” liberty-minded, business man, i am going to lump you in with the other varieties of “crazy” religious extremists
|
United States40729 Posts
On October 25 2020 04:54 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 04:06 KwarK wrote: It's weird that we have some people saying "the country is falling to fascism, please help stop that" and others responding "maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but I'm tired of people talking about that".
It's such an incomprehensible response. The coherent positions are 1) The country is falling to fascism and we should stop that (Democrats) 2) The country is falling to fascism and we should embrace that (alt right) 3) The country is not falling to fascism (Republicans who don't watch the news and aren't aware that Trump bragged about sending a hit squad to kill an antifa activist a few days ago)
But there isn't a 4) I don't get why it's a big deal and I'm tired of people talking about the fall into fascism, people should stay in their lane
It's just like how if there was a giant meteor heading for Earth then "why is everyone always talking about the end of all life on earth all the time, they should all shut up, a lot of them aren't even astronomers" wouldn't be a coherent position.
Also if you genuinely believe that American democracy is on the verge of collapse then surely emailing your mailing list to ask them to try to stop that is socially responsible. You might disagree with the premise but within the context of the belief it's a commendable action. well maybe you are misinterpreting it. the letter is obviously a complaint against a business practice he doesn’t like. it’s a complaint that this mass email violates an unspoken norm within American business practices about “trust”, what business data collection should be used for, and about the sacred separation of church and business. your post just plays around with the the different significations “fascism” has and the slippage between them. position four, as you yourself have written it already implies that anyone who holds it doesn’t think that “fascism” is “a big deal,” probably because it has come to signify something like “politics i don’t like.” many on the right think they couldn’t be farther from fascism; they are committed to the Republic and liberty, and the so-callled “apolitical” who “don’t see the big deal” also might roll their eyes whenever anybody calls trump a fascist. your last paragraph, however, slips in a world-ending asteroid as a metonym for “fascism.” it can just be rejected out-of-hand. to make another analogy, you might as well say the same thing about abortion. if a company sent out a message about the “murder” of millions of babies and someone with no strong position on abortion sent back a letter saying “hey, i don’t want to hear about abortion from you” we’d be in a similar position. maybe you’d say, “well it makes total sense if you think abortion is baby murder”—and, of course, you are right. but why don’t we more businesses sending out jeremiads about baby murder? because it’s bad for business? because people don’t like it? if anything the letter is just a reminder to some people that not everyone thinks Trump is a fascist, not everyone even cares about Trump, and if you still feel so moved as to send out a letter like this less than four years after this country elected Trump in the first place, go ahead but know that as a consummately “independent,” liberty-minded, business man, i am going to lump you in with the other varieties of “crazy” religious extremists I wouldn't be very confused about why someone who believes that abortion is murder would be emailing me to let me know about it if they thought I could help stop abortions. That would make sense to me.
I certainly wouldn't say that because they're just an app creator they're not entitled to have an opinion on murder, that would be a dumb take, murder is clearly an issue large enough for everyone to have an opinion on it. I would simply add their emails to my ignore list.
|
On October 25 2020 04:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 04:54 IgnE wrote:On October 25 2020 04:06 KwarK wrote: It's weird that we have some people saying "the country is falling to fascism, please help stop that" and others responding "maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but I'm tired of people talking about that".
It's such an incomprehensible response. The coherent positions are 1) The country is falling to fascism and we should stop that (Democrats) 2) The country is falling to fascism and we should embrace that (alt right) 3) The country is not falling to fascism (Republicans who don't watch the news and aren't aware that Trump bragged about sending a hit squad to kill an antifa activist a few days ago)
But there isn't a 4) I don't get why it's a big deal and I'm tired of people talking about the fall into fascism, people should stay in their lane
It's just like how if there was a giant meteor heading for Earth then "why is everyone always talking about the end of all life on earth all the time, they should all shut up, a lot of them aren't even astronomers" wouldn't be a coherent position.
Also if you genuinely believe that American democracy is on the verge of collapse then surely emailing your mailing list to ask them to try to stop that is socially responsible. You might disagree with the premise but within the context of the belief it's a commendable action. well maybe you are misinterpreting it. the letter is obviously a complaint against a business practice he doesn’t like. it’s a complaint that this mass email violates an unspoken norm within American business practices about “trust”, what business data collection should be used for, and about the sacred separation of church and business. your post just plays around with the the different significations “fascism” has and the slippage between them. position four, as you yourself have written it already implies that anyone who holds it doesn’t think that “fascism” is “a big deal,” probably because it has come to signify something like “politics i don’t like.” many on the right think they couldn’t be farther from fascism; they are committed to the Republic and liberty, and the so-callled “apolitical” who “don’t see the big deal” also might roll their eyes whenever anybody calls trump a fascist. your last paragraph, however, slips in a world-ending asteroid as a metonym for “fascism.” it can just be rejected out-of-hand. to make another analogy, you might as well say the same thing about abortion. if a company sent out a message about the “murder” of millions of babies and someone with no strong position on abortion sent back a letter saying “hey, i don’t want to hear about abortion from you” we’d be in a similar position. maybe you’d say, “well it makes total sense if you think abortion is baby murder”—and, of course, you are right. but why don’t we more businesses sending out jeremiads about baby murder? because it’s bad for business? because people don’t like it? if anything the letter is just a reminder to some people that not everyone thinks Trump is a fascist, not everyone even cares about Trump, and if you still feel so moved as to send out a letter like this less than four years after this country elected Trump in the first place, go ahead but know that as a consummately “independent,” liberty-minded, business man, i am going to lump you in with the other varieties of “crazy” religious extremists I wouldn't be very confused about why someone who believes that abortion is murder would be emailing me to let me know about it if they thought I could help stop abortions. That would make sense to me. I certainly wouldn't say that because they're just an app creator they're not entitled to have an opinion on murder, that would be a dumb take, murder is clearly an issue large enough for everyone to have an opinion on it. I would simply add their emails to my ignore list.
well now you are just misrepresenting the argument. the letter doesn’t say that the executive board of whatever company that is “has no right to an opinion.”
|
United States40729 Posts
On October 25 2020 05:01 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 04:59 KwarK wrote:On October 25 2020 04:54 IgnE wrote:On October 25 2020 04:06 KwarK wrote: It's weird that we have some people saying "the country is falling to fascism, please help stop that" and others responding "maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but I'm tired of people talking about that".
It's such an incomprehensible response. The coherent positions are 1) The country is falling to fascism and we should stop that (Democrats) 2) The country is falling to fascism and we should embrace that (alt right) 3) The country is not falling to fascism (Republicans who don't watch the news and aren't aware that Trump bragged about sending a hit squad to kill an antifa activist a few days ago)
But there isn't a 4) I don't get why it's a big deal and I'm tired of people talking about the fall into fascism, people should stay in their lane
It's just like how if there was a giant meteor heading for Earth then "why is everyone always talking about the end of all life on earth all the time, they should all shut up, a lot of them aren't even astronomers" wouldn't be a coherent position.
Also if you genuinely believe that American democracy is on the verge of collapse then surely emailing your mailing list to ask them to try to stop that is socially responsible. You might disagree with the premise but within the context of the belief it's a commendable action. well maybe you are misinterpreting it. the letter is obviously a complaint against a business practice he doesn’t like. it’s a complaint that this mass email violates an unspoken norm within American business practices about “trust”, what business data collection should be used for, and about the sacred separation of church and business. your post just plays around with the the different significations “fascism” has and the slippage between them. position four, as you yourself have written it already implies that anyone who holds it doesn’t think that “fascism” is “a big deal,” probably because it has come to signify something like “politics i don’t like.” many on the right think they couldn’t be farther from fascism; they are committed to the Republic and liberty, and the so-callled “apolitical” who “don’t see the big deal” also might roll their eyes whenever anybody calls trump a fascist. your last paragraph, however, slips in a world-ending asteroid as a metonym for “fascism.” it can just be rejected out-of-hand. to make another analogy, you might as well say the same thing about abortion. if a company sent out a message about the “murder” of millions of babies and someone with no strong position on abortion sent back a letter saying “hey, i don’t want to hear about abortion from you” we’d be in a similar position. maybe you’d say, “well it makes total sense if you think abortion is baby murder”—and, of course, you are right. but why don’t we more businesses sending out jeremiads about baby murder? because it’s bad for business? because people don’t like it? if anything the letter is just a reminder to some people that not everyone thinks Trump is a fascist, not everyone even cares about Trump, and if you still feel so moved as to send out a letter like this less than four years after this country elected Trump in the first place, go ahead but know that as a consummately “independent,” liberty-minded, business man, i am going to lump you in with the other varieties of “crazy” religious extremists I wouldn't be very confused about why someone who believes that abortion is murder would be emailing me to let me know about it if they thought I could help stop abortions. That would make sense to me. I certainly wouldn't say that because they're just an app creator they're not entitled to have an opinion on murder, that would be a dumb take, murder is clearly an issue large enough for everyone to have an opinion on it. I would simply add their emails to my ignore list. well now you are just misrepresenting the argument. the letter doesn’t say that the executive board of whatever company that is “has no right to an opinion.” The letter says that he doesn't want to hear the opinions of app creators and people who look good on tv. He's complaining that people like that are telling him their political opinions. I'm not suggesting he thinks they should be forcefully silenced, I don't think rights come into it, he's saying they should stay in their lane. My issue with that is that some topics are big enough that they're relevant to everyone.
|
Northern Ireland20514 Posts
If I had an issue with corporate political pontificating it’s that it’s so often untethered from actual consultation with the rank and file workers who ultimately enable a company to be an entity with such clout and reach.
On the other hand I’m not sure why businesses wouldn’t assume political positions when they’re legally people for some reason.
|
On October 25 2020 05:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 05:01 IgnE wrote:On October 25 2020 04:59 KwarK wrote:On October 25 2020 04:54 IgnE wrote:On October 25 2020 04:06 KwarK wrote: It's weird that we have some people saying "the country is falling to fascism, please help stop that" and others responding "maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but I'm tired of people talking about that".
It's such an incomprehensible response. The coherent positions are 1) The country is falling to fascism and we should stop that (Democrats) 2) The country is falling to fascism and we should embrace that (alt right) 3) The country is not falling to fascism (Republicans who don't watch the news and aren't aware that Trump bragged about sending a hit squad to kill an antifa activist a few days ago)
But there isn't a 4) I don't get why it's a big deal and I'm tired of people talking about the fall into fascism, people should stay in their lane
It's just like how if there was a giant meteor heading for Earth then "why is everyone always talking about the end of all life on earth all the time, they should all shut up, a lot of them aren't even astronomers" wouldn't be a coherent position.
Also if you genuinely believe that American democracy is on the verge of collapse then surely emailing your mailing list to ask them to try to stop that is socially responsible. You might disagree with the premise but within the context of the belief it's a commendable action. well maybe you are misinterpreting it. the letter is obviously a complaint against a business practice he doesn’t like. it’s a complaint that this mass email violates an unspoken norm within American business practices about “trust”, what business data collection should be used for, and about the sacred separation of church and business. your post just plays around with the the different significations “fascism” has and the slippage between them. position four, as you yourself have written it already implies that anyone who holds it doesn’t think that “fascism” is “a big deal,” probably because it has come to signify something like “politics i don’t like.” many on the right think they couldn’t be farther from fascism; they are committed to the Republic and liberty, and the so-callled “apolitical” who “don’t see the big deal” also might roll their eyes whenever anybody calls trump a fascist. your last paragraph, however, slips in a world-ending asteroid as a metonym for “fascism.” it can just be rejected out-of-hand. to make another analogy, you might as well say the same thing about abortion. if a company sent out a message about the “murder” of millions of babies and someone with no strong position on abortion sent back a letter saying “hey, i don’t want to hear about abortion from you” we’d be in a similar position. maybe you’d say, “well it makes total sense if you think abortion is baby murder”—and, of course, you are right. but why don’t we more businesses sending out jeremiads about baby murder? because it’s bad for business? because people don’t like it? if anything the letter is just a reminder to some people that not everyone thinks Trump is a fascist, not everyone even cares about Trump, and if you still feel so moved as to send out a letter like this less than four years after this country elected Trump in the first place, go ahead but know that as a consummately “independent,” liberty-minded, business man, i am going to lump you in with the other varieties of “crazy” religious extremists I wouldn't be very confused about why someone who believes that abortion is murder would be emailing me to let me know about it if they thought I could help stop abortions. That would make sense to me. I certainly wouldn't say that because they're just an app creator they're not entitled to have an opinion on murder, that would be a dumb take, murder is clearly an issue large enough for everyone to have an opinion on it. I would simply add their emails to my ignore list. well now you are just misrepresenting the argument. the letter doesn’t say that the executive board of whatever company that is “has no right to an opinion.” The letter says is that he doesn't want to hear the opinions of app creators and people who look good on tv. He's complaining that people like that are telling him their political opinions. I'm not suggesting he thinks they should be forcefully silenced, I don't think rights come into it, he's saying they should stay in their lane. My issue with that is that some topics are big enough that they're relevant to everyone.
ok, there is certainly some play in the text that slides into “stay in your lane.” but ultimately he takes issue with getting a mass email from a vendor, and sees it as a violation of privacy norms in business. you can say it’s not a big deal and that he should ignore the emails or mark them as junk, but it’s not really that strange to request that private information given for one limited purpose not be used for other purposes. would a series of emails about voting (for trump??) from your doctor not be annoying?
to take a step back though, what’s the over-under on votes gained by such an email? 1 vote? 0.5 votes? NEGATIVE votes caused by energizing borderline Trumpers? it’s so obviously such a dumb email for a vendor to send. who isn’t getting bombarded with such messaging from so many places that an email from a business vendor they deal with really makes the difference for Biden? it almost makes you think the email is just pure signaling: we are Team Blue. which also seems incredibly stupid to me. but i don’t run a business so what do i know.
|
On October 25 2020 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 18:02 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 09:02 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 08:59 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 24 2020 08:52 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 08:51 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 24 2020 08:50 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:as long as you don't pretend that you care about the people who are losing their lifeline when the ACA or Roe vs Wade are repelled. Just think it's important to point out again that those ships have sailed. Barrett is a "fine person" that Biden doesn't object to being on the supreme court in herself. His objection is simply to the process (which was heard, rejected, and moved past). So the 6-3 conservative court is done (just a matter of going through the motions now). Democrats can't get the court back for a loooong time without rejecting Biden's opposition to removing the filibuster and stuffing the court. Which is also what they'd have to do to get legislation passed and to stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny. The notion that people are supporting/voting for Biden to protect those things reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government works. Lots of presumption them. There is nothing Biden can do about Barrett right now. Throwing a tantrum wouldn't do anything. Since we can't go back in time and unvote Trump, best you can do is take all 3 levels of government and make there be huge consequences for trying to go back on it.
That battle is far from done, intact it has not started. What exactly do you mean by this? Sorry, poorly written. President, senate and congress. Ahh thought you were alluding to packing the courts I do think that will be one of the options if the Republicans push for overturning it. I also think they will have many other options. Also, if the Reps get it handed to them in this election I'm not sure they will do anything so unpopular after just losing big. But the big point is presumptions are not facts, lots to happen before that one is lost! If they just lost big and are on the way out, what do they have to lose by doing something unpopular? I fully expect the Republicans to ram through the SC appointment after the election when there is no prize to pay for another 2 years and those who already lost have nothing left to lose. Just thought I should mention her full confirmation vote is on the senate schedule for Monday, not post election. thanks, didn't know that. I would have expected them to do it after the election.
|
United States40729 Posts
Yeah, I don't think it's a good email and I wouldn't send it myself. And I agree it's not in line with business norms to ask users to vote a specific way (though I don't see how it's a privacy issue, they're not sharing or selling user info etc.). But I don't think it's a confusing email and I wouldn't reply with "stay in your lane". I see why someone would want to spam email about the issue and why they have an opinion on the issue. If my dentist was telling me to vote Trump I'd just switch dentist and put them on the ignore list.
|
On October 25 2020 04:53 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 02:53 Danglars wrote:In light of all the consternation on court packing and ACB, there's a new podcast started by McConnell's old Chief of Staff and campaign manager. It might be worth a listen for people that wonder how some Republicans about as far right of center as this forum is left of center think about the history of the legislative court battles leading up to Kavanaugh. Playable from Apple's website, "It's Happening" 20 minutes. This comes with a hat tip to dearly departed Doodsmack's efforts to bring inter-echo-chamber combat to the forum. I did listen to it but I wish they would go into the history more with less snark and sarcasm. There was a Frontline documentary last year that started with Mitch McConell's experience as a new senator 30 years ago when the Democrats blocked a Supreme Court nominee, and tracing his (and the Federalist Society's) role in court nominations up to the present day. It's kind of long at almost an hour but if anyone cares to watch: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/supreme-revenge/ You saw the warning that they were just as far right of center as this thread is left of center (American context). The snark is valuable to help people understand the "own the libs" meshing in with an average right-wing political viewpoint. The articles at, say, the National Review are much better for people that can't filter the jibes. However, they're the ones that published "Against Trump," so you miss the opinion commentary that a more pro-Trump or Trump-curious viewpoint brings. Anyways, thanks for listening and always question your own bubble.
|
On October 25 2020 05:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2020 18:02 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 09:02 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 08:59 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 24 2020 08:52 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 08:51 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 24 2020 08:50 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:as long as you don't pretend that you care about the people who are losing their lifeline when the ACA or Roe vs Wade are repelled. Just think it's important to point out again that those ships have sailed. Barrett is a "fine person" that Biden doesn't object to being on the supreme court in herself. His objection is simply to the process (which was heard, rejected, and moved past). So the 6-3 conservative court is done (just a matter of going through the motions now). Democrats can't get the court back for a loooong time without rejecting Biden's opposition to removing the filibuster and stuffing the court. Which is also what they'd have to do to get legislation passed and to stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny. The notion that people are supporting/voting for Biden to protect those things reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government works. Lots of presumption them. There is nothing Biden can do about Barrett right now. Throwing a tantrum wouldn't do anything. Since we can't go back in time and unvote Trump, best you can do is take all 3 levels of government and make there be huge consequences for trying to go back on it.
That battle is far from done, intact it has not started. What exactly do you mean by this? Sorry, poorly written. President, senate and congress. Ahh thought you were alluding to packing the courts I do think that will be one of the options if the Republicans push for overturning it. I also think they will have many other options. Also, if the Reps get it handed to them in this election I'm not sure they will do anything so unpopular after just losing big. But the big point is presumptions are not facts, lots to happen before that one is lost! If they just lost big and are on the way out, what do they have to lose by doing something unpopular? I fully expect the Republicans to ram through the SC appointment after the election when there is no prize to pay for another 2 years and those who already lost have nothing left to lose. Just thought I should mention her full confirmation vote is on the senate schedule for Monday, not post election. thanks, didn't know that. I would have expected them to do it after the election.
NP. Whatever threats the 6-3 conservative court poses to people's rights are coming regardless of who wins the election. Taking issues to the supreme court is one of Republicans primary activities when they don't hold majorities. So really it's hard for me to say whether losing would make them more or less likely to drag all their issues to the 6-3 conservative supreme court to get favorable rulings.
|
On October 25 2020 05:22 KwarK wrote: Yeah, I don't think it's a good email and I wouldn't send it myself. And I agree it's not in line with business norms to ask users to vote a specific way (though I don't see how it's a privacy issue, they're not sharing or selling user info etc.). But I don't think it's a confusing email and I wouldn't reply with "stay in your lane". I see why someone would want to spam email about the issue and why they have an opinion on the issue. If my dentist was telling me to vote Trump I'd just switch dentist and put them on the ignore list.
it’s a portentous sign, is it not, that there are quite a few stories like this about American business leaders? call it the great stagnation, call it the politicization of everything, but more and more executives these days don’t seem to adhere to the old “business is business” mentality. what is becoming of business? i don’t know whether the personalization of corporations is mystifying or demystifying or something else entirely.
|
On October 25 2020 05:39 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 05:22 KwarK wrote: Yeah, I don't think it's a good email and I wouldn't send it myself. And I agree it's not in line with business norms to ask users to vote a specific way (though I don't see how it's a privacy issue, they're not sharing or selling user info etc.). But I don't think it's a confusing email and I wouldn't reply with "stay in your lane". I see why someone would want to spam email about the issue and why they have an opinion on the issue. If my dentist was telling me to vote Trump I'd just switch dentist and put them on the ignore list. it’s a portentous sign, is it not, that there are quite a few stories like this about American business leaders? call it the great stagnation, call it the politicization of everything, but more and more executives these days don’t seem to adhere to the old “business is business” mentality. what is becoming of business? i don’t know whether the personalization of corporations is mystifying or demystifying or something else entirely. As the US becomes more and more tribal and everything gets politicised, even something as basic as the response to a healthcare crisis, is it really weird that companies get swept along in that? I would think its a logical consequence of where the country is going.
|
United States40729 Posts
On October 25 2020 05:39 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 05:22 KwarK wrote: Yeah, I don't think it's a good email and I wouldn't send it myself. And I agree it's not in line with business norms to ask users to vote a specific way (though I don't see how it's a privacy issue, they're not sharing or selling user info etc.). But I don't think it's a confusing email and I wouldn't reply with "stay in your lane". I see why someone would want to spam email about the issue and why they have an opinion on the issue. If my dentist was telling me to vote Trump I'd just switch dentist and put them on the ignore list. it’s a portentous sign, is it not, that there are quite a few stories like this about American business leaders? call it the great stagnation, call it the politicization of everything, but more and more executives these days don’t seem to adhere to the old “business is business” mentality. what is becoming of business? i don’t know whether the personalization of corporations is mystifying or demystifying or something else entirely. I think it’s good. I like knowing that the guy behind Oculus Rift is a literal Nazi before choosing a Vive. I like that Chick-Fil’A openly fund the criminalization of homosexuality in the third world. Within capitalism spending is supporting. You can’t patronize a business without implicitly endorsing and empowering the owners. The more of them that out themselves, the better. “Just business” was always a useful lie used by owners to separate what they do with your money from you giving them the money.
|
Finally watched the debate. I think this one went better for Trump, though not because he performed well, but because he was way too aggressive in the first one.
I'm a bit worried about how the larger audience received Biden's statements. On paper the words he said would make more sense than Trump's, but in the debate he often sounded like a rambling old man while Trump spoke clearly and vigorously.
|
Watching my president speak fills my body with a surge of pure, American patriotism. I feel nothing but pride in my country. I love living in a democracy. I also love the electoral college.
I don't love the selection process for vice presidential candidates. Basically no one wanted Kamala Harris, but Biden chose her over Bernie Sanders because he didn't want to get upstaged... And he's 78 years old and a weak personality, so if he gets elected she has the highest chance out of any VP to ascend to the presidency - and this on the "merit" of being an easy-to-influence corporate sellout.
It would of course be better if we could have more than 2 major parties - And it would be ideal if the media could not be bought on partisan grounds. Last time I checked, CNN had literally 0 coverage of the Biden Laptop scandal.
But we have the debates to show us what the candidates are really about, and I'm proud as hell that President Donald Trump is strong enough to get his message through despite our horrible propagandist media.
|
On October 25 2020 06:06 ThunderJunk wrote: Watching my president speak fills my body with a surge of pure, American patriotism. I feel nothing but pride in my country. I love living in a democracy. I also love the electoral college.
I don't love the selection process for vice presidential candidates. Basically no one wanted Kamala Harris, but Biden chose her over Bernie Sanders because he didn't want to get upstaged... And he's 78 years old and a weak personality, so if he gets elected she has the highest chance out of any VP to ascend to the presidency - and this on the "merit" of being an easy-to-influence corporate sellout.
It would of course be better if we could have more than 2 major parties - And it would be ideal if the media could not be bought on partisan grounds. Last time I checked, CNN had literally 0 coverage of the Biden Laptop scandal.
But we have the debates to show us what the candidates are really about, and I'm proud as hell that President Donald Trump is strong enough to get his message through despite our horrible propagandist media.
Is this sarcasm?
|
Murkowski will vote to confirm Barrett so there's no moonshot hailmary to stop Barrett.
While a 6-3 conservative court is scheduled to happen, it could get worse if Trump or another Republican wins in the next 8 years. Breyer's next to retire at 82 (barring unforeseen health issues with Thomas 72 or others).
If Breyer pulls a Ginsburg and doesn't retire if Biden wins (or can't make it through another Trump term), a 7-2 conservative court for a decade or so becomes a real possibility.
|
United States40729 Posts
On October 25 2020 06:08 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 06:06 ThunderJunk wrote: Watching my president speak fills my body with a surge of pure, American patriotism. I feel nothing but pride in my country. I love living in a democracy. I also love the electoral college.
I don't love the selection process for vice presidential candidates. Basically no one wanted Kamala Harris, but Biden chose her over Bernie Sanders because he didn't want to get upstaged... And he's 78 years old and a weak personality, so if he gets elected she has the highest chance out of any VP to ascend to the presidency - and this on the "merit" of being an easy-to-influence corporate sellout.
It would of course be better if we could have more than 2 major parties - And it would be ideal if the media could not be bought on partisan grounds. Last time I checked, CNN had literally 0 coverage of the Biden Laptop scandal.
But we have the debates to show us what the candidates are really about, and I'm proud as hell that President Donald Trump is strong enough to get his message through despite our horrible propagandist media. Is this sarcasm? I think he’s just confused and doesn’t realize that most of what he said is contradictory, verifiably false, or meaningless. I did like the immediate endorsement of the electoral college after democracy though. He loves that we get to vote, but he also loves that the winner isn’t the guy who got more votes.
|
On October 25 2020 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Murkowski will vote to confirm Barrett so there's no moonshot hailmary to stop Barrett. https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1320107299755692034While a 6-3 conservative court is scheduled to happen, it could get worse if Trump or another Republican wins in the next 8 years. Breyer's next to retire at 82 (barring unforeseen health issues with Thomas 72 or others). If Breyer pulls a Ginsburg and doesn't retire if Biden wins (or can't make it through another Trump term), a 7-2 conservative court for a decade or so becomes a real possibility. Confirmation is a go-go. Oddly enough Mondays vote date is also Hillary Clinton's birthday.Four years later and the salt is still being rubbed in.
|
On October 25 2020 01:32 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 01:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 25 2020 01:16 Danglars wrote:On October 25 2020 00:20 IyMoon wrote:On October 24 2020 23:24 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 19:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 24 2020 18:24 Slydie wrote: I just saw Biden has spent 582 millon dollars on his campaign, which is a new record and way more than Trump.
Nice. Should be noted though that Mike Bloomberg spent $460 million on his primary campaign in the 1st Q and it didn't help him.He must be hoping the 100 million he is now spending in Florida to help Biden will do more although if the recent polls there are any indication it's another flop. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/us/politics/bloomberg-florida-biden.html I read it was money well spent because Trump had to pull a bunch of money from the battle ground states in the north to make sure he could try to hold Florida. That could be true, Trump is low on cash and 100% can not win unless he wins FL. Then again he cant win unless he wins PA too and polls there seem to have him getting crushe The race has tightened in PA and FL. Say what you want about pollsters updating their likely voters models post-2016, but Trump beat a Hillary +4 PA lead in 2016. He'll need to do even better for unexpected turnout this time around, and Biden close to Hillary levels of reduced turnout. Trump taking FL and PA are my most likely route to a 269-269 tie. FL and PA are absolutely in play for both candidates, and I think that Trump's path to victory is contingent upon winning them both (which, again, is totally possible). I think that if Biden wins either one of these (or both), he'll win the electoral college. Thoughts? Do you see a plausible path to victory for Trump if he loses at least one of these states? If Trump wins both of those, I think he takes it, but I don't think he will win if he loses either
I think so too, and I think the most likely scenario is that Biden wins PA, while FL - like in so many previous elections - ends up being a coinflip, which either gives Trump a close loss (if FL picks Trump) or a pretty large loss (if FL picks Biden).
On October 25 2020 02:12 Shingi11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 01:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 25 2020 01:16 Danglars wrote:On October 25 2020 00:20 IyMoon wrote:On October 24 2020 23:24 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 19:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 24 2020 18:24 Slydie wrote: I just saw Biden has spent 582 millon dollars on his campaign, which is a new record and way more than Trump.
Nice. Should be noted though that Mike Bloomberg spent $460 million on his primary campaign in the 1st Q and it didn't help him.He must be hoping the 100 million he is now spending in Florida to help Biden will do more although if the recent polls there are any indication it's another flop. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/us/politics/bloomberg-florida-biden.html I read it was money well spent because Trump had to pull a bunch of money from the battle ground states in the north to make sure he could try to hold Florida. That could be true, Trump is low on cash and 100% can not win unless he wins FL. Then again he cant win unless he wins PA too and polls there seem to have him getting crushe The race has tightened in PA and FL. Say what you want about pollsters updating their likely voters models post-2016, but Trump beat a Hillary +4 PA lead in 2016. He'll need to do even better for unexpected turnout this time around, and Biden close to Hillary levels of reduced turnout. Trump taking FL and PA are my most likely route to a 269-269 tie. FL and PA are absolutely in play for both candidates, and I think that Trump's path to victory is contingent upon winning them both (which, again, is totally possible). I think that if Biden wins either one of these (or both), he'll win the electoral college. Thoughts? Do you see a plausible path to victory for Trump if he loses at least one of these states? While I give you florida is in play PA is not at least for now. Not only is Biden around 50 % but you have to take the whole rust belt into account. There is most no Scenario where only PA goes red by itself. If the rust belt goes red it is going together and Biden is killing it in all of them.
I think you bring up a good point about the Rust Belt states potentially being a bit of a packaged deal, especially since the RB states went entirely to Trump in 2016 (except for Illinois, if that's even included). I definitely feel better about the RB states going to Biden than I felt in 2016 right before the Trump-Clinton election, but given Trump beating the odds in 2016, I'm still holding my breath when it comes to states he won last time (including PA).
On October 25 2020 02:39 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 01:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 25 2020 01:16 Danglars wrote:On October 25 2020 00:20 IyMoon wrote:On October 24 2020 23:24 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 19:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 24 2020 18:24 Slydie wrote: I just saw Biden has spent 582 millon dollars on his campaign, which is a new record and way more than Trump.
Nice. Should be noted though that Mike Bloomberg spent $460 million on his primary campaign in the 1st Q and it didn't help him.He must be hoping the 100 million he is now spending in Florida to help Biden will do more although if the recent polls there are any indication it's another flop. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/us/politics/bloomberg-florida-biden.html I read it was money well spent because Trump had to pull a bunch of money from the battle ground states in the north to make sure he could try to hold Florida. That could be true, Trump is low on cash and 100% can not win unless he wins FL. Then again he cant win unless he wins PA too and polls there seem to have him getting crushe The race has tightened in PA and FL. Say what you want about pollsters updating their likely voters models post-2016, but Trump beat a Hillary +4 PA lead in 2016. He'll need to do even better for unexpected turnout this time around, and Biden close to Hillary levels of reduced turnout. Trump taking FL and PA are my most likely route to a 269-269 tie. FL and PA are absolutely in play for both candidates, and I think that Trump's path to victory is contingent upon winning them both (which, again, is totally possible). I think that if Biden wins either one of these (or both), he'll win the electoral college. Thoughts? Do you see a plausible path to victory for Trump if he loses at least one of these states? For comparison, the 538 model shows no tightening in PA (87/13) and only small tightening in FL (70/30 vs 71/29). FL is in play, but PA is almost out of reach. RCP is better at showing faster trends but has the issue that it will overweight frequent or lower accuracy pollsters in comparison.
Yeah, I like using 538 and RCP and any other repository of polling data that can do a meta-analysis on the polls. In RCP, the average PA spread is +5.1 for Biden, which is surely better than not having a lead throughout literally all of June, July, August, September, and October, but if there's a small change + the natural margin of error, it could break towards Trump. My current evaluation of PA is basically "I think it's likely that Biden will win the state, but it's still one of the states that I'm going to click 'refresh' on, once a day, to make sure I stay up to date." https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_biden-6861.html#polls
On October 25 2020 02:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 01:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 25 2020 01:16 Danglars wrote:On October 25 2020 00:20 IyMoon wrote:On October 24 2020 23:24 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 19:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 24 2020 18:24 Slydie wrote: I just saw Biden has spent 582 millon dollars on his campaign, which is a new record and way more than Trump.
Nice. Should be noted though that Mike Bloomberg spent $460 million on his primary campaign in the 1st Q and it didn't help him.He must be hoping the 100 million he is now spending in Florida to help Biden will do more although if the recent polls there are any indication it's another flop. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/us/politics/bloomberg-florida-biden.html I read it was money well spent because Trump had to pull a bunch of money from the battle ground states in the north to make sure he could try to hold Florida. That could be true, Trump is low on cash and 100% can not win unless he wins FL. Then again he cant win unless he wins PA too and polls there seem to have him getting crushe The race has tightened in PA and FL. Say what you want about pollsters updating their likely voters models post-2016, but Trump beat a Hillary +4 PA lead in 2016. He'll need to do even better for unexpected turnout this time around, and Biden close to Hillary levels of reduced turnout. Trump taking FL and PA are my most likely route to a 269-269 tie. FL and PA are absolutely in play for both candidates, and I think that Trump's path to victory is contingent upon winning them both (which, again, is totally possible). I think that if Biden wins either one of these (or both), he'll win the electoral college. Thoughts? Do you see a plausible path to victory for Trump if he loses at least one of these states? I don't see him winning unless he takes both. This is heavily reliant on the polling gap and stability over time. The kind of sweeps of +1-10 Dems he'll have to make if he loses one of those two are just too unbelievable. (Then again, a 2016 win of WI-MI-PA was so unbelievable that I second guess myself a lot more these days) I'd appreciate a few more polls released before election day to see if any races got better with that second debate performance.
I'm sure we'll get those polls in the upcoming week, and it'd be interesting to see if any state data had significant changes based on the second debate. I don't want to assume a causal relationship, but I think if multiple states / regions suddenly end up with a huge swing right after a debate (e.g., the Rust Belt), then there's probably reason to believe that a candidate said something that really did (or didn't) resonate with those constituents.
|
Prediction: Trump wins Florida, Biden nauseatingly barely wins PA due to the oil comments, ends up winning due to the ballots being received after voting day. Becomes a supreme court thing. 5-4 in favor of Biden.
|
On October 25 2020 07:56 Mohdoo wrote: Prediction: Trump wins Florida, Biden nauseatingly barely wins PA due to the oil comments, ends up winning due to the ballots being received after voting day. Becomes a supreme court thing. 5-4 in favor of Biden.
While I know that any sort of loss will be rejected by Trump and many of his supporters as "Democrats rigging the election", I would certainly appreciate *not* having the stress of your kind of hypothetical close call (although I'm sure it'll happen somewhere, and the places that it'll matter the most would be Florida and Pennsylvania). I'd love for each state to cleanly break either way.
|
Despite however the election goes, the Democrats have put up 0 or negative fight when it came to ACB getting confirmed. It's basically gonna happen. Republicans said "we made this precedent, now we're getting rid of it, fuck you" and the Democrat's response as a whole has been "yeah sure, I guess that's fine". It should have been an absolute non-starter for them, but they're still hanging in there trying to appease these Republican shitbags. And with that, their chances of doing much to actually move forward seems near 0. There's room to see if anything doesn't quite go as expected, but the typical pattern of Republicans setting the Democratic doormat down to be stepped on is holding just fine.
|
On October 25 2020 08:08 NewSunshine wrote: Despite however the election goes, the Democrats have put up 0 or negative fight when it came to ACB getting confirmed. It's basically gonna happen. Republicans said "we made this precedent, now we're getting rid of it, fuck you" and the Democrat's response as a whole has been "yeah sure, I guess that's fine". It should have been an absolute non-starter for them, but they're still hanging in there trying to appease these Republican shitbags. And with that, their chances of doing much to actually move forward seems near 0. There's room to see if anything doesn't quite go as expected, but the typical pattern of Republicans setting the Democratic doormat down to be stepped on is holding just fine.
I agree, and there's absolutely no way they'd even consider packing the courts / adding more SCJs either, even given the fact that there's a reasonable chance that the presidency + the Senate + the House all end up blue.
|
I suspect they would if RvW is in the balance. I think it will be the MAD (mutually assured destruction) option that would actually become popular if that happens.
Otherwise I agree they probably won't touch it.
|
On October 25 2020 08:21 JimmiC wrote: I suspect they would if RvW is in the balance. I think it will be the MAD (mutually assured destruction) option that would actually become popular if that happens.
Otherwise I agree they probably won't touch it.
So, like, every time either side (D or R) regains control of every necessary cog in the court-packing machine, that side increases the number of judges by even more, to make the court lopsided in their own direction?
|
On October 25 2020 08:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 08:21 JimmiC wrote: I suspect they would if RvW is in the balance. I think it will be the MAD (mutually assured destruction) option that would actually become popular if that happens.
Otherwise I agree they probably won't touch it. So, like, every time either side (D or R) regains control of every necessary cog in the court-packing machine, that side increases the number of judges by even more, to make the court lopsided in their own direction? I think more like everytime the reps threaten RvW the dems start to talk about packing the court. And if the Dems try something on say gun control the reps say they will go at RvW in the courts.
But the back and forth is possible, unless someone changes the rules. I could see something like term limits so each side is not picking the youngest possible option, as maybe a doable change.
But mostly I see a lot of threatening and this is the end grandstanding.
|
On October 25 2020 08:08 NewSunshine wrote: Despite however the election goes, the Democrats have put up 0 or negative fight when it came to ACB getting confirmed. It's basically gonna happen. Republicans said "we made this precedent, now we're getting rid of it, fuck you" and the Democrat's response as a whole has been "yeah sure, I guess that's fine". It should have been an absolute non-starter for them, but they're still hanging in there trying to appease these Republican shitbags. And with that, their chances of doing much to actually move forward seems near 0. There's room to see if anything doesn't quite go as expected, but the typical pattern of Republicans setting the Democratic doormat down to be stepped on is holding just fine.
What are you expecting them to do? Republicans have the votes and she is being confirmed.
|
United States40729 Posts
On October 25 2020 08:45 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 08:08 NewSunshine wrote: Despite however the election goes, the Democrats have put up 0 or negative fight when it came to ACB getting confirmed. It's basically gonna happen. Republicans said "we made this precedent, now we're getting rid of it, fuck you" and the Democrat's response as a whole has been "yeah sure, I guess that's fine". It should have been an absolute non-starter for them, but they're still hanging in there trying to appease these Republican shitbags. And with that, their chances of doing much to actually move forward seems near 0. There's room to see if anything doesn't quite go as expected, but the typical pattern of Republicans setting the Democratic doormat down to be stepped on is holding just fine. What are you expecting them to do? Republicans have the votes and she is being confirmed. Pledging to expand the court if the Republicans proceed with this bullshit might work.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On October 25 2020 08:08 NewSunshine wrote: Despite however the election goes, the Democrats have put up 0 or negative fight when it came to ACB getting confirmed. It's basically gonna happen. Republicans said "we made this precedent, now we're getting rid of it, fuck you" and the Democrat's response as a whole has been "yeah sure, I guess that's fine". It should have been an absolute non-starter for them, but they're still hanging in there trying to appease these Republican shitbags. And with that, their chances of doing much to actually move forward seems near 0. There's room to see if anything doesn't quite go as expected, but the typical pattern of Republicans setting the Democratic doormat down to be stepped on is holding just fine. The potential to use this “unprecedented” event as a talking point to potentially win Congress and the presidency seems to be more important to Democrats than the policy consequences of the event itself.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36622 Posts
|
|
|
|