|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 18 2024 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2024 08:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Earlier today, Biden announced that he would consider dropping out of the presidential race if a medical condition emerged.
Within a few hours, Biden tested positive for covid. It's pretty clear that Democrats are calling Biden's bluff with Schiff coming out publicly and unambiguously telling him to step aside. They're willing to publicly tank his campaign (if they haven't already with Biden's help) if he refuses. Basically the only way out of this for Democrats is for Biden to step away from the nomination. Catch is, there is a pretty unambiguous expectation from Democrats that Biden should step away, but they are not nearly as unified on what comes after that. Basically the party establishment figures trying to push Biden out of the nomination aren't the people that want to replace him with Harris. I agree that the push for Biden to step down is significantly more unified then the answer for who should replace him.
But I also think that the party is willing and able to rally behind whoever ends up clinching it.
|
I wish Plasmid was still here to weigh in on things.
|
On July 18 2024 17:16 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2024 17:01 BlackJack wrote:On July 18 2024 16:26 MJG wrote:On July 18 2024 09:42 BlackJack wrote:On July 18 2024 01:37 KwarK wrote:
I guess there’s two approaches. You could institute genital inspections or you could use common sense. If someone claiming to be a trans woman who has made no effort to transition or pass as a woman enters the woman’s bathroom and assaults someone you could treat them as a man. Hell, the refusal to follow the signage isn’t really the issue there, you already got them on assault, the signage thing is someone moot. And if someone with breasts, long hair, wearing a dress enters the woman’s bathroom then it’s probably fine, regardless of their birth certificate. Though the odds are even more likely that when a bearded man enters then their kid just ran in and they’re getting them or that they went into the wrong room by accident. If there are cubicles then who even cares.
Whether someone is “passing” is completely irrelevant to what bathroom they should use. Not every trans woman wants to wear dresses and have breasts and long hair. Clothing and hairstyles don’t have a designated gender. Men can have long hair and women can have a full beard. People shouldn’t have to fulfill certain gender stereotypes just to take a shit. I think that KwarK's more salient point was that someone who is willing to commit sexual assault probably isn't going to care what it says on the door to a restroom, and so the chances of someone faking being transgender just so that they can get into a restroom to sexually assault someone is vanishingly small. As far as I can tell the only requirement to becoming a woman is to declare oneself a woman so it’s not exactly a giant hurdle to “fake being transgender” if someone wanted to use that as a ruse to gain entry to women’s spaces. Do you think anybody at all will react significantly differently if a person with a lecherous look walks into the bathroom, and when confronted with why they are barging in answers "because I'm a woman" vs "because I wanted to"?
What’s your objective measure of a lecherous look? A wandering glance would probably be interpreted wildly differently in a women’s locker room if it came from a woman vs a man. That’s kind of why women don’t want men there in the first place. If however that person that appears to be a man simply says “but I’m a woman” then the women have to tolerate that persons presence lest they be a transphobe.
|
Yesterday, I was trying to organize all the different ways that Trump tried to overthrow the 2020 election: pressuring state officials to fabricate votes (like in Georgia), making it harder for blue areas to receive votes by targeting/removing certain voting stations, making it harder to vote early or via absentee ballot (which are disproportionately more common in liberal urban areas), dozens of frivolous lawsuits that even his own state judges wouldn't take seriously, lies about widespread voter fraud, lies about voting machines being compromised and tampered with, stochastic terrorism and gaslighting that led to the January 6th riot as an attempt to stop the certification of the vote, etc.
I then realized that I didn't know the full story about the plot to recruit *slates of fake electors* by Trump and his inner circle, where select MAGA cultists would pretend to be official representatives from multiple states that Biden won, and attempt to convince Pence that their fake Trump-Won-My-State certifications should be used in the official electoral college tally, to make it seem like Trump won at least 270 electoral votes (and therefore won the election). As I read through the well-sourced Wiki article, I was horrified to learn just how methodical and sinister the scheme really was:
"After the results of the 2020 United States presidential election determined U.S. president Donald Trump had lost, a scheme was devised by him, his associates and Republican Party officials in seven states to subvert the election by creating and submitting fraudulent certificates of ascertainment to falsely claim Trump had won the electoral college vote in those states.[1] The intent of the scheme was to pass the fraudulent certificates to then-vice president Mike Pence in the hope he would count them, rather than the authentic certificates, and thus overturn Joe Biden's victory. This scheme was defended by a fringe legal theory developed by Trump attorneys Kenneth Chesebro and John Eastman, detailed in the Eastman memos, which claimed a vice president has the constitutional discretion to swap official electors with an alternate slate during the certification process, thus changing the outcome of the electoral college vote and the overall winner of the presidential race. The scheme came to be known as the Pence Card. By June 2024, dozens of Republican state officials and Trump associates had been indicted in five states for their alleged involvement. The federal Smith special counsel investigation is investigating Trump's role in the events. Testimony has revealed that Trump was fully aware of the fake electors scheme, and knew that Eastman's plan for Pence to obstruct the certification of electoral votes was a violation of the Electoral Count Act.[2][3]
Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, a "central figure" in the plot, coordinated the scheme across the seven states.[4][5] In a conference call on January 2, 2021, Trump, Eastman, and Giuliani spoke to some 300 Republican state legislators in an effort to persuade them to convene special legislative sessions to replace legitimate Biden electors with fake Trump electors based on unfounded allegations of election fraud.[6] Trump pressured the Justice Department to falsely announce it had found election fraud, and he attempted to install a new acting attorney general who had drafted a letter falsely asserting such election fraud had been found, in an attempt to persuade the Georgia legislature to convene and reconsider its Biden electoral votes.[7]
Trump and Eastman asked Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel to enlist the committee's assistance in gathering fake "contingent" electors.[2] A senator's chief of staff tried to pass a list of fraudulent electors to Pence minutes before the vice president was to certify the election.[8] The scheme was one of many elements in the attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and was investigated by the January 6 committee and is being investigated by the Justice Department. The January 6 committee's final report identified lawyer Kenneth Chesebro as the plot's original architect.[7]
The 2020 US presidential election was held on November 3, 2020. Soon after, Trump began baselessly questioning the legitimacy of the election. On November 7, major news organizations called the election for Biden, and he gave a victory speech that evening. Trump refused to concede and continued to express doubt over the election results.[9]
-Trump's refusal to leave office-
The fake electors plot was in harmony with Trump's refusal to ever leave office and the White House after the end of his term. Maggie Haberman has described how Trump initially recognized he had lost the election, but then expressed he would "never" leave:
Trump seemed to recognize he had lost to Biden. He asked advisers to tell him what had gone wrong. He comforted one adviser, saying, 'We did our best.' Trump told junior press aides, 'I thought we had it,' seemingly almost embarrassed by the outcome, according to Haberman.[10]
Then his attitude seemed to change:
"I'm just not going to leave," Trump told one aide, according to Haberman. "We're never leaving," Trump told another. "How can you leave when you won an election?"... He was even overheard asking the chair of the Republican National Committee, Ronna McDaniel, "Why should I leave if they stole it from me?"[10]
This was confirmed by the testimony of Jenna Ellis in the Georgia election racketeering prosecution. In December 2020, after Trump lost the election, while he was standing in a hallway near the Blue Room of the White House, Dan Scavino told Ellis that Trump would refuse to leave office. Ellis recalled: "And he said to me, you know, in a kind of excited tone, 'Well, we don't care, and we're not going to leave.'"[11] "The boss is not going to leave under any circumstances. We are just going to stay in power."[12]
-Plot for state legislatures to choose electors-
On November 4, the day after the election, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows received a text message calling for an "aggressive strategy" of having the Republican-led legislatures of three uncalled states "just send their own electors to vote and have it go to the [Supreme Court]". The message was reportedly sent by Trump's secretary of energy, Rick Perry.[13]
On November 5, Roger Stone dictated a message saying that “any legislative body” that has "overwhelming evidence of fraud" can choose their own electors to cast Electoral College votes.[14] That same day, Donald Trump Jr. sent a text message to Meadows outlining paths to subvert the Electoral College process and ensure his father a second term. He wrote, "It's very simple. We have multiple paths. We control them all. We have operational control. Total leverage. Moral high ground. POTUS must start second term now." Trump Jr. continued, "Republicans control 28 states Democrats 22 states. Once again Trump wins," adding, "We either have a vote WE control and WE win OR it gets kicked to Congress 6 January 2021."[15]
On November 6, Congressman Andy Biggs sent a text message to Meadows, asking about efforts to encourage Republican legislators in certain states to send alternate slates of electors, to which Meadows replied, "I love it."[16]
Senator Mike Lee and Meadows exchanged a series of text messages referring to Sidney Powell's alleged interest in pursuing a fake electors plot. On November 8, Lee wrote: "Sidney Powell is saying that she needs to get in to see the president, but she's being kept away from him. Apparently she has a strategy to keep things alive and put several states back in play. Can you help her get in?" Two days later, he texted Meadows that he found Powell to be "a straight shooter," though he raised doubts about her to Meadows after her November 19 press conference during which she described elaborate conspiracy theories. Lee sent a text to Meadows on December 8 hypothesizing: "If a very small handful of states were to have their legislatures appoint alternative slates of delegates, there could be a path," to which Meadows replied, "I am working on that as of yesterday."[17][18] Cleta Mitchell, who participated in the Trump–Raffensperger phone call effort to reverse Georgia election results, testified to the January 6 committee that the alternate elector plot was "actually Mike Lee’s idea," telling Mitchell it would be "the sweet spot" to engage senate Republicans. The committee found that Lee later "expressed grave concerns" about the idea to a top Trump legal advisor as January 6 approached.[19]
On November 9, Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, emailed 29 Arizona lawmakers, including assembly speaker Russell Bowers and Shawnna Bolick, encouraging them to pick "a clean slate of Electors" and telling them that the responsibility was "yours and yours alone".[20]
...
On November 18, attorney Kenneth Chesebro sent a memo to attorney Jim Troupis, who represented the Trump campaign in Wisconsin.[26] The memo laid out the general approach of a strategy involving alternate electors. Chesebro also wrote a December 6 memo that outlined a strategy for six states, as well as a December 9 memo, sent to Troupis, that instructed on how to legally appoint alternate electors in Wisconsin and provided the exact format for the false documents they should sign. The memos came to the attention of Giuliani, Eastman and others as a broader strategy unfolded. Chesebro's memos outlined a plan to have Pence unilaterally count slates of electoral votes, including alternate pro-Trump electors in contested states instead of their official and certified electors. This strategy would be supported with a messaging campaign by having electors mimic normal procedures related to the official electors, such as meeting in state capitols on December 14 to cast fake ballots and sign alternate certificates. The memos acknowledged conflicts with procedures laid out in the Electoral Count Act, but argued that they were unconstitutional. They also established January 6, the date of Congressional certification of electors, as a "hard deadline" for settling electoral results.[27][28][29] Chesebro's memos were used as the basis of a nationwide operation to organize the fake electors, with day-by-day coordination between Trump's lawyers, Trump's presidential campaign, and Republican party officials.[30]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot
The article continues with even more elaboration.
|
On July 18 2024 18:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2024 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 08:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Earlier today, Biden announced that he would consider dropping out of the presidential race if a medical condition emerged.
Within a few hours, Biden tested positive for covid. It's pretty clear that Democrats are calling Biden's bluff with Schiff coming out publicly and unambiguously telling him to step aside. They're willing to publicly tank his campaign (if they haven't already with Biden's help) if he refuses. Basically the only way out of this for Democrats is for Biden to step away from the nomination. Catch is, there is a pretty unambiguous expectation from Democrats that Biden should step away, but they are not nearly as unified on what comes after that. Basically the party establishment figures trying to push Biden out of the nomination aren't the people that want to replace him with Harris. I agree that the push for Biden to step down is significantly more unified then the answer for who should replace him. But I also think that the party is willing and able to rally behind whoever ends up clinching it.
Maybe, but "clinching it" is the catch. For some of the party there is no "clinching it". It's a foregone conclusion that the replacement is Harris. For a lot of the establishment Dems pushing for Biden to step down, they want some sort of contest to determine his replacement (and they don't want Harris to win it).
Harris was going to finish 4th or worse in her own home state in a Dem primary. I don't think people appreciate how little Democrats as a party want Harris to be their leader.
|
United States41470 Posts
On July 18 2024 20:07 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2024 17:16 Acrofales wrote:On July 18 2024 17:01 BlackJack wrote:On July 18 2024 16:26 MJG wrote:On July 18 2024 09:42 BlackJack wrote:On July 18 2024 01:37 KwarK wrote:
I guess there’s two approaches. You could institute genital inspections or you could use common sense. If someone claiming to be a trans woman who has made no effort to transition or pass as a woman enters the woman’s bathroom and assaults someone you could treat them as a man. Hell, the refusal to follow the signage isn’t really the issue there, you already got them on assault, the signage thing is someone moot. And if someone with breasts, long hair, wearing a dress enters the woman’s bathroom then it’s probably fine, regardless of their birth certificate. Though the odds are even more likely that when a bearded man enters then their kid just ran in and they’re getting them or that they went into the wrong room by accident. If there are cubicles then who even cares.
Whether someone is “passing” is completely irrelevant to what bathroom they should use. Not every trans woman wants to wear dresses and have breasts and long hair. Clothing and hairstyles don’t have a designated gender. Men can have long hair and women can have a full beard. People shouldn’t have to fulfill certain gender stereotypes just to take a shit. I think that KwarK's more salient point was that someone who is willing to commit sexual assault probably isn't going to care what it says on the door to a restroom, and so the chances of someone faking being transgender just so that they can get into a restroom to sexually assault someone is vanishingly small. As far as I can tell the only requirement to becoming a woman is to declare oneself a woman so it’s not exactly a giant hurdle to “fake being transgender” if someone wanted to use that as a ruse to gain entry to women’s spaces. Do you think anybody at all will react significantly differently if a person with a lecherous look walks into the bathroom, and when confronted with why they are barging in answers "because I'm a woman" vs "because I wanted to"? What’s your objective measure of a lecherous look? A wandering glance would probably be interpreted wildly differently in a women’s locker room if it came from a woman vs a man. That’s kind of why women don’t want men there in the first place. If however that person that appears to be a man simply says “but I’m a woman” then the women have to tolerate that persons presence lest they be a transphobe.
Again, common sense applies.
|
On July 18 2024 21:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2024 20:07 BlackJack wrote:On July 18 2024 17:16 Acrofales wrote:On July 18 2024 17:01 BlackJack wrote:On July 18 2024 16:26 MJG wrote:On July 18 2024 09:42 BlackJack wrote:On July 18 2024 01:37 KwarK wrote:
I guess there’s two approaches. You could institute genital inspections or you could use common sense. If someone claiming to be a trans woman who has made no effort to transition or pass as a woman enters the woman’s bathroom and assaults someone you could treat them as a man. Hell, the refusal to follow the signage isn’t really the issue there, you already got them on assault, the signage thing is someone moot. And if someone with breasts, long hair, wearing a dress enters the woman’s bathroom then it’s probably fine, regardless of their birth certificate. Though the odds are even more likely that when a bearded man enters then their kid just ran in and they’re getting them or that they went into the wrong room by accident. If there are cubicles then who even cares.
Whether someone is “passing” is completely irrelevant to what bathroom they should use. Not every trans woman wants to wear dresses and have breasts and long hair. Clothing and hairstyles don’t have a designated gender. Men can have long hair and women can have a full beard. People shouldn’t have to fulfill certain gender stereotypes just to take a shit. I think that KwarK's more salient point was that someone who is willing to commit sexual assault probably isn't going to care what it says on the door to a restroom, and so the chances of someone faking being transgender just so that they can get into a restroom to sexually assault someone is vanishingly small. As far as I can tell the only requirement to becoming a woman is to declare oneself a woman so it’s not exactly a giant hurdle to “fake being transgender” if someone wanted to use that as a ruse to gain entry to women’s spaces. Do you think anybody at all will react significantly differently if a person with a lecherous look walks into the bathroom, and when confronted with why they are barging in answers "because I'm a woman" vs "because I wanted to"? What’s your objective measure of a lecherous look? A wandering glance would probably be interpreted wildly differently in a women’s locker room if it came from a woman vs a man. That’s kind of why women don’t want men there in the first place. If however that person that appears to be a man simply says “but I’m a woman” then the women have to tolerate that persons presence lest they be a transphobe. Again, common sense applies.
While I agree with what you and Uldridge (and others) have said about some sort of social presentation likely being relevant in a first-glance evaluation of a trans-individual, I also think that that's necessarily subjective and that different people have different ideas of what is, or is not, "common sense". I'm sure that transphobes feel that they have "common sense" too, based on their experiences and expectations.
|
United States41470 Posts
On July 18 2024 21:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2024 21:00 KwarK wrote:On July 18 2024 20:07 BlackJack wrote:On July 18 2024 17:16 Acrofales wrote:On July 18 2024 17:01 BlackJack wrote:On July 18 2024 16:26 MJG wrote:On July 18 2024 09:42 BlackJack wrote:On July 18 2024 01:37 KwarK wrote:
I guess there’s two approaches. You could institute genital inspections or you could use common sense. If someone claiming to be a trans woman who has made no effort to transition or pass as a woman enters the woman’s bathroom and assaults someone you could treat them as a man. Hell, the refusal to follow the signage isn’t really the issue there, you already got them on assault, the signage thing is someone moot. And if someone with breasts, long hair, wearing a dress enters the woman’s bathroom then it’s probably fine, regardless of their birth certificate. Though the odds are even more likely that when a bearded man enters then their kid just ran in and they’re getting them or that they went into the wrong room by accident. If there are cubicles then who even cares.
Whether someone is “passing” is completely irrelevant to what bathroom they should use. Not every trans woman wants to wear dresses and have breasts and long hair. Clothing and hairstyles don’t have a designated gender. Men can have long hair and women can have a full beard. People shouldn’t have to fulfill certain gender stereotypes just to take a shit. I think that KwarK's more salient point was that someone who is willing to commit sexual assault probably isn't going to care what it says on the door to a restroom, and so the chances of someone faking being transgender just so that they can get into a restroom to sexually assault someone is vanishingly small. As far as I can tell the only requirement to becoming a woman is to declare oneself a woman so it’s not exactly a giant hurdle to “fake being transgender” if someone wanted to use that as a ruse to gain entry to women’s spaces. Do you think anybody at all will react significantly differently if a person with a lecherous look walks into the bathroom, and when confronted with why they are barging in answers "because I'm a woman" vs "because I wanted to"? What’s your objective measure of a lecherous look? A wandering glance would probably be interpreted wildly differently in a women’s locker room if it came from a woman vs a man. That’s kind of why women don’t want men there in the first place. If however that person that appears to be a man simply says “but I’m a woman” then the women have to tolerate that persons presence lest they be a transphobe. Again, common sense applies. While I agree with what you and Uldridge (and others) have said about some sort of social presentation likely being relevant in a first-glance evaluation of a trans-individual, I also think that that's necessarily subjective and that different people have different ideas of what is, or is not, "common sense". I'm sure that transphobes feel that they have "common sense" too, based on their experiences and expectations.
A visibly male trans man attempting to use the woman’s bathroom because of his assigned gender at birth would be objectionable to transphobes. Common sense does apply. In any case it’s not necessary for you and I to work this out.
|
Setting aside Biden not masking after he knew he had covid and was in close proximity to people, his campaign's "flood the zone" strategy seems to have hit several roadblocks. Here is Biden forgetting his Secretary of Defense's name:
|
On July 18 2024 21:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2024 21:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 21:00 KwarK wrote:On July 18 2024 20:07 BlackJack wrote:On July 18 2024 17:16 Acrofales wrote:On July 18 2024 17:01 BlackJack wrote:On July 18 2024 16:26 MJG wrote:On July 18 2024 09:42 BlackJack wrote:On July 18 2024 01:37 KwarK wrote:
I guess there’s two approaches. You could institute genital inspections or you could use common sense. If someone claiming to be a trans woman who has made no effort to transition or pass as a woman enters the woman’s bathroom and assaults someone you could treat them as a man. Hell, the refusal to follow the signage isn’t really the issue there, you already got them on assault, the signage thing is someone moot. And if someone with breasts, long hair, wearing a dress enters the woman’s bathroom then it’s probably fine, regardless of their birth certificate. Though the odds are even more likely that when a bearded man enters then their kid just ran in and they’re getting them or that they went into the wrong room by accident. If there are cubicles then who even cares.
Whether someone is “passing” is completely irrelevant to what bathroom they should use. Not every trans woman wants to wear dresses and have breasts and long hair. Clothing and hairstyles don’t have a designated gender. Men can have long hair and women can have a full beard. People shouldn’t have to fulfill certain gender stereotypes just to take a shit. I think that KwarK's more salient point was that someone who is willing to commit sexual assault probably isn't going to care what it says on the door to a restroom, and so the chances of someone faking being transgender just so that they can get into a restroom to sexually assault someone is vanishingly small. As far as I can tell the only requirement to becoming a woman is to declare oneself a woman so it’s not exactly a giant hurdle to “fake being transgender” if someone wanted to use that as a ruse to gain entry to women’s spaces. Do you think anybody at all will react significantly differently if a person with a lecherous look walks into the bathroom, and when confronted with why they are barging in answers "because I'm a woman" vs "because I wanted to"? What’s your objective measure of a lecherous look? A wandering glance would probably be interpreted wildly differently in a women’s locker room if it came from a woman vs a man. That’s kind of why women don’t want men there in the first place. If however that person that appears to be a man simply says “but I’m a woman” then the women have to tolerate that persons presence lest they be a transphobe. Again, common sense applies. While I agree with what you and Uldridge (and others) have said about some sort of social presentation likely being relevant in a first-glance evaluation of a trans-individual, I also think that that's necessarily subjective and that different people have different ideas of what is, or is not, "common sense". I'm sure that transphobes feel that they have "common sense" too, based on their experiences and expectations. A visibly male trans man attempting to use the woman’s bathroom because of his assigned gender at birth would be objectionable to transphobes. Common sense does apply. In any case it’s not necessary for you and I to work this out.
I agree that it's not necessary for you and I to work this out, but I think communication between the LGBTQ+ and the transphobic communities can help support (and potentially save the lives of) the trans community.
|
On July 18 2024 21:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Setting aside Biden not masking after he knew he had covid and was in close proximity to people, his campaign's "flood the zone" strategy seems to have hit several roadblocks. Here is Biden forgetting his Secretary of Defense's name: https://twitter.com/umichvoter/status/1813793694522413228
While Biden's had a lot of gaffes, I don't think this is one of them. He's talking about getting hate for hiring/appointing black people (since non-white people are all apparently DEI hires, according to Republicans, especially if they're women). He didn't forget the SoD's name; Biden used the SoD (and Brown) as two examples of unjust scrutiny that they (and he) are receiving. He mentioned that the SoD is black because it's relevant to his point.
|
On July 18 2024 21:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:While Biden's had a lot of gaffes, I don't think this is one of them. He's talking about getting hate for hiring/appointing black people (since non-white people are all apparently DEI hires, according to Republicans, especially if they're women). He didn't forget the SoD's name; Biden used the SoD (and Brown) as two examples of unjust scrutiny that they (and he) are receiving. He mentioned that the SoD is black because it's relevant to his point.
I see you're not going to let your realization stop you.
|
On July 18 2024 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2024 21:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 21:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Setting aside Biden not masking after he knew he had covid and was in close proximity to people, his campaign's "flood the zone" strategy seems to have hit several roadblocks. Here is Biden forgetting his Secretary of Defense's name: https://twitter.com/umichvoter/status/1813793694522413228 While Biden's had a lot of gaffes, I don't think this is one of them. He's talking about getting hate for hiring/appointing black people (since non-white people are all apparently DEI hires, according to Republicans, especially if they're women). He didn't forget the SoD's name; Biden used the SoD (and Brown) as two examples of unjust scrutiny that they (and he) are receiving. He mentioned that the SoD is black because it's relevant to his point. I see you're not going to let your realization stop you.
That's an ad hominem. Biden's SoD is a black man: Lloyd Austin. Biden's argument (whether or not you think it's fair) was that he was criticized for his SoD pick being a black person. The name of the SoD isn't the key attribute; his race is. If I said "Republicans dislike that I support the LGBTQ+ community, like how I was in my brother-in-law's bridal party when he married his husband", that doesn't mean I forgot the names of my brother-in-law or his husband.
|
On July 18 2024 22:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2024 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 21:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 21:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Setting aside Biden not masking after he knew he had covid and was in close proximity to people, his campaign's "flood the zone" strategy seems to have hit several roadblocks. Here is Biden forgetting his Secretary of Defense's name: https://twitter.com/umichvoter/status/1813793694522413228 While Biden's had a lot of gaffes, I don't think this is one of them. He's talking about getting hate for hiring/appointing black people (since non-white people are all apparently DEI hires, according to Republicans, especially if they're women). He didn't forget the SoD's name; Biden used the SoD (and Brown) as two examples of unjust scrutiny that they (and he) are receiving. He mentioned that the SoD is black because it's relevant to his point. I see you're not going to let your realization stop you. That's an ad hominem. Biden's SoD is a black man: Lloyd Austin. Biden's argument (whether or not you think it's fair) was that he was criticized for his SoD pick being a black person. The name of the SoD isn't the key attribute; his race is. If I said "Republicans dislike that I support the LGBTQ+ community, like how I was in my brother-in-law's bridal party when he married his husband", that doesn't mean I forgot the names of my brother-in-law or his husband.
No, it's not?
It's saying your realization that the strategy of denial being ineffective isn't going to stop you from trying it like you just did. He didn't say "supreme court justice, the Black woman".
Meanwhile, here's a clip of Biden seemingly unable to get in his car under his own power.
It's not his physical feebleness that bothers me, but the gaslighting about it. EDIT: Also the whole not wearing a mask with covid thing.
|
On July 18 2024 22:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2024 22:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 21:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 21:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Setting aside Biden not masking after he knew he had covid and was in close proximity to people, his campaign's "flood the zone" strategy seems to have hit several roadblocks. Here is Biden forgetting his Secretary of Defense's name: https://twitter.com/umichvoter/status/1813793694522413228 While Biden's had a lot of gaffes, I don't think this is one of them. He's talking about getting hate for hiring/appointing black people (since non-white people are all apparently DEI hires, according to Republicans, especially if they're women). He didn't forget the SoD's name; Biden used the SoD (and Brown) as two examples of unjust scrutiny that they (and he) are receiving. He mentioned that the SoD is black because it's relevant to his point. I see you're not going to let your realization stop you. That's an ad hominem. Biden's SoD is a black man: Lloyd Austin. Biden's argument (whether or not you think it's fair) was that he was criticized for his SoD pick being a black person. The name of the SoD isn't the key attribute; his race is. If I said "Republicans dislike that I support the LGBTQ+ community, like how I was in my brother-in-law's bridal party when he married his husband", that doesn't mean I forgot the names of my brother-in-law or his husband. No, it's not? It's saying your realization that the strategy of denial being ineffective isn't going to stop you from trying it like you just did. He didn't say "supreme court justice, the Black woman".
It is. An ad hominem is dismissing an argument by attacking the character of the person making the argument, rather than the substance of the argument. You linking that old post clearly makes the point that you think my perspective is invalid because I'm in denial, as opposed to directly addressing the substance of my response (or my second response about how anyone can analogously reference a person's relevant identity without needing to use real names). Biden naming Brown doesn't mean Biden forgot the name of Austin. And your follow-up here is a pivot to a different clip about a different scene, not a defense of your original point that Biden forgot his SoD's name in that previous clip.
I agree that this video provides a convincing case that Biden had trouble getting in/out of the car.
I agree that there are plenty of clips showing Biden's physical aging and feebleness, as well as verbal/mental gaffes.
None of that automatically grants agreement with every critical clip you show, including the one where Biden references his black SoD as a black person, when giving examples of black people.
|
On July 18 2024 22:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2024 22:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 22:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 21:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 21:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Setting aside Biden not masking after he knew he had covid and was in close proximity to people, his campaign's "flood the zone" strategy seems to have hit several roadblocks. Here is Biden forgetting his Secretary of Defense's name: https://twitter.com/umichvoter/status/1813793694522413228 While Biden's had a lot of gaffes, I don't think this is one of them. He's talking about getting hate for hiring/appointing black people (since non-white people are all apparently DEI hires, according to Republicans, especially if they're women). He didn't forget the SoD's name; Biden used the SoD (and Brown) as two examples of unjust scrutiny that they (and he) are receiving. He mentioned that the SoD is black because it's relevant to his point. I see you're not going to let your realization stop you. That's an ad hominem. Biden's SoD is a black man: Lloyd Austin. Biden's argument (whether or not you think it's fair) was that he was criticized for his SoD pick being a black person. The name of the SoD isn't the key attribute; his race is. If I said "Republicans dislike that I support the LGBTQ+ community, like how I was in my brother-in-law's bridal party when he married his husband", that doesn't mean I forgot the names of my brother-in-law or his husband. No, it's not? It's saying your realization that the strategy of denial being ineffective isn't going to stop you from trying it like you just did. He didn't say "supreme court justice, the Black woman". It is. An ad hominem is dismissing an argument by attacking the character of the person making the argument, rather than the substance of the argument. You linking that old post clearly makes the point that you think my perspective is invalid because I'm in denial, as opposed to directly addressing the substance of my response (or my second response about how anyone can analogously reference a person's relevant identity without needing to use real names). Biden naming Brown doesn't mean Biden forgot the name of Austin. And your follow-up here is a pivot to a different clip about a different scene, not a defense of your original point that Biden forgot his SoD's name in that previous clip. I agree that this video provides a convincing case that Biden had trouble getting in/out of the car. I agree that there are plenty of clips showing Biden's physical aging and feebleness, as well as verbal/mental gaffes. None of that automatically grants agreement with every critical clip you show, including the one where Biden references his black SoD as a black person, when giving examples of black people.
I think it's obvious that he was struggling and at best wanted to say "Look at the heat I'm getting because I named a Black man as the Secretary of Defense and Ketanji Brown to the Supreme Court" which would still be a little problematic but not out of pocket for Biden. Instead he garbled out "Look at the heat I'm getting because I, I named a uhh, the uh, Secretary of Defense, the Black man. I named Ketanji Brown, I mean because of the people I've named".
I'm saying treating him bumbling through that as anything less than another example of his decline is emblematic of the Democrat strategy of denialism you recognized as ineffective but are employing anyway.
|
On July 18 2024 23:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2024 22:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 22:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 22:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 21:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 21:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Setting aside Biden not masking after he knew he had covid and was in close proximity to people, his campaign's "flood the zone" strategy seems to have hit several roadblocks. Here is Biden forgetting his Secretary of Defense's name: https://twitter.com/umichvoter/status/1813793694522413228 While Biden's had a lot of gaffes, I don't think this is one of them. He's talking about getting hate for hiring/appointing black people (since non-white people are all apparently DEI hires, according to Republicans, especially if they're women). He didn't forget the SoD's name; Biden used the SoD (and Brown) as two examples of unjust scrutiny that they (and he) are receiving. He mentioned that the SoD is black because it's relevant to his point. I see you're not going to let your realization stop you. That's an ad hominem. Biden's SoD is a black man: Lloyd Austin. Biden's argument (whether or not you think it's fair) was that he was criticized for his SoD pick being a black person. The name of the SoD isn't the key attribute; his race is. If I said "Republicans dislike that I support the LGBTQ+ community, like how I was in my brother-in-law's bridal party when he married his husband", that doesn't mean I forgot the names of my brother-in-law or his husband. No, it's not? It's saying your realization that the strategy of denial being ineffective isn't going to stop you from trying it like you just did. He didn't say "supreme court justice, the Black woman". It is. An ad hominem is dismissing an argument by attacking the character of the person making the argument, rather than the substance of the argument. You linking that old post clearly makes the point that you think my perspective is invalid because I'm in denial, as opposed to directly addressing the substance of my response (or my second response about how anyone can analogously reference a person's relevant identity without needing to use real names). Biden naming Brown doesn't mean Biden forgot the name of Austin. And your follow-up here is a pivot to a different clip about a different scene, not a defense of your original point that Biden forgot his SoD's name in that previous clip. I agree that this video provides a convincing case that Biden had trouble getting in/out of the car. I agree that there are plenty of clips showing Biden's physical aging and feebleness, as well as verbal/mental gaffes. None of that automatically grants agreement with every critical clip you show, including the one where Biden references his black SoD as a black person, when giving examples of black people. I think it's obvious that he was struggling and at best wanted to say "Look at the heat I'm getting because I named a Black man as the Secretary of Defense and Ketanji Brown to the Supreme Court" which would still be a little problematic but not out of pocket for Biden. Instead he garbled out "Look at the heat I'm getting because I, I named a uhh, the uh, Secretary of Defense, the Black man. I named Ketanji Brown, I mean because of the people I've named". I'm saying treating him bumbling through that as anything less than another example of his decline is emblematic of the Democrat strategy of denialism you recognized as ineffective but are employing anyway.
I agree that he was bumbling and that his words were not clear. I just disagree with your initial claim of "Biden forgetting his Secretary of Defense's name", which is different than having garbled, mumbled speech. I just think you overreached with your assertion in this specific situation. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
|
I would not underestimated people's ability to relativize. Trump's crimes and countless lies aren't losing him supporters because they always find ways to justify everything. For the same reason Biden's gaffes may not lose him any supporters either. Supporters are gonna support. As long as Biden stays true to his values and as long as he opposes Trump in all the relevant matters, I don't think we can say his support will necessarily decline. It might, but it might not.
I think pushing Biden out over his gaffes is the worst strategy. No one else has better chances against Trump. After the elections people can always argue - with the power of hindsight - that they were right, assuming Trump wins in a landslide. But right now people don't have that power. Right now all we have are predictions and people's gut feelings.
Bare in mind that Biden won't be the only person in power. If he dies in office he'll be replaced by someone better than Trump. People need to keep this in mind.
|
On July 18 2024 23:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2024 23:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 22:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 22:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 22:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 21:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 21:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Setting aside Biden not masking after he knew he had covid and was in close proximity to people, his campaign's "flood the zone" strategy seems to have hit several roadblocks. Here is Biden forgetting his Secretary of Defense's name: https://twitter.com/umichvoter/status/1813793694522413228 While Biden's had a lot of gaffes, I don't think this is one of them. He's talking about getting hate for hiring/appointing black people (since non-white people are all apparently DEI hires, according to Republicans, especially if they're women). He didn't forget the SoD's name; Biden used the SoD (and Brown) as two examples of unjust scrutiny that they (and he) are receiving. He mentioned that the SoD is black because it's relevant to his point. I see you're not going to let your realization stop you. That's an ad hominem. Biden's SoD is a black man: Lloyd Austin. Biden's argument (whether or not you think it's fair) was that he was criticized for his SoD pick being a black person. The name of the SoD isn't the key attribute; his race is. If I said "Republicans dislike that I support the LGBTQ+ community, like how I was in my brother-in-law's bridal party when he married his husband", that doesn't mean I forgot the names of my brother-in-law or his husband. No, it's not? It's saying your realization that the strategy of denial being ineffective isn't going to stop you from trying it like you just did. He didn't say "supreme court justice, the Black woman". It is. An ad hominem is dismissing an argument by attacking the character of the person making the argument, rather than the substance of the argument. You linking that old post clearly makes the point that you think my perspective is invalid because I'm in denial, as opposed to directly addressing the substance of my response (or my second response about how anyone can analogously reference a person's relevant identity without needing to use real names). Biden naming Brown doesn't mean Biden forgot the name of Austin. And your follow-up here is a pivot to a different clip about a different scene, not a defense of your original point that Biden forgot his SoD's name in that previous clip. I agree that this video provides a convincing case that Biden had trouble getting in/out of the car. I agree that there are plenty of clips showing Biden's physical aging and feebleness, as well as verbal/mental gaffes. None of that automatically grants agreement with every critical clip you show, including the one where Biden references his black SoD as a black person, when giving examples of black people. I think it's obvious that he was struggling and at best wanted to say "Look at the heat I'm getting because I named a Black man as the Secretary of Defense and Ketanji Brown to the Supreme Court" which would still be a little problematic but not out of pocket for Biden. Instead he garbled out "Look at the heat I'm getting because I, I named a uhh, the uh, Secretary of Defense, the Black man. I named Ketanji Brown, I mean because of the people I've named". I'm saying treating him bumbling through that as anything less than another example of his decline is emblematic of the Democrat strategy of denialism you recognized as ineffective but are employing anyway. I agree that he was bumbling and that his words were not clear. I just disagree with your initial claim of "Biden forgetting his Secretary of Defense's name", which is different than having garbled, mumbled speech. I just think you overreached with your assertion in this specific situation. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
That's fine, but also, did he actually get any heat for making Austin SoD?
|
On July 18 2024 23:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2024 23:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 23:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 22:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 22:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 22:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 21:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 21:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Setting aside Biden not masking after he knew he had covid and was in close proximity to people, his campaign's "flood the zone" strategy seems to have hit several roadblocks. Here is Biden forgetting his Secretary of Defense's name: https://twitter.com/umichvoter/status/1813793694522413228 While Biden's had a lot of gaffes, I don't think this is one of them. He's talking about getting hate for hiring/appointing black people (since non-white people are all apparently DEI hires, according to Republicans, especially if they're women). He didn't forget the SoD's name; Biden used the SoD (and Brown) as two examples of unjust scrutiny that they (and he) are receiving. He mentioned that the SoD is black because it's relevant to his point. I see you're not going to let your realization stop you. That's an ad hominem. Biden's SoD is a black man: Lloyd Austin. Biden's argument (whether or not you think it's fair) was that he was criticized for his SoD pick being a black person. The name of the SoD isn't the key attribute; his race is. If I said "Republicans dislike that I support the LGBTQ+ community, like how I was in my brother-in-law's bridal party when he married his husband", that doesn't mean I forgot the names of my brother-in-law or his husband. No, it's not? It's saying your realization that the strategy of denial being ineffective isn't going to stop you from trying it like you just did. He didn't say "supreme court justice, the Black woman". It is. An ad hominem is dismissing an argument by attacking the character of the person making the argument, rather than the substance of the argument. You linking that old post clearly makes the point that you think my perspective is invalid because I'm in denial, as opposed to directly addressing the substance of my response (or my second response about how anyone can analogously reference a person's relevant identity without needing to use real names). Biden naming Brown doesn't mean Biden forgot the name of Austin. And your follow-up here is a pivot to a different clip about a different scene, not a defense of your original point that Biden forgot his SoD's name in that previous clip. I agree that this video provides a convincing case that Biden had trouble getting in/out of the car. I agree that there are plenty of clips showing Biden's physical aging and feebleness, as well as verbal/mental gaffes. None of that automatically grants agreement with every critical clip you show, including the one where Biden references his black SoD as a black person, when giving examples of black people. I think it's obvious that he was struggling and at best wanted to say "Look at the heat I'm getting because I named a Black man as the Secretary of Defense and Ketanji Brown to the Supreme Court" which would still be a little problematic but not out of pocket for Biden. Instead he garbled out "Look at the heat I'm getting because I, I named a uhh, the uh, Secretary of Defense, the Black man. I named Ketanji Brown, I mean because of the people I've named". I'm saying treating him bumbling through that as anything less than another example of his decline is emblematic of the Democrat strategy of denialism you recognized as ineffective but are employing anyway. I agree that he was bumbling and that his words were not clear. I just disagree with your initial claim of "Biden forgetting his Secretary of Defense's name", which is different than having garbled, mumbled speech. I just think you overreached with your assertion in this specific situation. We'll just have to agree to disagree. That's fine, but also, did he actually get any heat for making Austin SoD?
It seems he received a little heat for various reasons, one of which may have been the accusation of Austin being a diversity hire: https://www.npr.org/2020/12/09/944528431/biden-criticized-for-pick-of-retired-gen-lloyd-austin-as-pentagon-chief
Edit: The main criticism seems to be that Austin wasn't retired for long enough though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
