Author Topic: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe  (Read 29707 times)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #600 on: May 04, 2020, 01:37:40 PM »
Quote
Actually yes.  It's pretty much 100% hating Trump and preferring a Democrat over Trump, any Democrat even one that actually committed crimes.

So, Democrats have absolutely no moral integrity.  Gotcha.

Certain Democrats have no moral integrity.  I suspect for the women's group involved they do have moral integrity, but it's a matter of weighing moral alternatives.  Ultimately they are willing to sacrifice "believe all women" on the alter of choosing Biden over Trump, which they believe is by far the lesser evil.  I'd suspect that they rationalize this internally by just refusing to believe that Reade's accusations are anything but a fabrication.  It's exactly what they did when Bill Clinton was accused as well.  It's in fact rational on their parts.  The only evidence I've ever seen about voting between the parties is that Republicans will on occasion vote against their own interests over principal (Doug Jones in the Senate for example). 

Quote
Quote
Reade's claim is stronger and more supported than Blasey-Ford's and only the hypocritical would claim otherwise.

Is this like using a point scoring system?  Since you have no proof, which you insist is necessary, you resort to claiming circumstantially that she is probably telling the truth because it would be hypocritical to think otherwise.

Yes it's point scoring system.  Not sure what nonsense you're parsing in your head to think otherwise.  Reade's accusation was talked about by Reade real time, Ford's only decades later.  Reade actually worked for Biden in the time period in question, Ford there's no real evidence they were together.  Something happened to Reade that prompted a change in job circumstances, no indication of anything for Ford.  Multiple people have come forward confirming specific or general statements made by Reade over decades, Ford?  Everyone she claims was there, including her friend, says they weren't.  Her witnesses are her husband and a limited release from her pschologist that doesn't name names and has an inconsistency over the number of people involved.   Did she release other records?  Nope.  Her supposed lie detector test?  Didn't release any of the verification information required to validate the results, and even the test itself was worthless as it didn't ask any direct questions, only questions about a statement.

There's really no world where Ford is more credible that Reade.  That doesn't mean either event happened or didn't happen.  If you believed Ford and don't believe Reade, it's just hypocrisy.

No. Trump's character has always been upheld by the people who know him and attested to his good qualities. Those character failures you cite were created out of whole cloth, and so embraced by the Never-Trumpers that you all consider them proven facts.

Bidens character has always been upheld by the people who know him... Those character failures you cite were created...  embraced by never-dem's.. bla bla bla

Not sure Biden's character as compared to Trump is the relevant measure.  K's reputation was sterling before the accusations, literally about as good as it could get.  Biden's is good but not better.  If reputation was enough then there's no explaining the differing treatment other that partisan ridiculousness.

So again, can anyone on the left call out their own side?  Does it not matter at all how ridiculous the imbalance is?  Is justice for all and fairness and equal protection just a dead letter in favor of your team can not be wrong no matter what?

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #601 on: May 04, 2020, 01:46:44 PM »
I'd suspect that they rationalize this internally by just refusing to believe that Reade's accusations are anything but a fabrication.

Sounds reasonable but then I saw this tweet from Lisa Bloom, daughter of Gloria Allred and an attorney as well:

"I believe you, Tara Reade.
You have people who remember you told them about this decades ago.
We know he is "handsy."
You're not asking for $.
You've obviously struggled mightily with this.
I still have to fight Trump, so I will still support Joe.
But I believe you. And I'm sorry"

I believe you but I'm still supporting him because I must fight Trump. I will credit her for being honest, but that's about it.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #602 on: May 04, 2020, 01:50:02 PM »
Quote
Certain Democrats have no moral integrity.  I suspect for the women's group involved they do have moral integrity, but it's a matter of weighing moral alternatives.  Ultimately they are willing to sacrifice "believe all women" on the alter of choosing Biden over Trump, which they believe is by far the lesser evil.  I'd suspect that they rationalize this internally by just refusing to believe that Reade's accusations are anything but a fabrication.  It's exactly what they did when Bill Clinton was accused as well.  It's in fact rational on their parts.  The only evidence I've ever seen about voting between the parties is that Republicans will on occasion vote against their own interests over principal (Doug Jones in the Senate for example).

Certainly true for Republicans, as well.  Think about Anita Hill, Christine Ford and all the women who have accused Trump without any support from any of them.  What always come through in these sorts of posts from you is a visceral disdain, if not hatred, for Democrats.  It's not rational.

Quote
Yes it's point scoring system.  Not sure what nonsense you're parsing in your head to think otherwise.  Reade's accusation was talked about by Reade real time, Ford's only decades later.  Reade actually worked for Biden in the time period in question, Ford there's no real evidence they were together.

Dead wrong.  If we scored on points, Trump would be long gone, wouldn't he?  Ford was a teenage girl, and like most teenage girls who are similarly attacked (or worse), she didn't come forward to some authority figure at the time.  For that you shame her.  You are using the classic defense strategy to find fault with the victim's actions when it's your client that is being charged, and then you turn around and apply prosecutor tactics to discredit the person accused when you want to see them convicted.

As usual, I didn't bother reading the rest of your long and wordy legal-ish post.  You should run for office; I think you'd make a fine politician.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #603 on: May 04, 2020, 02:40:35 PM »
I believe you but I'm still supporting him because I must fight Trump. I will credit her for being honest, but that's about it.

Sounds like a combination of deep cynicism a brainwashing.

...I have to vote for one or the other - must not be Trump - must not be Trump..."

Never mind the idea of voting for a 3rd party, or not voting. That would be "throwing away" a vote. Voting for a lesser evil, knowing it's an evil, is tantamount to saying that democracy is over (or that the people are evil and are well-represented).

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #604 on: May 04, 2020, 02:52:51 PM »
Too bad, those articles are then wrong.

Categorization of people into "races" is only incidentally about skin-color. People use skin-color as a shorthand, not as the reality of what racists actually think it's about.

Wow, what a mansplained "rebuttal."  Even accepting your premise immediately above, it doesn't clear up your misuse of the terms.  Racism is and has been understood to be the top level topic.  The fact that "color of skin" has been used as short hand for racism is just that - a fact.

So basically your response was largely pointless.

Quote
Quote
Actually just false.  Democrats were and still are the party that views race as a legitimate basis upon which to hang material rights differences.

So when exactly did the Deep South (Alabama, Mississippi, etc) supposedly switch from being fanatically racist to being fanatically anti-racist, from always supporting the racists of the DNC to always supporting the (supposed) anti-racists of the Republican party? And how did the most racist part of the country suddenly become the least racist then?

This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm expecting an answer here. There's many questions I pose that go conveniently not-answered, and I tend to believe that that's because you can't answer them.

Which is projection, since you don't actually answer the questions posed to you but just reassert the flawed premises behind them.

Your first question doesn't even makes sense.  The country as a whole, including the deep south, has been consistently moving from a position of wide spread racism that was tolerated by the public, if not openly approved of, to one where racism is repugnant to all. That's true in the South as well.  But there's no magic moment when it went from one condition to the other, just like there's no evidence that the Democratic racists reregistered as Republicans no matter how much you pretend.  All that really happened, is that racism as an "acceptable" philosophy became repugnant, which meant that everyone racist or not, had to start voting based on their other priorities.

Also not really sure what you mean in your second question.  Again you seem to build in your own strawman premise for me to defend.  You've not established anything about "most racist" or "least racist" instead you want to imply that this is self evident and ask for some kind of philosophical stake in the ground.  I mean I've been in the South and I've lived in NYC, if you want to hear racism it's NYC where you'll hear it.  I can't count the number of times, for example, that a cab driver has launched a diatribe against some other ethnic group (whether it's Indian on Pakistani, or something else, it's never once been white on black). 

Quote
Exactly, he's white and because he's white you didn't tell him to move back to his country (his family was "originally" from Poland), just to countries that (supposedly) share his politics. Sanders wasn't "originally" from Venezuela or Russia, yet told to go *there*, rather than Poland.

White people are, you see, treated as actual Americans and treated according to their opinions not, not as second-class citizens and by their origins.
That's exactly my point.

Sort of.  Your actual point was about Trump, and you're backing into this one cause you think it's easier to argue than to actually provide evidence for a claim you made that you can't prove.

But in any event, I conceded way above that this particular insult was not appropriate - in my view - but that it's one that is still being moved in the public view from "okay" to "not okay" but not quite there.  In any event, you pretend that the intent was racism, when you really know deep down it was the same as it was for Sanders a critique of their pursuit of stupid policies.

Quote
And, yes, btw, anyone who told Sanders to go back to Israel, they'd be an antisemite, and if they said Poland they'd be a racist, same way that Trump telling an "originally from Puerto Rico" woman to go back to Puerto Rico, is a racist.

Lol.  Telling an individual to go back to where they came from is not racist.  It's racist if you tell them that because of their race.  If you hate Poles and tell Bernie to go back to Poland, because you'd tell every Pole you met to go back, you're a racist.  If you hate Bernie, and it has nothing to do with his race, you're not a racist even if the insult you choose is arguably - and it's literally arguable - racist.

That's my problem with your argument.  It's poorly constructed and you jump from a disputable premise to an unproven claim.  You have zero basis, nor have you established in any way, that using a disputably racist phrasing means that the person who said it is a racist.  Would I have preferred it if Trump apologized for that phrase and retuned it to the politics, sure, but not apologizing for anything is one of his flaws. 

Quote
Quote
On the other hand, you are correct as a very general level, anyone can be insulted by being told to go back where they came from.  I've heard tribal leaders say that about white people, however, in that case I suspect you believe that they are entitled to do so (again, consistency of principals not being a strong suit among those making your arguments).

If a "tribal leader" was running for president of the United States and told white people to go back where they came from (i.e. leave the United States), I'd call them a racist too. I had no problem calling Mugabe in Zimbabwe a racist.

That's an interesting limit.  I didn't ask about a politician, yet that's how you responded.  I think that's because your use case is false, you wouldn't claim it was racist outside of a very limited context designed to be self serving in use.  And honestly, I don't believe you even there.  As a technical matter - and I don't know the answer - are tribal leaders eligible to run for President, or are they considered to not be natural born citizens of the US given their independent nation status?


Quote
I think your comment is revealing.  There's zero evidence that he's far right.  His positions are pretty much center right.
Three questions here:

1) In the republican primaries of 2016, or indeed any republican primary in the last 20 years, will you please name candidates that were further to the "right" than him?[/quote]

Not in any specific order from 2016:  Huckabee, Fiorina, Carson, Cruz, Rand Paul (though this is confused with his actual libertarian position), Rubio, Graham, Jindal, Perry.  I don't know about Jeb Bush, but I didn't find his brother to be very conservative, his father on the other hand.   I don't know a lot about Santorum, but his history indicates he probably is as well.

Who does that leave?   Kasich, again not all that sure, he certainly took a number of pro-life and anti-LGBTQ positions over the years, but the media painted him as more moderate (largely because he was a weak candidate and they were trying to prop him up as a sacrificial lamb once it became clear that Trump had momentum).

Chris Christie - seems more in the middle.  Scott Walker?  Not entirely sure on a bunch of issues, but definitely anti-union.  Pataki - again don't know but think more liberal.

So really most of the 2016 field.  As far as past candidates?  Dole, Reagan, Bush 1, and Romney all further to the Right, Bush II, in my view, more in the middle. 

Quote
2) Among all the political leaders of democratic nations anywhere in the world, can you name three people who are further to the right than him?

Not even remotely relevant.  Different countries have different needs and different poles of decision.  The European right is not the same as the US right.  I mean heck, both Europe's left and right are anti-semetic.  It'd also be odd for the EU's collectivists to put in place a bunch of individualists.

Quote
3) Do you also believe Lepen in France to be "center right"?

I know LePen's name, but I've never made a study of his policies.  Nor are they relevant here.  The US debate on left versus right is not the same as the European one.

Quote
Again not rhetorical questions, please answer these.

They are not rhetorical they are just distractions.  If your whole basis for disliking Trump is the mistaken belief that European right-left track directly to the US then you should apologize for the mistake and move on.

Quote
Quote
Trump has pursued reasonable policies that are justifiable in all these areas.  Calling him a racist because you can't explain why his policies are wrong is ridiculous.

I'm calling him a racist because he told certain non-white people (ones who'd displeased him, of course), people who had been born in America, to go back to the countries they were "originally" from, and questioned their desire to have a say on how that Great Nation of Yours is to be run.

No matter how you squirm and try to downplay and excuse it, this alone (let alone the dozens other things he's done) would have sufficed to categorize him as a despicable racist, beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Not squirming at all.  You call him a racist because you want to avoid explaining how his policies are wrong.  Same reason the left does it here.  The left is a hot bed of terrible policies that often contradict each other and can't rationally be explained if voters pay attention, ergo they have to distract from them.

Trump is not a racist.  To me that's just a fact, and has all kinds of evidence in how he's lived his life and who he's supported and been supported by over the years.  There's really only one piece of evidence to the contrary from the 70's, and even there, it's more a business point than a personal animous.  Trump was literally, part of the leftist media establishment woo'ed by polticians of all stripes and a known celebrity for decades.  It's solely delusion on your part that he's a racist.  His choice of those words was poor, and is arguably racist, but again it's still arguable, and it's pretty clear that the intent was about policy. 

But let's be grown up here.  We're not going to agree on that point, so how about you move on and actually make a case rather than continuing to reassert your opinion as if it were incontrovertible fact that silences all opposition.  Whether or not Trump is a racist has ZERO to do with whether the policies themselves are right or wrong, pretending otherwise is just the poisoning the well fallacy writ large.  Are you going to continue with arguing from fallacy?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #605 on: May 04, 2020, 02:57:26 PM »
I believe you but I'm still supporting him because I must fight Trump. I will credit her for being honest, but that's about it.

Sounds like a combination of deep cynicism a brainwashing.

...I have to vote for one or the other - must not be Trump - must not be Trump..."

Never mind the idea of voting for a 3rd party, or not voting. That would be "throwing away" a vote. Voting for a lesser evil, knowing it's an evil, is tantamount to saying that democracy is over (or that the people are evil and are well-represented).

Hogwash.  Let's try a hypothetical election.

On the one hand you've got Sheev Palpatine and on the other Joe Biden.  The election is going to be really close, but you really want to vote for Fred Rogers, who won't get enough votes to win but will get enough votes to swing the election away from Biden and to Palpatine.  Will you vote for Biden to save the empire from Palpatine or die in the ensuing holocaust following Palpatine's election comforted by knowing that you voted for the better man?

I have to assume you'd vote for....well, I guess that would depend on how deep your principles go.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #606 on: May 04, 2020, 03:40:55 PM »
What's the count now?  20+ women who have accused Trump vs 1 who has accused Biden.  Trump, who has cheated on every one of his wives vs Biden who has not been shown to have.  Biden, who is "handsy" vs Trump who bragged about grabbing women's pussies and who used his position with the Miss Universe pageant to walk in on naked teenagers.

If one is purely voting based on accusations and the candidates' actions towards women, it would be inconsistent NOT to support Biden.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #607 on: May 04, 2020, 03:50:58 PM »
Quote
Certain Democrats have no moral integrity.  I suspect for the women's group involved they do have moral integrity, but it's a matter of weighing moral alternatives.  Ultimately they are willing to sacrifice "believe all women" on the alter of choosing Biden over Trump, which they believe is by far the lesser evil.  I'd suspect that they rationalize this internally by just refusing to believe that Reade's accusations are anything but a fabrication.  It's exactly what they did when Bill Clinton was accused as well.  It's in fact rational on their parts.  The only evidence I've ever seen about voting between the parties is that Republicans will on occasion vote against their own interests over principal (Doug Jones in the Senate for example).

Certainly true for Republicans, as well.  Think about Anita Hill, Christine Ford and all the women who have accused Trump without any support from any of them.  What always come through in these sorts of posts from you is a visceral disdain, if not hatred, for Democrats.  It's not rational.

No what comes through is that I've never been one to not believe a victim just because of who they accuse.  I still need to see it proved for legal recourse, or be very likely - in my view - for political recourse.  Clinton got caught with DNA evidence - without that it still would have been true, but you'd never have believed it, and honestly, I may not have either.  The more serious claims about him?  Seem to have a lot of evidence and detail to them, and largely got buried.

I heard Blasey-Ford testify, I believe something happened to her, but I seriously doubt her story would have stood up under scrutiny.  Luckily, the Senate hearing wasn't designed to test that story.  I mean if the Senate had interviewed her the way Schiff did his hearings, I don't think she could have held up.  And again, that has zero to do with whether she was telling the truth, or believed what she said, or just had backed herself into a corner in her marriage with things she told her husband.

Anita Hill is from a different era, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if there wasn't some truth to her story.  That kind of work place harassment was very common then.  Not sure what the relevance is here and now.

As for Trump's accusers, a lot of them are more credible than Blasey-Ford in that they can place themselves in an actual meeting, some maybe even more credible than Reade (others not so much).  I mean much like with Biden, whose hands on style causes doubt, Trump was part of celebrity culture.  It's pretty much known that celebrity culture results in some bizarre circumstances, I mean "partying like a rock star" is a phrase for a reason.  Is it always clear what happened with fan number 35, when fans 1-34 were willing and aggressive?  I doubt it.  I think Trump's statement about grabbing them, is probably close to the literal reality for many male stars.

I don't know, celebrity morality is really something that should be addressed.  But even after Weinstein it seems like Hollywood is more interested in minimizing the fall out than rooting out the abuse.

But in reality, choosing a President is a binary choice.  Everyone should be voting for the candidate that serves the best long term goals of the country.  That's exactly what the passage from Lisa Bloom above is about.  You don't have to be a hypocrite on top of everything else, nor do you have to wrap yourself into a pretzel trying to pretend that you're voting for an innocent person, when what you're really doing is voting to stop the country from going in the wrong direction.

Quote
Quote
Yes it's point scoring system.  Not sure what nonsense you're parsing in your head to think otherwise.  Reade's accusation was talked about by Reade real time, Ford's only decades later.  Reade actually worked for Biden in the time period in question, Ford there's no real evidence they were together.

Dead wrong.  If we scored on points, Trump would be long gone, wouldn't he?

I'm not sure if it's your reading comprehension or if something was unclear.  Judging credibility is roughly speaking a points system.

Election are also a point system - we call it the Electoral College - and no, Trump would not be long gone, he won decisively the first time and hasn't been up to the text the second time.

Guilt is not a points system.  Guilt is either proven or not proven.  He said she said is the quintessential problem case for proving guild.  There's really nothing there but whether you believe one person more than the other to such an extent that you have no reasonable doubt.  That's not something that a jury has ever been good at doing.  They let their biases interfere, thus black men accused by white women were far far more likely to be found guilty than white men accused by black women.

Quote
Ford was a teenage girl, and like most teenage girls who are similarly attacked (or worse), she didn't come forward to some authority figure at the time.  For that you shame her.  You are using the classic defense strategy to find fault with the victim's actions when it's your client that is being charged, and then you turn around and apply prosecutor tactics to discredit the person accused when you want to see them convicted.

Must of missed where I "shamed" her.  Ford didn't come forward at the time, and if she had, it would have been investigated as an attempted groping and almost certainly not led to any charges.  That's if it even went that far.

Of course, you're just assuming it really happened, which you have no real basis to believe.

Quote
As usual, I didn't bother reading the rest of your long and wordy legal-ish post.  You should run for office; I think you'd make a fine politician.

Makes sense.  If you read things you might have to come to grips with why your positions don't make sense, far easier just to continue to react and make ungrounded assertions.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #608 on: May 04, 2020, 03:58:24 PM »
What's the count now?  20+ women who have accused Trump vs 1 who has accused Biden.  Trump, who has cheated on every one of his wives vs Biden who has not been shown to have.  Biden, who is "handsy" vs Trump who bragged about grabbing women's pussies and who used his position with the Miss Universe pageant to walk in on naked teenagers.

If one is purely voting based on accusations and the candidates' actions towards women, it would be inconsistent NOT to support Biden.

That's true if you're a single issuer voter that is voting on the amount of accusations you should vote for Biden.

Of course, then you'd be a manipulated fool, given the very really bias in the media about how much they report (and the standards that have to be met to report it) in favor of Biden.

If you are a single issue voter than won't vote for an adulterer, or a cheater, or heck a divorcee, go right ahead.  If on the other hand you're a single issue voter on any number of issues you also have a clear decision path.

But if you're a complex voter that's looking out for what's best for the country, take a pass on Biden cause the "best case" is that he'll be a puppet for autocratic unelected Dems with the goal of taking more of your rights away in your "own best interest."

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #609 on: May 04, 2020, 04:09:21 PM »
Well, duh, if one isn't a single issue voter, one would never vote for Trump regardless.  But pretending people are being inconsistent in voting for Biden over Trump even if they believe Reade 100% is silly. 

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #610 on: May 04, 2020, 04:13:19 PM »
Well, duh, if one isn't a single issue voter, one would never vote for Trump regardless.  But pretending people are being inconsistent in voting for Biden over Trump even if they believe Reade 100% is silly.

I didn't pretend any such thing.  I flat out said if you believe Ford and not Reade you are a hypocrite.

Lisa Bloom is not a hypocrite and she is being political about who she thinks is better for the country.  That said, Trump is clearly better for the country than Biden.  The fact that the attacks on Trump have to go to this length, rather than address policy, should let you know exactly that.  DNC policies are terrible and are unpopular, the only way they get implemented is by the Administrative State and lying to the voters.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #611 on: May 04, 2020, 04:16:02 PM »
Hogwash.  Let's try a hypothetical election.

On the one hand you've got Sheev Palpatine and on the other Joe Biden.  The election is going to be really close, but you really want to vote for Fred Rogers, who won't get enough votes to win but will get enough votes to swing the election away from Biden and to Palpatine.  Will you vote for Biden to save the empire from Palpatine or die in the ensuing holocaust following Palpatine's election comforted by knowing that you voted for the better man?

I have to assume you'd vote for....well, I guess that would depend on how deep your principles go.

I would vote for General Zod, of course.

http://i-mockery.com/generalzod/

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #612 on: May 04, 2020, 04:41:44 PM »
That said, Trump is clearly better for the country than Biden. 
Your TDS is showing ;) Hint: Internationally, Trump is a train wreck. Economically, he's managed to oversee the furtherance of the greatest income inequality since the existence of robber barons, and maybe not even then. He's hollowed out support for human rights globally by abdicating the USA's place as one of the defenders and promoters of civil rights internationally. I suppose if you prefer unilateralism and an inconsistent foreign policy that has empowered Russia and China, sure. White Nationalism?  booyah

Oh, and my response was to ScottF, not to you.  But then you managed to misread my response to ScottF and inveigle yourself into that conversation, to which misrepresentation I did respond ("I will credit her for being honest, but that's about it.")

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #613 on: May 04, 2020, 04:55:27 PM »
That said, Trump is clearly better for the country than Biden. 
Your TDS is showing ;) Hint: Internationally, Trump is a train wreck. Economically, he's managed to oversee the furtherance of the greatest income inequality since the existence of robber barons, and maybe not even then. He's hollowed out support for human rights globally by abdicating the USA's place as one of the defenders and promoters of civil rights internationally. I suppose if you prefer unilateralism and an inconsistent foreign policy that has empowered Russia and China, sure. White Nationalism?  booyah

Lol, yes can't imagine why Trump's positions to reverse decades of America letting others take advantage of them might not be as popular internationally as the appeasement policies themselves.  In any, event that's a pro-Trump point.

Greatest income inequality since the robber barons?  Or, prior to the coronavirus, largest gains in real incomes from those at the bottom in quite some time?  I don't give a crap about the class envy arguments.  It's certainly the case that the DNC eats at the trough of the mega billionaires, and has gone to bat for the SALT tax deductions even though they overwhelmingly accrue to the beneifit of the 1%ers's.

How on earth do you get he's "hollowed out support for human rights"?  Was there a decline in Europe of support for human rights?  What evidence do you have?  Or are you pretending that say not supporting the UN human rights council, even though its been taken over by serial abusers is a bad thing? 

Yes, he's "empowered" Russia, I so remember how Russia increased it's presence in Syria and took over Crimea under Trump...  oh wait... and how Obama's policies pushed back on Chinese aggression on trade.... oh wait, ... or did something about their human rights abuses or aggressiveness... oh again.  It seems like you have a case of delusion in operation here.

And oh yeah, lets not forget the obligatory throw away to racism.  If you don't include your fake dog whistles how will everyone know you must be right, after all you're on the good team and the good team by definition can't be wrong no matter how big the nonsense they advocate is.

Quote
Oh, and my response was to ScottF, not to you.  But then you managed to misread my response to ScottF and inveigle yourself into that conversation, to which misrepresentation I did respond ("I will credit her for being honest, but that's about it.")

Not sure why I should care about who you responded to, I was reacting to the position.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #614 on: May 04, 2020, 09:45:41 PM »
Hogwash.  Let's try a hypothetical election.

On the one hand you've got Sheev Palpatine and on the other Joe Biden.  The election is going to be really close, but you really want to vote for Fred Rogers, who won't get enough votes to win but will get enough votes to swing the election away from Biden and to Palpatine.  Will you vote for Biden to save the empire from Palpatine or die in the ensuing holocaust following Palpatine's election comforted by knowing that you voted for the better man?

I have to assume you'd vote for....well, I guess that would depend on how deep your principles go.

I would vote for General Zod, of course.

http://i-mockery.com/generalzod/

As principled response as I should have expected.  Which is to say you do look good in the mirror.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #615 on: May 06, 2020, 02:39:55 PM »
What's the count now?  20+ women who have accused Trump vs 1 who has accused Biden.  Trump, who has cheated on every one of his wives vs Biden who has not been shown to have.  Biden, who is "handsy" vs Trump who bragged about grabbing women's pussies and who used his position with the Miss Universe pageant to walk in on naked teenagers.

If one is purely voting based on accusations and the candidates' actions towards women, it would be inconsistent NOT to support Biden.

I hate I can't come back here often right now but this is the kind of content that brings me back. The logical fallacies used to justify ... well, literally anything. We saw it during the Clinton years as a serial rapist and what we now know was a pedophile that trafficked in underage girls with Jeffrey Epstein, was given a free pass to continue raping other women and young girls.

Speaking of all that, there's an NYT opinion piece out today by Linda Hirshman. Among other things, she wrote “Reckoning: The Epic Battle Against Sexual Abuse and Harassment.” She really, really, opposes powerful men sexually abusing women. Among the things she tells us:

Quote
I believe Tara Reade. I believed Anita Hill, too. Remember the buttons? I wore one.

Quote
In 1998, I was one of a few establishment feminists to argue on behalf of Monica Lewinsky, when the unofficial representative of the movement, Gloria Steinem, threw her under the bus in the pages of The New York Times to protect Bill Clinton. I maintained my position until, two decades and a #MeToo movement later, Ms. Steinem issued a non-apology for the essay.

Quote
I know how supposedly “liberal” men abused the sexual revolution in every imaginable way. I am unimpressed by their lip service to feminism, their Harvard degrees or their donations to feminist causes.

The evidence, well, it's pretty credible and very, very, hard to ignore:
Quote
Discounting Ms. Reade’s accusation and, one after another, denigrating her corroborating witnesses, calling for endless new evidence, avowing that you “hear” her, is nonsense. We are now up to four corroborating witnesses — including one contemporary corroborating witness, unearthed by Rich McHugh, who was Ronan Farrow’s producer at NBC News during the Harvey Weinstein #MeToo reporting — and one “Larry King Live” tape.



What's her message for you liberals? Own it:
Quote
Suck it up and make the utilitarian bargain.
Quote
I believe Ms. Reade, and I’ll vote for Mr. Biden this fall.

See, you just gotta get over al little rape:
Quote
So stop playing gotcha with the female supporters of Mr. Biden or the #MeToo movement, making them lie to the camera — or perhaps to themselves — about doubting her to justify their votes.

That's right. Stop the absurd "logic", no need to twist yourselves into pretzels with the downright stupid justifications, just own it. Realize that Tara Reade was, in fact, sexually assaulted by Joe Biden. And then, just lay back and try to enjoy it as she should have.

That's real feminism:
Quote
Compared with the good Mr. Biden can do, the cost of dismissing Tara Reade — and, worse, weakening the voices of future survivors — is worth it.

Tara Reade is just gonna have to come to grips with the fact that she just doesn't matter. There are bigger things going on and if Biden wants to grope little kids and sniff'em or sexually assault his staff, well, just get over it.

Quote
I won’t say it will be easy.

Quote
Utilitarian morality requires that I turn my face away from the people I propose to sell out: Monica Lewinsky, Tara Reade. This is agonizingly hard for me to do. Pretending not to believe the complainants — which is what is taking place with Ms. Reade — or that they’re loose nobodies, which is what much of the media did to Ms. Lewinsky, is just an escape from the hard work of moral analysis.

Yeah, the real burden is on Linda Hirshman and all the people that will have to throw Reade under the bus. When you get down to it, they're the real victims here for having to throw their morals and lifelong, deeply held, convictions on the trash heap of utilitarianism. Pretending not to believe them is for the weak, it's moral bankruptcy to deny Joe Biden sexually assaulted Reade.

Do you want to redeem yourself? Then own it and tell the world that, just as with Bill Clinton,  you don't care about Tara Reade. You don't care about where Joe puts his hands on your wives, daughters, or unsuspecting staffers. Go out, loud and proud, shouting "F*ck that bitch, I'm for Joe anyway!"

It's the right thing, and the honest thing, to do if you really care about women.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #616 on: May 06, 2020, 02:54:24 PM »
Quote
What's her message for you liberals? Own it:

Own what?  It's her opinion, she owns it.  Which conservatives tell you what to think?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #617 on: May 06, 2020, 04:26:32 PM »
Haha, "the trash heap of utilitarianism." I am always suspicious of the word "utilitarian" because unless a person has the powers of God and can calculate all variable in the universe, 'utilitarian' is just a code word for "I can do anything I want and say it's for the greater good." You can use the same argument to commit terrorist acts - maybe they're bad, but worth it in the long run! Murder, same deal! And of course allowing abuse of women to exist because the greater good demands a Democrat in office, that goes without saying.

Gotta agree with Crunch on this one. On all the areas where I see partisan politics in general as the issue, with both sides played against each other like patsies and therefore all to an extent victims, here's a case where there's a CLEAR stand to take and few people will take it. What would the DNC have done last election if *zero* Democrats went to the polls, and Trump took 100% of the vote in all states? That would never happen, but imagine if it did: you want political change, that is how to get it. Refusing to vote for Biden does not mean voting for Trump here: one can vote 3rd party, not at all, or spoil ballots. Don't complain about "lesser of evils" if you are perfectly willing to accept the precise evil that your 'side' is most vehemently against. 'We need to further the cause for women, and if that takes ignoring abuse of women then so be it.' It goes something like that. It's not like the Democrats have various much more important causes; as far as I can tell this is the most important one, and the biggest strike against Trump. Undermine that cause and you have no cause at all.

I would personally like to see a good Democrat in office. I would have liked to see Bernie there. But they are too corrupt right now to ever serve anyone's interests, so IMO the electorate needs to burn it down and force change.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #618 on: May 08, 2020, 04:37:59 PM »
Quote
It's the right thing, and the honest thing, to do if you really care about women.

A funny admonition from a man who does the opposite of caring about women. :)

I mean, why call for us to care about women when you support a candidate who is, by all measures, worse to women?  One who cheated on his wife and bragged about the great sex he had with his mistress?  One who paid a porn star to be quiet about having sex with her while he was married?  One who has been accused of raping 15 women?  One who bragged about grabbing women's p**ssies?  This is the candidate you endorse because you "care about women???"

No, that's the candidate you endorse when you think that women are playthings for men. :)

Now, I can understand if you were trying to defend Joe Biden in this situation.  After all, there is less evidence to believe this happened than with the accusations against Kavanaugh or Donald J. Trump.  But don't try to put a guilt trip on liberals for not supporting Tara Reade enough, especially when Tara herself said that she would vote for Biden (IIRC).

Because you have no moral standing to do so, considering your allegiances.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #619 on: May 09, 2020, 05:05:09 AM »
I mean, why call for us to care about women when you support a candidate who is, by all measures, worse to women?

I know this point seems beyond obvious to you, but I would suggest that if you need to measure at all which is the worse of the two to women - presumably by tallying up offenses and comparing results - that there is no real argument to be made here. 'Mine is 15 bad but yours is 20 bad, so our guy is better!' That's roughly how it sounds to me. I think that if you believe your own argument the sane thing to do would be to vote for neither of them, wouldn't you say?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #620 on: May 09, 2020, 07:45:18 AM »
I mean, why call for us to care about women when you support a candidate who is, by all measures, worse to women?

I know this point seems beyond obvious to you, but I would suggest that if you need to measure at all which is the worse of the two to women - presumably by tallying up offenses and comparing results - that there is no real argument to be made here. 'Mine is 15 bad but yours is 20 bad, so our guy is better!' That's roughly how it sounds to me. I think that if you believe your own argument the sane thing to do would be to vote for neither of them, wouldn't you say?

A practical person would balance positive and negative reasons to vote for either of them, knowing that one of them will be elected in November.  You argue that just the subject of sexual behavior failings alleged to each man having committed is the only basis for making the choice. A woman has accused Biden of sexual assault that occurred 27 years ago, a charge that he denies.  Trump has been accused of sexual assault and harassment by about 25 women, many of whom he has sued or paid settlements under non-disclosure agreements.  He has further admitted to many sexual exploits for which he has no regrets and is even proud of.  If that alone requires you to vote for a candidate who cannot win, so be it.

But sexual behavior failings is not the only area in which a practical person would weigh the positive and negative reasons to vote for either of them.  I'll let you ponder whether there really are other areas to consider and how you would evaluate the two men.  Maybe you'd still vote for someone else, knowing that it's possible that the person you would like to see elected less than the other prevails.

My personal opinion is that the sexual indiscretions of both men are far less important as practical considerations than their overall records and objectives in business and government.  That turns out to be a pretty easy call.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #621 on: May 09, 2020, 08:49:40 AM »
I mean, why call for us to care about women when you support a candidate who is, by all measures, worse to women?

I know this point seems beyond obvious to you, but I would suggest that if you need to measure at all which is the worse of the two to women - presumably by tallying up offenses and comparing results - that there is no real argument to be made here. 'Mine is 15 bad but yours is 20 bad, so our guy is better!' That's roughly how it sounds to me. I think that if you believe your own argument the sane thing to do would be to vote for neither of them, wouldn't you say?
This discussion is multifaceted of course - but much of it seems to focus on people arguing that Democrats shouldn't support Biden because of Reade's accusations.  But of course, the lack of abusive history is not why people would vote for a candidate - it is arguably their positions on policy (but also, unfortunately, often 'beauty', shibboleths, team affiliation, charisma, heck even height).

My only point in all of this (since I do NOT get a vote) is that people making the argument that Democrats still supporting Biden are somehow being two-faced, miss the point that on the sole topic of sexual assault and attitudes on women, if that were the only relevant metric, then they should still vote for the candidate that would keep the man accused of assaulting 20+ women out of office.  Republicans, in electing Trump last time, have already made the decision that sexual assault, marital infidelity and negative attitudes toward women are not terribly important in their candidates.

Everybody knows this, but some pretend not to.  Most people also understand that this whole debate is meant not as a tool convince people to vote Republican, nor even to have Biden replaced on the ticket, but to suppress voting levels in the Democrat leaning electorate. And yes, the argument of "a pox on both houses" is pretty disingenuous given that only one party's supporters or at least partly still governed by caring about women's sexual, economic and social equality and safety.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #622 on: May 09, 2020, 11:20:57 AM »
I know this point seems beyond obvious to you, but I would suggest that if you need to measure at all which is the worse of the two to women - presumably by tallying up offenses and comparing results - that there is no real argument to be made here. 'Mine is 15 bad but yours is 20 bad, so our guy is better!' That's roughly how it sounds to me. I think that if you believe your own argument the sane thing to do would be to vote for neither of them, wouldn't you say?

That's certainly my intention at present.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #623 on: May 09, 2020, 12:51:31 PM »
I know this point seems beyond obvious to you, but I would suggest that if you need to measure at all which is the worse of the two to women - presumably by tallying up offenses and comparing results - that there is no real argument to be made here. 'Mine is 15 bad but yours is 20 bad, so our guy is better!' That's roughly how it sounds to me. I think that if you believe your own argument the sane thing to do would be to vote for neither of them, wouldn't you say?

That's certainly my intention at present.

So, who do you want to see be President? Will you be voting for that person?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #624 on: May 09, 2020, 01:10:59 PM »
So, who do you want to see be President? Will you be voting for that person?

Undecided beyond Not Trump, and Not Biden at this time. I might vote for Donald Duck at this rate, haven't bothered to look at third party options as of yet, mostly because the "standard offerings" for third party in my neck of the woods are typically skewed towards batsh## crazy IMO.

But if I had to pick between the two(and I don't thanks to the EC), it'd be Trump.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #625 on: May 09, 2020, 03:07:56 PM »
My only point in all of this (since I do NOT get a vote) is that people making the argument that Democrats still supporting Biden are somehow being two-faced, miss the point that on the sole topic of sexual assault and attitudes on women, if that were the only relevant metric, then they should still vote for the candidate that would keep the man accused of assaulting 20+ women out of office.  Republicans, in electing Trump last time, have already made the decision that sexual assault, marital infidelity and negative attitudes toward women are not terribly important in their candidates.

What this all amounts to in my view is that the candidates don't matter. You can just blank out their names and faces, cancel any future debates, ignore the press, and look for the box says has the correct letter next to it. I don't think anything short of a convicted serial killer running will stop your average Democrat voting for Biden and Republican voting for Trump. Any arguments I (or anyone else) can make will always be met with "yeah but we need to vote Democrat because of policies." What's the point of any of it; the debates, the campaigns, the platforms? It's all moot, Dem gonna vote D, GOP gonna vote R, and any personal deficiencies are a necessary evil.

This all sounds horrid if that's the state of things. It's not a real democracy in this state of things, that's for sure. The illusion of choice is at its peak when the distinction between the candidates is barely relevant.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #626 on: May 09, 2020, 05:15:14 PM »
That's about as shallow a point of view as one can gin up.  I can't speak for people who irrevocably cling to either party, but there are differences in the policies the two parties promote.  If you can't see that and attach any value to those differences, then I agree you shouldn't vote for either.  But then again, anybody from any other alternative party would also have similar allegiances and harshly drawn policy differences with the two parties, so why would you vote for them, either.  Better, perhaps, if you can't form an informed opinion, to stop paying attention and just go about your business.

But you don't say anything about what your position is that would attract you to a candidate/party.  Can you explain why the two parties are indistinguishable and what you want a candidate to argue for?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #627 on: May 09, 2020, 07:30:57 PM »
That's about as shallow a point of view as one can gin up.  I can't speak for people who irrevocably cling to either party, but there are differences in the policies the two parties promote.  If you can't see that and attach any value to those differences, then I agree you shouldn't vote for either.  But then again, anybody from any other alternative party would also have similar allegiances and harshly drawn policy differences with the two parties, so why would you vote for them, either.  Better, perhaps, if you can't form an informed opinion, to stop paying attention and just go about your business.

But you don't say anything about what your position is that would attract you to a candidate/party.  Can you explain why the two parties are indistinguishable and what you want a candidate to argue for?

You seem to actually be agreeing with me in this post, not disagreeing. You're basically saying that you'll vote party because the parties are different, which is what I said. My point is that the actual candidates don't seem to matter in the slightest, people will vote by team. So what's the point of even naming who the candidates are?

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #628 on: May 09, 2020, 08:59:19 PM »
...the candidates don't matter. You can just blank out their names and faces, cancel any future debates, ignore the press, and look for the box says has the correct letter next to it. I don't think anything short of a convicted serial killer running will stop your average Democrat voting for Biden and Republican voting for Trump. Any arguments I (or anyone else) can make will always be met with "yeah but we need to vote Democrat because of policies." What's the point of any of it; the debates, the campaigns, the platforms? It's all moot, Dem gonna vote D, GOP gonna vote R, and any personal deficiencies are a necessary evil.

This is especially abhorrent when the candidate the other side hates is a strawman. It is not policies at all that matters, or else the most successful President of all time (outside of the Wuhan Flu) would be universally supported. What is scary about Biden is not an abusive moment from ages ago, but his current inability to campaign without embarrassing himself. I wonder if Reade, or anyone else, is just there to deflect attention from the contemporaneous Biden?

The other side of this is the lack of any journalism to cover issues. Without honest journalism, all the voter sees are carnival barkers trying to con the marks.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2020, 09:01:21 PM by wmLambert »

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #629 on: May 09, 2020, 09:13:33 PM »
Protest votes and blank votes are about influencing the next election in 4 years time. It's saying, hey no more Bidens please.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #630 on: May 09, 2020, 09:37:43 PM »
Quote
You seem to actually be agreeing with me in this post, not disagreeing. You're basically saying that you'll vote party because the parties are different, which is what I said. My point is that the actual candidates don't seem to matter in the slightest, people will vote by team. So what's the point of even naming who the candidates are?

You keep reading things into what I write that I never said.  Trump is unlike any candidate that has ever run for President; nobody voted for him because of the Republican platform.  Bernie and Biden are very different candidates who put forward different agendas and objectives.  The candidates do matter, which is why they all vie for the Party nomination and why some disappointed supporters won't vote for the "other guy" in the general election, even though that person represents the Party they align with.

You then alluded to "the illusion of choice".  I asked you to explain the following:

Quote
But you don't say anything about what your position is that would attract you to a candidate/party.  Can you explain why the two parties are indistinguishable and what you want a candidate to argue for?

Can you answer the question?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #631 on: May 09, 2020, 09:44:14 PM »
Quote
It is not policies at all that matters, or else the most successful President of all time (outside of the Wuhan Flu) would be universally supported.

It's almost frightening that I'm sure you believe the things you say.  Are you aware that he never has had more than 43% approval in the entire time he's been President?  That's the lowest continual rating of any President in modern history, and since that sort of poll wasn't around until the past several decades, many historians think he has the highest disapproval rating of any US President in history.  If he's competing in a race to be the "most ... President of all time", he's running a race to the bottom, not the top. 

Put down the kool-aid, it's got disinfectant in it now.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #632 on: May 09, 2020, 09:54:32 PM »
Protest votes and blank votes are about influencing the next election in 4 years time. It's saying, hey no more Bidens please.

Outcome I'm strongly suspecting the Democrats are going to see is that a lot of traditional Democratic voters in more "purple" districts(and thus not trapped in a Liberal Bubble like New York and much of Cali) are simply going to stay home. New York, California, Illinois and Washington State can run up their vote totals all they want, it isn't going to impact the outcome of the Electoral College. Conservatives will be out to vote in numbers because the strong uptick in favor of Socialism we're seeing just about everywhere scares the crap out of them, so they'll turn up to vote Republican.

While the Democrats have Trump for a bogey man they're using to scare people into voting, they're not really offering a strong candidate as an alternative. They're going to lose their moderate voters because of that... Which will cause the party to lurch even further to the left.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #633 on: May 09, 2020, 09:58:11 PM »
Quote
It is not policies at all that matters, or else the most successful President of all time (outside of the Wuhan Flu) would be universally supported.

It's almost frightening that I'm sure you believe the things you say.  Are you aware that he never has had more than 43% approval in the entire time he's been President?  That's the lowest continual rating of any President in modern history, and since that sort of poll wasn't around until the past several decades, many historians think he has the highest disapproval rating of any US President in history.  If he's competing in a race to be the "most ... President of all time", he's running a race to the bottom, not the top. 

Put down the kool-aid, it's got disinfectant in it now.

You need to remember that is a raw number, and it doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means. Any other President and you'd probably be right, but traditional understandings go out the window with Trump.

Most Conservatives(/independents -- So not identifying as Republicans) find Trump to be disgusting, so if they're polled about their approval/disapproval of Trump, they're going to disapprove.

But come election time, if they have to chose to pull a lever for Trump or Biden, they'll be voting for Trump despite their disapproval of him as a human being.

To frame it another way, they disapprove of his comportment, style, and general presentation of a great many things. As such "they disapprove of how he's doing things" However, they do approve of the results and many of the goals behind those actions, but they're justifiably hung up on Trump the sleezy used car salesman presentation so in total it's showing as disapproval. They don't mind the function, but the form is terrible.

Meanwhile the Dems are offering them terrible function, and terrible form from their POV. They'll take Trump over that.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2020, 10:07:58 PM by TheDeamon »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #634 on: May 09, 2020, 10:05:47 PM »
Protest votes and blank votes are about influencing the next election in 4 years time. It's saying, hey no more Bidens please.

Yes, and voters (much like politicians) seem unable to think four years ahead. That is a problem for a country that's going to be around for more than four more years! And funny enough De Tocqueville pointed out exactly that problem, back in the 1830's or whatever. It's still a problem for a country that wants to have long-term goals.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #635 on: May 09, 2020, 10:15:25 PM »
You keep reading things into what I write that I never said.  Trump is unlike any candidate that has ever run for President; nobody voted for him because of the Republican platform.  Bernie and Biden are very different candidates who put forward different agendas and objectives.  The candidates do matter, which is why they all vie for the Party nomination and why some disappointed supporters won't vote for the "other guy" in the general election, even though that person represents the Party they align with.

So if Trump and only Trump is the problem, will you now go on record say that in any of the following scenarios you would vote Republican:

Biden vs Romney
Biden vs McCain
Biden vs Bush 41

If Trump is the big problem, and Biden is a problem (but a lesser one), you'd vote for the above candidates over Biden if they were the R candidate right now instead of Trump?

Quote
But you don't say anything about what your position is that would attract you to a candidate/party.  Can you explain why the two parties are indistinguishable and what you want a candidate to argue for?

I think they are indistinguishable in the sense that at this point they serve the same special interests, use the same confusion tactics, have the same lack of respect for honesty or decency, and overall play the public for fools. Bill Maher joked back in the 90's (back when he was more libertarian) that the only difference between them was the D's had slightly less scary special interests. But at this point in the game they are roughly the same special interests (pharma, military, Wall Street). Maybe big oil is a bit more R but overall they serve the same masters.

However this point, which I do think is important, is secondary to main complaint here, which is that it seems that the candidates don't matter. Even if we grant that the parties are significantly different behind the scenes (beyond the theatre they put on), the issue is how much the candidate matters, and right now it seems they just don't matter at all. You don't vote for the best guy, you vote for the correct party, and that means the party can prop up anyone they want, including corporate lapdogs, and they will get the votes either way. At least, unless they don't, such as what happened to Hillary. So at present the DNC is in a downward spiral, which I personally regret. It seems easy for you to forget that I prefaced the whole issue by saying that I had preferred a good Democrat in office right now. A GOOD Democrat, mind you.

I'll recommend the final season of The West Wing for an example of a faux election run with R and D candidates who both seemed very worthy. I could imagine wanting to vote for both of them, as they were both very reasonable and honest. It would be neat if there was the slightest chance that this could ever happen in America, that most people respected both candidates. But why would they, when respectable candidates don't make it to the generals? And why would they, when it doesn't seem to matter anyhow who the candidate is...

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #636 on: May 09, 2020, 11:12:33 PM »
Let's not forget that we aren't just voting for a President. This is also the only chance to vote for who gets on the Supreme Court.  We see that party does matter by the number of 5-4 decisions the Supreme Court makes along party lines regardless of the dream of John Roberts that there aren't conservatives and liberals on the Court, just Justices. We have a very good record now for both parties regarding the Supreme Court.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #637 on: May 10, 2020, 01:09:19 AM »
Let's not forget that we aren't just voting for a President. This is also the only chance to vote for who gets on the Supreme Court.  We see that party does matter by the number of 5-4 decisions the Supreme Court makes along party lines regardless of the dream of John Roberts that there aren't conservatives and liberals on the Court, just Justices. We have a very good record now for both parties regarding the Supreme Court.

Yes, I've heard this before. But isn't it weird to consider that the primary reason to be concerned about the head of the executive is because that dictates how the judicial ends up siding? That doesn't sound right to me.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #638 on: May 10, 2020, 06:50:38 AM »
Quote
You need to remember that is a raw number, and it doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means. Any other President and you'd probably be right, but traditional understandings go out the window with Trump.

Most Conservatives(/independents -- So not identifying as Republicans) find Trump to be disgusting, so if they're polled about their approval/disapproval of Trump, they're going to disapprove.

But come election time, if they have to chose to pull a lever for Trump or Biden, they'll be voting for Trump despite their disapproval of him as a human being.

He lost the popular vote in 2016 before people had a chance to see him in action.  The three strongest policy objectives he used to gain many of the votes he got were building the wall (with Mexico footing the bill), repealing the ACA and adding anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court.  His wall program has been an utter failure, he still hasn't gotten rid of the ACA (and now over 10,000,000 people who had corporate health insurance have lost it in just the past 6 weeks), and he's already satisfied the anti-abortion thirst to pack the courts.  His hardest-core and most rabid supporters will never leave him (and even in some cases threaten actual violence if he loses in November), but his base is shrinking rather than growing.

Quote
To frame it another way, they disapprove of his comportment, style, and general presentation of a great many things. As such "they disapprove of how he's doing things" However, they do approve of the results and many of the goals behind those actions, but they're justifiably hung up on Trump the sleezy used car salesman presentation so in total it's showing as disapproval. They don't mind the function, but the form is terrible.

No, it's not just the majority of Americans who find him to be sick, stupid, disgusting or all three; a majority of Americans oppose his most visible and militant policy objectives.  The only way he can win the election is by denying people the opportunity to vote.  He's very creative when it comes to stopping people from acting in their own interests, so there's still a chance he can somehow pull it off.

IMO, the anti-Trump vote will be based on a new-found surge in the country to disinfect our politics, shine a bright light on the immoral, xenophobic, racist, elitist and more than anything else - self-serving things he's done while in office.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #639 on: May 10, 2020, 07:00:24 AM »
Quote
So if Trump and only Trump is the problem, will you now go on record say that in any of the following scenarios you would vote Republican:

Biden vs Romney
Biden vs McCain
Biden vs Bush 41

If Trump is the big problem, and Biden is a problem (but a lesser one), you'd vote for the above candidates over Biden if they were the R candidate right now instead of Trump?

Trick questions are fun.  Before I could answer, you'll have to tell me what the policy differences would be in each scenario if any of those choices were presented in 2020.  Please be as detailed as possible.  Note for the record that a vote for either of the dead options would be an example of a wasted vote.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #640 on: May 10, 2020, 07:54:23 AM »
In the interest of giving you a fair hearing for replying thoughtfully to my request...

Quote
I think they are indistinguishable in the sense that at this point they serve the same special interests, use the same confusion tactics, have the same lack of respect for honesty or decency, and overall play the public for fools. Bill Maher joked back in the 90's (back when he was more libertarian) that the only difference between them was the D's had slightly less scary special interests. But at this point in the game they are roughly the same special interests (pharma, military, Wall Street). Maybe big oil is a bit more R but overall they serve the same masters.

Largely true.  But I do give Democrats the nod on this because their self interest for the past 60 years has led them to support programs that would benefit poor, non-white and otherwise disenfranchised groups within society.  As some here like to point out, Lincoln was a Republican, which implies that he was in favor of civil rights while the Democratic Party generally was not, and therefore the racists among them these days can't be racist.  They aver that by noting their "Republican" Party identification.  Neither Party shined on this issue until Democrats began to coalesce around it following WWII.  That's still a WIP.

Quote
However this point, which I do think is important, is secondary to main complaint here, which is that it seems that the candidates don't matter. Even if we grant that the parties are significantly different behind the scenes (beyond the theatre they put on), the issue is how much the candidate matters, and right now it seems they just don't matter at all. You don't vote for the best guy, you vote for the correct party, and that means the party can prop up anyone they want, including corporate lapdogs, and they will get the votes either way. At least, unless they don't, such as what happened to Hillary. So at present the DNC is in a downward spiral, which I personally regret. It seems easy for you to forget that I prefaced the whole issue by saying that I had preferred a good Democrat in office right now. A GOOD Democrat, mind you.

Candidates don't matter up to a point.  As I mentioned, Biden will struggle to win the votes of many Bernie supporters, who tend to be younger and white, while Biden will do extremely well among older voters and all non-white groups.  It's never not been true that people like to belong to a community or group that they think provides them security and comfort.  Recalling Franklin's comment, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," people today seem to fit that model more than at any other point in my lifetime.  In the 1960's when I was awakening politically many of us used to say that the 1st Amendment (and all the others, but that more than some others) wasn't there so that I could say whatever I wanted that you might not want to hear, but so that you could say what you wanted that I might not want to hear.  Not so much these days.

Quote
I'll recommend the final season of The West Wing for an example of a faux election run with R and D candidates who both seemed very worthy. I could imagine wanting to vote for both of them, as they were both very reasonable and honest. It would be neat if there was the slightest chance that this could ever happen in America, that most people respected both candidates. But why would they, when respectable candidates don't make it to the generals? And why would they, when it doesn't seem to matter anyhow who the candidate is...

Yes, it sucks when so many people are nostalgic for a world that a TV show created for us to admire.  Nowadays we get Homeland.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2020, 07:58:50 AM by Kasandra »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #641 on: May 10, 2020, 12:06:42 PM »
Trick questions are fun.  Before I could answer, you'll have to tell me what the policy differences would be in each scenario if any of those choices were presented in 2020.  Please be as detailed as possible.  Note for the record that a vote for either of the dead options would be an example of a wasted vote.

Look, it's clear you're just waiting for me to say some detail you can object to so that you can weasel out of the question. You seemed to be indicating that I'm not right that the candidates don't matter and you might as well just put D or R and vote based on that. So I'm challenging you to back that up and to tell me you'd vote R if the candidate wasn't Trump. You can pick any semi-recent R candidate you like, I just picked the most recent ones and mercifully omitted Bush 43. Maybe you'd prefer Reagan, so go for that one if you prefer. I'd like you to go on record saying you'd have no problem voting for a Republican over the sleazy Biden if the Republican was more respectable than Trump. But I think you would never do that, if I'm guessing, and that I'm right that the candidate really doesn't matter. If it is the case that you would vote D no matter what, regardless of which two candidates were in the generals then my point is validated. If it's not valid, tell me any recent Republican you definitely would have voted for over Biden if they had made it to the generals (Rubia, Cruz, whoever). I don't need to tell you their policies, you can imagine that for yourself.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #642 on: May 10, 2020, 01:02:20 PM »
Quote
So I'm challenging you to back that up and to tell me you'd vote R if the candidate wasn't Trump.

This is the familiar dance.  I did answer your question, just not how you wanted me to. You ask a vague or hypothetical question and are never satisfied with my response and keep insisting I give more of an answer than I already have. At the same time you refuse to provide enough detail to make your question meaningful or give your own perspective unless repeatedly pushed. 

I'm pretty tired of this routine.  So stop asking pointless hypotheticals or give enough depth to the question so I know where you're coming from.  You're not leading a Politics 101 discussion group.  Or, answer the question yourself and give me a chance to respond.  You did that yesterday and I gave an equally in-depth response.  Pony up or give it up.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #643 on: May 10, 2020, 04:26:51 PM »
I would probably vote for most of trumps republican challengers in 2016 over Biden or Hillary. I know the question wasn't aimed at me, just chipping in.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #644 on: May 11, 2020, 11:09:27 AM »
I would probably vote for most of trumps republican challengers in 2016 over Biden or Hillary. I know the question wasn't aimed at me, just chipping in.
Why?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #645 on: May 11, 2020, 11:23:45 AM »
Hillary - because integrity is a fundamental issue for me, and I think she's devious on a number of levels (please don't argue it, it's my opinion and I have no interest in trying to "prove" it here).

Biden - Inappropriate conduct, willing to compromise on fundamental issues like integration, questionable mental acuity, puppet of corporate lobbyists, failure to commit on fundamental issues like universal healthcare

Going back over the list real quick, to check my off the cuff premise.

Perry: no
Walker: no
Jindal: yes
Graham: at the time, yes, not now
Pataki: yes
Huckabee: close
Paul: yes
Santorum: no
Christie: yes
Fiorina: yes
Bush: yes
Carson: no
Rubio: yes
Cruz: close
Kasich: yes

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #646 on: May 11, 2020, 11:39:36 AM »
The only active Republican candidate I've seen in recent years that I could possibly support would be Kasich.  There are a few who haven't, aren't and never would be running that I might consider.

But the problem with retrospective choices is that you're mixing up apples, oranges and basket of other fruits and nuts.  You have to ask how they would respond to today's issues and how did things they advocated back then turn out.  For instance, to give Fenring a taste, McCain picked Palin as a running mate and once addressed a campaign rally crowd with "My fellow prisoners...".  Bush 1 invaded Iraq, declared victory and left behind a festering cesspool of corruption and human rights chaos.  Meanwhile, Joe Biden had a solid record of achievement back then, so which vintage of Biden are we talking about?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #647 on: May 11, 2020, 12:00:53 PM »
Meanwhile, Joe Biden had a solid record of achievement back then, so which vintage of Biden are we talking about?

Actually, Biden's record wasn't that sterling even then. He ran for President back in the 1980's and ultimately had to drop out of the race over (valid) plagiarism accusations.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #648 on: May 11, 2020, 12:10:32 PM »
Meanwhile, Joe Biden had a solid record of achievement back then, so which vintage of Biden are we talking about?

Actually, Biden's record wasn't that sterling even then. He ran for President back in the 1980's and ultimately had to drop out of the race over (valid) plagiarism accusations.

Back then every indiscretion was thought to be disqualifying when seen through partisan filters.  Let's not start another rathole discussion about who got away with what and either dropped out or was elected anyway.  Don't forget Trump faked his own health evaluation.  If you want to rate Biden as a political and Congressional figure, that would be more useful.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #649 on: May 11, 2020, 12:23:55 PM »
Meanwhile, Joe Biden had a solid record of achievement back then, so which vintage of Biden are we talking about?

Actually, Biden's record wasn't that sterling even then. He ran for President back in the 1980's and ultimately had to drop out of the race over (valid) plagiarism accusations.

Back then every indiscretion was thought to be disqualifying when seen through partisan filters.  Let's not start another rathole discussion about who got away with what and either dropped out or was elected anyway.  Don't forget Trump faked his own health evaluation.  If you want to rate Biden as a political and Congressional figure, that would be more useful.

It sounds like you're back to the "Trump is worse" argument, and I think I've stipulated that multiple times. That doesn't matter to me.

You bring up the Iraq invasion, but seem unaware that Biden led Democratic support for that invasion. He was a champion for the War on Drugs. He sponsored the Bankruptcy bill that left many with no option to discharge various types of crushing debt.

Then there's the problem of Hunter Biden (ignore Ukraine for a minute) and check this out:

Quote
But to his critics, there were red flags. For example, one of the biggest credit card companies in Delaware, MBNA, hired Joe Biden's son Hunter in 1996. Even after Hunter became a federal lobbyist in 2001, he stayed on at MBNA as a consultant at a fee of $100,000 per year, meaning he was pulling in a six-figure salary at the same time his father was pushing for the industry's top priorities.