I am shocked that Buttigieg is gaining ground. I'm still waiting for the flameout, and I expect people to stay in the race assuming the same thing. Past NH, at some point, Pete will fall and the moderate votes still represent the majority.
I like him
@Crimsonandblue22 like... you like him the best of the Democrats?
He seems like a decent a person, but I didn't expect the needle to move in his favor over the last few weeks. He doesn't seem to be winning these debates to me, and I didn't expect people to turn out for him.
He matches my likes! Healthcare and I don't want the free college loan handouts. I like he's a military guy and smarter than crap. I like that he's young. I think he'll surround himself w/great experienced people. I think Bidens losing it, to old. I'd love to see any of them debate trump! He won't do it.
@Crimsonorblue22 said in The democratic nominee:
He matches my likes! Healthcare and I don't want the free college loan handouts.
I don't think free college education or universal healthcare are the answer as one size fits all solutions. I like Yang's UBI better. That would be flexible, whether your current need is to put it toward health car or college loan.
I like he's a military guy and smarter than crap. I like that he's young. I think he'll surround himself w/great experienced people. I think Bidens losing it, to old.
I like that he's smart. I don't know how I feel about him being military, because I'm trying to decide whether I am ok with him serving abroad as a resume builder for his future political career. I heard an interview where he rationalized that he didn't serve to pad his political resume, but that he'd be disingenous if he said that he didn't think that experiencing foreign service would help him be a better president, or something like that. Felt Tracy Flick-like to me.
I think Biden's unraveling too. I also think being a little younger would help him identify better with where the US currently stands, in terms of impending issues and culturally.
Same for Bernie. I feel like his hardliner act is both appealing and slightly out of touch; I don't know that he grasps the nuances of where America is positioned right now and current American culture, which matters in terms of how electable he is.
Yang by contrast, seems very in touch with where we are. He understands what talking points are impactful with so little time to speak, as well as where we are headed as a country. No one on that stage understands the problem of automation better than Yang, and I think in 4 years you're going to see a lot of people say "wait a second, this guy was trying to tell us something". We may see Yang again, with more support.
Klobuchar I think is flexible enough to steer the ship and would also surround herself with excellent people. To me, she looks the most presidential.
I'd love to see any of them debate trump! He won't do it.
I never considered that he wouldn't debate. You really think so?
I heard that. I can't imagine him trying.
@Crimsonorblue22 Are you saying that you've heard Mayor Pete won't debate Trump?
@bcjayhawk trump won't debate anyone
Thanks. I hadn't heard that. It surprises me, though, because Trump always says he's the best at everything.
@bcjayhawk key words, says he is! Lol
Trump will be in the debates. His campaign is always prepping.
@FarmerJayhawk I can't wait!
Which of the candidates do you think would beat Trump most heartily in a debate?
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
Which of the candidates do you think would beat Trump most heartily in a debate?
Klobuchar. Pete and Warren are too canned, Biden forgets what day it is, and Bernie would lose his cool and have a coronary.
@FarmerJayhawk I was thinking pretty much the same. I also worry that Yang and Pete are too green and may not have the depth of knowledge you would want when off their message.
I think Klobuchar would beat the dirt out of his rug.
@approxinfinity Pete! Kamela would have killed him too
I don't know. Kamala was too much about race. I don't think he'd take the bait like she'd think he would. Kamala felt like her own brand of crazy narcissist.
She's a tough prosecutor! Everyone of them excluding the old guys, would kill him! His vocabulary is limited and he can't intimidate them! Maybe they could do maps, he could bring his sharpie and point out ks or mizzou! š¤£ what an idiot! I really did hear he won't do a debate.
Trump debates aren't even debates. The words out of his mouth are so meaningless at this point I don't think that any Dem challenger should debate him either. How do you prep for a policy debate against a man who says one thing while actively doing the exact opposite?
You can't hit him on it because he just said that is what he supports. Or he'll just say "WRONG" into the microphone with anything you say whether it's true or not.
So, what I think the Dem challenger should do is host a televised rally, townhall or interview every single night after they win the nomination. Stick to policy and hit him on his policy when he can't spin it or lie about it. Do not give Trump a platform with independents where he can sell them snake oil. Force him to choose between campaigning and golf. Force him to try to keep up with you.
But that's just my opinion. I'm sure whoever the Dem candidate is will run another terrible campaign.
@Kcmatt7 said in The democratic nominee:
But that's just my opinion. I'm sure whoever the Dem candidate is will run another terrible campaign.
āAnd by the way, Iāve got a plan for the Midwest ā and we can include New Hampshire as well,ā Klobuchar told Sundayās middle school gym crowd. āWeāre going to build a beautiful blue wall around these states, and weāre going to make Donald Trump pay for it.ā
... Amy needs Biden to fall apart, swallow his camp, then grab Warren's supporters who are caught between 1) wanting a progressive and 2) wanting to vote for a woman who has people skills and is capable of compromise (i.e. not wanting to jump ship for Bernie when it's clear he's the progressive left standing). She has a path. Then if she can get Biden, Yang and Dave Chapelle to turn out the minority vote in the South she'd be alright!
I think it'll become more clear that Pete isn't a moderate. He's further left than Klobuchar. If she can paint that picture, I think he'll get stuck between being not progressive enough for Bernie people and not moderate enough for everyone else.... or he'll beat them both by convincing the country that he's positioned in the sweet spot between both @Crimsonorblue22
@approxinfinity Pete would be winning by a landslide if he wasnāt gay. I believe that.
But he is. So I think Amy has the best chance of beating Trump. Sheād secure MN, WI and MI. So she had the most room for error.
I think Bernie will get the nomination and middle America will vote Trump again because once again they were given ātwo bad choices and they had to choose the lesser evil.ā
The only reason Iām not opposed to Bernie is because I think he could still win. Heās polled fine against Trump in swing states. He worries me in the WI, MN and MI area though.... but even the most recent Florida poll has him beating Trump. I donāt mean to take that as gospel, but heād at least compete is my point.
I donāt want Biden. He would lose.
I think Bloomberg would win because heād spend $1B to win. I just think thatās a poor way to govern. I think the funny thing is his flaws are roughly the same as Trumps, only he has some semblance of integrity as evidence by how people trust Bloomberg as a news source.
Warren would lose. She might be the smartest and most qualified out of the bunch. But there is just something there that people donāt like. Sheād struggle to win, imo.
Amy holding strong at 20ish %. She is ramping up her efforts in Nevada and placed two ads there starting tomorrow.
I wonder who is going to steal Biden's thunder in SC. Could make things a lot easier if he underperforms there.
Pete has a minority voter and ground game problem. That campaing is well-organized in Iowa and NH, but not many other spots.
D's now have a fairly big problem with a split decision in Iowa/NH. Oddly enough, Biden still has a pretty strong argument to make he's the most viable in swing states given his popularity with minority voters. I think his natural heir in the field if his collapse continues is Bloomberg. SC D voters are very non-ideological and transactional. I don't think he'll do great in SC since he's not really playing there, but he certainly could get in late given his unlimited resources.
Bernie is definitely the favorite at this point, but the narrative around his candidacy is taking on water. He isn't bringing out new voters. Iowa turnout was about on par with 16 (way down from 08) and NH is down from 16. I don't see his revolution schtick at all. But I will say he's got a good ground game and will over perform his popular vote share in the delegate count, which is really all that matters.
Amy has a ground game and money problem. She may surprise in Nevada, but she doesn't have the capacity to move the metaphorical mountain on Super Tuesday. She hasn't even polled above 2% in SC since October.
My dark horse is Steyer. He's going to do well in SC and has a massive war chest.
Also, the knives will start to come out. Some R friends of mine gave me a preview of some of the oppo about to drop and it's going to get really, really ugly.
Everyone else might as well call it quits.
So Steyer is all over the airwaves in SC. The Biden spoiler. Interesting. Never considered that.
Oh yes. He's polling a solid second behind Biden right now. The odds of a floor fight are growing.
@FarmerJayhawk how is Amy going to appeal to the black vote? What's her best play there? Does it matter if she performs in SC right now? What does she need to show in SC?
I was impressed to see Klobuchar on Fox a few days ago and on The View. She's trying to get exposure to moderate Republicans. Who else is doing that?
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
@FarmerJayhawk how is Amy going to appeal to the black vote? What's her best play there? Does it matter if she performs in SC right now? What does she need to show in SC?
She has to over perform in Nevada (beat Pete and Biden) then maybe win South Carolina. At some point she has to win. She's maybe the least ready to rumble on Super Tuesday. The only state she may win is Minnesota. Honestly I don't really see a path for her. Seems very Kasich to me.
Then it's probably Buttigieg. Bernie's supporters are committed but he's not going to get more votes unless Pete drops out.
I want to hear Buttigieg speak tonight. Klobuchars speech was essentially her stump speech, same jokes and turns of phrase. One of the voters in NH was talking about how Pete was a fast thinker and able to speak off the cuff eloquently. With that in mind I want see him speak off the cuff.
I don't really see a path for Pete either. Not very organized in Super Tuesday states and not polling well at all in Nevada or SC. Has never clicked with minority voters. He's probably toast if he gets 5th in NV and SC.
If I had to put them in order of likelihood: Bernie, Biden, Bloomberg............ Steyer..... Pete, Amy
Iām no democrat, but if I was Iād vote Buttigieg. I think he is the best chance for the DNC. Only thing he doesnāt do well with the African American voters. Tough.
Watching Pete's speech right now to his NH supporters. Excellent.
If my math is right (big if) Pete will come away with more delegates by a couple.
"And let me say that this victory right here, is the beginning of the end for Donald Trump."
You're a bad, bad man Bernie. Yeah @Kcmatt7, Bernie will beat Trump. @Crimsonorblue22 when you said "everyone besides the old guys" for who could out debate Trump, you were referring to Biden and.... Sanders? The guy on my TV right now is going to beat the crap out of Trump in a debate.
Here comes the oppo... BTW, Culinary is basically Harry Reidās political arm and supports Biden. š¦ View Tweet?s=21
1.6%, Pete really narrowed the gap.
Fun national poll result; 2nd choice of Biden supporters: Bernie 28%, Bloomberg 23%, Warren 16%. Voters tend to be less ideological than we assume.
@FarmerJayhawk said in The democratic nominee:
Fun national poll result; 2nd choice of Biden supporters: Bernie 28%, Bloomberg 23%, Warren 16%. Voters tend to be less ideological than we assume.
Interesting. Part of that I think is that Bernie has been campaigning hard with minorities. Referred to as "Uncle Bernie" by his Hispanic supporters.
Yeah, also the narrative that this is a race of moderates vs progressives is divisive, language that Fox is happy to chuck about. It's more in the interest of unity to look at the field as multifarious
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
@FarmerJayhawk said in The democratic nominee:
Fun national poll result; 2nd choice of Biden supporters: Bernie 28%, Bloomberg 23%, Warren 16%. Voters tend to be less ideological than we assume.
Interesting. Part of that I think is that Bernie has been campaigning hard with minorities. Referred to as "Uncle Bernie" by his Hispanic supporters.
Yeah, also the narrative that this is a race of moderates vs progressives is divisive, language that Fox is happy to chuck about. It's more in the interest of unity to look at the field as multifarious
Nevada is going to be a fun stress test of that appeal. Been on MSNBC most of the night and they talk about it quite a lot as well. Easy shorthand for folks to wrap their heads around, but doesn't really match most voters.
So Bloomberg presumably comes in with the attack ads on Trump en force. Because thats how he brands himself, like a rich cavalry swooping in over the hills to help the good guys in the skirmish. He can't attack the Dems, at least at first, because he'll be instantly hated.
So does a prolonged attack campaign against Trump help the Democratic cause? My guess is yes? But I hope its done well, because for better or worse, it will be what determines if the Democrats can attract voters outside the party.
From living in NC, Bloomberg is EVERYWHERE on TV. Big sporting event, news event, local newscast, you name it. He's on the air. I've seen ads from 3 candidates so far: Trump, Bloomberg, and Steyer.
My theory is Bloomberg is running for POTUS in part because candidates get all the best advertising rates from TV stations, where Super PACs get much higher rates. He can act as a D Super PAC and carpet bomb Trump at about a third the cost of a real Super PAC.
NH is Bernie's backyard. For Pete to come into New England and nearly match him is saying something. But yes -- it is a predominately white state and things may change in other states.
@FarmerJayhawk I have seen not a single political ad in Virginia save Trump during the Superbowl yet. Hadn't occurred to me about the ad rates. Very interesting.
Bloomberg prefers Bernie to Trump, right? (I admittedly know very little about Bloomberg)
What grade would you give Bloomberg's ads? What is the content like? What do you think the impact of the ads you've seen thus far would be?
While you are talking political advertising.. this was interesting to me...
https://www.wired.com/story/right-left-news-site-ad-tracking/ ā
Conservative News Sites Track You Lots More Than Left-Leaning Ones
One analysis of news outlets found that the median popular right-wing site planted 73 percent more cookies than its left-wing counterpart.
@approxinfinity you know... that's a really great question. I bet both give him the willies for different reasons (Trump is just an awful person/POTUS and Bernie loathes people like Bloomberg) but I think he'd probably vote for Bernie over Trump.
I think they're good. He has an A+ media team, in part because he's paying well above market for great staff. Very non-ideological, get stuff done kind of ads. His ad about getting fired then starting Bloomberg media is really good. I don't care for Bloomberg the politician but his campaign is solid.
Hmmm.. would be interesting to figure out how you got on their text list. Most times campaigns buy, sell, and lease lists like Hertz
It's crazy that they said something like 31% of people who voted in the NH primary weren't decided before the last debate. It make the case that it doesn't matter if Bloomberg gets in late or even advertises in markets other than the ones in the next couple primaries.
I responded to conservative tweets and posted on comment threads on conservative news sources, stuff like that. I'm assuming that is how they got me.
I get at least 2 phone calls per day from "re-elect Trump" with a recording of him screaming about something and begging for money. Have no idea how my phone number ended up on their call list... could be they just robo call every land line in red states. Hope it costs him a dime every time. LOL
@kjayhawks Is it hilarious or is it harassment... a fine line... Just like talking about federal judges disparagingly right before they're about to sentence your buddies. Only, that's not funny at all.
@approxinfinity I donāt know anything about the judge deal. But if you can get harassment charges on automated calls let me know because I get those all the dang time. Iād be a millionaire pretty quick, the call about my cars warranty happened about every day for 6 months to me last year. Iād be fine if all of those calls stopped but Iād bet good money democratic nominees are calling people that donāt want it either. If you donāt want it you should be consistent with it, not just for the people you donāt like.
@kjayhawks It is actually s big disparity between the amount of texts i get from republican causes vs democratic, way way more from the republicans. And I have never gotten a robo call from a democratic and have gotten many from republicans.
To your point, the car warranty calls i would absolutely call harassment. They're trying to sell me a bs ancillary warranty, completely ignore my requests to cease and desist, and when I question their reps about what company they belong to, they either hang up or tell me that their company is named Warranty Department. no shit. That's what one told me when I grilled her.
@approxinfinity It wouldnāt surprise me if they call people registered in the opposing party. I against any of these type of phone calls personally. I actually havenāt got calls from any political party yet, I did last election season from both so Iād be shocked if it aināt coming unfortunately.
There is a reason the establishment including the DNC is so afraid of Bernie. I can't see him getting the nomination despite winning primaries.
He would be the first actual liberal president since...well in a long damn time? Obama was basically a Republican if you really think about it. On material grounds, he's as pro-capitalist right wing as they come. His niche exists solely to placate the working class into feeling like they're not losing as much ground as they could be. (So the bottom 80% of households can feel grateful they've only lost like 20% to 40% of their net worth instead of more.) On empty symbolic grounds he's cosmetically different, but that only matters if one is a race-brain justice lord that cares about platitudes and cliches more than who gets a pay raise and who gets a pay cut.
I could go on about Obama with more examples, but I think the point is made. I kinda wonder what Bernie would really be able to do. God forbid there be less profit off of human suffering and basic human rights.
The worst candidate is Bloomberg. He was a long term Republican and now since he put the D next to his name we are supposed to believe he is a liberal? Lol...
Ultimately it doesn't matter who is president*, but I'm still voting and encourage others to do the same.
*in name, since the real presidents are Microsoft, Amazon, Google and Lockheed Martin.
I'd like to rewrite the constitution.
@mayjay you could do the legal terms for me and @justanotherfan
@Crimsonorblue22 said in The democratic nominee:
I'd like to rewrite the constitution.
I like it the way it is, even with all its errors and problems. The problem for Democrats is that for 60 years they won some court cases, changed lots of federal laws, let the federal agencies define those laws, used court cases to enforce those laws, and then found out it doesn't work so well when you forget Tip O'Neill's admonition that all politics is local. They ceded power in state after state to the Repubs, thinking the federal laws would eliminate any resistance.
The constitution isn't to blame. People who think they can rest on court cases and ram-rodded legislation (Obsmacare, anyone?) got blinded by their own success and got lazy.
Changing the constitution because of the idiots on both side abusing it would be nuts. Don't like the absolutist interps of the 2nd Amendment? Call for change! But--you might find that the 1st gets gutted. Don't like the Electoral college?--maybe we say Sayonara to 2 Senators per state. Unhappy with court rulings favoring Trump's minions?--Whoops, there goes judicial review. Always be careful what you wish for when it comes to law and politics.
@DanR said in The democratic nominee:
I get at least 2 phone calls per day from "re-elect Trump" with a recording of him screaming about something and begging for money. Have no idea how my phone number ended up on their call list... could be they just robo call every land line in red states. Hope it costs him a dime every time. LOL
All that info is in your voter file so any campaign can scrape the Sec. of State for that info and call! We used to make all the calls by hand (later on VoIP phones thank God) and it was super easy to hit a button and leave a pre-recorded voicemail if there was no answer.
@BShark said in The democratic nominee:
There is a reason the establishment including the DNC is so afraid of Bernie. I can't see him getting the nomination despite winning primaries.
He would be the first actual liberal president since...well in a long damn time? Obama was basically a Republican if you really think about it. On material grounds, he's as pro-capitalist right wing as they come. His niche exists solely to placate the working class into feeling like they're not losing as much ground as they could be. (So the bottom 80% of households can feel grateful they've only lost like 20% to 40% of their net worth instead of more.) On empty symbolic grounds he's cosmetically different, but that only matters if one is a race-brain justice lord that cares about platitudes and cliches more than who gets a pay raise and who gets a pay cut.
I could go on about Obama with more examples, but I think the point is made. I kinda wonder what Bernie would really be able to do. God forbid there be less profit off of human suffering and basic human rights.
The worst candidate is Bloomberg. He was a long term Republican and now since he put the D next to his name we are supposed to believe he is a liberal? Lol...
Ultimately it doesn't matter who is president*, but I'm still voting and encourage others to do the same.
*in name, since the real presidents are Microsoft, Amazon, Google and Lockheed Martin.
Well, he is disruptive. Also a royal asshole to most people. Not some grand conspiracy, most people just don't like him very much. Part of the reason nobody who really knows him well endorsed him. Pat Leahy kind of had to because they live like 10 miles apart. Bernie also has a women problem. Oppo about to drop on that.
Obama basically a Republican? Man... that's a new one. This isn't the thread to go into that but we can have that out at some point ;)
We do agree Bloomberg is awful. Worst candidate on civil liberties by far. Only other that was close was Harris. Some of his anti-religious liberty stuff was so bad Bill deBlasio thought they were overboard. For example, Bloomberg banned organizations affiliated with public schools to meet in churches (think PTA's). Just bonkers kind of stuff. Not to mention stop and frisk. It does crack me up how his actual accomplishment of getting NYC's finances in order doesn't appear on any of his ads or campaign site. Like dude, your the classic technocrat. Just own it.
Also, your last sentence struck a chord. BUH GAWD WE PUT WAY TOO MUCH F'ING EMPHASIS ON WHO THE FORKING POTUS IS. The Article I branch is superior to the others yet midterm elections when 468 of the 535 members of Congress get elected. If you really want change, get out and campaign for candidates in Congressional primary and general elections. For example, Bernie wants a single payer health plan more generous than any exists on the planet. He needs 60 Senators and 218 House members to agree. There might be 40 Senators (at most) and 150 House members that would vote for BernieCare and most importantly, the enormous taxes necessary to double the size of the federal government. President Bernie shudders can't just do that. We're not a dictatorship, no matter what CNN says. The Constitution puts these responsibilities on Congress (thank mercy!) so if you really want the Bernie (or any candidate!) agenda, get out and work/vote in primary and midterm elections.
@Crimsonorblue22 thatās why Iād never vote Democrat. Call me crazy but for a group of people that screams Hitler (which is nothing short of asinine and uneducated) to anyone that disagrees with them but has been trying take away the first two amendments my whole life span. Which to anyone thatās read any or in my case multiple books on Nazi Germany knows thatās how he became so power over there. I agree with @mayjay the Constitution has flaws but Iād hate to see what would happen without it. Sometimes I just think the election is just a phony way of making us citizens feel like we have freedom of choice but as @BShark stated big business has ran this country for the last 120 years regardless of whether there is a D or an R next to the name of the president.
@FarmerJayhawk look I'm just saying Obama was a very good capitalist lap dog. He had time to even try to increase minimum wage. If you want to some time though, down the line, then sure.
I find it silly that Bloomberg can be a Republican so long and then declare himself a Democrat. That still just slays me so I have to bring it up again. And yes he is a total asshole. Really hope he doesn't buy the nomination.
We might disagree on some stuff like I don't think Bernie is Marx but I usually find you reasonable. To me Marx is insane as is Laffer. There is a sane middle ground. Bernie will not win the nomination though, I'd bet farms on that.
@kjayhawks both sides weaponize social issues while otherwise maintaining the status quo lol.
@BShark said in The democratic nominee:
@FarmerJayhawk look I'm just saying Obama was a very good capitalist lap dog. He had time to even try to increase minimum wage. If you want to some time though, down the line, then sure.
I find it silly that Bloomberg can be a Republican so long and then declare himself a Democrat. That still just slays me so I have to bring it up again. And yes he is a total asshole. Really hope he doesn't buy the nomination.
We might disagree on some stuff like I don't think Bernie is Marx but I usually find you reasonable. To me Marx is insane as is Laffer. There is a sane middle ground. Bernie will not win the nomination though, I'd bet farms on that.
@kjayhawks both sides weaponize social issues while otherwise maintaining the status quo lol.
Again, longer discussion but Obama torched all his political capital getting the stimulus and ACA done. Dās in Congress were much more centrist than they are now so it took some serious effort (and really wild deal making) to get Lincoln, Nelson, et al. on board with a huge expansion of social programs.
I donāt think Bernie is Marx at all. Heās not a rabid anti-Semite (yay!), respects democracy (yay!), and believes we actually need a state (big yay!). I just donāt agree with him on anything and think heās a prick. Which tbf is how I feel about most of the D candidates at this point.
Lol at people against the Dems for going against amendment one when Republican congressman and the President are enemy #1 against free press and free speech at the moment.
@Kcmatt7 interesting, I think trump has been hard on his negative press outlets but Obama scolded Fox News when he was in office multiple times. A Democrat senator that said he doesnt believe people should be able to criticize them even when they are wrong. Politics have a ton hypocrites these days for sure. Iām in the middle on a ton of issues.
A good bit about the reality of stuff right now.
@kjayhawks said in The democratic nominee:
@Kcmatt7 interesting, I think trump has been hard on his negative press outlets but Obama scolded Fox News when he was in office multiple times. A Democrat senator that said he doesnt believe people should be able to criticize them even when they are wrong. Politics have a ton hypocrites these days for sure. Iām in the middle on a ton of issues.
Trump has revoked several Press Passes and hasnāt had his press secretary hold a press briefing ever since she got the job. He literally calls every single mainstream media fake news but Fox and the second they criticize him he tweets about it. He basically ran Shep out.
Nunes is suing people on Twitter for saying mean things about him.
Huckabee is trying to get a lawyer on twitter disbarred for tweeting mean things about him.
Senators are now walking down the hallways calling reporters āliberal hacksā like its normal.
Other Congressman will āonly go on OAN and Foxnewsā
To compare Obama not treating Foxnews like an actual News outlet is fair. Providing it still is a news outlet and does not existing solely to drum up or magnify propaganda. Like the Obama ābirtherā story for example.
What Obama did was wrong. Iāll agree somewhat. But itās not even in the realm of what is happening right now. Across the board, Republicans in office have felt emboldened to attack any and all press. Itās a big hit with the MAGA crowd to just call everyone āFake Newsā and get a little sound bite of that.
THREAD: š¦ View Tweet
How everyone isnāt on the healthcare train yet I do not understand. Itās works. The proof is all over the world.
The proof is you can, as a non citizen go up to Canada and buy insulin for a quarter of the cost without insurance as here in the U.S.
I had a friend whoās appendix had to be removed while he was in Denmark. It wasnāt even $5k for a non citizen to have emergency surgery.
Itās not like we would be the first to do this and itās some loony toon idea.
@Kcmatt7 Brain worms are freaking powerful man.
Just countless other examples. A friend of mine that also lives in Texas half the year had dental work done in Mexico. The US system is broken. People shouldn't have one medical emergency tank them. Whether they just can't pay, it bankrupts them, majorly has a negative impact on their retirement or kids college fund* etc... It's all backwards as hell.
*god forbid you have to take out student loans, then you are really truly effed
@BShark said in The democratic nominee:
THREAD: š¦ View Tweet
I thought about this a lot lately.
The place I worked before, the owners would take 20% of the profit no matter what. They were already drawing $200k (about 5 of them). Yet they were still taking their 20% bonuses even as we were laying off people, limiting overtime, not giving raises and absorbing positions as people left because we were having a slightly down year. Instead of just foregoing their bonuses for one year... But capitalism.
The other thing that I think is funny is that we are terrified to tax corporations at the correct rate. Which is idiotic. Only half of Americans own stock so only half of America is getting the wealth generated by these companies. The tax rate could be 40% flat. If you need a tax break as a company to survive than you werenāt viable front the get go.
@Kcmatt7 yep, that part of the reason I got outta the car Dealership world. The family that owned several dealerships had a spending problem. Theyād come meet with us and tell us to step it up tho we were plenty profitable and one of their biggest money makers. Then weād find out they bought a vacation home for millions, then it was a couple million dollar plane. Something new every 6 months.
@Kcmatt7 said in The democratic nominee:
@kjayhawks said in The democratic nominee:
@Kcmatt7 interesting, I think trump has been hard on his negative press outlets but Obama scolded Fox News when he was in office multiple times. A Democrat senator that said he doesnt believe people should be able to criticize them even when they are wrong. Politics have a ton hypocrites these days for sure. Iām in the middle on a ton of issues.
Trump has revoked several Press Passes and hasnāt had his press secretary hold a press briefing ever since she got the job. He literally calls every single mainstream media fake news but Fox and the second they criticize him he tweets about it. He basically ran Shep out.
Nunes is suing people on Twitter for saying mean things about him.
Huckabee is trying to get a lawyer on twitter disbarred for tweeting mean things about him.
Senators are now walking down the hallways calling reporters āliberal hacksā like its normal.
Other Congressman will āonly go on OAN and Foxnewsā
To compare Obama not treating Foxnews like an actual News outlet is fair. Providing it still is a news outlet and does not existing solely to drum up or magnify propaganda. Like the Obama ābirtherā story for example.
What Obama did was wrong. Iāll agree somewhat. But itās not even in the realm of what is happening right now. Across the board, Republicans in office have felt emboldened to attack any and all press. Itās a big hit with the MAGA crowd to just call everyone āFake Newsā and get a little sound bite of that.
To be fair Pres. Obama illegally spied on Fox and AP reporters. Weāve known the administration was doing some of this but weāre just now getting to the bottom of their attack on the press. https://issuesinsights.com/2019/05/25/report-obamas-spying-on-the-press-was-far-more-extensive-than-previously-thought/ ā
Both Trump and Obama were bad on civil liberties but Iāll let partisans argue to what degree.
Spying is tradition.
@Kcmatt7 said in The democratic nominee:
How everyone isnāt on the healthcare train yet I do not understand. Itās works. The proof is all over the world.
The proof is you can, as a non citizen go up to Canada and buy insulin for a quarter of the cost without insurance as here in the U.S.
I had a friend whoās appendix had to be removed while he was in Denmark. It wasnāt even $5k for a non citizen to have emergency surgery.
Itās not like we would be the first to do this and itās some loony toon idea.
There are very significant trade offs to consider. First, most major innovations in health happen in the US because thereās competition and profits to be made from inventing things that really improve health outcomes. Moving to single payer at best slows this down significantly.
Next, quality of care. Doctors are paid significantly less in Europe than the US. Why? Government payment rates are much lower than private insurance here. If you talk to hospital admin, theyāll all tell you they make money from private insurance, maybe break even from Medicare depending on the size of the hospital, and lose money from Medicaid which is shy about half of providers donāt take it. In the medium to long term moving everyone to Medicare rates will lower salaries for doctors, nurses, PAās, etc. and will push some great folks into other fields. The last thing we want is a supply shock when demand will rise due to aging population and dumping millions into Medicare.
We also know just covering people doesnāt have a massive effect on health outcomes if that coverage doesnāt get you care. Wait times for most procedures overseas are much longer than here (more demand, less supply, no prices). In Oregon they did a Medicaid expansion RCT a few years ago and essentially found bulls in all but a few health outcomes.
Next, how do you pay for it all? BernieCare would push public spending as a % of GDP above 50. Which translates to the average personās effective tax rate is also 50%. A couple ways to get there: a regressive VAT (Europe style), a wealth tax (I also love fairytales) or just say screw it and print the money all Veimar style. All are really bad for growth, making it more difficulty to pay for everything else government does.
All trade offs to consider. You can have 2 of these 3 in health: affordability, accessibility, and quality. Which 2 should we prioritize?
I have a friend that just moved his family to Toronto. They have two little kids and have to go to the doctor more than adults and they say the healthcare up there is a joke. You canāt get in anywhere when you want and or need to. Iāve heard this from multiple people that live or have lived in Canada so I always laugh and scoff when people think that system is better .
@Woodrow Iām not sure what the answer is health care wise but paying $1216 a month for insurance for my family of 4 sucks. I used to work on a doctors car quite a bit and he was blowing and going about how he made over 50 million off of hip replacements alone in one year. Yes doctors are important and should make a good wage but getting filthy ungodly rich off of others misfortune isnāt right IMO. Thatās before you even get into the joke of pharmaceuticals and what they are making.
@kjayhawks said in The democratic nominee:
@Woodrow Iām not sure what the answer is health care wise but paying $1216 a month for insurance for my family of 4 sucks. I used to work on a doctors car quite a bit and he was blowing and going about how he made over 50 million off of hip replacements alone in one year. Yes doctors are important and should make a good wage but getting filthy ungodly rich off of others misfortune isnāt right IMO. Thatās before you even get into the joke of pharmaceuticals and what they are making.
I am NOT advocating that the US had it figured out. Healthcare is the #1 issue for me. It is a mess in the US. I pay $1300 a month for my wife and my newborn son so I feel your pain there. It is a absolute joke. My point was that the system that Canada has that the left tryās to pimp as being the best is not the answer. I will not claim to know what the answer is but that aināt it.
I moved to Canada 10 years ago. Been pretty happy with our health care.
What we know is that you can institute a universal healthcare and it won't collapse an economy. We know this.
I don't even agree that we should make sweeping changes overnight. It would certainly lead to capacity problems. Where I'm at with it, we need to flood the market with doctors before we do anything else with healthcare. Free tuition. Graduation bonuses. Whatever gets more doctors in the U.S.
@kjayhawks said in The democratic nominee:
@Kcmatt7 interesting I guess I donāt pay enough attention to it to see all of that. But healthcare is huge issue in this country right now.
I have a 8 year old son with diabetes. He was diagnosed at 20 months old. His supplies cost about $500 a month after insurance. Some months itās around $800. Luckily we can afford it, somewhat. But thereās familyās where that would literally break the bank.
Itās just sad that medical supplies cost so much. Basic elementary economics on demand says raise the price. They are literally using āstaying aliveā as their demand in evaluating their costs. Itās sickening
I'm from Bernie's home state and I'm not much of a fan of him. That's pretty much all.
I'm from Bernie's home state and I'm not much of a fan of him. I think he's lost popularity here the past few years. Before his voice had some pop but since the 16 run and the scandal with his wife.. not so much
@BeddieKU23 said in The democratic nominee:
I'm from Bernie's home state and I'm not much of a fan of him. I think he's lost popularity here the past few years. Before his voice had some pop but since the 16 run and the scandal with his wife.. not so much
It's an interesting phenomenon that a lot of pols aren't as popular at home as they are nationally (or at least as well liked). I guess we see lots of warts that the rest of the country doesn't (e.g. Bernie being very anti-immigrant back in the day)
10 years ago it was different and I'm only speaking personally but when I was a bit younger he had my attention. Now I just dont see myself believing what he is putting down.
Bernie did well at tonight's townhall. Buttigieg next.
Pete has resting elf face. I wonder if 4 years of scowling as the president will turn it into resting Mr Bean face.
@approxinfinity hey now
He's doing well.
So it begins. Bernie has never really been vetted in a serious way. That ends now. š¦ View Tweet?s=21
Yeah.
I worked at the Burlington (Vt) Free Press 89-91 when Sanders was mayor and he won his first term in congress. It was stunning to see the staunch conservatives in the "northeast kingdom" back him because he was so far left he started to appeal to libertarians.
He calls himself a "democratic socialist" today, but he was unapologetically a socialist back when he was mayor. He and several on his staff took winter trips to Cuba. I don't think his philosophy has changed... but he has honed his messaging very well.
Big. š¦ View Tweet?s=20
@FarmerJayhawk GROSS
BIDEN 2020
This is a demolition. Biden might hit 40%
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
@FarmerJayhawk said in The democratic nominee:
BIDEN 2020
You think so?
Iām voting for him Tuesday! But I think the most likely outcomes are still Bernie gets a majority, contested convention (in which case anything can happen depending on delegate counts), then Biden majority.
Did Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson recently get bad spray on tans to make Donald Trump's not seem so bad?
Amy and Pete out. She's endorsing Biden tonight, Pete will likely follow. The anti-Bernie forces are consolidating. Only Biden and Bernie have a shot at 1991. Bloomberg is just kind of there. I think he goes 0-fer tomorrow as far as state wins. He may pick up a few delegates but probably not enough to change anything. Just have to march to Milwaukee within striking distance. If nobody is within a few hundred, things are going to get weird.
?w=1160&ssl=1
Joe is the best. Outspent 7:1 by Bernie and still works him
@FarmerJayhawk holy smokes.
Did you yāall see the video of Joe saying he was dropping out and then endorsing himself. The Ron Burgundy of politics, what an idiot.
@kjayhawks said in The democratic nominee:
Did you yāall see the video of Joe saying he was dropping out and then endorsing himself. The Ron Burgundy of politics, what an idiot.
I think that was a joke site :)
@approxinfinity I pay little attention lol but they did amazing job of editing it, heās still a nut case either way.
Liz Warren is out. Fun fact: Tulsi Gabbard is now the only woman of color in the race.
It's Biden.
š¦ View Tweet?s=21
Still donāt understand why people dismiss this guy as ācrazy Bernieā seems like heās pretty focused on helping working class folks. Doesnāt really matter to him if they are R or D or if they vote or not.
@benshawks08 said in The democratic nominee:
š¦ View Tweet?s=21
Still donāt understand why people dismiss this guy as ācrazy Bernieā seems like heās pretty focused on helping working class folks. Doesnāt really matter to him if they are R or D or if they vote or not.
Because he wants to spend 60% of every dollar earned in America on government. $60 trillion over the next 10 years is A LOT of money and heās railing on 1.7% of that in tax cuts.
To his point, thereās definitely moral hazard in paying more for folks to not work than work. If UI is larger than wages, employers have every incentive to lay people off and move on with their lives. There wonāt be the big recovery weāre all counting on at the end.
@FarmerJayhawk The goal is to get people to stay home and provide much needed financial assistance in a crisis. Who needs that more, people with money and jobs? Or people without money and jobs?
Pretty sure everyone is going to want to go back to work after this shelter in place, social distancing is over. Iām admittedly a homebody and Iām already stir crazy! Maybe if I spent less time fighting on the internet....
@kjayhawks said in The democratic nominee:
@BShark the Democrats havenāt help themselves either with the passing of the stimulus that gives congress a 46k a year raise. National emergency, people are dying! We need to make more money.... what a joke both parties are at this point.
Members didnāt get a raise. It was money for (very underpaid) staff to get additional resources to be able to work remotely while maintaining security.
@FarmerJayhawk that could be true but I donāt trust it š¤·š»āāļø
@kjayhawks When you don't trust anything in the news, consider yourself a trophy for the far right, which started campaigning against the news media as a political strategy in the 80s and 90s. In 2016, a few traditional conservatives (fiscal restraint, strict ethical rules, less dependence on govt, etc) lamenting the rise of Trump wrote about their regret that they had convinced a huge segment of the country not to believe what the media told them because they realized the media was needed to correct the idiocies being bandied about.
@mayjay If they werenāt wrong all the time, Iād be more likely to believe. The media runs with what they can sell watch Richard Jewel or read the book. Watch ESPN 30 for 30 fantastic lies. The Walter Cronkiteās of the world are gone. I donāt care which outlet you like, they twist stuff, add and take out words in speeches to fit their narrative. I do t know how many times Iāve seen guys quoted and then watched the interview and itās been twisted. Call me crazy I donāt not trust media or the government. CBS just got in trouble for showing old footage of an Italian hospital claiming it was New York. Whatever actor it was in Chicago that claimed to be a target of racial abuse, that media ran with as hard as they could with no factual evidence. Trust is earned, neither have earned any from me in the past decade or so.
@kjayhawks said in The democratic nominee:
If they werenāt wrong all the time
You need to read more. Most importantly, don't let the sensationalist cases color the entire picture. There are thousands of reliable news stories every day. Mistakes happen, but usually get corrected.
Blatant falsehoods and malpractice happen in medicine, too, but I don't enter every medical office telling them I expect them to lie.
I am not saying that everything has to be accepted as gospel truth, just that you need some discretion and the ability to check things out if something seems fishy. I am on a cruise forum and am constantly trying to correct the crap people post from Facebook (you know, had dinner with someone whose uncle is Chinese with a master's degree, and he gave us all this great info about the coronavirus....).
@mayjay the trouble for me isnāt necessarily mistakes but rather running a story with little to no facts, no witnesses and one non trustworthy source. Then there are other stories that should be huge that hardly get mentioned a lala Michigan State rape ordeal, school shootings not involving assault type weapons.
@kjayhawks part of the problem there is actually the decline in news coverage. With less reporters working stories, there's less coverage.
!
ā
@approxinfinity that make sense as to why we donāt hear as much but it does make me question on some of the stuff we do hear. We can argue all day no one is going to make me trust them at this point. It will take years of actuate coverage and no bias to do that.
I'd give up guys.
@FarmerJayhawk seemed like a formality. Can Trump Lite beat Trump?
Now, will he be stupid and pick someone like Harris, from Calif, or Duckworth from Illinois, both of which are solidly blue? Or safe, and pick someone like Kobluchar who is from usually safe Minn? Or be clever, and pick the governor of Michigan, a usually blue state the Dems lost in 2016?
Ignoring all factors here except the Electoral College.
@BShark said in The democratic nominee:
@FarmerJayhawk seemed like a formality. Can Trump Lite beat Trump?
Biden as Trump lite is a new one. But I get your point that everyone to the right of Castro is moderate.
And yes, Biden needs about 100,000 more black voters in PA, MI, and WI to get the win. 250,000 to be very safe. All numbers Obama got in 12.
It's America. The white guy with a groping problem prevailed over the Asian, the Woman, and the Jew. Shocks you to see it.
@BShark said in The democratic nominee:
It's America. The white guy with a groping problem prevailed over the Asian, the Woman, and the Jew. Shocks you to see it.
Based on overwhelming popularity among checks notes black people.
@FarmerJayhawk I think itās foolish to just assume that non white people will vote for Biden. I sure hope more people vote tho.
@kjayhawks said in The democratic nominee:
@FarmerJayhawk I think itās foolish to just assume that non white people will vote for Biden. I sure hope more people vote tho.
Biden will get bare minimum 85% of the black vote (probably closer to 90+) and 65% of the Hispanic vote (probably closer to 70%). I do think turnout will be higher in 20 than 16. Biden is about 15 points higher on net favorability than Hillary was at the same point in the election.
@BShark said in The democratic nominee:
It's America. The white guy with a groping problem prevailed over the Asian, the Woman, and the Jew. Shocks you to see it.
Not sure if you missed it, but a white guy who proudly announced his sexual groping of far more people was elected president.
@FarmerJayhawk This election will determine if Biden's do-over of his choice in 2016 came too late. Fortunately for him, the same Republican is running, so the age issue is not a huge problem.
@mayjay said in The democratic nominee:
@FarmerJayhawk This election will determine if Biden's do-over of his choice in 2016 came too late. Fortunately for him, the same Republican is running, so the age issue is not a huge problem.
Weāll see! The one advantage he does have is 2020 is a referendum on Trump, not a binary choice per se. And he has a very straight path to 270: 3 of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Arizona.
Iād be shocked if trump doesnāt win by miles. People are scared of change, Trump is fool but people know what to expect. With the the talks of socialism and what not itās a huge guess to what Biden does good or bad.
@kjayhawks said in The democratic nominee:
Iād be shocked if trump doesnāt win by miles. People are scared of change, Trump is fool but people know what to expect. With the the talks of socialism and what not itās a huge guess to what Biden does good or bad.
I think The Demo's are screwed as far as this election goes. - I think he walks in to
The question isnt "who will everyone else will vote for?" The question is "who will you vote for?" Everyone will try to sell you on an air of inevitability. Don't let it sway you. Vote for the guy who you think will do more good, or less bad for the country.
@approxinfinity So what you are saying is don't vote. I'll be voting but I'll leave the presidential vote blank.
@BShark said in The democratic nominee:
@approxinfinity So what you are saying is don't vote. I'll be voting but I'll leave the presidential vote blank.
you can't not vote. - - Everyone that can needs to vote no matter who it is. We have that right - - - we need to EXCERISE that right. Does people not realize how many people around this Earth would love to be able to be given the chance to vote?
The way I look at it is , you have the chance to cast your nominee and you don't vote - - but yet you wanna bitch? - -Ummm no. - you don't vote then you have no right to say squat. - -your vote COULD be the difference, so everybody needs to vote , one way or another.
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
The question isnt "who will everyone else will vote for?" The question is "who will you vote for?" Everyone will try to sell you on an air of inevitability. Don't let it sway you. Vote for the guy who you think will do more good, or less bad for the country.
Exactly
@jayballer73 Right on. We may not agree all the time, but the "my guy/gal didn't win the nomination so now I won't vote for president" is a stance I just can't agree with. I know your stance on Biden but for me he is no savior but will at least "lead" and represent the country better than Trump. Just my opinion (which of course I think is definitely the right one).
We obviously can't see it happen but I believe that whether Biden or Trump wins, the next four years will play out exactly the same.
This about sums it up
Two privately owned political parties choose two candidates with nearly identical policies and then voters try to guess which will be slightly less shitty. Both parties hold primary votes, but neither is under any legal obligation to uphold the results if they want to go with someone else. There's no preferential voting, the system is designed to give a third party candidate the longest odds possible. They use easily rigged electronic voting machines. The political and capitalist classes hold near complete control over mass media and have no reservations about lying or burying stories they don't like. On top of all of that, there is quite a lot of outright fraud in manufacturing fake votes and suppressing or destroying legitimate ones.
So I guess I'm just getting more and more disillusioned with the process and THE SHOW.
Not voting if you really don't care is at least a choice, albeit in my mind a poor one because apathy leads to the triumph of extremism.
Not voting because you think there is no difference between candidates and parties suggests an inability to think either critically or objectively about the issues and how those issues have been dealt with over time.
Not voting because it will not make a difference due to living in a hopelessly one-sided state (I know something of this, being in the State of Traitors...um, I mean, South Cackalackee) makes some sense at first glance: why bother?
But the answer to me is I will always vote, no matter how hopeless the cause, to express my voice. I will not let the idiots think they represent everyone.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil..." is the epitaph of those backers of the Democratic progressive movement who sat out 2016.
@BShark said in The democratic nominee:
I'm still voting on other things to be clear. I just can't bring myself to vote for POTUS this time.
Well, I am sorry you are depriving the country of your voice, one I have come to respect and admire, on the single most critical election. If the "good people" marching with the Nazis, KKK, and other white supremacists prevail, it will be because they exercised the franchise that their forebears deprived millions of people of, the right that many died to obtain.
@BShark said in The democratic nominee:
We obviously can't see it happen but I believe that whether Biden or Trump wins, the next four years will play out exactly the same.
This about sums it up
Two privately owned political parties choose two candidates with nearly identical policies and then voters try to guess which will be slightly less shitty. Both parties hold primary votes, but neither is under any legal obligation to uphold the results if they want to go with someone else. There's no preferential voting, the system is designed to give a third party candidate the longest odds possible. They use easily rigged electronic voting machines. The political and capitalist classes hold near complete control over mass media and have no reservations about lying or burying stories they don't like. On top of all of that, there is quite a lot of outright fraud in manufacturing fake votes and suppressing or destroying legitimate ones.
So I guess I'm just getting more and more disillusioned with the process and THE SHOW.
Not sure about the voter fraud stuff as most of what I've read indicates reports of fraud are generally overblown. The two party system definitely has it's limitations and I'm not really sure what it's great benefits are either (maybe someone could enlighten me here).
I'd argue the bigger problem is voter suppression/voting accessibility. Seems to me the idea of democracy should be to get as many people to vote as possible yet many find it necessary to make it more difficult and put up more barriers because they know the more people that vote, the less likely they win.
@BShark said in The democratic nominee:
We obviously can't see it happen but I believe that whether Biden or Trump wins, the next four years will play out exactly the same.
This about sums it up
Two privately owned political parties choose two candidates with nearly identical policies and then voters try to guess which will be slightly less shitty. Both parties hold primary votes, but neither is under any legal obligation to uphold the results if they want to go with someone else. There's no preferential voting, the system is designed to give a third party candidate the longest odds possible. They use easily rigged electronic voting machines. The political and capitalist classes hold near complete control over mass media and have no reservations about lying or burying stories they don't like. On top of all of that, there is quite a lot of outright fraud in manufacturing fake votes and suppressing or destroying legitimate ones.
So I guess I'm just getting more and more disillusioned with the process and THE SHOW.
Parties are undemocratic because they're private actors with one job: win elections. We have very weak parties in this country, much to our detriment IMO. Our first past the post and single member district system ensures there are only 2 viable candidates per district 99% of the time. Weird races like Kansas governor in 18 notwithstanding.
We don't rig ballots. It's a 100% no go zone for political operatives. I've been on U.S. Senate all the way down to state legislative campaigns and it's just not done. There is honor among thieves in that regard. There are some isolated cases of bad apples but you'll find more often than not bad apple gets thrown out by their own party. We'll fight like hell to get our people out and draw the district lines to our advantage but we don't mess with the ballots. There was a ballot harvesting case in a district in NC in 18 and the NRCC cut the candidate. No room for it in this business.
Bernie had no shot because he and his platform just are not that popular with voters. He got the exact process he wanted for 2020 after packing the DNC with his folks and still couldn't beat Biden. At some point it's not the system, it's the candidates.
I'm definitely voting for Biden, but a little birdie told me today there might be a fairly strong independent/libertarian candidate, Rep. Justin Amash (I-MI). He's been dancing around the subject for awhile, but he's taken some steps recently that point that direction. I respect him, and probably would vote for him if I still lived in Kansas as a protest vote, but not in a purple state.
I think my least (or is it most) favorite thing right now is the people that decried Kavanaugh but are now saying we shouldn't jump to conclusions with Biden. At least be consistent. But no, it's purely and only about party lines.
@mayjay I've been at this point before but end up always voting, fwiw. Just gotta get this bitching out of my system. :winking_face:
@benshawks08 Voter suppression is one of the absolute biggest problems. There is way too much to want to get into and unpack it all. Black people in Texas having to wait literally all day for the chance to vote is an issue. Many people can't afford to take a day off of work to vote. Other people don't realize things like this happen because their own experience is walking in, voting and being done in 5 minutes.
Wisconsin just this week was still holding primary elections with in person voting. Disturbing.
The benefit of the two party system is to make things easy for the ruling class to ensure who they want wins. I'm sure they would manage but boy would it be messy if they had to account for the possibility of anyone winning.
@FarmerJayhawk No need to rig ballots I would imagine, but it does seem easy to do if needed. Things like the Illinois primary results being put out on TV over a day in advance do give pause however. If I didn't actually see that when it happened and then the results later, I probably wouldn't have believed it. But is seems even easier still to just control the nominees, pump out the information you want for brainwashing via the TV and now the internet.
I agree Bernie was never winning, I've been saying that since he announced his candidacy. Much smarter people than me predicted Biden would get the nomination.
If this Amash guy is old enough to run for POTUS he is probably too old to still be in the Libertarian phase.
My apologies to everyone reading my posts.
@BShark said in The democratic nominee:
I think my least (or is it most) favorite thing right now is the people that decried Kavanaugh but are now saying we shouldn't jump to conclusions with Biden. At least be consistent. But no, it's purely and only about party lines.
@mayjay I've been at this point before but end up always voting, fwiw. Just gotta get this bitching out of my system. :winking_face:
@benshawks08 Voter suppression is one of the absolute biggest problems. There is way too much to want to get into and unpack it all. Black people in Texas having to wait literally all day for the chance to vote is an issue. Many people can't afford to take a day off of work to vote. Other people don't realize things like this happen because their own experience is walking in, voting and being done in 5 minutes.
Wisconsin just this week was still holding primary elections with in person voting. Disturbing.
The benefit of the two party system is to make things easy for the ruling class to ensure who they want wins. I'm sure they would manage but boy would it be messy if they had to account for the possibility of anyone winning.
@FarmerJayhawk No need to rig ballots I would imagine, but it does seem easy to do if needed. Things like the Illinois primary results being put out on TV over a day in advance do give pause however. If I didn't actually see that when it happened and then the results later, I probably wouldn't have believed it. But is seems even easier still to just control the nominees, pump out the information you want for brainwashing via the TV and now the internet.
I agree Bernie was never winning, I've been saying that since he announced his candidacy. Much smarter people than me predicted Biden would get the nomination.
If this Amash guy is old enough to run for POTUS he is probably too old to still be in the Libertarian phase.
What you likely saw was absentee ballots. Trust me, our biggest complaint is county election officials canāt count ballots fast enough! Right after polls close, we start calling our county contacts to get early counts and we keep calling around until we know. Itās a giant pain in the azz and delays drinking hours. Boo!
One is never too old to fight for individual liberty, peace, and prosperity š
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
@BShark not at all. I feel you on the Kavanaugh comparison. However, there was no choice with Kavanaugh. Imagine if you had the choice between Kavanaugh and someone way worse and either way, it was happening.
I'm all for giving people due process. I just think it's shitty to be one way with someone and another with someone else because of Ds and Rs.
I don't think this coming up should make Biden pull out nor do I think he will end up in any kind of trouble for it. The whole Kavanaugh thing was just a show. Immediately forgotten and no longer pursued once he was in.
!D29FC550-E4C5-4F63-80CC-EDBF46463BF8.jpeg ā
Damn those rich white people lmao
!54A06D91-5FA9-4AD3-BA00-A0098BDC4A58.jpeg ā
This is part of the media problem I was speaking of, hundreds of media outlets have headlines like this. Thousands are criticizing Trump for talking about it in the comments, they didnāt care to look into it of course. A reporter (an idiot at best) asked him about it and he gave a deflecting answer. They just want attention folks, itās misleading headline to grab clicks and get comments on social media. Who the hell asks questions like that in a global crisis SMH.
@BShark said in The democratic nominee:
https://mobile.twitter.com/ghostmw312/status/1247945583190585345 ā
Lol
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Poor fellows just discovered politics aināt beanbag.
@FarmerJayhawk said in The democratic nominee:
@BShark said in The democratic nominee:
https://mobile.twitter.com/ghostmw312/status/1247945583190585345 ā
Lol
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Poor fellows just discovered politics aināt beanbag.
My assumption is some of those are fake/satire but damn did I laugh.
Some are likely real as well but nooooo way that one with the chicken nuggets is legit. :face_with_tears_of_joy:
@kjayhawks said in The democratic nominee:
@BShark thatās my trouble with both sides, one side does it and itās forgiven. The other side does it and should face the wrath of god himself. Its the hypocrisy back and forth anymore.
It goes back further. McConnell bitching and giving the Democrats hell for stalling on Kavanaugh, while the Republicsns delayed for a whole year on Garland and prevented the Democrats from having a nomination to the court under Obama. And there's a long history of both parties stalling on SCOTUS nominations before that.
Unfortunately, part of the problem here is that THE SHOW might bevthe THE ONLY EDUCATION the populace might get from the other side.
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
@kjayhawks said in The democratic nominee:
@BShark thatās my trouble with both sides, one side does it and itās forgiven. The other side does it and should face the wrath of god himself. Its the hypocrisy back and forth anymore.
It goes back further. McConnell bitching and giving the Democrats hell for stalling on Kavanaugh, while the Republicsns delayed for a whole year on Garland and prevented the Democrats from having a nomination to the court under Obama. And there's a long history of both parties stalling on SCOTUS nominations before that.
Unfortunately, part of the problem here is that THE SHOW might bevthe THE ONLY EDUCATION the populace might get from the other side.
It goes all the way back to Bork. Zero character flaws. Dās just didnāt want an originalist on the Court. Then the Thomas fiasco, then Harry Reid nuked the appointments filibuster for all but SCOTUS nominees, then McConnell said ok if you donāt like the filibuster for judges, weāll oblige. Hence Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
@FarmerJayhawk i wish abortion was left at the state level, we never had Roe v Wade and the Republicans never had to adopt the Pro-Life position universally (and conversely, the Democrats adopting Pro-Choice) to woo the Evangelicals.
I think when Pro-Life v. Pro-Choice became a winner-take-all battle at the federal level, it pushed us further down the road of bitter partisanship in Washington and guaranteed that the Supreme Court would be dragged into partisan bullshit.
Jefferson was wise to advocate a separation of Church and State and when Roe v. Wade gets overturned it will mark the crossing of a line that should never have been crossed, which I think is why Republican appointees have to date not been willing to pull the trigger. Abortion should have been handled at the state level and kept the hell out of Washington.
I'm curious if you think that abortion was on a collision course with the SCOTUS, or if you think this could have been avoided if Weddington and Coffee didn't push Roe v. Wade or if the SCOTUS hadn't taken the case.
@approxinfinity Iām a little confused what your saying about separation of church and state and Jefferson and roe v wade.
Roe v Wade is completely a religious issue @benshawks08. Once it became precedent in a SCOTUS case (thanks to ambitious feminist lawyers pushing it), it was Pandoras Box, we were never going back. The Republicans aligned with the Evangelicals and began their crusade to get it overturned.
I was trying to pinpoint the moment I think the Supreme Court jumped the shark @benshawks08 . I guess you were asking what this had to do with @FarmerJayhawk's post.
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
Roe v Wade is completely a religious issue @benshawks08. Once it became precedent in a SCOTUS case (thanks to ambitious feminist lawyers pushing it), it was Pandoras Box, we were never going back. The Republicans aligned with the Evangelicals and began their crusade to get it overturned.
It is very much NOT a religious issue. I think thatās all I will say on that as it could open itās own Pandoraās box.
@benshawks08 said in The democratic nominee:
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
Roe v Wade is completely a religious issue @benshawks08. Once it became precedent in a SCOTUS case (thanks to ambitious feminist lawyers pushing it), it was Pandoras Box, we were never going back. The Republicans aligned with the Evangelicals and began their crusade to get it overturned.
It is very much NOT a religious issue. I think thatās all I will say on that as it could open itās own Pandoraās box.
The contention around the issue is whether some people are able to restrict others from having an abortion or not. The main argument, as I understand it, for being able to restrict others from having an abortion (i.e. "pro-life") has to do with when a child or fetus can be regarded as a human life. The Church has taken the position that life begins at inception, and that all life being sacred, the fetus should be granted the same rights as other citizens. The arguments against allowing others to restrict one's ability to have an abortion (i.e. "pro-choice") argue that life begins at birth, and that circumstances such as unwanted pregnancy, health risks to the mother, birth defects, rape or any other reason are all valid reasons to have an abortion; it is the woman's right to choose.
I'm sure there are people in both camps that believe their reasons for or against are not religious, but the point of contention and the majority of people who are arguing against the right to have an abortion are Christian in this country.
I don't want to get into an argument about which is right. I really don't.
My point is that this shouldn't have gone to the Supreme Court. It caused the Evangelicals to align with the Republicans in order to win the Supreme Court so they could overturn Roe v. Wade. It put the Court under constant partisan attack thereafter. Had it stayed at the state level, with each state allowed to have its own law around abortion, our country would be better off. That's how I see it anyway. My hypothesis. I'd love to hear feedback if other people think it would have been positive or negative for the country if this hadn't been rules on by the Supreme Court, or if it was impossible to avoid.
@approxinfinity Iām also not trying to argue the right or wrong of it but I think leaving it to states would just increase inequity from state to state. A person could be charged for murder in one state for a service a doctor can provide in another. Just doesnāt make sense to me that way. As far as I know birth certificates are dolled out at birth making that the point of personhood. Has this been different at any point in history? I honestly donāt know.
@benshawks08 it's possible that it could not be considered murder for the woman, but could be considered murder for the doctor to perform it in states where it was illegal. The woman could conceivably cross state lines if she needed it performed. That's not ideal, but with hindsight, I think it could have been better than the role Roe v. Wade played in partisan gridlock.
There are many other things that are illegal in some states though nothing of the same magnitude. There would have to be a compromise there. I don't think we can go back to state level legality now. I think the cat is out of the box. But if it never happened, organically the law would have developed on a state by state basis. I don't think it would have become nearly as contentious. Everyone has a passionate opinion about it now. I think we've been conditioned, and it didn't have to be that way.
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
@kjayhawks part of the problem there is actually the decline in news coverage. With less reporters working stories, there's less coverage.
!
Local news is the biggest casualty from the online advertising model. It's a hard problem to solve as the business models benefit from efficiency that comes with concentration.
@kjayhawks said in The democratic nominee:
Iād be shocked if trump doesnāt win by miles. People are scared of change, Trump is fool but people know what to expect. With the the talks of socialism and what not itās a huge guess to what Biden does good or bad.
I agree people are resistant to change, but it's not like Trump has been exceptionally consistent or predictable.
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
@FarmerJayhawk i wish abortion was left at the state level, we never had Roe v Wade and the Republicans never had to adopt the Pro-Life position universally (and conversely, the Democrats adopting Pro-Choice) to woo the Evangelicals.
I think when Pro-Life v. Pro-Choice became a winner-take-all battle at the federal level, it pushed us further down the road of bitter partisanship in Washington and guaranteed that the Supreme Court would be dragged into partisan bullshit.
Jefferson was wise to advocate a separation of Church and State and when Roe v. Wade gets overturned it will mark the crossing of a line that should never have been crossed, which I think is why Republican appointees have to date not been willing to pull the trigger. Abortion should have been handled at the state level and kept the hell out of Washington.
I'm curious if you think that abortion was on a collision course with the SCOTUS, or if you think this could have been avoided if Weddington and Coffee didn't push Roe v. Wade or if the SCOTUS hadn't taken the case.
My theory is Roe short circuited what was likely going to happen at the ballot box anyway, legal abortion in most places. My counterfactual is the fights over marriage equality. If Obergefell would've been decided in say, 2007 vs. 2014, you'd have a lot more bitter fights over it now. But instead, public opinion developed more organically and the Court ruled when it was more "ripe."
@BShark said in The democratic nominee:
We obviously can't see it happen but I believe that whether Biden or Trump wins, the next four years will play out exactly the same.
This about sums it up
Two privately owned political parties choose two candidates with nearly identical policies and then voters try to guess which will be slightly less shitty. Both parties hold primary votes, but neither is under any legal obligation to uphold the results if they want to go with someone else. There's no preferential voting, the system is designed to give a third party candidate the longest odds possible. They use easily rigged electronic voting machines. The political and capitalist classes hold near complete control over mass media and have no reservations about lying or burying stories they don't like. On top of all of that, there is quite a lot of outright fraud in manufacturing fake votes and suppressing or destroying legitimate ones.
So I guess I'm just getting more and more disillusioned with the process and THE SHOW.
I don't want to be in this camp, but I think I'm sitting right next to you @BShark I don't think it will be exactly the same, but I fear the same mechanics are at work on both sides. Both have escalated the game to the point that it's getting harder to diffuse things, find the common ground and compromise. When they play the game set at "Win At All Costs," we all will lose.
@approxinfinity It had to go to the Supreme Court. The issue presented was whether restricting someone from getting an abortion unconstitutionally violated that person's rights. Constitutional rights are national in scope, and equal protection cannot be infringed by states under the 14th Amendment.
That some people base their opposition on religious underpinnings does not make the issue involved a religious one. Think of it this way: if I believe that God wants me to have access to a gun, that is irrelevant to my constitutional claim to have unrestricted access--that right is in the Second Amendment. Similarly, my constitutional right to vote is based on the 4 amendments that deal with voting, not my theological contention that religious people who want to deny it are wrong.
The huge problem, though, for abortion rights is that unlike those examples, they are not spelled out in the Constitution. Instead, they are based on a "right to privacy" that is a judicial construct from the Warren Court of the 1960's. Primary among the cases creating it was the Griswold case (1964 or so?) saying states could not restrict access to contraception.
The Court at that time started a process of finding rights in what was called the "penumbra" of the Bill of Rights, which basically means that these are rights to be free from government that are so inherent they need not have been spelled out explicitly.
This is the basic conflict between "strict constructionists" and "living document" schools of thought. The former decries adding rights that were never imagined by the framers. The latter believes that the changes in societal conditions since 1787 bring up new situations implicating the ability of Americans to free, and require broad interpretation to protect the framer's goal of preserving that freedom.
Roe could have been based on stronger constitutional grounds, but Blackmun went far afield and the result has been chaos. He could have simply said that absent medical reasons, the state cannot prohibit abortion as a violation of equal protection: in no other situation is someone obligated to put their own life on the line to preserve another, as is required of a pregnant woman forced to continue to delivery. (That is a theory my Con Law professor had, but I have not seen it urged many places.)
He could have stretched the 10th amendment, finding a right to privacy in the "powers . . . reserved . . . to the people." This would have created other problems, because the amendment discusses affirmative power held by states and the people, rather than the feds; it has never been a restriction on states criminal powers.
Anyway, Blackmun invented the trimester breakdown, coupled with the viability standard, apparently as a compromise to get a majority. With absolutely no textual basis and no absolute bright line of protection, it has invited attack ever since.
My own feeling is that Blackmun believed, as did many of us liberals back then, that technology might end the controversy. There was a hope, I suspect, that there would be developed a means of ending pregnancies by transplanting fetuses to willing recipients at an early enough time as to involve no more discomfort or danger than legal abortion (This was a naive hope, I now realize.)
I think Roe will be overturned. I also think that it wouldn't be in such great danger if the abortion rights movement had shown more respect for people who have such a huge distate for the human cost of abortion, but that is a different discussion that also requires recognition that pro-lifers have not demonstrated enough concern for the lives affected after an unwanted birth. Suffice it to say that neither side allows the other any legitimate standing in the debate.
Until a foolproof and safe method of preventing pregnancy is developed, the mess will continue.
Edit: I was writing during several preceding posts, so I haven't read or addressed those after 'Prox's one that began with "My point is that this shouldnāt have gone to the Supreme Court."
!98266A8B-8C2D-420D-83EF-F15F6AF96821.jpeg ā
Too funny not to share
Mmmm cathartic.
@approxinfinity The technology as a cure for abortion thing is my own conjecture insofar as it relates to Blackmun. I remember talking with my dad and others about it a lot, and even reading about it, but a lot of that discussion was also just focused on birth control. A lot of people believed opposition to birth control would fade away.
But virtually everything has been objected to by somebody, hasn't it?
As to my Roe discussion, I cannot guarantee all my thoughts against the vagaries of trying to remember discussions from law school 40 years ago!
!B9DAF392-6D30-4D91-A840-3B6D3723D8F3.jpeg ā
Truth bomb
A well polished ad. With Trumps horrible COVID response front and center down the stetch, I don't see how he's reelectable.
Here's the Trump Pence campaigns letter trying to get the ad taken down:
Don't underestimate the staying power of stupidity.
@approxinfinity I usually wouldnāt defend Trump in any manor but Dr. Fauci himself wasnāt too worried about the virus in January. I think Trump is trying not to scare people at this point. I just wish he carried himself more professionally, drives me nuts. To me it doesnāt matter if heās re-elected, itās always the less of evils and which corporations are funneling in the cash to said candidate.
@kjayhawks I take your point. Fauci was wrong too early on. The really critical period was February 2 (date of Trump's travel ban) to mid-March (when states started issuing stay-at-hoQme orders, California first). His lack of leadership there not directing people to stay home, and lying and bullshitting every press
conference was mind-blowing. I would like to see if they can distill that into effective messaging before election season.
@approxinfinity it will be interesting to see how it effects his chances in November for sure.
@approxinfinity you see the press conference today? š¤Æ
Trump does not mean well. Trump cares only for himself. Any well-meaning person would be able to admit a mistake. He is precisely the same as he has been for 50 years.
This is a sports board, so let's think about this in terms of sports. No one on this board would tolerate any player or coach that would not ever own up to any mistakes, choosing instead to always blame (pick one or many) the referees, the other team, teammates, coaches, media, etc. We wouldn't tolerate it not only because its annoying, but also because if you never take that accountability, you cannot improve as a player. If you say, hey, I'm actually a good shooter, but I was missing because the rim was bent, or, I am a good defender, but that guy was scoring because the help defense was out of position, or, those turnovers weren't my fault, my teammates weren't paying attention, etc., then you never improve in those areas because psychologically, you are telling yourself that your performance is fine. You will certainly plateau, meaning other, less talented players or coaches will easily bypass you in time.
@justanotherfan you nailed it!
@Crimsonorblue22 I read about it but that probably isn't enough, unfortunately. I heard he said he could tell the Democratic governors to open up and they'd have to what he says. Did I miss anything notable?
@justanotherfan Well said, could go towards most in politics.
@kjayhawks I think the big problem is when politicians think more about getting elected/re-elected than honestly evaluating whatās they think and feel and then try to do the right thing. The media does have some culpability there as if someone does something the first evaluation is how will it affect the next election. If someone changes their mind they are a flip flopper and on and on it goes. Same problem with the dem primary. Too many people focused on beating trump instead of voting for the candidate they truly think is best.
Biden wonāt be the president even if he is elected. No keep an i on the vp selection. Biden is nothing more than a Manchurian president.
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
@Crimsonorblue22 I read about it but that probably isn't enough, unfortunately. I heard he said he could tell the Democratic governors to open up and they'd have to what he says. Did I miss anything notable?
Well here is the thing @approxinfinity. If A sitting president can be blamed for not shutting down the country soon enough, but yet doesnāt have the power to reopen the country sounds a bit weird to me. Or hypocritical or political?
@DoubleDD the president is like a quarterback. He doesn't have the ability to make his receivers catch the ball but if he leads them with a good pass they will catch it. if he calls one play in the huddle, gets behind center and then runs a different bad audible, blames players in the huddle the subsequent play, maybe even blames players from four years ago, argues with his coach, throws his helmet and pouts, he may still be a better quarterback than Trump on coronavirus.
Iām very glad people have rediscovered federalism during this crisis and the Trump admin generally since the 10th amendment was seen by the press as some kind of crackpot way to bring back the Confederacy. But now itās patriotic! Almost like.. and follow me here.. process arguments are inherently insincere.
@FarmerJayhawk what is a process argument?
@approxinfinity arguing about the methods we use to get from point A to point B (e.g. the filibuster or any parliamentary procedure, the powers of certain branches of government, etc.) When I was in state politics during the Obama years we were always told by D's to just "do what Obama says!!" including things that were clearly outside his authority. Now, those same people are all about defying the administration and supporting their D governor. You can find Senators of both parties both praising the filibuster as both a threat to the Republic and unconstitutional yet when they're in the minority its a bulwark against the tyranny of the majority and key to securing compromise. All of it's garbage. Just folks making whatever argument suits their agenda. No real principle involved.
@FarmerJayhawk I totally agree and think that has always been somewhat true. I do think Mitch has pushed us further in that direction. He is well known for drudging up old procedural precedents to suit his current agenda. He's not the only one and it's definitely on both sides, but I do think he is one of the biggest abusers of such arguments.
@benshawks08 said in The democratic nominee:
@FarmerJayhawk I totally agree and think that has always been somewhat true. I do think Mitch has pushed us further in that direction. He is well known for drudging up old procedural precedents to suit his current agenda. He's not the only one and it's definitely on both sides, but I do think he is one of the biggest abusers of such arguments.
To his credit he's always defended the legislative filibuster.
@FarmerJayhawk But quite memorably not ALL filabusters.
@benshawks08 said in The democratic nominee:
@FarmerJayhawk But quite memorably not ALL filabusters.
True. Harry Reid was warned for starting this. Cocaine Mitch plays for keeps
@benshawks08 also good points my friend
@kjayhawks Don't forget he's the ONLY democrat left in the field! In other breaking news, Ivanka supports Trump's bid for reelection...
@benshawks08 exactly maybe they are running out of stories lol
Donald Trump should not be blamed for not shutting down the country because he does not have that authority. He cannot issue a nationwide "stay at home" order like governors or local officials can. That's outside his power.
So I hold no issue with him on actually shutting down the country.
The problem is the messaging has been confusing at best. Because Trump has a very strong following, when he says something, it resonates with a lot of people, to the point that if he says that something is a big deal, it is a big deal to those people, and if he says something is nothing to worry about, those people won't worry about it.
As a result of having such a strong and loyal following, though, he has a large responsibility to keep those people informed of what is going on, because they won't take something seriously if he doesn't say it (or worse yet, says that it isn't anything to worry about). That's what happened here. Trump said COVID-19 was a hoax, and that it would disappear. So the people loyal to him dismissed reports that were counter to those statements. As a result, even now we have people that, despite all of the deaths and other issues, are still not really taking this seriously. That's not good at any time, but especially during a public health crisis.
And why is it that a public health crisis is so different? Well, simply put, we need close to 100% buy-in for any action to be effective in a public health crisis. This isn't about Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, liberals, moderates, right, left, etc. This is an infectious disease. Anyone can get it. Anyone can pass it along. That puts everyone at risk if even a minority of people continue to spread the virus.
The message has to be consistent about the risks, the dangers, and the way forward. That's important in any crisis, but especially during a public health crisis, where you have to have nearly unanimous buy in for anything to work.
@justanotherfan exactly how I see it my friend.
@justanotherfan said in The democratic nominee:
Donald Trump should not be blamed for not shutting down the country because he does not have that authority. He cannot issue a nationwide "stay at home" order like governors or local officials can. That's outside his power.
So I hold no issue with him on actually shutting down the country.
The problem is the messaging has been confusing at best. Because Trump has a very strong following, when he says something, it resonates with a lot of people, to the point that if he says that something is a big deal, it is a big deal to those people, and if he says something is nothing to worry about, those people won't worry about it.
Doesn't that fanbase include ignorant governors and constituents of governors that are riding on his coattails?
Really hard for me to see the responsibility for lack of consistent shutdowns as being much different from lack of consistent messaging and leadership which had a very direct impact on the lack of consistent shutdowns.
Iām a bit confused here. I donāt really remember a Paul Revere riding in the nite warning the coronavirus is coming, the coronavirus is coming. The media says it was no big deal? The governors didnāt think it was a big deal. Yet when Trump did try todo something he was called a racist by the Dem media and the soon to be elected Biden. Who sense later apologized. Is Trump wrong not to post that the states and their governors woefully unprepared for a virus like this. Are we not saying the states should decide went to open back up? The same states that didnāt have enough masks or ventilators in stock pile? Yet we just blame Trump? Good luck with that at the ballot box. The American people are tired of a party that says they care but would rather make it a priority to secure monies for the Kennedy Center and illegal immigrants, in A bill that was supposed to help the American people. This is what you guys donāt get Trump loves America and whether you believe it or not Americans love him.
@DoubleDD Trump sat on his thumbs for a month (and that's a conservative measure) ignoring warning signs and telling the public the coronavirus wasn't issue and that he had a natural gift for being a doctor, proclaiming the closing of the borders as a "mission accomplished" moment, and that he didn't want the Diamond Princess included in his death tally because it would look bad, etc.
If you can't see that this guy is a self-absorbed idiot who was distracted by petty nonsense while coronavirus was spreading in the US, and if you think that the President of the United States doesn't have influence to help stop the spread of a global pandemic, there's nothing I can tell you.
Which is it, very stable genius or idiot who was caught unaware? Or what, did the very stable genius realize what was happening but not do anything because it's the governors' job? This spin job doesn't work.
Stop chugging the hydroxychloroquine.
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD Trump sat on his thumbs for a month (and that's a conservative measure) ignoring warning signs and telling the public the coronavirus wasn't issue and that he had a natural gift for being a doctor, proclaiming the closing of the borders as a "mission accomplished" moment, and that he didn't want the Diamond Princess included in his death tally because it would look bad, etc.
If you can't see that this guy is a self-absorbed idiot who was distracted by petty nonsense while coronavirus was spreading in the US, and if you think that the President of the United States doesn't have influence to help stop the spread of a global pandemic, there's nothing I can tell you.
Which is it, very stable genius or idiot who was caught unaware? Or what, did the very stable genius realize what was happening but not do anything because it's the governors' job? This spin job doesn't work.
Stop chugging the hydroxychloroquine.
Actually the hydroxychloroquine does help. Just saying. The only spin I see is trying to forget what the media, the Dem party, and Joe Biden said about a Trump closing down the country. Which appears from the conversation he didnāt have the power todo. Yet still gets blamed for not doing it earlier.
But letās blame trump?
Man, I've seen some dumb ass trolls on message boards and forums since the birth of the internet, but we've got us a keeper here.
@DanR let's refrain from calling each other [edit] dumbasses. I can get extremely frustrated at @DoubleDD but at least he's trying to have a conversation with people who have differing opinions which is more than we can say about our idiot president. And yes, if @theRealDonaldTrump became a user on here I guess I wouldn't be allowed to call him an idiot anymore and my head would explode.
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
@DanR let's refrain from calling each other idiots. I can get extremely frustrated at @DoubleDD but at least he's trying to have a conversation with people who have differing opinions which is more than we can say about our idiot president. And yes, if @theRealDonaldTrump became a user on here I guess I wouldn't be allowed to call him an idiot anymore and my head would explode.
Ty appreciate the support Iām just offering a different point of view thatās all.
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
@DanR I may have misread you. Was troll a person or an action in your post? Lol
Well if you want me to leave I can go? Itās your website. I can respect the wishes of the members.
@DoubleDD the differentiation I'm making is that I read his post as calling you a dumbass troll. But he may have been saying your post was a dumbass troll. Maybe it's semantics but I find the former more offensive. People can do dumb things and that doesn't make them dumb. It leaves open the door to change. Humans are amazingly adaptable. That's my point.
To be honest Iām kind of offended. Iāve been a member of this website when it left kusports. Yet because I have some different points of view and Political believes somehow Iām a troll now? @approxinfinity I thought you created this political forum for a good conversation and debates. Yet it seems if you disagree with the core of the group well then youāre just a troll?
@DoubleDD I think you are missing my point. I don't think he should call you, the person, Mr DoubleDD a troll. However, calling your post a troll is different than calling you a troll in my mind. But it's a nuance you may not see the difference in, and that's fine. People have different sensibilities on that. Doesn't matter.
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD I do think your post was extremely misguided to @DanR 's point! Pelosi saying people shouldn't be afraid of Chinatown has nothing to do with Donald Trump's circus. Completely different and massive orders of magnitude more influential.
Nobody is afraid of china town. The point is Nancy was holding a gathering in a public space without any thought to the virus. And this was mid February.
Let that sink in?
@DoubleDD @approxinfinity @DanR We have to be able to see it from the other side without insulting and fighting each other. There is truth to both sides. Have the Dems labeled virtually everything Trump has done including his initial China travel ban racist? Yes, without question. Has Trump back tracked and gave circular reasoning? Yes, without question.
@DoubleDD ok. She shouldn't have done that. It was ill-advised. But what's your point? What does Nancy Pelosi walking around Chinatown have to do with the President's clown show?
I don't see why it's so hard to acknowledge that Donald Trump isn't qualified to be president, rather than trying to find some comp of Nancy Pelosi out in public.
I would have done a better job as president handling this crisis. And I'm not special. I'm just some dude. There, I said it. I wasn't wandering around Chinatown late February. I was staying tf home. So I compare the president to me, not to anyone else. And he's a failure. Approxinfinity 4 Prez 2028!
@kjayhawks it seems like there's a whole lot more to Trump's handling of coronavirus than accusations of racism and circular reasoning...
To your point, yeah, we need to stay civil. When Trump is gone we will heal and move on.
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD ok. She shouldn't have done that. It was ill-advised. But what's your point? What does Nancy Pelosi walking around Chinatown have to do with the President's clown show?
I don't see why it's so hard to acknowledge that Donald Trump isn't qualified to be president, rather than trying to find some comp of Nancy Pelosi out in public.
I would have done a better job as president handling this crisis. And I'm not special. I'm just some dude. There, I said it. I wasn't wandering around Chinatown late February. I was staying tf home. So I compare the president to me, not to anyone else. And he's a failure. Approxinfinity 4 Prez 2028!
The point is the Dem party has defied the president at every turn. Ever think how many people got infected that day? Yet we sit here and blame Trump. No blame goes to Nancy
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
@kjayhawks it seems like there's a whole lot more to Trump's handling of coronavirus than accusations of racism and circular reasoning...
To your point, yeah, we need to stay civil. When Trump is gone we will heal and move on.
Trump 2020 heās earned it. Even if he is a narcissist. Yes I agree.
@kjayhawks said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD @approxinfinity @DanR We have to be able to see it from the other side without insulting and fighting each other. There is truth to both sides. Have the Dems labeled virtually everything Trump has done including his initial China travel ban racist? Yes, without question. Has Trump back tracked and gave circular reasoning? Yes, without question.
Iām not the one calling names. Iām just posting a different point of view. I guess itās like how a conservative speaker canāt speak on on a college campus anymore for fear of their life. And conservatives are naziās?
The point is the Dem party has defied the president at every turn. Ever think how many people got infected that day? Yet we sit here and blame Trump. No blame goes to Nancy
Nancy Pelosi walked around Chinatown on the Feb 24th... How is that defying the President? Your narrative is scrambled here...
Here's what President Trump was doing at the same time:
Feb. 13
In an interview with Geraldo Rivera, Trump characterized the threat of the virus in the U.S. by saying: "In our country, we only have, basically, 12 cases, and most of those people are recovering and some cases fully recovered. So it's actually less."
Feb. 24
In a tweet, Trump wrote, "The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. We are in contact with everyone and all relevant countries. CDC & World Health have been working hard and very smart. Stock Market starting to look very good to me!"
Feb. 26
In a news conference, Trump said: "When you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that's a pretty good job we've done."
Seems like she's jaunting around Chinatown with Trump's blessing? Maybe she actually thought he was making informed statements...
Donald Trump has earned nothing except a swift kick to the curb.
@DoubleDD said in The democratic nominee:
@kjayhawks said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD @approxinfinity @DanR We have to be able to see it from the other side without insulting and fighting each other. There is truth to both sides. Have the Dems labeled virtually everything Trump has done including his initial China travel ban racist? Yes, without question. Has Trump back tracked and gave circular reasoning? Yes, without question.
Iām not the one calling names. Iām just posting a different point of view. I guess itās like how a conservative speaker canāt speak on on a college campus anymore for fear of their life. And conservatives are naziās?
Some extreme trolling right here. I didn't call it dumbass trolling. Just extreme trolling.
OK I'm done. It's not worth it. I need to do something more productive. Good night.
@approxinfinity maybe youāre the one trolling? Only blame Our president but never blame anybody else?
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD said in The democratic nominee:
@kjayhawks said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD @approxinfinity @DanR We have to be able to see it from the other side without insulting and fighting each other. There is truth to both sides. Have the Dems labeled virtually everything Trump has done including his initial China travel ban racist? Yes, without question. Has Trump back tracked and gave circular reasoning? Yes, without question.
Iām not the one calling names. Iām just posting a different point of view. I guess itās like how a conservative speaker canāt speak on on a college campus anymore for fear of their life. And conservatives are naziās?
Some extreme trolling right here. I didn't call it dumbass trolling. Just extreme trolling.
Yet is it not true? Are not conservatives refrained on college campuses? For the colleges canāt give them the protection needed. What are these kids being taught? Doesnāt the media treat and even says the rep party is Nazism? Just saying
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD Sure, I blame you and 61,943,669 other people that voted for Donald Trump. Duh! :)
Lmao
@Crimsonorblue22 said in The democratic nominee:
@DanR lol!
Ah there she is. She claims to be a Republican but calls pence a puppet? Lol pence is far right as you can get. Duh
The man wonāt even have a meal or meeting with another woman unless his wife is there.
@DoubleDD said in The democratic nominee:
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD said in The democratic nominee:
@kjayhawks said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD @approxinfinity @DanR We have to be able to see it from the other side without insulting and fighting each other. There is truth to both sides. Have the Dems labeled virtually everything Trump has done including his initial China travel ban racist? Yes, without question. Has Trump back tracked and gave circular reasoning? Yes, without question.
Iām not the one calling names. Iām just posting a different point of view. I guess itās like how a conservative speaker canāt speak on on a college campus anymore for fear of their life. And conservatives are naziās?
Some extreme trolling right here. I didn't call it dumbass trolling. Just extreme trolling.
Yet is it not true? Are not conservatives refrained on college campuses? For the colleges canāt give them the protection needed. What are these kids being taught? Doesnāt the media treat and even says the rep party is Nazism? Just saying
As an instructor at a college campus I can say a couple things on this. 1) liberals are much more resistant to hearing opposing ideas than conservatives 2) this doesnāt necessarily mean conservatives are oppressed 3) Iāve had conservatives come up to me and say thank you for trying to include all sides of a conversation since theyāre obviously a distinct minority.
@DoubleDD hey duh, see if you can get this right, last time. I've been a rep. all my life til trump came along. Voted republican for all the the presidents. Not everything else though, just prez. I've had close friends on the other side and I've always been a moderate. But then the dumbest, biggest liar, fake Christian, and cheater, etc came along. I can see right thru him. I use to watch the apprentice. I seriously can not find one morally good thing to say about him. The more he opens his mouth the worse he gets. I seriously can't understand how anyone can believe anything he says. My only understanding is they only watch fox and are spoon fed š©. Any person can fact check his lies. I'm shocked you can't see thru them. Do you watch his press conferences? I like the press! They ask him hard questions that piss him off cause they catch him in lies. Back to your question, I switched to democrat at the KS state fair after the election. I never vote straight party. Done!
@FarmerJayhawk said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD said in The democratic nominee:
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD said in The democratic nominee:
@kjayhawks said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD @approxinfinity @DanR We have to be able to see it from the other side without insulting and fighting each other. There is truth to both sides. Have the Dems labeled virtually everything Trump has done including his initial China travel ban racist? Yes, without question. Has Trump back tracked and gave circular reasoning? Yes, without question.
Iām not the one calling names. Iām just posting a different point of view. I guess itās like how a conservative speaker canāt speak on on a college campus anymore for fear of their life. And conservatives are naziās?
Some extreme trolling right here. I didn't call it dumbass trolling. Just extreme trolling.
Yet is it not true? Are not conservatives refrained on college campuses? For the colleges canāt give them the protection needed. What are these kids being taught? Doesnāt the media treat and even says the rep party is Nazism? Just saying
As an instructor at a college campus I can say a couple things on this. 1) liberals are much more resistant to hearing opposing ideas than conservatives 2) this doesnāt necessarily mean conservatives are oppressed 3) Iāve had conservatives come up to me and say thank you for trying to include all sides of a conversation since theyāre obviously a distinct minority.
You are the exception. I believe you. You are smarter and better at expressing your thoughts than I. You command much respect. I notice when you go against the grain everybody backs off. A tip of my cap. But even you must admit conservatives donāt get the same respect as radical speakers on college campuses?
@Crimsonorblue22 said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD hey duh, see if you can get this right, last time. I've been a rep. all my life til trump came along. Voted republican for all the the presidents. Not everything else though, just prez. I've had close friends on the other side and I've always been a moderate. But then the dumbest, biggest liar, fake Christian, and cheater, etc came along. I can see right thru him. I use to watch the apprentice. I seriously can not find one morally good thing to say about him. The more he opens his mouth the worse he gets. I seriously can't understand how anyone can believe anything he says. My only understanding is they only watch fox and are spoon fed š©. Any person can fact check his lies. I'm shocked you can't see thru them. Do you watch his press conferences? I like the press! They ask him hard questions that piss him off cause they catch him in lies. Back to your question, I switched to democrat at the KS state fair after the election. I never vote straight party. Done!
We were done along time ago. I wish you nothing but the best.
@FarmerJayhawk you are a dying breed. Liberalism doesnāt mean what it used too.
@DoubleDD said in The democratic nominee:
@FarmerJayhawk said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD said in The democratic nominee:
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD said in The democratic nominee:
@kjayhawks said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD @approxinfinity @DanR We have to be able to see it from the other side without insulting and fighting each other. There is truth to both sides. Have the Dems labeled virtually everything Trump has done including his initial China travel ban racist? Yes, without question. Has Trump back tracked and gave circular reasoning? Yes, without question.
Iām not the one calling names. Iām just posting a different point of view. I guess itās like how a conservative speaker canāt speak on on a college campus anymore for fear of their life. And conservatives are naziās?
Some extreme trolling right here. I didn't call it dumbass trolling. Just extreme trolling.
Yet is it not true? Are not conservatives refrained on college campuses? For the colleges canāt give them the protection needed. What are these kids being taught? Doesnāt the media treat and even says the rep party is Nazism? Just saying
As an instructor at a college campus I can say a couple things on this. 1) liberals are much more resistant to hearing opposing ideas than conservatives 2) this doesnāt necessarily mean conservatives are oppressed 3) Iāve had conservatives come up to me and say thank you for trying to include all sides of a conversation since theyāre obviously a distinct minority.
You are the exception. I believe you. You are smarter and better at expressing your thoughts than I. You command much respect. I notice when you go against the grain everybody backs off. A tip of my cap. But even you must admit conservatives donāt get the same respect as radical speakers on college campuses?
Oh thereās no doubt about that. We just had Mitch Daniels on campus in the fall and both faculty & students were like ālol why is this Republican hereā even though heās the President of Purdue, 2 term governor of Indiana, President of Eli Lilly, and OMB Director under Bush 43. We could invite some rando lefty like Krystal Ball and sheād pack our biggest auditorium. Thereās just not that many people interested in center right ideas on campuses unfortunately. The one exception I can think of was ironically at KSU. I got roped into getting Herman Cain of all people to give a talk at KSU and the place was PACKED.
So true
@FarmerJayhawk said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD said in The democratic nominee:
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD said in The democratic nominee:
@kjayhawks said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD @approxinfinity @DanR We have to be able to see it from the other side without insulting and fighting each other. There is truth to both sides. Have the Dems labeled virtually everything Trump has done including his initial China travel ban racist? Yes, without question. Has Trump back tracked and gave circular reasoning? Yes, without question.
Iām not the one calling names. Iām just posting a different point of view. I guess itās like how a conservative speaker canāt speak on on a college campus anymore for fear of their life. And conservatives are naziās?
Some extreme trolling right here. I didn't call it dumbass trolling. Just extreme trolling.
Yet is it not true? Are not conservatives refrained on college campuses? For the colleges canāt give them the protection needed. What are these kids being taught? Doesnāt the media treat and even says the rep party is Nazism? Just saying
As an instructor at a college campus I can say a couple things on this. 1) liberals are much more resistant to hearing opposing ideas than conservatives 2) this doesnāt necessarily mean conservatives are oppressed 3) Iāve had conservatives come up to me and say thank you for trying to include all sides of a conversation since theyāre obviously a distinct minority.
Reading this board would convince me conservatives are more resistant to hearing opposing ideas with @DoubleDD as the prime example. Conservatives right now, led by trump are looking for every opportunity to play the victim and itās as sincere as those procedural arguments you brought up earlier. Itās trumps playbook over and over. Take the position of the attacked so that it looks like punching up even though he has the highest office in the land and the only direction he can punch (or would ever have the courage to) is down. Notice how in most of the clips of him berating reporters, they are women and often women of color. He is the typical bully who is afraid of everyone even though heās the biggest kid on the playground. So tired of the conservatives who accuse others of being snowflakes and the PC police having absolutely no spine to handle legitimate criticism.
If we think back to the one thing Jaybate was consistent on in his posts it was that the world is rarely one way or the other, it is always both. Are there people who criticize trumps every move without regard for whether they even might agree with it? Yes. Does that mean other critiques are automatically null and void?
Iāve seen @approxinfinity admit he was wrong, ask questions, and appreciate opposing views that he doesnāt share. Iāve seen most other folks on the board do the same thing. But when it comes to Trump there are some who simply refuse to see the plain facts for what they are and I donāt think this post or any other will change that but itās disappointing as hell and makes me afraid for the future of our country, honestly. A country I love, despite what others may tell you I believe or feel.
@benshawks08 said in The democratic nominee:
@FarmerJayhawk said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD said in The democratic nominee:
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD said in The democratic nominee:
@kjayhawks said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD @approxinfinity @DanR We have to be able to see it from the other side without insulting and fighting each other. There is truth to both sides. Have the Dems labeled virtually everything Trump has done including his initial China travel ban racist? Yes, without question. Has Trump back tracked and gave circular reasoning? Yes, without question.
Iām not the one calling names. Iām just posting a different point of view. I guess itās like how a conservative speaker canāt speak on on a college campus anymore for fear of their life. And conservatives are naziās?
Some extreme trolling right here. I didn't call it dumbass trolling. Just extreme trolling.
Yet is it not true? Are not conservatives refrained on college campuses? For the colleges canāt give them the protection needed. What are these kids being taught? Doesnāt the media treat and even says the rep party is Nazism? Just saying
As an instructor at a college campus I can say a couple things on this. 1) liberals are much more resistant to hearing opposing ideas than conservatives 2) this doesnāt necessarily mean conservatives are oppressed 3) Iāve had conservatives come up to me and say thank you for trying to include all sides of a conversation since theyāre obviously a distinct minority.
Reading this board would convince me conservatives are more resistant to hearing opposing ideas with @DoubleDD as the prime example. Conservatives right now, led by trump are looking for every opportunity to play the victim and itās as sincere as those procedural arguments you brought up earlier. Itās trumps playbook over and over. Take the position of the attacked so that it looks like punching up even though he has the highest office in the land and the only direction he can punch (or would ever have the courage to) is down. Notice how in most of the clips of him berating reporters, they are women and often women of color. He is the typical bully who is afraid of everyone even though heās the biggest kid on the playground. So tired of the conservatives who accuse others of being snowflakes and the PC police having absolutely no spine to handle legitimate criticism.
If we think back to the one thing Jaybate was consistent on in his posts it was that the world is rarely one way or the other, it is always both. Are there people who criticize trumps every move without regard for whether they even might agree with it? Yes. Does that mean other critiques are automatically null and void?
Iāve seen @approxinfinity admit he was wrong, ask questions, and appreciate opposing views that he doesnāt share. Iāve seen most other folks on the board do the same thing. But when it comes to Trump there are some who simply refuse to see the plain facts for what they are and I donāt think this post or any other will change that but itās disappointing as hell and makes me afraid for the future of our country, honestly. A country I love, despite what others may tell you I believe or feel.
Smile. Love a good debate. So what would you say to being accused of being a Russian spy? What you say to having a Dossier paid for by a Democratic candidate (Hillary) that said you had hookers piss on the bed Obama slept in Russia? How would you feel about being accused of Using a country (Ukraine ) to affect an election that led into a impeachment trial (even though only one person Of maybe 25 that were on the call said they felt uncomfortable ). Yet The same party Their elected nominee son who has no skills in oil and gas has a Cush job in the same country (Ukraine). The same country the Biden bragged on Video getting the prosecutor of that country fired for investigating his son?
Why any of you think Trump should trust the media is beyond me, all the evidence is there.
@FarmerJayhawk also the same media you praise for going after Trump? The same media called Trump a racist when he did shut down the country. You know when he should have down it earlier?
See evidence to support my previous argument above^^^^
@benshawks08 said in The democratic nominee:
See evidence to support my previous argument above^^^^
You got nothing but trump hate my friend
modules:composer.user_said_in, @benshawks08, The democratic nominee
See evidence to support my previous argument above^^^^
Iām sorry. Iām in a bit of attack mode. Iām sorry. You spoke your thoughts and I was rude. Deleted my post out of respect. You should be proud of @approxinfinity he is a good dude.
@Crimsonorblue22 said in The democratic nominee:
@Bwag dream on?
That was funny. I know you donāt like me but that was funny. Nice job.
@DoubleDD Iād say some of that comes with being the president. Obama was accused of being a muslim (as if that was a bad thing), of not being a citizen, of wearing a tan suit...
And the rest of it Trump brings on himself by defiantly refusing to: follow any governmental norms, learn and understand what he can and cannot do as president, and live on the line (or over the line) of what is appropriate behavior from an elected official.
Have you ever participated in a āgood debateā because your posts are not that. You donāt defend a position, you deflect, ignore, and accuse others of wrongdoing instead of defending your guy. For example, if a student cheats on a test, accusing another student of also cheating doesnāt prove that kid didnāt cheat whether the accusation is accurate or not. Nor does the defense that some other kid stole money from my desk so cheating isnāt even bad.
@benshawks08 said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD Iād say some of that comes with being the president. Obama was accused of being a muslim (as if that was a bad thing), of not being a citizen, of wearing a tan suit...
And the rest of it Trump brings on himself by defiantly refusing to: follow any governmental norms, learn and understand what he can and cannot do as president, and live on the line (or over the line) of what is appropriate behavior from an elected official.
Have you ever participated in a āgood debateā because your posts are not that. You donāt defend a position, you deflect, ignore, and accuse others of wrongdoing instead of defending your guy. For example, if a student cheats on a test, accusing another student of also cheating doesnāt prove that kid didnāt cheat whether the accusation is accurate or not. Nor does the defense that some other kid stole money from my desk so cheating isnāt even bad.
Iām sorry you feel that way. Because I feel like Iām going up against perception Created by the media and the Democratic Party. I mean have you ever heard of anybody woman or man black white green blue being wrong about everything. It seems illogical.
@DoubleDD said in The democratic nominee:
modules:composer.user_said_in, @benshawks08, The democratic nominee
See evidence to support my previous argument above^^^^
Iām sorry. Iām in a bit of attack mode. Iām sorry. You spoke your thoughts and I was rude. Deleted my post out of respect. You should be proud of @approxinfinity he is a good dude.
I didnāt see it as I was typing my response to your earlier post. Not trying to get personal, just canāt follow your logic or argument.
@benshawks08 said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD said in The democratic nominee:
modules:composer.user_said_in, @benshawks08, The democratic nominee
See evidence to support my previous argument above^^^^
Iām sorry. Iām in a bit of attack mode. Iām sorry. You spoke your thoughts and I was rude. Deleted my post out of respect. You should be proud of @approxinfinity he is a good dude.
I didnāt see it as I was typing my response to your earlier post. Not trying to get personal, just canāt follow your logic or argument.
Just know I was rude and Iām sorry. You have right to speak your mind.
@benshawks08 said in The democratic nominee:
@FarmerJayhawk said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD said in The democratic nominee:
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD said in The democratic nominee:
@kjayhawks said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD @approxinfinity @DanR We have to be able to see it from the other side without insulting and fighting each other. There is truth to both sides. Have the Dems labeled virtually everything Trump has done including his initial China travel ban racist? Yes, without question. Has Trump back tracked and gave circular reasoning? Yes, without question.
Iām not the one calling names. Iām just posting a different point of view. I guess itās like how a conservative speaker canāt speak on on a college campus anymore for fear of their life. And conservatives are naziās?
Some extreme trolling right here. I didn't call it dumbass trolling. Just extreme trolling.
Yet is it not true? Are not conservatives refrained on college campuses? For the colleges canāt give them the protection needed. What are these kids being taught? Doesnāt the media treat and even says the rep party is Nazism? Just saying
As an instructor at a college campus I can say a couple things on this. 1) liberals are much more resistant to hearing opposing ideas than conservatives 2) this doesnāt necessarily mean conservatives are oppressed 3) Iāve had conservatives come up to me and say thank you for trying to include all sides of a conversation since theyāre obviously a distinct minority.
Reading this board would convince me conservatives are more resistant to hearing opposing ideas with @DoubleDD as the prime example. Conservatives right now, led by trump are looking for every opportunity to play the victim and itās as sincere as those procedural arguments you brought up earlier. Itās trumps playbook over and over. Take the position of the attacked so that it looks like punching up even though he has the highest office in the land and the only direction he can punch (or would ever have the courage to) is down. Notice how in most of the clips of him berating reporters, they are women and often women of color. He is the typical bully who is afraid of everyone even though heās the biggest kid on the playground. So tired of the conservatives who accuse others of being snowflakes and the PC police having absolutely no spine to handle legitimate criticism.
If we think back to the one thing Jaybate was consistent on in his posts it was that the world is rarely one way or the other, it is always both. Are there people who criticize trumps every move without regard for whether they even might agree with it? Yes. Does that mean other critiques are automatically null and void?
Iāve seen @approxinfinity admit he was wrong, ask questions, and appreciate opposing views that he doesnāt share. Iāve seen most other folks on the board do the same thing. But when it comes to Trump there are some who simply refuse to see the plain facts for what they are and I donāt think this post or any other will change that but itās disappointing as hell and makes me afraid for the future of our country, honestly. A country I love, despite what others may tell you I believe or feel.
To be clear this isnāt just my opinion. I said at my campus liberals are generally more hostile to free speech than conservatives. This isnāt just anecdotes. No, itās not the population as a whole, itās UNC undergrads. But the patterns are disturbing nonetheless. https://fecdsurveyreport.web.unc.edu/files/2020/02/UNC-Free-Expression-Report.pdf ā
@FarmerJayhawk it is disturbing, I agree. So this study is from Feb 2020 right? I would be very curious what the results of the same study would look like in previous years, for instance pre-Trump.
Hopefully this is a reflection of undergrads perception of the toxicity in Washington, projecting it on their peers who endorse each respective party, and if you subtract Trump and Fox News more extreme bullshit years, i.e. the current faces of the Republican party, liberal students will find a more favorable, tolerant stance toward the other side.
If I assumed that all Republicans rely on Fox for their information I'd have a pretty negative impression as well.
Maybe these voices of tolerance and rational thought from the right need to be heard and seen.
None of what anyone is raising is new. There have always been vicious smears in politics going back to the Republic in ancient Rome and no doubt beyond. Demagogery did not start with Trump. Defending a president by attacking past presidents did not start with viewers of Fox News. Intolerance of opposing views did not start with liberals OR conservatives. Stupid impeachments for political points started back in the 19th Century, but at least now we are averaging only one per century.
Every student of political rhetoric knows that Americans always think they live in a unique time. Unforeseen challenges, crazy ideas bandied about, doom of our Republic just over the horizon "if we do this..." OR "if we don't do that..."
Somehow, the country has survived. The worst schism led to civil war, but there were thousands of controversies and even violent flare ups over 250 years. Factionalism was known long before that and this is why the Constitution set up so many obstacles to defeat any attempt for a single faction to impose its will indefinitely.
But there is no defense against a particular faction, or politician, from obtaining or abusing power temporarily. It always depends on what the American people are willing to accept. A majority or strong plurality seems to accept the unacceptable, in the eyes of others, and that perspective wobbles depending on whose ox is gored. There will be back and forth power struggles for time immemorial as the American public imposes its own constraints on what it considers unacceptable.
I am not worried about the effect of Trump and his narcissistic presidency. The Constitution will survive. It survived FDR's expansion of administative government, but it survived Nixon's crimes directly targeting the sanctity of democracy. It survived Vietnam and the abject cowardice of Congress in funding trillions of dollars for undeclared wars. It survived HUAC and McCarthy, Grant's corrupt administration, Jacksonian spoils, Teapot Dome, and the Robber Barons. It even survived Lincoln's violating it right and left in an effort to save it.
I AM really tired of reading every other day about some asinine thing Trump has said or some crazy approach to an issue that makes it worse, but I am also tired of reading every other day how uncertain it is Democracy will survive him.
The pandemic is changing a lot of things, but I see disruption, not revolution. The problem freaking too many people out is that we are used to prosperity as a country, and anything threatening that seems cataclysmic. It would be quite enlightening for most Americans who are spending their time wringing their hands to pick up a book about the times America actually overcame worse things than a bad president or a snide Congress. The Revolution, the Civil War, World War II, the Depression....
Grab a cup of coffee, get educated about the great leaders of the past who saw us through much darker times. Perhaps we can all find kernels of wisdom that will help light the way forward--or at least let us realize the light is there if we look for it.
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
I can get extremely frustrated at @DoubleDD but at least heās trying to have a conversation with people who have differing opinions which is more than we can say about our idiot president.
1) There is growing evidence that he's not actually trying to have a conversation.
2) I called him out for his deflective tactics and he called me an idiot.
I don't see him being swayed by any amount of evidence on these topics. He is one with the kool-aid.
Now, if we're talking basketball, thankfully there is common ground and ability to discuss the game with all of its glory and its warts.
@DoubleDD said in The democratic nominee:
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD I do think your post was extremely misguided to @DanR 's point! Pelosi saying people shouldn't be afraid of Chinatown has nothing to do with Donald Trump's circus. Completely different and massive orders of magnitude more influential.
Nobody is afraid of china town. The point is Nancy was holding a gathering in a public space without any thought to the virus. And this was mid February.
This is a ridiculous and irrelevant point.
In mid-February, every school in America had full classrooms, there were crowded bars and restaurants, professional and college sports' arenas filled with fans, offices filled with people working.... the democratic candidates were hosting rallies and president himself was holding rallies. It was business as usual EVERYWHERE in America.
In retrospect, it would have been nice if the country had been idling toward social distancing and other measures to diminish the impending epidemic.
But there were no such measures in place in the US in mid-February.
So why exactly are you calling out this interview?
@Crimsonorblue22 said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD hey duh, see if you can get this right, last time. I've been a rep. all my life til trump came along. Voted republican for all the the presidents. Not everything else though, just prez. I've had close friends on the other side and I've always been a moderate. But then the dumbest, biggest liar, fake Christian, and cheater, etc came along. I can see right thru him. I use to watch the apprentice. I seriously can not find one morally good thing to say about him. The more he opens his mouth the worse he gets. I seriously can't understand how anyone can believe anything he says. My only understanding is they only watch fox and are spoon fed š©. Any person can fact check his lies. I'm shocked you can't see thru them. Do you watch his press conferences? I like the press! They ask him hard questions that piss him off cause they catch him in lies. Back to your question, I switched to democrat at the KS state fair after the election. I never vote straight party. Done!
Amen.
@mayjay said in The democratic nominee:
None of what anyone is raising is new. There have always been vicious smears in politics going back to the Republic in ancient Rome and no doubt beyond. Demagogery did not start with Trump. Defending a president by attacking past presidents did not start with viewers of Fox News. Intolerance of opposing views did not start with liberals OR conservatives. Stupid impeachments for political points started back in the 19th Century, but at least now we are averaging only one per century.
Every student of political rhetoric knows that Americans always think they live in a unique time. Unforeseen challenges, crazy ideas bandied about, doom of our Republic just over the horizon "if we do this..." OR "if we don't do that..."
Somehow, the country has survived. The worst schism led to civil war, but there were thousands of controversies and even violent flare ups over 250 years. Factionalism was known long before that and this is why the Constitution set up so many obstacles to defeat any attempt for a single faction to impose its will indefinitely.
But there is no defense against a particular faction, or politician, from obtaining or abusing power temporarily. It always depends on what the American people are willing to accept. A majority or strong plurality seems to accept the unacceptable, in the eyes of others, and that perspective wobbles depending on whose ox is gored. There will be back and forth power struggles for time immemorial as the American public imposes its own constraints on what it considers unacceptable.
I am not worried about the effect of Trump and his narcissistic presidency. The Constitution will survive. It survived FDR's expansion of administative government, but it survived Nixon's crimes directly targeting the sanctity of democracy. It survived Vietnam and the abject cowardice of Congress in funding trillions of dollars for undeclared wars. It survived HUAC and McCarthy, Grant's corrupt administration, Jacksonian spoils, Teapot Dome, and the Robber Barons. It even survived Lincoln's violating it right and left in an effort to save it.
I AM really tired of reading every other day about some asinine thing Trump has said or some crazy approach to an issue that makes it worse, but I am also tired of reading every other day how uncertain it is Democracy will survive him.
The pandemic is changing a lot of things, but I see disruption, not revolution. The problem freaking too many people out is that we are used to prosperity as a country, and anything threatening that seems cataclysmic. It would be quite enlightening for most Americans who are spending their time wringing their hands to pick up a book about the times America actually overcame worse things than a bad president or a snide Congress. The Revolution, the Civil War, World War II, the Depression....
Grab a cup of coffee, get educated about the great leaders of the past who saw us through much darker times. Perhaps we can all find kernels of wisdom that will help light the way forward--or at least let us realize the light is there if we look for it.
Amen. My only caveat is that I do see this period as more of a threat than you do.. But that very well could be recency bias at play.
In fact the inherent biases in all of us ā especially the bias to believe that we are less biased than others ā are particularly dangerous right now.
@mayjay I would argue that just because this isn't new doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Additionally, I do think the current situation is a bit more perilous than anything in the recent past going back to Nixon as to me, the guy in charge simply doesn't care about preserving anything. I can't think of another president who thought so much for themselves over the country and whose plans were so shortsighted. I'm not that old and my memory isn't that good but I think everyone from both sides can agree that Trump is DIFFERENT from any leader we've had before. His stated goals were to tear the system down and in some places he's been successful in doing just that. Nothing that can't be undone long term but not everyone has the luxury of thinking long term, especially right now.
@bskeet true and what does "more biased" really mean? That's assuming there is an objective center. Is there one? Does it shift? Which way is it really shifting? Is the political spectrum as we conceive it linearly from right to left an artificial construct that abstracts us away from issues to serve our bipartisan two headed master?
@DoubleDD said in The democratic nominee:
@benshawks08 said in The democratic nominee:
@DoubleDD Iād say some of that comes with being the president. Obama was accused of being a muslim (as if that was a bad thing), of not being a citizen, of wearing a tan suit...
And the rest of it Trump brings on himself by defiantly refusing to: follow any governmental norms, learn and understand what he can and cannot do as president, and live on the line (or over the line) of what is appropriate behavior from an elected official.
Have you ever participated in a āgood debateā because your posts are not that. You donāt defend a position, you deflect, ignore, and accuse others of wrongdoing instead of defending your guy. For example, if a student cheats on a test, accusing another student of also cheating doesnāt prove that kid didnāt cheat whether the accusation is accurate or not. Nor does the defense that some other kid stole money from my desk so cheating isnāt even bad.
Iām sorry you feel that way. Because I feel like Iām going up against perception Created by the media and the Democratic Party. I mean have you ever heard of anybody woman or man black white green blue being wrong about everything. It seems illogical.
If you read one of my posts in this thread (I don't remember which one) I'm pretty sure I bring up just that point. He isn't wrong about everything! Even a broken clock is right twice a day! And sure, there is plenty of bogus criticism out there by people that simply hate Trump. My point is that's not what I'm seeing on this board. Especially during COVID-19 most of the perception has come directly from Trump's briefings where HE is "controlling" the message. And he has made sure that for every reporter in the room who is likely to ask him difficult, uncomfortable questions, there is another he can go to lob him a softball or lead him right where he wants to go. The media does shape perceptions, but both ways.
Also, we are good from whatever you apologized for last night. I appreciate the apology even though I didn't even see what was said. I've noticed you attempting to keep things civil and do appreciate that work.
@FarmerJayhawk šÆšÆšÆ
@benshawks08 Don't think I am minimizing the damage being done to the country.
I certainly was not saying that Trump and his ilk are harmless or that what they do doesn't matter. He and his pals will make literally billions off of corrupt schemes, including the extraordinary damage the administration is doing to environmental and safety regulations.
What I AM saying is that the system is there to eventually contol those abuses. (It is up to opponents to make that work.) So far, the system has survived.
@mayjay I agree to a certain extent. We saw the system pressure Nixon into resigning. But we've also seen the system fail to use its mechanisms to control this president thanks to, from my perspective, a lack of courage from well meaning conservatives. Politicians from both sides are so caught up with getting reelected, they hesitate to stray from their pack to do what they know and feel is right. I don't think that has ALWAYS been the case. Yes people with power have always wanted to maintain power but the factionalism is at the very least on a swing right now towards more divided than whatever normal is.
To be clear this isnāt just my opinion. I said at my campus liberals are generally more hostile to free speech than conservatives. This isnāt just anecdotes. No, itās not the population as a whole, itās UNC undergrads. But the patterns are disturbing nonetheless. https://fecdsurveyreport.web.unc.edu/files/2020/02/UNC-Free-Expression-Report.pdf ā
What follows is conjecture -- no study to cite: I would expect to find a similar dynamic play out on a "conservative" campus. That is, there would be similar resistance to opposing perspectives just as there is on a "liberal" campus.
I don't think the unwillingness to hear challenging views is a "liberal" or "conservative" thing, but rather it's a human thing.
It's part of our defense mechanisms and it is amplified when surrounded by like-minded people: aka herd mentality, where an echo chamber effect can happen. (Note: social media platforms make it easy to amplify views that I agree with.) In this kind of setting, the majority view point can overwhelm/eclipse opposing viewpoints.
It can get hostile if a differing view tries to challenge that majority viewpoint. This means that moderates - who often could bring some balance - tend to stay quiet for fear of association and drawing the ire of the majority.
This board is a decent example as well. Most of us can find posters with whom we tend to agree and certain posters with whom we more often disagree. And if there becomes a prevailing or dominant view, then that group can put the opposing side on the defensive.
In order to cultivate an environment where a variety of viewpoints are welcome, I think two very important components are critical thinking and empathy. These are important for those who hold the majority viewpoint as well as the minority viewpoint.
This is what I have tried to do here and elsewhere. It's surprisingly unintuitive to do this in the moment, given how important it is for us to live harmoniously.
@approxinfinity said in The democratic nominee:
@FarmerJayhawk it is disturbing, I agree. So this study is from Feb 2020 right? I would be very curious what the results of the same study would look like in previous years, for instance pre-Trump.
Hopefully this is a reflection of undergrads perception of the toxicity in Washington, projecting it on their peers who endorse each respective party, and if you subtract Trump and Fox News more extreme bullshit years, i.e. the current faces of the Republican party, liberal students will find a more favorable, tolerant stance toward the other side.
If I assumed that all Republicans rely on Fox for their information I'd have a pretty negative impression as well.
Maybe these voices of tolerance and rational thought from the right need to be heard and seen.
I think it's a product of a couple things. First being "reverse polarization," the phenomenon where the other side looks worse and worse, so people end up voting against the other side vs. for their side. The other major factor is the rise of "woke culture" on college campuses. Where speech is considered violence so it's ok to counter "violence" with more extreme action. I remember Chancellor Gray-Little was shouted down at KU once for "enabling systematic racism" even though she grew up as a black woman in the Jim Crow South. Madness. These people put so much weight on identity and so little on everything else it drowns out any hope of rational discussion. You can't bring up liberalism without someone dismissing it as "just a bunch of old, white, cis-men talking to each other."
Folks on both sides are increasingly unable to grapple with ideas and increasingly able to play the identity card, which stifles real dialogue.
@FarmerJayhawk said in The democratic nominee:
Folks on both sides are increasingly unable to grapple with ideas
Astute. Grappling with ideas takes effort. Yet, it seems that we are in the midst of a 'convenience culture' that seeks to eschew effort wherever possible.
Wow @FarmerJayhawk and @mayjay the stuff you two have posted is so thought provoking. It is so nice to hear some real soul searching thoughts. Instead of the I hate Trump and the world would be better off without him dribble. So sad that these individuals actually created the Trump, and worse they donāt even know it. Smh.
Yes Iām a dickhead. I love a good banter or argument, but what I love more is when someone stops me in my tracks and makes me think. I personally thank you both. As both have made me think.
@DoubleDD said in The democratic nominee:
Iām a huge Crenshaw fan. Heās done a couple pods with Joe Rogan I highly recommend.