Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
squistion

2020 Presidential Election Thread

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, [scooter] said:

If you're a Democrat, you should be concerned about the numbers in Florida, Ohio and North Carolina.

If Trump loses Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa and Pennsylvania, he can still win if he retains Ohio, Florida and Arizona -- and flips NC.

I don’t think that’s right. Did you mean VA instead of NC?  Look at the snake near the bottom of This.

Edited by Juxtatarot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:
2 hours ago, [scooter] said:

If you're a Democrat, you should be concerned about the numbers in Florida, Ohio and North Carolina.

If Trump loses Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa and Pennsylvania, he can still win if he retains Ohio, Florida and Arizona -- and flips NC.

I don’t think that’s right. Did you mean VA instead of NC?  Look at the snake near the bottom of This.

Oops, you're correct.

So, Trump can lose Wisconsin/Michigan/Iowa or Pennsylvania/Wisconsin/Iowa or Pennsylvania/Michigan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, timschochet said:

So if you are a Democratic candidate, how would you answer this question from an independent: 

“Last time around I voted for Trump. Things have gotten better for me. The tax cut saved me a little money and with the economic boom my 401k is doing very well. Why shouldn’t I vote for Trump again?” 

You serious, Clark?

- Soaring deficit

- Trade war with China hurting farmers and making household goods more expensive for everyday Americans

- Tax cuts for billionaires but most Americans got smaller tax refunds or even owed money to the IRS for 2018

- His climate denial stance, resulting inaction will cost taxpayers and companies more money than acting now

  That's just off the top of my head. You can get into how he's made the world less safe - North Korea - or just their communities less safe by resisting sensible gun reform efforts. He's done almost nothing to address opiod crisis beyond grandstanding.  He's done nothing for teachers. He's botched immigration policy and reform efforts there. He's supported white nationalists, alienated our allies, and gone to great lengths to demean the office of the President.

 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy who has no shot at defeating President Trump in 2020 opens up a 32pt lead over the only person who had a chance-

Quote

Former Vice President Joe Biden has a 32-point lead in the Democratic presidential race in a Hill-HarrisX poll released Monday.

Biden won 46 percent in the poll compared to 14 percent for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who came in a distant second place.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/442310-joe-biden%3famp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

Are you a gambler?  

Here we go......

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 9/10/2018 at 2:48 PM, timschochet said:

I think we're looking at a blue wave this November. After that, the two key questions become, how will Trump work with a Democratic majority? And how will a Democratic majority work with Trump?

Then there are 4 more questions:  Will the Mueller investigation indict Trump, exonerate Trump, or something in between? Will there be, between now and 2020, some kind of international crisis and how will Trump respond to it? Will there be a Republican challenger to Trump in the primaries? Will a progressive or a centrist win the Democratic nomination?

Until we know the answer to these 6 questions, until we see everything play out, there's really no way to know whether or not public perception will be lasting.

😂

You even brought up the question of will Mueller indict Trump?

ETA: this is supposed to go in the Russian conspiracy thread, I'll try to move it.

Edited by Raylan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Raylan said:

😂

You even brought up the question of will Mueller indict Trump?

ETA: this is supposed to go in the Russian conspiracy thread, I'll try to move it.

Why would it?  Seriously, what point do you think this proves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden with commanding leads in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. 

Still early yet but if he wins all 3 this race will be over before it started. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you study the details behind the latest polling- the desire to defeat Trump over and above all other iasues, the strong support of black women for Biden- it’s going to be difficult to catch him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, timschochet said:

If you study the details behind the latest polling- the desire to defeat Trump over and above all other iasues, the strong support of black women for Biden- it’s going to be difficult to catch him. 

Russia cell hasn't been activated yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Juxtatarot said:

Are you a gambler?  

Not with Democrats, had kind of a bad deal here last time around. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The military vets seeking the Democratic nomination used Memorial Day to call Trump a draft dodger.

"You have somebody who thinks it's all right to let somebody go in his place into a deadly war and is willing to pretend to be disabled in order to do it."

- Pete Buttigieg

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2019/05/28/daily-202-veterans-running-for-the-democratic-nomination-call-trump-a-draft-dodger-as-he-travels-overseas/5cec1dc1a7a0a46b92a3fe4c/?utm_term=.4cffdbfe2c79&tid=sm_tw

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anybody else a li'l dubious about da Bootyjudge's military service? heard he was a veteran when i first developed my mancrush on him and assumed it was a 9-11 reaction common to his gen. later i saw he was "called up" from Navy Reserve (which he joined in '09) in '14 while he was Mayor, did a few months "intelligence" deployment. does that sound to anyone else like a guy who cherrypicks deployment cuz he wants it on his CV?

tell you why i say - me 94yo Da is a crusty bugger, a little to the right of Attila the Hun. Harry Truman drafted him for Korea but i know from his ol' stories that he found a loophole to keep from getting his ### shot off - he was recruited for Officer's Candidate School and found that, if he kept changing his specialty just as the training was ending, he could stay in OCS indefinitely. he eventually found a Signal Corps CO to suck up to and spent the rest of his hitch on regular leave from Fort Monmouth, living in the NYC YMCA going to Broadway shows. but now you'd think he took Pork Chop Hill by himself by the way he portrays his "service" and wraps himself in available honorifics. jussayin', know'm'sayin?

hey, anyone who serves has my respect (altho, being Nam gen, i am tolerant of anyone who dodged that clusterhug). but is Mayor Pete gilding the lily, doing his hitch strictly for resumé purposes? anybody got the veritas onnat?

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, squistion said:

The military vets seeking the Democratic nomination used Memorial Day to call Trump a draft dodger.

"You have somebody who thinks it's all right to let somebody go in his place into a deadly war and is willing to pretend to be disabled in order to do it."

- Pete Buttigieg

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2019/05/28/daily-202-veterans-running-for-the-democratic-nomination-call-trump-a-draft-dodger-as-he-travels-overseas/5cec1dc1a7a0a46b92a3fe4c/?utm_term=.4cffdbfe2c79&tid=sm_tw

That angle has been used up. No one pays attention to it anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, lod001 said:

That angle has been used up. No one pays attention to it anymore.

Still a sad reminder for Memorial Day for those who are paying attention and might care about something like military service. 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, lod001 said:

That angle has been used up. No one pays attention to it anymore.

That's a shame.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wikkidpissah said:

anybody else a li'l dubious about da Bootyjudge's military service? heard he was a veteran when i first developed my mancrush on him and assumed it was a 9-11 reaction common to his gen. later i saw he was "called up" from Navy Reserve (which he joined in '09) in '14 while he was Mayor, did a few months "intelligence" deployment. does that sound to anyone else like a guy who cherrypicks deployment cuz he wants it on his CV?

It doesn't matter to me whether someone served or not.   That said, good for Buttigieg for serving in a reserve branch -- he certainly didn't have to, and it's more than I've ever done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

It doesn't matter to me whether someone served or not.   That said, good for Buttigieg for serving in a reserve branch -- he certainly didn't have to, and it's more than I've ever done.

not disrespecting but, if i was a reporter, i'd be on the story of the circumstances of the callup of a sitting mayor if it's not out there already

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was called up...he took time away from his job to serve rather than trying to get out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He definitely gave input and pressed to go sooner rather  than later
 From his book:

made sure my chain of command knew that I would rather go sooner than later, and would rather go to Afghanistan than anywhere else,” Buttigieg wrote.

“Because I was a specialist in counterterrorism, Afghanistan represented the best place in the world to practice my craft,” Buttigieg wrote. “It was also a country, troubled but hauntingly beautiful that I had gotten to know while a civilian adviser at McKinsey. If my turn was coming up to get mobilized, I wanted it to be there.”

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't think Trump is threatened by Biden at all.  I think he'd actually prefer to run against him.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lod001 said:

That angle has been used up. No one pays attention to it anymore.

I think that says a lot more about you than Mayor Pete.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ilov80s said:

Still a sad reminder for Memorial Day for those who are paying attention and might care about something like military service. 

Rather have a bunch of draft dodgers than "heroes" napalming little kids in Vietnam.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Rather have a bunch of draft dodgers than "heroes" napalming little kids in Vietnam.  

I have no issue with it if the person owns it and of it is reflected in their politics. I don’t see that with Donald. It seems like Donald wants it both ways. He’s rah rah military guy but didn’t want to risk anything personally. 

Edited by Ilov80s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mystery Achiever said:

He definitely gave input and pressed to go sooner rather  than later
 From his book:

made sure my chain of command knew that I would rather go sooner than later, and would rather go to Afghanistan than anywhere else,” Buttigieg wrote.

“Because I was a specialist in counterterrorism, Afghanistan represented the best place in the world to practice my craft,” Buttigieg wrote. “It was also a country, troubled but hauntingly beautiful that I had gotten to know while a civilian adviser at McKinsey. If my turn was coming up to get mobilized, I wanted it to be there.”

I'm waiting for Trump to claim that Buttigieg's service doesn't mean much -- he didn't sacrifice much -- because he wasn't even captured.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

I have no issue with it if the person owns it and of it is reflected in their politics. I don’t see that with Donald. It seems like Donald wants it both ways. He’s rah rah military guy but didn’t want to risk anything personally. 

Yeah, I could do without the chickenhawk stuff.  But we should be a little more weary of valourizing people who participated in mass genocide of the Vietnamese.  Just straightup mass killing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, wikkidpissah said:

anybody else a li'l dubious about da Bootyjudge's military service? heard he was a veteran when i first developed my mancrush on him and assumed it was a 9-11 reaction common to his gen. later i saw he was "called up" from Navy Reserve (which he joined in '09) in '14 while he was Mayor, did a few months "intelligence" deployment. does that sound to anyone else like a guy who cherrypicks deployment cuz he wants it on his CV?

tell you why i say - me 94yo Da is a crusty bugger, a little to the right of Attila the Hun. Harry Truman drafted him for Korea but i know from his ol' stories that he found a loophole to keep from getting his ### shot off - he was recruited for Officer's Candidate School and found that, if he kept changing his specialty just as the training was ending, he could stay in OCS indefinitely. he eventually found a Signal Corps CO to suck up to and spent the rest of his hitch on regular leave from Fort Monmouth, living in the NYC YMCA going to Broadway shows. but now you'd think he took Pork Chop Hill by himself by the way he portrays his "service" and wraps himself in available honorifics. jussayin', know'm'sayin?

hey, anyone who serves has my respect (altho, being Nam gen, i am tolerant of anyone who dodged that clusterhug). but is Mayor Pete gilding the lily, doing his hitch strictly for resumé purposes? anybody got the veritas onnat?

It seems the only lesson he took from Afghanistan, and his whole life in general, is a belief in the US' capacity for rainbow imperialism.  I like veterans who served in the armed forces and became antiwar.  

Gravel recently got in hot water for saying Pete was basically 'running on the fact that he's gay.' I liked their statement here:

I want to apologize to gay voters for implying that they are lining up behind Buttigieg.  The gay electorate make critical and informed decisions.  Mayor Buttigieg's candidacy offers gay Americans a historic chance at White House representation.  A chance for gay boys and men to see a bit of themselves in the trigger finger behind the rancid American war machine.  Don't fall for it.  

Buttigieg worked for a global consulting firm, McKinsey, from 2007-2010.  The firm's predatory practices were one of the major causes of the Great Recession.  During his time there they aggressively pushed Oxycontin and collaborated with the Saudi government, which punishes homosexuality with death. 

Despite appearances, Buttigieg does not represent a break from the past.  He is in favor of jailing his fellow veteran and queer sister Chelsea Manning. He is a proud imperialist and an extoller of racist "All Lives Matter" rhetoric.  I, too, am a veteran.  But unlike Buttigieg, my experience made me anti-war, not pro-war.  The leading policy of my campaign is, in fact, to End All Wars.

A Buttigieg presidency unequivocally threatens the well-being of people the world over who are subjected to America's imperialist whims.  He supports drone strikes, concealing war crimes, and growing our military-industrial complex.  There is simply too much life at stake to entertain the deadly ambitions of this McKinsey cypher.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

  But we should be a little more weary of valourizing people who participated in mass genocide of the Vietnamese.  Just straightup mass killing.  

The only people who participated in the mass genocide of the Vietnamese were the north Vietnamese. Stop spreading this crap. The United States military made mistakes in Vietnam, and some individual soldiers committed crimes (such as My Lai) but the implication that we committed a deliberate genocide of the Vietnamese people is a disgusting lie, as disgusting as the lies you are so eager to tell about Israel. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

The only people who participated in the mass genocide of the Vietnamese were the north Vietnamese. Stop spreading this crap. The United States military made mistakes in Vietnam, and some individual soldiers committed crimes (such as My Lai) but the implication that we committed a deliberate genocide of the Vietnamese people is a disgusting lie, as disgusting as the lies you are so eager to tell about Israel. 

As per usual, you are dead wrong Tim.  Official policy incentivized high body counts and indiscriminate bombing.  From '64-'73 the US dropped 2 million tons of ordnance on Laos- the equivalent of a planeload of bombs every 8 minutes for 9 years.  Since the end of the Vietnam War, over 40,000 people have been killed by unexploded ordnance.  Millions of Vietnamese were massacred.  It was a war animated by racist dehumanization of the "####s" and hideous war crimes.  Veterans killed themselves because they couldn't live with the shame of killing innocent people.  There was a clear aggressor and a clear victim.  

These were not well-intentioned "mistakes" that benevolent peacekeepers stumbled into- they were deliberate, coordinated, officially sanctioned crimes against humanity.  And they all died for nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

As per usual, you are dead wrong Tim.  Official policy incentivized high body counts and indiscriminate bombing.  From '64-'73 the US dropped 2 million tons of ordnance on Laos- the equivalent of a planeload of bombs every 8 minutes for 9 years.  Since the end of the Vietnam War, over 40,000 people have been killed by unexploded ordnance.  Millions of Vietnamese were massacred.  It was a war animated by racist dehumanization of the "####s" and hideous war crimes.  Veterans killed themselves because they couldn't live with the shame of killing innocent people.  There was a clear aggressor and a clear victim.  

These were not well-intentioned "mistakes" that benevolent peacekeepers stumbled into- they were deliberate, coordinated, officially sanctioned crimes against humanity.  And they all died for nothing.

As usual you are dead wrong- not in your facts, which are fairly correct, but in your interpretation of them. 

The Vietnam War was a tragedy of mistakes, lies, and ill-thought out support of a corrupt regime. It is true that we sought high body counts because that’s the way we won World War II and we didn’t recognize the futility of trying to fight that kind of war against a popular insurgency. Math whizzes like McNamura were obsessed with figures; it’s a lesson in the dangers of technocracy that we should never forget. 

But- as dumb as we were, as many mistakes as we made, and even a few bad actions, it should never be forgotten that we were fighting against pure evil. The North Vietnamese were a murderous, Stalinist regime who demonstrated again and again a complete disregard for human life. One of the worst regimes to ever exist in human history. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, timschochet said:

As usual you are dead wrong- not in your facts, which are fairly correct, but in your interpretation of them. 

The Vietnam War was a tragedy of mistakes

Stop.  Just stop there.  They were not mistakes- they knew precisely where they targeted those bombs, threw grenades, raped little girls, played "##### (censored word for an Asian slur) hockey", and murdered civilians.  They systematically slaughtered innocent, defenseless people that posed zero threat to them, took breaks to eat lunch, then resumed shooting women and children.  The power dynamic was completely one-sided and asymmetric.  They 'killed anything that moved'.  

A mistake is an accounting error, or making a sandwich wrong.  Not a strategic war of aggression.  Christ almighty Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ren hoek said:

Stop.  Just stop there.  They were not mistakes- they knew precisely where they targeted those bombs, threw grenades, raped little girls, played "##### (censored word for an Asian slur) hockey", and murdered civilians.  They systematically slaughtered innocent, defenseless people that posed zero threat to them, took breaks to eat lunch, then resumed shooting women and children.  The power dynamic was completely one-sided and asymmetric.  They 'killed anything that moved'.  

A mistake is an accounting error, or making a sandwich wrong.  Not a strategic war of aggression.  Christ almighty Tim

Can we get a summation like this on Putin & Assad in the Syria thread? TIA.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Can we get a summation like this on Putin & Assad in the Syria thread? TIA.

Not from ren. If it’s the USA or Israel then we need to assume the worst possible motives and actions. If it’s an evil murderer like Putin or Assad, we can always find an excuse or justification. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I'm waiting for Trump to claim that Buttigieg's service doesn't mean much -- he didn't sacrifice much -- because he wasn't even captured.

Wait til he gets hold of the quote that Buttigieg often served as a driver like "military Uber." (because he was trained to keep watch for ambushes, fire a rifle)
          --------------------->   "Did you see what he did over there, folks? Uber. Can you believe it folks? Uber!"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe Biden is embracing the framework of the Green New Deal in his new climate plan and calling for:

* Spending $1.7 trillion in clean energy

* Net-zero emissions goal by 2050

* Rejoining the Paris climate accord

* Promising aggressive efficiency standards

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/live-blog/meet-press-blog-latest-news-analysis-data-driving-political-discussion-n988541

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to drop in and say how flabbergasted I am that with numerous very good Dem candidates we're still gonna end up running Biden. A guy who has had his incompetence on display for decades and dismissed for this position multiple times over previously. This country just can't get out of its own way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said:

Just wanted to drop in and say how flabbergasted I am that with numerous very good Dem candidates we're still gonna end up running Biden. A guy who has had his incompetence on display for decades and dismissed for this position multiple times over previously. This country just can't get out of its own way.

Biden is definitely in my bottom three of Dem candidates. I'd give almost anything to be able to flip-flop his appeal and numbers with Warren's. I disagree with his policies and I don't like that we've lowered our standards regarding flubs and clumsy statements and past sins so much, even though it's been obvious that it would happen ever since Trump won.

But I think people need to get used to the idea of Biden as the nominee. Old people and African Americans seem to love him, and while it's fine and good to disagree with them it is arrogant and off-putting to refuse to acknowledge the validity of their opinion. And the idea that he's "incompetent" is pretty absurd. He was a US Senator for decades and a Vice-President for 8 years. He knows how federal government and the executive branch function as well as anyone on earth.  He got the VP nominee in part because he could bring foreign affairs expertise to a ticket that would have otherwise lacked it. Saying awkward #### in public a lot doesn't make you incompetent. It's not great, but it's a far cry from incompetence.  And, yeah he's run two other times without winning, but the times have changed.  Most of the other Dem candidates in the field would have been quickly dismissed in 1988 too, albeit for even worse and more outdated reasons.

Anyway, if it makes fellow progressives feel better the next Democratic president isn't gonna be able to do anything of significance legislatively anyway unless the Dems somehow also manage to win the Senate ... something that is more likely if they win the presidential election in a blowout, which won't happen with a progressive nominee. Most of the changes will have to happen administratively, and having a boring centrist in the White House actually greases the wheels on that.  For example an aggressive EPA approach to climate change under Clean Air Act authority will draw less attention and pushback in a Biden administration than if it came from a Sanders administration.

Edited by TobiasFunke
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Mr Anonymous said:

Just wanted to drop in and say how flabbergasted I am that with numerous very good Dem candidates we're still gonna end up running Biden. A guy who has had his incompetence on display for decades and dismissed for this position multiple times over previously. This country just can't get out of its own way.

Establishing a two-time loser (resigned for plagiarism/never got above 1% 2nd time) with serious liabilities (age, gropes & outbursts) as our protection against the Big Bad Wolf is precisely the kind of thinking that got us the Big Bad Wolf in the first place, but the wusses with whom i share a leftist sensibility don't appear to see or care that such is the case. There's a reason i've only voted major party once (Obama, a sheep in wolfhound's clothing) since 1972. 

Edited by wikkidpissah
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, wikkidpissah said:

Establishing a two-time loser (resigned for plagiarism/never got above 1% 2nd time) with serious liabilities (age, gropes & outbursts) as our protection against the Big Bad Wolf is precisely the kind of thinking that got us the Big Bad Wolf in the first place, but the wusses with whom a share a leftist sensibility don't appear to see or care that such is the case. There's a reason i've only voted major party once (Obama, a sheep in wolfhound's clothing) since 1972. 

Wusses? :SMH: :rolleyes:

I would imagine that a poll of Democrats here would not show the same degree of enthusiasm for Biden that the national polls indicate.

But it is still early and I don't think most Democrats are giving the same degree of thought to the candidates that the media is.

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, wikkidpissah said:

Establishing a two-time loser (resigned for plagiarism/never got above 1% 2nd time) with serious liabilities (age, gropes & outbursts) as our protection against the Big Bad Wolf is precisely the kind of thinking that got us the Big Bad Wolf in the first place, but the wusses with whom a share a leftist sensibility don't appear to see or care that such is the case. There's a reason i've only voted major party once (Obama, a sheep in wolfhound's clothing) since 1972. 

You can't make this simplistic argument without addressing the fact that Biden polls better head to head vs Trump in swing states than Clinton- who lost the election by 80,000 votes spread across 3 states- did at any point after Trump was established as the GOP nominee and embraces by the party. 

Maybe you think his numbers will falter (although the opposite is usually true for candidates who emerge from wide open primaries). Maybe you think he'll end up like Clinton for some reason I don't know.  I'm open to hearing about it. But if you ignore the numbers completely the comparison is worthless.

And it's not my place to judge anyone's progressive or leftist credentials, but let's just say that if a person is willing to sit out or vote third party this election and by so doing increase the chances of 4 more years of doing nothing about climate change, and turning away refugees, and ripping innocent children away from their parents and throwing them in cells or in some cases letting them die, and pulling protection for DREAMers, and aggressive repression of the free press, and sanctioned bigotry against the LGBTQ community, and inaction on gun control, and stuffing the judiciary with Federalist Society-approved judges, and defunding Planned Parenthood, and slashing taxes for billionaires ... that person apparently has a very different definition of "leftist" than I do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, squistion said:

Wusses? :SMH: :rolleyes:

I would imagine that a poll of Democrats here would not show the same degree of enthusiasm for Biden that the national polls indicate.

But it is still early and I don't think most Democrats are giving the same degree of thought to the candidates that the media is.

No other way to characterize a party that hasn't put up a leftist in 40+ years. As a Vermonter, i have no respect that Sanders will do anything beyond shouting, but he did catch a spirit the last time around which, other than mistaking Obama for a transformative candidate, was the first time since Reagan and all the party did was go "Whew!" that they had the superdelegates to defeat him with then did the opposite of beating the bushes for real leftist candidates for local races. The Democratic Party is an active. major cause and partner in what is going on in this country RIGHT NOW and it is specifically because they have no care for progress and policy. If the other major party wasn't actually opposing the interests of the dispossessed, they'd have little in the way of membership either.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

You can't make this simplistic argument without addressing the fact that Biden polls better head to head vs Trump in swing states than Clinton- who lost the election by 80,000 votes spread across 3 states- did at any point after Trump was established as the GOP nominee and embraces by the party. 

Maybe you think his numbers will falter (although the opposite is usually true for candidates who emerge from wide open primaries). Maybe you think he'll end up like Clinton for some reason I don't know.  I'm open to hearing about it. But if you ignore the numbers completely the comparison is worthless.

And it's not my place to judge anyone's progressive or leftist credentials, but let's just say that if a person is willing to sit out or vote third party this election and by so doing increase the chances of 4 more years of doing nothing about climate change, and turning away refugees, and ripping innocent children away from their parents and throwing them in cells or in some cases letting them die, and pulling protection for DREAMers, and aggressive repression of the free press, and sanctioned bigotry against the LGBTQ community, and inaction on gun control, and stuffing the judiciary with Federalist Society-approved judges, and defunding Planned Parenthood, and slashing taxes for billionaires ... that person apparently has a very different definition of "leftist" than I do.

:yawn: You're not open to anything

ETA: and any leftist would have a very different definition of leftist than you

Edited by wikkidpissah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wikkidpissah said:

:yawn: You're not open to anything

Sure I am.  I've gone from being a left-center Dem capitalist type to being a far left Warren-supporting type over the last 3-4 years, in part due to conversations I've had in this forum. Anyone who has been been posting regularly in political threads since the pre-Trump days will vouch for me on that.

I don't understand your perspective at all, but if you can convince me that whatever it is that prevents you from casting a vote for an imperfect opposition candidate to Trump- and all the policies he's adopted that I listed- is somehow consistent with left or progressive values, I'm open to changing my mind. It's true that I've had this conversation before with lots of people, and none yet has presented a reason that I think comes even close to outweighing the harm of a permanently conservative judiciary, or abusing immigrant children, or shutting down any and all efforts to address climate change, or any of dozens of other real world things with real and immediate impacts on the less fortunate that the Trump administration has done and will continue to do if he's reelected. But hey, you have a way with words ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.