Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

3 hours ago, Springfield said:

 

Its matters because it’s all subjective to the person who’s being touched.  Suppose we should just all live in bubbles and politicians shouldn’t pick up and kiss babies.  No more hand shakes or hugs.

 

We are going overboard, tripping ourselves up to call something harrsssment and put down someone.

 

Biden is the only chance we have to unseat Trump.

 

Handshakes and hugs aren’t the same as unprovoked kissing on the back of the head. It doesn’t have to be rapey to be wrong. nobody is calling Biden a monster over this but it’s still wrong.

 

In what world is that acceptable workplace behavior? I’m sure you’d be ok if your wife’s boss or coworker kissed her head or was constantly putting their hands all over her shoulders and hips. 

 

Just because some woman or women didn’t find it offensive doesn’t mean it isn’t. 

[visionary]

 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

Beto pledges to sign an executive order as president requiring each cabinet secretary to hold a monthly town hall. Really makes you wonder why this isn’t already in place  

 

Quote

"Not a handpicked audience. Not a theatrical production. But a real, live, town hall meeting -- not just to answer questions, but to be held accountable," O'Rourke told progressive activists at the We the People Summit in Washington.

 

 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

43 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

I don’t think anybody is denying this. But that’s not really the issue here. Again, I don’t see people calling Biden a sexual assaulter or a monster. That doesn’t mean what he is doing is appropriate either.

 

To his credit, he answered this really well. It’s not always about intent. Sometimes, we take things for granted and just don’t know that what we are doing is wrong. I think you should know this but a lot of this behavior has been ingrained and established as a normalcy for so long. This movement is about awareness and accountability. If your intent was innocent, sometimes you just have to apologize and try to learn from this. Behavior you thought was ok isn’t always ok. We grow and learn and move forward as better people 

[Bozo the kKklown]

15 hours ago, Mooka said:

Goes both ways, Bernie Sanders didn't suffer false accusations or hit pieces from pro-Clinton or more established media? Russian troll farms aren't the most active/powerful media in this country you know.

 

I'm still amazed I read on this board how the Bernie Sanders supporters are responisble for Trump on a regular basis. (last I checked we're down to Bernie Sanders supporters that didn't vote Clinton are responsible, pretty much me, 1 person in this entire country)

 

Notice i.dont repeatedly blame the Democratics for Trump despite:

 

35% of democrats didn't vote. More then Republicans or Bernie Bros.

 

More Democrats voted for Trump then Republicans voted Clinton or Bernie Bros voted Trump. (#s and %s)

 

Y'all need a new boogeyman.

And more Bernie supporters voted for Clinton than Clinton supporters voted for Obama in 2008. Again, I remember the PUMAs even though some here want to forget.

[Bozo the kKklown]

7 hours ago, visionary said:

 

 

No one cares what this doofus has to say.

 

Also, I’m good on Pete B

 

Former Police Chief Darryl Boykins files discrimination complaint with EEOC

 

South Bend police wiretapping dispute continues

 

 

First black police chief in Southbend recorded racist cops being racists. Mayor Pete demoted him and then tried to get him on Fed wiretapping charges. (Was subsequently thrown out)

[Bozo the kKklown]

 

https://splinternews.com/elizabeth-warrens-top-money-guy-quits-because-she-wont-1833707206 

Quote

It turns out that 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren wasn’t joking about swearing off large donations from rich people. In fact, she’s so committed to it that her decision to reject big donors has apparently led to the resignation of her finance director, Michael Pratt, according to CNN.

 

An aide for Warren told CNN on Sunday that Pratt is “still a consultant [for the campaign] but winding things down and transitioning out since we made the decision not to have [Warren] do high dollar events.”

 

For most candidates, leaving big donations behind seems both impossible and foolish. But Warren’s team says forgoing fundraising has allowed the candidate to focus more on spending time in the field with voters.

 

According to the New York Times, Pratt resigned after a meeting with Warren in mid-February that “grew heated.” Pratt apparently told Warren that “campaigns often collapse when they run out of money and pleaded with her not to cut off a significant cash stream.”

None of those present at the meeting responded to CNN’s request for comment about the meeting.

 

The news broke on Sunday, which was the deadline for the end of the first quarter of campaign fundraising. Soon, we should learn more about how much money each candidate has raised. There is already some speculation that Warren’s campaign is lagging in that department.

1

 

[LD0506]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NoCalMike]

I like how she never justifies why she voted for Trump over Hillary besides, "it was a joke" and "I didn't think he would win"  Is there a longer segment on that panel? Did she state matter of fact that she would vote for the (D) candidate this go around?

[Fresh8686]

2 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

No one cares what this doofus has to say.

 

Also, I’m good on Pete B

 

Former Police Chief Darryl Boykins files discrimination complaint with EEOC

 

South Bend police wiretapping dispute continues

 

 

First black police chief in Southbend recorded racist cops being racists. Mayor Pete demoted him and then tried to get him on Fed wiretapping charges. (Was subsequently thrown out)

Eh, this isn't entirely accurate. From what I've read the cops were alleged to have said racist **** according to Police Communications Director Karen DePaepe, but Mayor Pete didn't initiate the investigation according to this article.

http://articles.southbendtribune.com/2012-03-31/news/31268671_1_chief-boykins-darryl-boykins-first-black-police

Plus, the recording was found to be illegal because no consent was given for the recordings. Further, the article below alleges that Boykin continued to record other conversations without consent and used them to harass and accuse officers of being disloyal. Who knows how true some of those harassment allegations are, but this situation isn't as clear cut as you're making it out to be. 

https://wsbt.com/news/local/officers-former-chief-intimidated---threatened-them-over-wiretap

https://www.southbendtribune.com/news/local/from-youngest-mayor-to-smart-streets-a-timeline-of-pete/article_74f5ca74-ddb4-5bc3-915f-a4773c7db8f8.html

To me, what you have here is Mayor Pete choosing not to release tapes because they were acquired illegally rather than him not releasing the tapes for racist or nefarious means. What do you do when a police chief finds racism, but did so by using illegal means?

I'm open to different information though if you can find it. I like what I've heard from the dude so far, but we need to see the warts if they are there.

This article uses Pete's own words to explain his decision.

https://www.southbendtribune.com/news/politics/police-tapes-pence-immigration-raid-rumor-what-we-learned-from/article_3d871e0c-1dfe-5339-8f18-eea5a90a4560.html
 

Quote

When he demoted Boykins to captain in March 2012, he knew only that Boykins, believing that some other officers wanted his job, had allegedly confronted them with tape recordings that could embarrass them if disclosed, Buttigieg writes. Shortly after the demotion, media outlets began reporting on “rumors” that the tapes contained evidence of officers using racist language to describe Boykins.
 

A civilian police employee who listened to the tapes said the officers used racist language and discussed their own criminal activities.
 

Buttigieg writes that federal prosecutors sent him a “thinly veiled” message that they would charge Boykins if he didn’t step down, so he had to decide which scenario was more likely to “tear the community apart — a well-liked African American police chief potentially being indicted over compliance with a very technical federal law, or me removing him for allowing it to reach this point?”
 

But something had to change.
 

“Even leaving aside that I believed removing him was the best way to avoid him facing potential legal action, I had lost confidence in the leadership of a chief who had not come to me the moment he realized he was the target of an FBI investigation.”

 

[Bozo the kKklown]

But they didn't charge him and he never stepped down. He actually rescinded his resignation and got demoted.

[Fresh8686]

Just now, BenningRoadSkin said:

But they didn't charge him and he never stepped down. He actually rescinded his resignation and got demoted.

It's a messy situation no doubt. I'm trying to find information about why the federal case was dropped. I found this from state...

http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/Police+tape+documents.pdf
 

Quote

The Court finds that the recordings made on Young’s line on or before February 4, 2011, did not violate § 2511(1)(a) of the Wiretap Act. Furthermore, because the Wiretap Act does not control unintentional recordings, their disclosure would not violate the Act. However, the recordings after February 4, 2011, violated the Wiretap Act and are prohibited from disclosure.

I wonder if Pete tried to push him to resign because he thought dude would be charged, but then Boykin maybe thought he had a chance to beat the case on second thought and changed his mind about resigning. But, Pete still felt like he couldn't trust him after all this, but didn't want to fire him because of community concerns and demoted him instead?

And what's crazy about this is now everyone has settled and gotten paid. Boykin got $50,000, the allegedly racist cops got $500,000 collectively and they all agreed that
 

Quote

In addition, the city and the plaintiffs "agree that neither is aware of any evidence of illegal activity by the plaintiffs or any evidence that reveals that the plaintiffs used any racist word against former Police Chief Darryl Boykins," the settlements state.
 

That contradicts, at least in part, a claim by former Communications Director Karen DePaepe that the tapes at the center of the controversy contain evidence of officers "engaged in serious acts of misconduct" and "racially derogatory statements relating to other ranking officers," including Boykins.

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

I've yet to hear a reason (in the last 3-4 years) why I should favor someone who refuses to identify as a Democrat for the D nomination.

[Simmsy]

1 hour ago, NoCalMike said:

I like how she never justifies why she voted for Trump over Hillary besides, "it was a joke" and "I didn't think he would win"  Is there a longer segment on that panel? Did she state matter of fact that she would vote for the (D) candidate this go around?

There is, but I couldn't watch more than a few minutes, some of these women are just too stupid to listen to.

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[LadySkinsFan]

Going into this election season, we are hearing about "socialism" from the right. They have reason to be concerned, because socialism is the antithesis of the austerity policies that the right favors to control the population. 

 

The linked article describes what happened in the recent past when Portugal embraced the socialist policies that turned that country around, lowering unemployment figures and deficits, and increasing the economy. This is a direct consequence of ousting the right wing government and electing a socialist minority party that is working in coalition with other minority parties to instill the socialist policies that have turned the country around.

 

https://kontrast.at/portugal-economy-right-wing/amp/?fbclid=IwAR22erPz5StNEjrO6kdPN065GF8VG75biq8m-MDEtkMwL2q2zIFA-OfcyZc

 

[redskinss]

[Mooka]

3 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

I've yet to hear a reason (in the last 3-4 years) why I should favor someone who refuses to identify as a Democrat for the D nomination.

 

Because Trump.

 

And it'll be your fault when he wins again because you were busy squabbling over Democrat or whatever.

 

Starting to see the hypocrisy yet?

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

2 minutes ago, Mooka said:

 

Because Trump.

 

And it'll be your fault when he wins again because you were busy squabbling over Democrat or whatever.

 

Starting to see the hypocrisy yet?

 

Not really.  I didn't say I wouldn't vote for Bernie if nominated. I'll vote early and often for almost anyone on the D ticket against Trump. Bernie Bros won't and didn't.. 

 

Again, why should I favor Bernie for the D nom when he's made it clear for 30+ years that he won't call himself a Democrat? Aren't there better options for the entire party than someone who won't associate with it?

 

[Mooka]

Just now, The Evil Genius said:

 

Not really.  I didn't say I wouldn't vote for Bernie if nominated. I'll vote early and often for almost anyone on the D ticket against Trump. Bernie Bros won't and didn't.. 

 

 

This is the false narrative you keep repeating.

 

Bernie Bros voted for Clinton. End of story, they voted Clinton. A small % of dip****s voted Trump. About the same % as Democrats. About a third didn't vote or went 3rd party. (35% of democrats didn't vote)

 

You have anything to backup your claims? I have a the exit polling data ready.

 

You're basing your narrative on what the media has told you. Just like the GOP

 

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

I wonder if “the media” will perpetrate another convention walkout?

 

Every dip**** Bernie Bro who voted third party was a defacto vote for Trump and that was understood as such at the time it was cast.

[visionary]