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

[PeterMP]

5 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

This is how Biden loses against Trump

 

 

I will say, I don't think that's a very effective tool as a sitting President.  I said before that I'd consider not debating Trump, but if I though the idea that me or my son had committed treason over 4 years ago and the current administration had not moved to prosecute the case was going to come up against the sitting President, I'd absolutely take that debate.

 

Some of the stuff Trump did the 1st time will not work the 2nd time.  Trump isn't going to lose his core voters, but in general, screaming corruption when you are the sitting President is a lot less effective then when you are an outsider.

 

(on another note, this is what I hate about the press.  Giuliani is spewing nonsense.  He's accusing an ex-VP and his son of treason.  It isn't the job of the press to investigate that.  We have an FBI and a DOJ for that.  If there are questions that need to be asked there, it is the people that work for the guy (Trump) that he supports.  And those people are part of the press.  They just sit there and let Giuliani attack an organization they are part of to deflect from the incompetence of somebody he supports.

 

They should both be fired or their producer or whoever.

 

And that would have made some nice tv.  'Hey, I hear you, but is that really the presses job?  You're a Trump supporter.  If there is credible evidence that Biden committed treason shouldn't the Executive branch, that he heads, be investigating that?'  Isn't a lack of an investigation really an indication that there is nothing there or is the Trump administration incompetent?.)

[TheGreatBuzz]

15 hours ago, PeterMP said:

For somebody like @TheGreatBuzz 2nd amendment rights are more important than making sure it is easy for people to easily vote.  He's got different balance of what he places as importance.

15 hours ago, PeterMP said:

He's racially apathetic because of his concern over the 2nd amendment.

 

 

I don't think that is a fair statement.  Especially considering the night I decided to leave the GOP was when the Muslim ban was announced.  And if I put the 2nd above all else, I'd have voted R a lot more in 2018.

 

Yes, the 2nd is very important to me.  But that doesn't mean I will sell out everything else for it.

 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

5 hours ago, No Excuses said:

Pretty interesting poll on where the public stands on policy issues:

 

 

Positions of center-left candidates are far more popular than positions of either the right wing or progressive left.

 

Beto is the only candidate I’m aware of the top 6 that is on the right side here of both the healthcare and immigration points. 

[88Comrade2000]

Pretty obvious, Trump is making the 2020 election all about race. More so than 2016. Whitey has be saved from the hoards of the other non whiteys. 2020 election is Trump's race war.

[Bozo the kKklown]

11 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Pretty obvious, Trump is making the 2020 election all about race. More so than 2016. Whitey has be saved from the hoards of the other non whiteys. 2020 election is Trump's race war.

I think you can mobilize more voters who don’t want to associate with racism than those who love it. 

[twa]

36 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Pretty obvious, Trump is making the 2020 election all about race. More so than 2016. Whitey has be saved from the hoards of the other non whiteys. 2020 election is Trump's race war.

 

Will your head explode if black and hispanic votes give him the win?

[Cooked Crack]

31 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Will your head explode if black and hispanic votes give him the win?

You been watching too many Trump rallies. "Blacks for Trump" is not a real thing.

[twa]

13 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

You been watching too many Trump rallies. "Blacks for Trump" is not a real thing.

 

and that is not a answer

[CousinsCowgirl84]

54 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Will your head explode if black and hispanic votes give him the win?

 

 

What makes you think that is remotely possible? Hmm, unless we are talking voter suppression... Eg not voting is a vote...

[twa]

2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

What makes you think that is remotely possible? Hmm, unless we are talking voter suppression... Eg not voting is a vote...

 

it only takes a minor shift in those two, it is not like he needs a majority or even near it.

 

The Dems immigration stance is troublesome to a significant percentage of both.

[Bozo the kKklown]

1 hour ago, Cooked Crack said:

You been watching too many Trump rallies. "Blacks for Trump" is not a real thing.

That and he reads goofy nonsense.

 

He is another person that doesn’t live in reality.

[88Comrade2000]

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

Will your head explode if black and hispanic votes give him the win?

I'm sure he will get some black and hispanic votes; he did last time.   

 

Trump wins again, it's the white vote voting for him in large numbers again; in key states and the non-white white isn't as much.

[Rufus T Firefly]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

What makes you think that is remotely possible? Hmm, unless we are talking voter suppression... Eg not voting is a vote...

His response is where I figured he was going with this. Trump won like 8% of the black vote and 28% of the hispanic vote and the argument is that those groups "gave him the victory". It's a dumb way of looking at things. Quite literally, the same logic could be used to say Hillary won the popular vote because Republicans gave the win to her. 

[Burgold]

5 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

His response is where I figured he was going with this. Trump won like 8% of the black vote and 28% of the hispanic vote and the argument is that those groups "gave him the victory". It's a dumb way of looking at things. Quite literally, the same logic could be used to say Hillary won the popular vote because Republicans gave the win to her. 

I think he's also thinking that rigged voting machines could easily convert minority votes into Trump votes. Although they have to do is hack the counting systems or lie. Twa is right to doubt the integrity of the system or its security. Honestly, it's my biggest fear about the upcoming election. If Trump gets Putinesque numbers or even wins every close race I will trust the results as much as I do the runaway "democratic" victories of a South American dictator.

[twa]

8 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

That and he reads goofy nonsense.

 

He is another person that doesn’t live in reality.

 

 

 I do read here quite a bit now that you mention it. 

 

Reality is what you make of it.

 

 

[PeterMP]

13 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

I don't think that is a fair statement.  Especially considering the night I decided to leave the GOP was when the Muslim ban was announced.  And if I put the 2nd above all else, I'd have voted R a lot more in 2018.

 

Yes, the 2nd is very important to me.  But that doesn't mean I will sell out everything else for it.

 

I don't think that is a fair statement.  Especially considering the night I decided to leave the GOP was when the Muslim ban was announced.  And if I put the 2nd above all else, I'd have voted R a lot more in 2018.

 

Yes, the 2nd is very important to me.  But that doesn't mean I will sell out everything else for it.

 

Ok.  I didn't mean to suggest that you are a single issue voter on the 2nd.  But it has been clear for years the Republicans look to restrict voting as a way to win elections.

 

There was a PA representative back in 2008 or 2012 claiming they won PA for the Republicans candidate (I believe it was Romney and 2012) by passing a voter ID law.  It was known prior to the 2016 election that NC was walking back some of the regulations they had put in place to make it easier to vote, especially access in minority heavy districts.

 

Attempts at voter suppression by the GOP aren't new, and you still supported the GOP.

 

And I think @Fresh8686 would tell you staying with the Trump and the Republicans that long shows a level of racial apathy.

 

(And I don't believe you've said that you are voting Democrat in 2020 (though I could be wrong), which again from @Fresh8686 perspective is being racially apathetic.)

 

You might not consider yourself racially apathetic, but @Fresh8686 would seem to say at least you lean that way.

 

(Racial issues are not as important to you as they are to him so in his eye that makes you racially apathetic.  You don't see in that way because you have a different balance of views.  Apathy is in the eye of the beholder.)

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

And I don't believe you've said that you are voting Democrat in 2020 (though I could be wrong), which again from @Fresh8686 perspective is being racially apathetic.)

 

I'm definitely leaning hard that way.  But it'll depend on who ends up getting the nomination and what they say leading up to the general.  But I absolutely will not vote Trump.  One litmus test I have for any candidate is do they support trump.  If so, they will not get my vote.

[Fresh8686]

And just to be clear, it's not just racial apathy, it's apathy towards women's autonomy, LGBTQ protections , religious diversity, etc. It's a dynamic mixture that will be applicable in part or in whole to different people still open to voting for Trump that all sit on that spectrum. There is a spectrum of apathy as well for the Left towards what the Trump supporters and others value, that could include things like gun rights, free speech, and fetal protections.

No one comes out clean in this, but there is a reasonable pathway through all that if one takes the time and effort to touch all those things and feel their impact. That's how we get a rationally AND emotionally balanced context from which to make decisions. The problem is, few people on either side (or at least the vocal ones) take the time to touch both sides and camp/de-camp from their entrenched positions. For example, I can't have guns, my freedom for that has been taken away so I derive no personal gain from supporting further protections of the 2nd amendment. However, I exercise empathy for those who do and share space with me in this country and am willing to support and defend a reasonable level of protection and interpretation of that amendment for gun owners, because I want to care about those people.

I feel that same empathy for our rural population and everyone else being squeezed by the system we're all living in. I don't hate white people, I'm half-white myself and understand the unique racial challenges they have to face which they get little validation for. I see how many are in this weird space that comes from our society not being able to differentiate categories of privilege/leverage, like economic vs racial leverage and in what domains and degrees these different categories are present/dominant. And then the wrong people from that race get demonized and sometimes scape-goated, while the ones deserving of accountability shield themselves through power or act out through pawns/proxies.

I've taken the time to see and understand all that and see why their hurting and why their angry, while still not accepting or approving of manifestations of that hurt, that lead to Trump, extremism, and destruction. I will stand up for them and against the extremists on the Left who want retribution and a chance for their turn at the head of the power dynamic, rather than a goldilocks zone balance of freedom, equality, and shared responsibility.

We're all supposed to be on the same team and feel for each other and offer a reasonable level of protection for each other. Which is why, I'm so hurt and alarmed when people are apathetic to unreasonable/unconscionable efforts of corruption, oppression, and destruction against people who need protection. And not just the protection of people, but my god, the protection of our institutions and democracy itself.

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Fresh8686 said:

And just to be clear, it's not just racial apathy, it's apathy towards women's autonomy, LGBTQ protections , religious diversity, etc. It's a dynamic mixture that will be applicable in part or in whole to different people still open to voting for Trump that all sit on that spectrum. There is a spectrum of apathy as well for the Left towards what the Trump supporters and others value, that could include things like gun rights, free speech, and fetal protections.

We're all supposed to be on the same team and feel for each other and offer a reasonable level of protection for each other. Which is why, I'm so hurt and alarmed when people are apathetic to unreasonable/unconscionable efforts of corruption, oppression, and destruction against people who need protection. And not just the protection of people, but my god, the protection of our institutions and democracy itself.

 

Have you ever had  a real conversation with somebody on the far right?

 

I actually think I'm pretty moderate on guns (and I think polls back that up), but I think using similar (not the same or equal) logic that you have @TheGreatBuzz would make an equal argument for me being apathetic towards gun rights and certainly any Democratic Presidential candidate.

 

He thinks gun rights are under assault NOW, not just from the far left or possibly some time in the future (he wants a federal conceal carry permit, which no Democratic Presidential candidate would support and every Democratic Presidential candidate is going to support further restrictions on guns).

 

40+% of women showed up to vote for Trump and against the first major female Presidential candidate ever.  Yet you are suggesting they are apathetic about women's issues.  Doesn't suggesting that 40+% of the female voting population (and really, plus the ones that could have voted and didn't) are apathetic to women's autonomy give you pause?

 

Conservative Christians will tell you that religious diversity (their religious diversity) is under attack now (because of protections to LGBTQ).

 

Many people will tell you that our democratic institutions have been under attack for decades (because of the federal bureaucracy and the courts (e.g.  Roe v. Wade and may of the actions of the EPA are actually an attack on our democratic institutions).

 

(And I think the EPA and the Supreme Court over the last ~60 years have done a lot of good and more good than bad, and I think a lot of time and a lot of people on the right are intellectually dishonest because they'll scream state rights on one issue and completely chop the states off at the knees on another.  But I'm also not sure that way some of the things were done were really for the best in the long term.)

 

Yes, many would agree that Trump is an attack on our democratic institutions, but he's also pushing back against decades long attack on our democratic institutions on another front.  That will be continued by any of the Democratic Presidential candidates.

 

They don't see a better option, and they'll live with Trump as a short term push against the longer term attack.

 

(twa posts a lot of garbage.   IMO, in the last year or so he is posting more and more garbage (from garbage web sites).  But when he posts something that actually represents what he thinks (not just a link with a drive by statement or a drive by statement), I'd suggest you try to read it carefully and consider that's somebody realsopinion (I don't think he's a Russian plant or a bot (he's been here too long for that)-, and there are a reasonable number of people out there (~45%) that think that way and will likely vote for Trump.  It is easy to dismiss twa as whatever, but for about 45% of the voting public, that's what you are dealing with.)

 

More generally, I'd say this country has (almost, I mean we had GW at the start and a few cases like FDR along the way) always been push and pull.  It has (almost) always been adversarial in nature.  We move forward in fits and starts as we fight with each other.

[Jumbo]

On 7/20/2019 at 1:17 PM, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Does this mean I've earned a custom title under my screen name yet?

 

 

given this place may be dante's secret tenth ring (not to be confused with shang-chi/mandarin), be careful what you ask for 

[Fresh8686]

@PeterMP

 

I feel you and that's why I carefully wrote that the apathy is a dynamic issue that translates on both sides with different mixtures and compositions that can be wholly or partially applicable to different people on that spectrum. Those dynamics are important and I mentioned them specifically so we don't fall into generalities about apathy or fail to see how it effects everyone in different degrees across different parallel tracks that may or may not overlap.

Like I said, no one comes out clean in all this. We all need to be better and put in effort so that we improve the quality of tension between both sides and keep a level of positive, reasonable overlap that is essential to the social fabric. Yes, the push and pull tension is adversarial, but that is not the only component in the mixture and it's important that the sub tension of competition and cooperation are balanced so the larger milieu of the push and pull of ideology don't lead to worse escalations that severs connection and leads to more violence.

I work in construction and got a couple guys who are right to far right and we get along well for the most part. But, that's because we've built trust/rapport and can have conversations and some common ground while getting past initial triggers and pre-conceived notions of the other side. However, there are also extremists who I can't **** with, because their positions are too far to find common ground or they are unrealistic to begin with.
 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

4 hours ago, twa said:

Reality is what you make of it.

Pretty well sums up why we are where we are.

[No Excuses]

16 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Beto is the only candidate I’m aware of the top 6 that is on the right side here of both the healthcare and immigration points. 

 

I've been thinking lately as to why Beto didn't catch on for me and I think it came down to the fact that he came across as totally spineless at the early stages of his campaign. Like did anyone really think Beto is sexist? The mob went after him anyways. And like every good spineless liberal, he caved. He did the whole "oooh I'm sorry I'm not woke enough yet" thing, where as I wished he would have either ignored it or given the sanctimonious twitter mob the finger.

 

It's something I've been thinking about lately. Most of the Democratic parties base is probably center-left liberals, who really aren't all that interested in wokeness competitions and latching onto every social indiscretion and canceling people out. Even cancel culture, I used to be quite on the fence about it, but after seeing enough evidence of it in play, I think is a total loser. It cancels people out who are either not the problem or really on the boundary of problematic and decent, but sensible enough to maybe see the errors in their way. Who it doesn't cancel are the very people that should be cancelled and especially their bad ideas. It kind of worked in driving some of the more extreme right wingers like Milo out of work, but it hardly defeated their bad ideas. As a tool, it seems more useful in punishing individuals, and not the actual issue of bad and dangerous ideologies while giving them a platform to scream persecution.

 

It's not a very good system and honestly, it's one of those bad ideas that the left seems to have borrowed from the right. Sanctimonious asshole-ry and cancelling people was once the sole domain of evangelicals and social conservatives, but now seems to be a blunt force tool for anyone who wants to engage in bad faith politics.

 

I think at this point, how a candidate skirts the edges of controversy, especially dumb mob-manufactured controversy, is a litmus test for me in who I vote for. Beto failed this hardcore right at the beginning, although there is a lot to like about him otherwise. I am tired of spineless liberals, and if you can't stand up to the bad faith actors in your own party, you won't be doing much better against the historical champions of bad faith politics in the opposition.

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

I'm only on page 2 of the PBS/Marist poll, but it has some interesting stuff.  

 

If you subscribe to the concept that the coming elections will be won in the suburbs, the poll has support for Trump like this:

 

Small city/Suburban men - 49% approve/48% disapprove. (+1)

Small city/Suburban women - 33% approve/62% disapprove. (-29)

 

Given that more women are going to vote than men, this looks bad from Trump.  

 

The group that supports Trump the most (not counting political ideology) is, you guessed it, White Evangelical Xtians at 73%.  Least is white women with a college education at 64%.

 

Surprisingly, the generation that approves of Trump the most is Gen X (55%), NOT Boomers (46) or Silent (41).  WTF Gen X, this goes against everything I ever learned from Jagged Little Pill.