Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
So it is your legal opinion and assertion that the Attorney General of the United States has no authority or jurisdiction to investigate claims and accusations voter fraud in a Presidential election? And to do so is an abuse of power?
you clearly didn't bother to read what I wrote. His memo served no purpose. All it said was that the Justice Department would do what the justice department has always done. Therefore the reason to write it was political. To make it seem like the justice department was investigating fraud, when no such fraud exists.
This one isn't so much abuse of power as it is him showing he just a political hatchet man there to make the justice department serve trump's personal whims. In this case by giving the impression the justice department agrees with the conspiracy theories that there was fraud during the election.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
The reality, my history-ignoring friend, is that several states are in automatic recount, and several others with lawsuits filed in court, the which process will conclude one way or the other, but in the meantime, until the Electoral Votes, Dec 14, you can project all you want, but the projection is not reality until Dec 14. Get it?
so your argument is that there might be not one, but several, monumentally unlikely things that could change the course of the election? The odds of that are a million to one. And because of that million to one chance that Trump could still win, we should prevent the biden team from preparing to do their jobs, thus potentially endangering national security and american lives, just to protect trump's ego?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Give an example of Barr abusing his power as Attorney general. I don't see how anyone who hasn't done shit could possibly be abusing their power.
well, lets look at just this week. He issued a memo saying that the justice department will investigate all credible cases of fraud. This memo makes no sense. The justice department has a branch that does exactly that. His memo is basically just saying what they already do. But the point was to make it look like the trump justice department is actively investigating fraud to help feed into the narrative that there was fraud. This memo was entirely political.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
theres plently of evidence
no, there's plenty of hearsay and a couple of cases of human error. That is evidence of no fraud being committed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
What you so easily pass off as "real world practice" is nothing but the fourth estate's usurpation of the first estate's documented privilege, as if "practice," aka "tradition" were so bloody important.
no, the president elect is only official after the electoral college votes. But since we already know how they will vote, that is a formality. Pretending like Joe biden isn't the president elect is dangerous. Both because it will get millions of people to reject the outcome of the election as fraudulent, even though it isn't. and also because it means that when biden takes over in january, his team will be much less prepared to take over because trump has blocked his team from having access to the information and resources they need for the transition.
Trump is endangering american lives by pretending reality isn't reality.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
trump won
that's it, keep repeating the same lies over and over. It doesn't matter if there is no evidence that it's true. The dear leader says it is, so reality must be wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
00:00 Sidney Powell - Sunday morning
this is just talking heads, no evidence here.
03:43 "Glitch" gave DEM got 6000 votes meant for GOP
this one contains some outright lies. There was a human error that was quickly caught and fixed. there was no fraud and no evidence the software caused a problem.
04:24 Election worker in Michigan lists many "glitches", all favoring DEM
1 was a human error that was quickly corrected, the poll workers being denied access has had 2 lawsuits already that have been tossed out for lack of evidence, they mention the same lies as the previous one as well.
07:43 From Tucker Carlson 2020-11-10
another talking head discussing what people claim to have seen, but have absolutely no evidence of. do you not understand that people making baseless claims isn't evidence?
11:39 Lou Dobbs & Rudy Giuliani
more talking heads with no evidence provided. If this is accurate then the lawsuits wouldn't be getting tossed out of court.
Again, these are all people saying they saw something or that they talked to someone who says they saw something without a single piece of actual evidence being provided. Nothing in these clips that I have seen is remotely evidence of fraud.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
this is just some dude claiming he is supposed to be able to watch. There is no evidence provided that is supposed to be able to, also no evidence provided that they stopped him. It is just a guy ranting at a camera.
random members of the public aren't allowed to watch this. They are handling people's votes. People's votes are secret. You can't just let any idiot film that.
01:42 Inspector not allowed in Philadelphia
they explain in the video that his piece of paper doesn't grant him access to that location. There is no evidence provided that this is untrue.
02:16 Angry poll counter throws out ballot
there is absolutely no context given. there are votes that are invalid. they get thrown out. Why would a video of that happening be evidence of fraud?
02:49 Burning Trump votes
so a person burns some pieces of paper and claims they are ballots. You seriously think this is evidence of anything? This is probably just a trump supporter trying to make up phoney evidence of fraud. This video makes no sense.
04:00 Woman finds box with 500 unregistered ballots
a woman claims to have found evidence, but has absolutely no evidence.
I'm going to stop now. every single one of these clips is just bullshit or heresay. There isn't a single shred of evidence in here.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
in other threads to you, i dont fell like repeating myself
well, since no such evidence exists that one can actually find, i'm guessing what you are referring to is all nonsense and hearsay. So no, there is presently no evidence that anyone committed fraud.
Trump lost.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
How can Barr be a political hatchet when he has done nothing?
because he regularly abuses the power of his office to help trump politically. The reason why you think he has done nothing, is because he hasn't actually framed people for crimes the way you would like him to. But he had done pretty much everything short of that that he can to help trump.
Created:
Posted in:
Well it is the difference between the constitutionally required deadline and the actual real world practice. The constitution requires the electoral college to vote and the winner of that vote is the president elect. However, we already know that Joe Biden is the president elect. He won the election. No one ever waits until the electoral college vote to begin the transition period. All that would do is cause a delay in the new administration being prepared to do it's job.
Created:
Posted in:
That depends on the motives of the person pushing for them. If there is already proof of ID required and you push for several more to be required, you are intentionally adding more hoops that people will have to jump through even though it adds no benefit. That is a blatant attempt at voter suppression. If you are aware that people of color are less likely to have additional ID and have more difficulty in obtaining additional ID, then you are knowingly engaging in voter suppression, and also know that the people most likely to be affected by it are people of color. At that point it becomes racist because you are intentionally trying to suppress the votes of people of color.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I have already provided evidence
where? direct me to where you provided evidence. But since evidence does not exist (as shown by the 10 lawsuits trump has filed and have been thrown out for having no evidence), i seriously doubt that you can.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Actually he won when every legal vote is counted
what does that even mean? do you have any evidence that votes aren't being counted? Because trump has so far had 10 lawsuits tossed out because he makes accusations and has absolutely zero evidence to back any of it up.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Biden has the potential to be dangerous based on things he said during his campaign.
virtually all of his campaign was "i'm not trump". He offered very little in change in his campaign. I don't see how anything he said could be interpreted as "dangerous".
How? with armed people busting down doors?
literally no one has suggested that.
He's going to try and ban mail order ammo sales.
so? how is that an issue? Why shouldn't someone have to show up and prove they are a allowed to own guns and ammo in order to purchase it?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Republicans just need to find a credible candidate for next time....Because it was only Trump that lost this election...
yeah. And ironically, if trump had just taken Covid seriously, he probably would have won in a landslide. But instead he just lied and undermined government responses to it and screwed himself (and america) over hard. Biden just had to promise to listen to doctors, and that was enough.
Biden was just, clearly the better a option.
I prefer to think of him as the less horrible option. Trump was dangerous in the "is he going to nuke a country" kind of way. Biden is dangerous in the sense that he doesn't really want to fix any of america's problems. He wants to make minor changes around the edges. He helped designed america's flawed system. He doesn't really want to fix the things he and his colleagues broke.
But that kind of thinking is what led to trump in the 1st place.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
trump won, but they will say he lost
trump lost the popular vote by millions. He lost in critical swing states too. He lost. I know you will continue to believe conspiracy theories about "dead people voting" or whatever other bullshit you get on fox news. But no one has any actual evidence that fraud occurred.
Trump lost.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
There is ample evidence to indict people involved in the Russia Muller probe and the Joe Biden/ Hunter Biden money laundering and pay to play crimes.
this is just sad. You honestly believe that there are people to indict over things where no crimes were committed? This is what happens when people only listen to far right wing news sources that repeat nothing but bullshit. They seriously believe that people should be prosecuted when no crimes have been committed.
It's just like all the "voter fraud" the right is whining about. Even though no one has come up with evidence that any fraud occurred, millions of sheep believe it.
Bottom line, Barr has been a political hatchet man for Trump since the moment he was appointed. He has been a good little lap dog. But unless he is literally arresting innocent people on made up charges, it isn't enough for trump cultists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YeshuaBought
I am a racial unity supporter so no talk if racism.
could you clarify for me what precisely this means to you? does this mean expelling/killing anyone who is from a different race?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Bloodbaths coming for Democrats in the House and Senate if Biden is officially declared the next President
Biden has already won
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
he did better than house dems because he cheated
this is just getting sad. Trump lost, deal with it.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
biden supports a fifteen dollar minimum wage
that's good. But the fact that I haven't heard anything about that (and also that he is rumored to be filling his cabinet with right wing hacks) makes me think this is not a priority of his presidency.
universal healthcare
no he doesn't. He wants to make minor tweaks to obama care that would get more people healthcare, but definitely not all.
you must really be splitting hairs if u dont think this is progressive enough.
how so? the minimum wage increase is a good start, but frankly that is just the tip of the iceberg. Take a look at this article. If the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation it would be much higher than $15 per hour. While this is a good step in the right direction, it is a bandaid on gunshot wound. The buying power of workers has diminished significantly over the last few decades. While I agree this is a good step, it isn't anywhere near far enough to fix our economy's issues.
He doesn't support universal healthcare, he just wants to make minor changes to the failed right wing plan obama tried to implement. So that is nowhere near progressive enough.
And I agree free college is a step in the right direction. But again, he is filling his cabinet with right wing people. When his plan to start with is kind of weak, will what he actually does even come close? Obama promised universal health care and didn't get anywhere near that.
this is the trifecta that bernie always howls about. the only difference, is bernie just wants to throw money at college with an open checkbook, and maybe he wants to get gov's healthcare costs under control, but most people dont care about government's costs as long as their healthcare is affordable.
no, the difference is that Bernie's plans actually accomplish those goals. It makes sure that every american gets healthcare. It makes sure that every american gets access to higher education. Biden's plans mean a few more people get healthcare, millions wont. And the cost of that healthcare will still be way too high for millions more. It means that students will have access so some higher education. but it remains to be seen how much or how easily.
The difference is that Sanders' plan aims to fix a problem, while biden attempts to make a problem a bit less bad.
i think u and i agree that the future of success in politics is who will be the most populist? but that doesn't always mean being the most liberal.
I agree. but since the populist policy usually is nothing like the democratic party position, that is a serious problem. Biden's made some weak promises that if implemented as promised would make things better. But they have no chance of fixing the issue entirely. And since we all saw Obama make big promises then fail to keep most of them, I am supremely skeptical that Biden, a right wing democrat, will fight hard to keep these promises he was forced to make.
it's about being the most moderate, on all things populist. u can't be cross partyideologicaly populist, unless u r a moderate.
you are falling into the useless definition's again. the word "moderate" doesn't mean anything. there are lots of people who are socially moderate, but would love medicare for all. They would describe themselves as moderate. So saying you need to be populist but "moderate" is a meaningless sentence.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
People who actually look at what the dem's want to do (as well as the dems themselves) say they want to "change nothing". Biden said it himself at fundraiser for high dollar donors.Do you have any evidence or proof of this to share with me?
Here is an article which discusses biden promising nothing would fundamentally change if he was elected and basically saying that he won't tax the wealthy.
I mean the cages trump locked children in, were built by obama to lock children in.The Obama administration did not have a policy to separate families arriving illegally at the border. Family separations rarely happened under the Obama administration, which sought to keep families together in detention. Then, based on a court decision, it released families together out of detention.
I agree that trump escalated the policy. But basically all trump did was take something that was already happening (family separation) and make it the intended policy goal. I agree that is terrible, but don't pretend Obama wasn't also separating families.
Their plan is to roll back trump's tax cuts, but i haven't seen any evidence they are willing to go much further than that.What do you mean by this?
I mean they plan to roll back trump's tax cuts, but don't intend to go much further than that. So he isn't "raising taxes on the rich", he is reverting back to the obama era tax rate.
A return to Obama era policies is fundamental change from the status quo of Trump's policies, correct?
not really no. Most of trump's policies are the same as any other republicans policies. And most democratic policies are extremely similar to those republican policies. There are isolated cases where trump's policies were radically different, but for the most part his policy was cookie cutter republican.
Nonetheless you haven't denied the Dems plan to go further left than Obama on healthcare, the environment and taxes.
their plan for obamacare is to make minor changes to it. That isn't "further left". it is the same plan with minor changes. Their plan on the environment is further left, i grant that. It remains to be seen if they act on it though. their plan for taxes is the exact same as it has before. That is not "further left". It is the exact same plan dems have used for over a decade.
You can read here about how Biden's tax proposals are similar to Obama's, but he has expanded on them. Regardless Biden can't do anything when it comes to taxes - Congress has to do it. They have the power of the purse, not Biden.
1) that amount of increased taxes is pretty similar to the amount trump's tax cut cost. it looks to me like just going back to the obama years.
2) Biden is now effectively the head of the democratic party. So while yes, congress would need to agree with it, biden decides policy goals.
I'm curious why you think Obama won both of his elections by a landslide if his policies were so unpopular.
His promises were popular. He promised universal healthcare. He promised change. But after 8 years of failing to deliver that change he screwed over the democrats hard. At the end of his term, it wasn't his hand picked successor that won, it was Trump. People realized that hilary was a "more of the same" candidate. And since obama failed for 8 years to deliver on his promises, they switched to someone else promising change.
Which policies of Obama's do you think caused people to vote Trump?
His failure to accomplish much to make people's lives better. After 8 years, his healthcare reform was a right wing plan that was pretty fucked up. Healthcare costs were still through the roof. Workers wages were still stagnant while costs of living were increasing.
After 8 years of Obama people realized they were in the same situation as before, that their children were going to have less opportunity than they had and that their economic situation hadn't improved while corporations and the 1% were raking in record profits.
I don't think it is that 1 or 2 specific policies failed. I think it is that he promised change and simply didn't deliver it. So they turned to Trump when he promised change.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
"As of 2013, self-identified conservatives stand at 38%, moderates at 34% and liberals at 23%"
that's the exact same error you keep making. You are using super simplistic labels. What does being a moderate or a conservative actually mean to people? They are loaded terms. That might mean they only support right wing economic policy, or it might mean the believe in restrictive immigration, or it might mean they just believe in protecting "the family".
When trying to determine what policy you should pursue, those labels are totally worthless.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
well people do tend to be issue specific. i can see someone thinking "if you dont give me affordable healthcare, then i'll vote for the guy who will increase my wages somehow". but i'm still having a hard time thinkin the people are voting for cconservatives cause the democrats aren't progressive enough.
again, you are framing it in a binary "left vs right" way. IE "the democrats aren't progressive enough". Most people don't think that way. They think "who has a plan to help me". So if the demcorats don't have a plan, then they will vote republican. whether it is "progressive" enough is not a factor.
i still say the electorate is moderate... if u give them something like afffordable healthcare, they will be split on everything else.
the term "left" "right" and "moderate" are loaded terms. They don't really mean anything any more. There are alot of people who are culturally "moderate" or "right" but economically would be very happy to have universal healthcare, for example. Dems have spent years fighting over cultural issues while basically agreeing with republicans on economic policy. If you take cultural issues out of the equation, there isn't much difference between mainstream democratic and republican policy.
Trump is a departure from that. He told people that he would do populist things (get them affordable healthcare that covers pre-existing conditions, stop the exporting of jobs etc). That is fundamentally against republican policy goals and it made him win. Now, once he got elected he didn't actually do that, but the populism was the key to winning.
democrats simply don't even pretend like they are going to implement policy people want. They stay vague on the details of how it would make people's lives better or how it is any different from what the democrats have been doing for years (which hasn't helped people). That is why democrats need specific policies that will help people. for example, medicare for all. You make it 100% clear what the benefits are.
1) every single american gets healthcare coverage.
2) yes your taxes will go up, but for most americans you will save money by reducing the "private taxation" of insurance costs
3) it improves worker bargaining power since employers can no longer use a loss of healthcare as a bargaining chip.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
u didn't give a very good answer to the question of why people would vote for a conservative if they want the country to move further left. that dont make sense, and i give the average enough credit to think they wouldn't think that way.
that is a misunderstanding of how people think. Most people don't analyze their elected official on spectrum of right to left wing policy. They look at who has a plan to actually help them. Who is going to help to fix issues in their lives. The democrats have little to no plans of doing that. So alot of Blue Dog democrats are having a hard time because they don't actually stand for anything and don't want to actually fix anything.
i guess you may be onto how some people may have change for the sake of change, but that's too esoteric to think they'd use that as a reason to vote for a conservative when they want the country the country to be more progressive.
you and I may look at issues on a scale of right to left wing policy, alot of people don't do that. A right wing plan to help them is just as good as a left wing one. They just want someone to do something to help them. They know that things are not going well. Wages are not going up while the cost of living is. They know things are not getting better and they want someone to do something about it. They don't know precisely which policy will do that, but they want someone to change something to help them.
If the democrats aren't going to do that, then why would they vote for them. And to quote biden, under a biden administration "nothing would fundamentally change".
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
I'm not certain. I'm not particularly familiar with most congressmen. Someone like Pramila Jayapal or ro khanna maybe? But again, i'm not really sure.Interesting. Can I here your reasoning?
Like I said, i'm not certain. And since the president is now a democrat, I don't think it is as much of an issue. With a republican president, pelosi was the highest ranking democrat. She largely was able to set the democratic party's policy and she did a terrible job of it. With Biden in the white house, it is him and his cabinet that will set democratic party policy.
But in general, the democrats need to start embracing populist policies. Nancy Pelosi will fight to the death to protect her corporate donors, and therefore against virtually all populist policies. Pramila Jayapal or ro khanna would be much better able to appeal to people than Nancy Pelosi can.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
just because their primary goal was to beat trump, doesn't mean they aligned more with bernie on substance.
my statement was that their primary goal was to beat trump. If they listened to any mainstream news outlet at all, they were bombarded with messages that bernie wasn't "electable". This could convince alot of people to vote against the person they would prefer in favor of someone who could accomplish their primary goal.
the actual dem party platform is the most progressive in history.
like what exactly? What progressive policy goals do you think they have? And even if I believed that, Biden is vetting right wing corporatists to fill his cabinet. He has little no intention of doing virtually anything progressive. If you believe otherwise, please explain what this "progressive" policies are.
it makes no sense to think the remedy for that is voting for a conservative. how does that make sense?
the dems have no plans to fix most of america's problems. As flawed as the trump and the republicans are, at least they are talking about the issues. The dem's message was to "go back to normal" and "nothing would fundamentally change".
Also, nancy pelosi were playing games with people's lives by refusing to pass any stimulus in an attempt to undercut trump. She is ruining people's lives to score political points. people don't like that.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
also, why, in the greatest turnout in history, did congress get split down the middle instead of a blue wave?
because people do not agree with democratic party policy. They want change. They elected Obama for "hope and change". He didn't accomplish much of it. They elected trump also looking for change. He too failed to accomplish much. People wanted Trump out, but they didn't actually support the shitty neo-liberal policies of the democrat's.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
so your theory is that bernie is more electable, but that the left was fooled into thinking that he's less electable?
Here is poll I pulled up from the primary. The most important issue to democratic primary voters by a huge margin was the ability to beat trump. If you watched any coverage from outlets like CNN or MSNBC, you know that they repeated over and over and over that Bernie was "unelectable" or "unlikeable". Some of the descriptions of him were outrageous. One MSNBC analyst actually compared him winning Nevada to a Nazi invasion. They beat that dead horse over and over and over the entire race. So if you are a democratic primary voter whose primary goal is to beat trump, which candidate do you back? The one whose policy goals you most agree with? Or the one you perceive as most likely to beat trump? For a large percentage of voters, it was perceived ability to beat trump.
Mainstream news and the democratic party establishment tried their hardest to tip the scales in favor of a "moderate" (right wing candidate). In the end the succeeded.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I edited the previous post to include an answer to that. that reply wasn't there when I originally posted it.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
if biden isn't widely embraced by america, it's not a signal to double down on the far left. it's a sign that americans aren't that far left to begin with.
for this to make sense, biden would have to be remotely left to begin with. He isn't.
The issue is the super simplistic "left" vs "right" mentality. people want a solution that will fix the problem. The labels are not helpful. If you ask someone if they are right, moderate or left, most would tell you moderate. But if you ask that same person issue by issue what policy they support, you will get alot more people describing "left" policy positions. Dems need to stop worrying about labels so much and actually set out policy that will help people.
Design a healthcare plan that gets every single american health coverage at a reasonable cost. People will support that. Biden's plan doesn't even try to do that.
Set a policy goal to get every american a wage they can actually live on. People will support that.
biden got twice the vote than bernie did when it was just man to man combat in the election. that signals america isn't far left.
no, it signals that alot of democratic primary voters care more about "electability" (their perceived notion of what is electable) than about actual policy that will help people (the thing that would actually help them get elected).
Created:
-->
@Danielle
People can't simultaneously say Dems want to "change nothing" but at the same time say their agenda is to "implement radical far left policies."
no one is saying both of those 2 things. Republicans are saying they want to implement radical far left policies. But this indicates they have no idea what policies biden actually supports and only get their info from right wing sources. People who actually look at what the dem's want to do (as well as the dems themselves) say they want to "change nothing". Biden said it himself at fundraiser for high dollar donors.
The big one is expanding government healthcare.
Biden's plan is to slightly expand obamacare. At best this will get more people onto healthcare (which is a net positive). but his plan does not include getting everyone onto healthcare and does not resolve the massive price gouging that is going on. It fundamentally does not fix the problems.
Most Dems also want to end or mitigate Trump's border policies.
What does this even mean? Obama deported record numbers of people. Trump made it a more noticeable issue, but the dems agree with the republicans on border issues for the most part. I mean the cages trump locked children in, were built by obama to lock children in.
They want to move toward renewable energy (the Green New Deal is very unpopular though and is not a serious goal as written).
The environment is one of the very few places Biden has been willing to shift a bit.
And they want to rewrite the tax code so as to tax the 1% and corporations more.
Have you actually looked into that though? Biden actually moved up the line where the promises of no new taxes were. Hilary was promising not to increase taxes on people making less that $100,000. Biden moved that to $400,000. Their plan is to roll back trump's tax cuts, but i haven't seen any evidence they are willing to go much further than that.
Whether or not any of this gets done will largely depend on how obstructionist the GOP Senate wants to be, but it's not true they want to "fundamentally change nothing."
Basically none of what you have described is a fundamental change (except the environment). most of it is a return to obama era policies. IE, the failed policies that caused people to vote for trump in the 1st place.
Some are saying they want to expand the Court or add Congressional seats lol is that nothing?
Some are saying that. Biden repeatedly refused to comment on it. So there is no evidence Biden would even consider that.
Created:
This video hits on alot of my opinions of the subject. The dems need to drop the "cultural left" (cancel culture, virtue signaling etc) and embrace the economic left (higher minimum wage, medicare for all etc).
The republicans have proven that they will label any democrat a "socialist" no matter what they do or say. Biden is more right wing than lots of republicans on some issues, and is at most a centerist, certainly not a leftist. But they branded him a socialist anyway and millions of americans believed it. So trying to out "right wing" the republicans to avoid a label they are going to use anyway is a losing bet.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
I'm pretty sure every single Democrat in the country knows there's a lot of work to be done.
The problem, and the point of this thread, is that the democratic leadership fundamentally do not know what that work is. They think that if they can just "return to normal" that everything will be fine. The work they plan to do is to try to restore order but to fundamentally change nothing. They will learn none of the right lessons from this election the same way they learned nothing from trump's election in 2016.
I hope I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure that biden will accomplish little to nothing meaningful in the next 4 years. In 4 years a right wing populist will run for the republicans (potentially even trump himself). And if the Democrats try this "change nothing" playbook again, they will get slaughtered.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Fair enough, but my main point was that Biden isn't that controversial of a figure, at least he wouldn't be without Trump and his followers.
I think this may be his biggest flaw. He isn't controversial because he doesn't want to fundamentally change anything. He likes things the way they are. He wants to make small changes on the margins, but leave the deeply flawed system unchanged.
I don't know, at this point we can only do our best to shift the voting in favor of what needs to happen.
I'm honestly not sure what voting shift would change their minds. They are convinced that neo-liberal, right wing economics is the best policy. They are highly entrenched in this mind set. So if they lose, they will blame something else. When hilary lost while running this platform, they blamed racism, sexism and "Bernie Bros". They never, for one second, considered that their shitty policies might be wrong.
This time around, Biden didn't even bother to run on any policies. The focus of his campaign was "I will wear a mask" and "im not trump". He didn't talk about how he would improve anything. But that is because he doesn't want to, and he won't.
In 4 years, if democrats try the "electable" candidate again, they will lose to a populist republican.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I disagree with the use of the word "electable". To democrats, that word means centrist. It means no meaningful change. To them, that makes you electable. But that isn't the message the voters have been sending. They elected obama, a man who promised hope and change. A man who promised universal healthcare. They elected trump, a man who promised change. But the only message the democrats want to hear is that their failed neo-liberal policies are great and that it is everyone else who is wrong.
The new "electable" candidate is the one who will make people's lives better. And that isn't Biden's "nothing will change" plan. He won because people are sick of the chaos, but they still want change.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
exactly. At this point people are simply questioning which turd they prefer... that's not a good sign for the future of American politics
both democrats and republicans have become entrenched in ideological positions that they are completely unable and unwilling to reconsider. So if the election goes badly, it isn't that the policy you are pushing that is wrong, it is that the voters are racist, or that there was election fraud, or that the "bernie bros" ruined everything etc.
The republicans have been running the same shitty policy for decades now. Cut taxes on the rich, cut services for everyone. Basically, trickle down economics.
Democrats policy isn't all that different. Slightly less egregious pandering to the wealthy, but still heavily pandering to the wealthy and screwing over the working class.
Neither side is willing to seriously entertain the idea that designing the system to benefit the rich as much as they can is a bad thing.
For all his many, many, many flaws; trump was willing to attack some of the unquestioned policies of the republicans (like outsourcing jobs). But once he was elected, he failed to really do anything useful about them. Once elected, 95% of the policy his government did was cookie cutter republican policy they have been pushing since Regan.
Created:
I was skimming through CNN when I came across this article. My take away from this article is that the author believes that Biden was a strong candidate. They use the fact that biden outran democrats in house elections as evidence of this. But they have entirely missed the point. Biden didn't outrun the house democrats because people like or want Biden. He outran them because people are sick of trump.
The fact that people voted to get rid of trump, but still voted against the democrats down ballot is evidence that they don't like the democratic platform. And that platform was decided by Biden and his team. The democrats massively underperformed polls and only narrowly beat a president who is widely hated.
This is a stinging rebuke of the crappy democratic platform of "return to normal". People don't want that, they want change. But democratic leadership and analysts look like they are gearing up to point the blame for their failures at others and continue to learn nothing.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Question for you: besides Pelosi, who should be the Speaker?
I'm not certain. I'm not particularly familiar with most congressmen. Someone like Pramila Jayapal or ro khanna maybe? But again, i'm not really sure.
Created:
Posted in:
Pretty sure a half Carribbean, half Tamil female is change in itself.
i guess by definition, yeah sort of. But not in any way that actually matters. She supports the same failed policies the neo-liberals have been pushing for decades. She isn't particularly different from Hilary or biden. The only real difference is identity politics. And frankly, most people don't give a shit about that.
You just dislike her because of reasons unknown to anyone but yourself.
I dislike her for the same reason i dislike other neo-liberals. She supports failed policies that harm the middle and working class and only serve the wealthy.
I don't see anything wrong with that at all, especially when the change itself will be positive, left-wing and wholesome without a doubt.
that's sort of a contradiction in terms. a person who supports right wing policies will bring left-wing wholesome change? I don't see how anyone could believe that.
I don't mind which of the two wins but based on who is less severely left-wing and how Americans vote, I think you and I both know that Harris is the better option in terms of who can easier beat a right-wing candidate.
she got absolutely crushed in the dem primary. She has nothing to offer america except platitudes and failed policies. She has no chance of beating a populist.
The feminist glass-ceiling does matter, the problem with Clinton was that it was the only thing she kept emphasising about herself. Harris and Warren will never make that mistake.
Harris' problem is that she has nothing to offer. She supports failed, right wing policy. She sometimes pays lip service to the left (like Medicare for all), but when it came down to it she denounced a bill she co-sponsored because she thought it was politically convenient (although ironically she tanked). She only cares about her own career. She she doesn't really care about fixing any of america's problems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So you claim over a million illegal immigrants give birth yearly in America?
who said anything about illegal immigrants? I said immigrants. Why does your mind automatically go to illegal?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
CDC stats say 4 million people are born yearly in America while near 3 million die yearly in America.Are you saying that a net million people are leaving the country every year?
no, i'm saying the birth rate among recent immigrants is much higher than the rest of the population. Without immigrants, the birth to death ratio would be negative.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
and the polls shifted to repubs
I have no idea if you are responding to something we were talking about. That isn't even a complete sentence, let alone a response to anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
You haven't been paying attention for the past few months if you believe that these are fringe ideas so vanishingly rare that they could be compared with followers of the KKK. There's been mass civil unrest by people trying to spread these ideas
So let me get this straight, you are conflating people saying "black lives matter" with people saying "white men are scum"? Those are, in no way, the same thing.
Both parties absolutely stabbed the working class in the back on this issue, but only one got what was coming to them. Donald Trump was the GOP's reckoning, and no Republican who wants a future as a national figure will toe the Bush/Romney/Obama/Clinton consensus on trade ever again.
you're kidding.... most of the republicans have not changed their tune on trade at all. Some of them paid lip service to trump's plans. Some just stayed quiet. But virtually none of the republicans have really changed their minds.
We're just never going to agree here. I am VERY anti immigration and would gladly take a declining population in exchange for immigration restrictions
why? you would rather america decline as a nation than allow people to move to it? How does that makes sense?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
He extorted the leader of a foreign country to announce a bogus investigation for the sole reason of slandering a political opponent in an attempt to steal an election.Wasn't in the impeachment articles, but thanks for your contribution to fantasy history.
what? that is what the abuse of power charge is for. He abused the power of his office to extort the president of Ukraine into announcing a bogus investigation of biden for the purposes of slandering him and tipping the election in Trump's favor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Certain elements on the left all but call for the extermination of Western society and culture.
and certain elements of the right wear white hoods and burn crosses. Every group has extreme elements.
They claim that America is a white supremacist country, that white men are scum,
this is obviously not a widespread belief. I'm not sure anyone advocates for that, but if they do, they are a tiny, tiny group.
that the police need to be systemically dismantled and replaced with social workers (lol)
a fairly high percent of police activity is not related to crime at all. dealing with the homeless, people with mental health issues, people with drug addictions etc. Police are an extremely expensive option for dealing with the issue, and they are really bad at it. They are not trained how to deal with that stuff. Social workers could do alot of their job alot better than police can.
I know it was unpopular and understand why but the corporates tax cut was actually good and necessary (but should've been offset by higher taxes on high personal incomes.)
america already had some of the lowest effective tax rates in the world. Cutting them further not only wasn't necessary, but was negligent. It opened a huge whole in the budget that the republicans have no intention of filling. Their plan was to open the hole, then complain about it, then cut social spending because the deficit is too high. Essentially, they want to cut taxes on the rich and make the poor pay for it.
Right now, the GOP is the party standing up for the working class when it comes to issues of trade and outsourcing, and facing down China.
what? the republicans created alot of those policies. And for all trump's bluster, he accomplished nothing on that front.
Dems have moved rapidly to the "elite" consensus that the complete economic devastation of vast swathes of the country is a fair price to pay for cheaper iPhones.
you are aware that both parties have the exact same outlook right? They both cater the wealthy and corporations. Do you really think the republicans are against outsourcing jobs?
Also, mass immigration is really bad and needs to be stopped
what mass immigration? America's population growth rate is 0.6%. That isn't particularly high. For example, Canada's is 1.4%, India's is 1.0%. The current population growth in the US is some of the slowest it has been in a century. Without immigration, it would be negative.
The idea that there is a massive wave of immigrants is a bad joke. America's population is growing relatively slowly, and alot of that growth is based on immigration. Without it, the US population would shrink and the economy along with it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Okay, name me one president that has NEVER asked a non-American what they thought of his political rival. I'll wait.
again, that is nothing even close to what trump did. He didn't ask a non-american what they thought. He extorted the leader of a foreign country to announce a bogus investigation for the sole reason of slandering a political opponent in an attempt to steal an election.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
absolutely. she is a right wing neo-lib who plays games with the lives of the american people. She should be held accountable for that.Yeah, guess it's Pelosi's fault then for the fuckup.
yes, she certainly has blame for the result. I would say playing games with the stimulus bill likely had something to do with it. People don't like having their livelihood screwed with for a political game.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
How can I possibly take you seriously when you post this kind of nonsense?Name me one president that has never said a bad thing about his rival. I'll wait.
that is not even close to what i said. I said he abused the power of his office to get a foreign power to slander his rival by accusing him of fake crimes. That isn't "saying something bad" about a rival. That is abusing the office of the president to get a foreign power interfere in an election. That is an extremely bad thing for a president to do.
Created: