Jump to content

US Politics: The Killing Hoax


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

........Sure. And that's a major problem, but it is still going to be a major problem no matter what. I am sorry that @ants and @karaddin don't like the idea of her credibility being on the stand but that's the ugly truth one way or another. It (again) doesn't make it less true what she said, nor does it mean that it didn't happen, but her credibility means that any kind of actual justice will not happen, and chances are good it will not get a large amount of press from anyone due to that lack of credibility. Now, things and facts can change that, but unfortunately the more she's investigated the worse her credibility becomes, and the less the mainstream press wants to work on it because there are no major corroborating stories or facts in play.......

I know its human nature, and I know if the Republicans ramp it up that will be a natural response to fall back on.  But I don't think its an ugly truth that has to happen.  I think it is driven by the human nature to fit things into nice little boxes.  Biden is good, Biden is evil.  Reade is evil, Reade is good.  If we can accept that we don't know, that it is ambiguous, and that speculating can be harmful, we don't necessarily have to do this.

I do agree that most people will feel pushed to evaluate the claims, often overlaying their own biases.  I just don't think it has to that way, and the first step is to try and get people to take a step back and accept there is a question mark, but that shouldn't necessarily cause a change in behaviour.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Eh. After this election and doing research into it across other places I think the idea of changing voting habits of the young just ain't gonna happen. At least not in this country, at least not for a while. When Washington State - which is progressive and has 100% vote by mail with free fucking postage - has just as shitty turnout of youth as anywhere else, well, it tells me the problem isn't barriers to entry or voters being enfranchised. It's that a whole lot of people just don't give a shit. 

 

Of course they don't.  We've offered them Joe Biden.  Give them someone to vote for and my hope is they will engage. 

Make no mistake, though.  My optimism is not high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Leap said:

This isn't quite true, though. They were offered the same choices as everyone else in the democratic primary and the result is that it wasn't enough to carry Bernie even as far as the convention. It seems to me that counting on youth turnout is as spurious as not voting Clinton/voting for Trump in the hopes that it will "hasten the revolution". It's a gamble that thus far has not paid off in the slightest*. 

*While I do find it gratifying that a significant number of elections have gone strongly against Trump since 2016 and hope that will be reflected in Nov, it doesn't seem like the last four years will have been "worth it". Likewise, relying on a youth turnout in the hopes that you'll get a more progressive presidency is a big risk, except here the alternative isn't Trump, it was Biden. That's what the primary is for, surely?

Well, half the states didn't even have their primaries, and the last couple weeks of primaries was voting around coronavirus.  I didn't get to vote. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, polishgenius said:

You're responding to her post about her feelings that the establishment not listening to women by not just dismissing her position- literally reframing it to what you wanted it to be so you could better do that- but doing so in the most stereotypically old-school sexist 'there there dear I don't understand why you're so emotional about this we'll talk when you're not mad' manner and you're wondering why she's upset with you? Are you doing a bit here?

I responded with incredulity about Wellstone being held up as an ideal standard in compared to Franken.  The only position I was dismissing was the idea the former wasn't complicit in the rampant sexual harassment going on in Congress during his tenure.  I was asked to provide evidence, which is fair, but I don't wish to.  Then, when I "reframed" the conversation concerning Biden, I wondered why it was being portrayed that still supporting Biden is cast in a shameful light based on what we know.  Instead of responding to that question, this was denied, and then I was shamed even more aggressively for not being appropriately sensitive on the internet.  Literally, I said:

Quote

 If I'm not allowed to ethically vote for Biden by your standards, why do you hold up Wellstone as an officeholder that at the least sat by and tolerated said standards?  I'm not smearing any one person, I'm smearing an era.  If you have arguments that I'm wrong about that, please do tell.

And then:

Quote

That's an argument for why voting for Biden should make you feel bad, plain and simple.  Another way to say that is this quote is telling me I should view voting for Joe Biden as unethical, which is what you're objecting to here.  You ARE guilting anyone that still decides to vote for Biden.  Without warrant.  I stand by that statement, thanks.  

And this all got blown up because of that?  That's being "stereotypically old school sexist"?  I may have been drunk and high and flippant and probably quite confusing because I was that drunk and high, but the original point about shaming and guilting anyone that disagrees with your perspective?  Yeah, I think that played out quite clearly.

7 hours ago, Fury Resurrected said:

I think he’s taken his ball and gone home, he’s tired of womenfolk being so rude as to point out to him that he’s being rude while he is demanding they cast their ballot to his liking.

I watched Westworld and eventually passed out.  I also said, repeatedly and well before ever responding to you, that I don't object to anybody not voting for Biden.  As I tried to say to you in PM, I never meant to belittle your personal experiences.  In fact that's exactly why I never mentioned it at all.  I was trying to have a discussion isolated from that, and misguidedly thought doing so was showing you respect rather than treating you like a victim.  I realize that in and of itself was being insensitive, and I am sincerely sorry about that.  But you clearly do not wish to have a conversation with me based on anything of substance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Inkdaub said:

Of course they don't.  We've offered them Joe Biden.  Give them someone to vote for and my hope is they will engage. 

Make no mistake, though.  My optimism is not high.

That's insane! They had every chance to vote for Bernie if that was who excited them to vote. The idea that any candidate was gonna bring Bernie supporters who didn't bother to get out and vote for him out in the main election is a complete fantasy. And the idea that the choice of Biden disenfranchised Bernie voters from participating in the primary is a chronologically impossible excuse everyone sees through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, DMC said:

I responded with incredulity about Wellstone being held up as an ideal standard in compared to Franken.  The only position I was dismissing was the idea the former wasn't complicit in the rampant sexual harassment going on in Congress during his tenure.  I was asked to provide evidence, which is fair, but I don't wish to.  Then, when I "reframed" the conversation concerning Biden, I wondered why it was being portrayed that still supporting Biden is cast in a shameful light based on what we know.  Instead of responding to that question, this was denied, and then I was shamed even more aggressively for not being appropriately sensitive on the internet.  Literally, I said:

And then:

And this all got blown up because of that?  That's being "stereotypically old school sexist"?  I may have been drunk and high and flippant and probably quite confusing because I was that drunk and high, but the original point about shaming and guilting anyone that disagrees with your perspective?  Yeah, I think that played out quite clearly.

I watched Westworld and eventually passed out.  I also said, repeatedly and well before ever responding to you, that I don't object to anybody not voting for Biden.  As I tried to say to you in PM, I never meant to belittle your personal experiences.  In fact that's exactly why I never mentioned it at all.  I was trying to have a discussion isolated from that, and misguidedly thought doing so was showing you respect rather than treating you like a victim.  I realize that in and of itself was being insensitive, and I am sincerely sorry about that.  But you clearly do not wish to have a conversation with me based on anything of substance.

I think if you're flexible enough and you inhale sharply while bending at the waist you can get not just your ankle but most of your lower calf into your mouth as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

I think if you're flexible enough and you inhale sharply while bending at the waist you can get not just your ankle but most of your lower calf into your mouth as well.

I'll defer to your expertise on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, DMC said:

I responded with incredulity about Wellstone being held up as an ideal standard in compared to Franken.  The only position I was dismissing was the idea the former wasn't complicit in the rampant sexual harassment going on in Congress during his tenure.  I was asked to provide evidence, which is fair, but I don't wish to.  Then, when I "reframed" the conversation concerning Biden, I wondered why it was being portrayed that still supporting Biden is cast in a shameful light based on what we know.  Instead of responding to that question, this was denied, and then I was shamed even more aggressively for not being appropriately sensitive on the internet.  Literally, I said:

And then:

And this all got blown up because of that?  That's being "stereotypically old school sexist"?  I may have been drunk and high and flippant and probably quite confusing because I was that drunk and high, but the original point about shaming and guilting anyone that disagrees with your perspective?  Yeah, I think that played out quite clearly.

I watched Westworld and eventually passed out.  I also said, repeatedly and well before ever responding to you, that I don't object to anybody not voting for Biden.  As I tried to say to you in PM, I never meant to belittle your personal experiences.  In fact that's exactly why I never mentioned it at all.  I was trying to have a discussion isolated from that, and misguidedly thought doing so was showing you respect rather than treating you like a victim.  I realize that in and of itself was being insensitive, and I am sincerely sorry about that.  But you clearly do not wish to have a conversation with me based on anything of substance.

Oh wow, I didn’t realize your insensitivity and rudeness was because you were drunk and high. You are correct that those facts absolve you from the devastating consequence of your actions that someone said you weren’t being nice and should be nicer. 
 

I did genuinely want to have a conversation of substance with you, but that’s not what you were doing, so it wasn’t possible. But you are correct now in that I don’t want any sort of conversation with you at all and I will concede your rightness in that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Leap said:

That is a fair point imo. Looking at the map of remaining primaries it doesn't appear to be particularly likely that Bernie can turn around his current deficit, but to the extent that further primaries are possible I definitely support him getting further delegates as leverage for moving Biden to the left. So I'm happy to edit my previous statement to say that "the result so far" is overwhelmingly the choice of Biden.

There should be more primaries and people should get the opportunity to prove that the youth turnout for Bernie can make a difference, but so far it doesn't seem to. 

Sanders stands to lose one-third or more of his statewide delegates, however, Sanders and Biden have already announced plans to form six joint task forces to work on key issues: climate change, criminal justice, the economy, education, health care, and immigration. Biden has also floated the idea of Sanders being allowed to keep his delegates but that still requires the DNC to change their 2020 delegate selection rules - they probably will in the name of unity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...