US Politics: To Open or Not To Open, That's the Question

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

When every single one of your friends, family members and most everyone else you know does the same thing. 

And then start making progressive candidates more like AOC and less like Sanders. Stop voting in progressives that literally had gone to the Soviet Union for their honeymoon. (yes, I KNOW that it's a bullshit thing, but again, it doesn't matter in the US, because image is everything).

That's still the case. That'll be the case for a long while. 

The average American will see any woman running for office and feel that it's somehow wrong, and won't know why, but they'll find ways to rationalize that feeling. The average American will naturally assume that any man being accused of anything by a woman is because that woman is taking that man down a peg. There is a good chance that if you pick a random American they will believe that Obama is a Muslim, that Trump reduced the deficit, that Clinton did break the law, and a smaller but good chance that said American believes that there is a grand conspiracy run by jews or muslims or big vaccine manufacturers. 

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me, or saying it doesn't matter anyway.

[Guest]

I'd just like to point out how ironic it is that during the first election year in a long time where it seemed that nearly the entire Democratic party would finally coalesce around a single candidate relatively early, despite knowing full well that there were already major issues that would affect him in the primary, and then it all gets FUBARed because the thing they already kinda suspected bit them on the ass. And I'm putting myself in this camp too, because my horse ended up backing Biden anyway, and I've been trying to put a positive spin on Biden's nomination. 

If this were a normal election year, Trump would cream Biden in the general, because all you'd hear is Hunter Biden/Ukraine/sexual assault, 24/7. And Democrats wouldn't have a response, because Republicans don't give a shit about hypocrisy. Yay us.

[Kalbear]

24 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me, or saying it doesn't matter anyway.

I'm saying that it doesn't really matter. Biden's raping someone - or not - is going to be cast in an almost entirely partisan lens no matter what. Just like Ford's accusation was. Either she is entirely accurate, or entirely full of shit, but there is no nuance or anything to be taken out of it, and most people will end up just thinking whatever it was that they thought before. 

Because most people rarely change their minds, and almost never do so in light of new facts.

So yeah, I don't think it'll cause any lasting damage to anything one way or another.

8 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I'd just like to point out how ironic it is that during the first election year in a long time where it seemed that nearly the entire Democratic party would finally coalesce around a single candidate relatively early, despite knowing full well that there were already major issues that would affect him in the primary, and then it all gets FUBARed because the thing they already kinda suspected bit them on the ass. And I'm putting myself in this camp too, because my horse ended up backing Biden anyway, and I've been trying to put a positive spin on Biden's nomination. 

If this were a normal election year, Trump would cream Biden in the general, because all you'd hear is Hunter Biden/Ukraine/sexual assault, 24/7. And Democrats wouldn't have a response, because Republicans don't give a shit about hypocrisy. Yay us.

Again, I doubt this. While going after Biden 24/7 on this stuff is not great, negative attacks aren't nearly as important as they used to be. What's important is the overall general feel of that candidate. With Clinton the negative stuff continued to weigh her down because she was not liked overall, and people were looking to confirm that. That's not the case with Biden for the most part. That could change, but it isn't right now. Right now, most everyone has already decided about how they feel about Trump. That makes it difficult to make those things stick. And another fun stat - for those people who dislike both Trump and Biden, they're breaking for Biden 6-1 so far. They broke for Trump something like 3-2 last time. That could change - all of it could - but 'vulnerable to attack' is really not a big deal. 

Obama was vulnerable to attack by his wearing tan suits, being able to speak in public and being born in Hawaii. They will attack anyone. It doesn't matter.

Trump will still likely win because he's an incumbent and the economy had been good and he hadn't had a major disaster. 

[alguien]

Hello board! Long time no see. Anyway, I thought this article about the Biden nomination to be pretty nuanced and helpful:

Is it Your Moral Imperative to Vote for Joe Biden?

It's all pretty decent, but I pasted in the concluding text:

Quote

 

Here’s what is actually unethical: telling a rape survivor she has to vote for someone she thinks is a rapist. Like, imagine telling Tara Reade to her face that if she doesn’t vote for her own personal rapist, she’s responsible for four more years of Trump. Could you do that? If not, then why would you do it to millions of other people? Because every rapist is their rapist.

For the record, I also feel similarly about people who can’t vote for Biden because of his opposition to universal healthcare. People are dying every day because of a lack of access to affordable healthcare, and I’m not going to tell their surviving family members that they are morally required to vote for someone who will veto Medicare of All.

I saw a great Tweet the other day about voting: “voting isn’t marriage, it’s public transport. You’re not waiting for “the one” who’s absolutely perfect: you’re getting the bus, and if there isn’t one to your destination, you don’t not travel- you take the one going closest.” That’s a superb metaphor, but honestly if the bus doors open and it’s being driven by your rapist, I don’t think anyone would fault you for just waiting for the next one.

If you’re wondering, I will be voting for Biden in the fall, because I know that he will be less awful than Trump. Plus, maybe he will pick a decent VP and then die. If Trump dies, we just get Pence. Talk about out of the frying pan and into the fire.

But I won’t be shaming other people for choosing not to vote for Biden, even if they hate Trump. Because I don’t know how Biden has personally affected their lives, and there is no logical reason for me to say that it’s their fault if Biden loses and we get more Trump. It’s complicated! If anything, it’s the fault of Trump, of Trump’s racist base, of the conservatives turning a blind eye to Trump’s fascism, of the liberals who worry that topics like “giving healthcare to poor people like nearly every other industrialized nation on Earth” is just too much too soon, and most importantly of Joe Biden, who should maybe at some point learn to keep his hands to himself.

 

I voted for Bernie in WA (yay, mail-in voting!) and will be voting for Biden in the fall if he's the nominee. Not because he's my favorite candidate (even before these allegations came to light, I compared voting for him to be akin to going to the steak restaurant in the world an ordering a plain hamburger), not because I believe/don't believe the allegations, but because it's the bus that (for me) takes the country in at least the right direction. And I'm so fucking sick of hearing about Donald Trump every day. 

But like the author said, I have understanding and empathy for people who won't or can't. 

[ants]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

If Biden drops out, either willingly or pressured, does anyone really think Sanders won't just take the nomination? Is there a way to force him not to if he tries that? I know he dropped out. Can he still use his delegates?

I guess this kind of answers my question. This is if the nominee were to die, but it's kind of similar to the nominee purposely dropping out.

........

It wouldn't be at all like it would be if Biden died of Coronavirus.  Biden still has all his delegates, and on the assumption that he is agreeing to leave would have a big say in his successor.  I think to "heal" the party you would need Sanders involved (and also so he doesn't restart running), but if you had them both involved I actually think you could have a relatively smooth transition.  As long as both Biden and Sanders were willing to support the new nominee.  I think people would understand that Biden was stepping aside for an ideal, and it wouldn't hurt the party.  It could be used against Trump and Republicans, and aimed to court suburban women.  

Obviously, it all depends on Biden's willingness to step aside.  If he's not, then the DNC only has a few options.  Fall in line behind Biden, or do an investigation (and on what basis - Balance of probabilities? Beyond Reasonable Doubt?, other?).  Recognising that even if that finds against Biden, Biden may not go. And praying like hell no other victims come forward.

Because so far all the accusers are Democrat supporters, and yet their timing has sucked.  Anyone who is a victim and isn't inclined towards the Dems could do a lot more damage with their timing.  Or just victims delaying coming forward.    

[Kalbear]

Yeah, as soon as they went for the "veto medicare' bullshit, I knew that was going to be a hitjob. Ah well. This is the most real thing from that article though:

Quote

You don’t have to believe her if you don’t want. Many people won’t, just like they didn’t believe Christine Blasey Ford when she said she was assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh, and she had loads of evidence to corroborate her story. They didn’t believe her, they didn’t care, they nominated Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court and then Ford had to move to a secret location to live for awhile because of all the death threats she got. That’s just how we treat women here in America.

 

[ants]

13 minutes ago, alguien said:

Hello board! Long time no see. Anyway, I thought this article about the Biden nomination to be pretty nuanced and helpful:

Is it Your Moral Imperative to Vote for Joe Biden?

It's all pretty decent, but I pasted in the concluding text:

Personally, I would say yes.  I don't think it's shaming, I think its simply a sad reality.  Not voting for the Democratic nominee is supporting Trump's bid to stay President.  Is that fair? Hell no.  May it be bloody hard for someone who sees Biden as evil? Yes.  But it is unfortunately, simple reality.  We know how evil Trump is.  Anyone not voting against him knows what they are supporting.  I don't necessarily blame them, I think there will be circumstances where it's understandable, and some may temper it by trying to block Trump in the Senate and House.  But that doesn't change that simple reality you're not doing the most you can to block the greater evil.  

Of course, in this particular case given the (public) evidence is that Trump is even worse than Biden on the sexual harassment/rape front, and we know his policies hurt women, it should be even easier.  But that definitely doesn't mean its easy.  

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, as soon as they went for the "veto medicare' bullshit, I knew that was going to be a hitjob. Ah well. This is the most real thing from that article though:

Oh yeah, you do have to ignore the flagrant fabrications and lies in the article.  She is definitely pushing an agenda.  That doesn't make her main discussion point true that there is a moral question.  And of course she does actually say she'll vote Biden.  But I disagree on her view of people who are against Trump but don't vote against him.  

[alguien]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, as soon as they went for the "veto medicare' bullshit, I knew that was going to be a hitjob. Ah well. This is the most real thing from that article though:

 

I didn't read it as a hitjob, but I'm not aware of the "veto Medicare" issue. The author herself said she's voting for Biden. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, ants said:

Personally, I would say yes.  I don't think it's shaming, I think its simply a sad reality.  Not voting for the Democratic nominee is supporting Trump's bid to stay President.  Is that fair? Hell no.  May it be bloody hard for someone who sees Biden as evil? Yes.  But it is unfortunately, simple reality.  We know how evil Trump is.  Anyone not voting against him knows what they are supporting.  I don't necessarily blame them, I think there will be circumstances where it's understandable, and some may temper it by trying to block Trump in the Senate and House.  But that doesn't change that simple reality you're not doing the most you can to block the greater evil.  

Of course, in this particular case given the (public) evidence is that Trump is even worse than Biden on the sexual harassment/rape front, and we know his policies hurt women, it should be even easier.  But that definitely doesn't mean its easy.  

Democrats should begin operating on the assumption that more allegations will come out and figure out the tipping point in the number of allegations to where it would no longer be a moral imperative for us to vote for him.

Otherwise, I reject the premise that there are only two possible solutions.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, alguien said:

I didn't read it as a hitjob, but I'm not aware of the "veto Medicare" issue. The author herself said she's voting for Biden. 

Biden was asked by a reporter if, assuming that some kind of Medicare 4 All bill was passed by Congress, would he sign it.

Biden declined to answer the question as asked, and heavily implied that he wouldn't sign such a bill. Sanders supporters see it him saying he'd "veto" the bill, but considering the objections he brought up to deflect from answering the question, I don't think he'd actually veto a M4A bill, but I'm convinced his administration wouldn't push for one.

[Guest]

Assuming the tables were reversed, and Sanders was the presumptive nominee with this allegation against him, can anyone tell me with a straight face that moderates would accept an "It's your moral imperative to vote for him!" argument?

Also, I wonder if Warren still wants to be Biden's VP now? What a clusterfuck.

[alguien]

8 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Biden was asked by a reporter if, assuming that some kind of Medicare 4 All bill was passed by Congress, would he sign it.

Biden declined to answer the question as asked, and heavily implied that he wouldn't sign such a bill. Sanders supporters see it him saying he'd "veto" the bill, but considering the objections he brought up to deflect from answering the question, I don't think he'd actually veto a M4A bill, but I'm convinced his administration wouldn't push for one.

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying! 

One of my most liberal friends shared this article: Biden and Sanders vow joint climate work as part of endorsement with the text:

Quote

If Bernie believed the best chance for creating positive change was to sit things out and/or undermine the Democratic establishment in this election, you know that's exactly what he'd be doing. He knows what's at stake.

I do think Biden would sign M4A and I hope there's enough of a Blue Wave to send one to him if he wins. Or his VP pushes him on it. 

That, his VP pick, and the Supreme Court are my biggest concerns. 

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Assuming the tables were reversed, and Sanders was the presumptive nominee with this allegation against him, can anyone tell me with a straight face that moderates would accept an "It's your moral imperative to vote for him!" argument?

Yes? I really think you don't understand how unhappy people are about Trump. 

6 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Also, I wonder if Warren still wants to be Biden's VP now? What a clusterfuck.

That would be interesting to hear. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Yes? I really think you don't understand how unhappy people are about Trump. 

No. They wouldn't.

They'd be calling for his resignation before finishing the BI article. 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, The Great Unwashed said:

No. They wouldn't.

They'd be calling for his resignation before finishing the BI article. 

I don't think that's accurate at all and is projection. There are a lot of people who were very pro-Sanders and some people who were very anti-Sanders, but they aren't equivalent. The Biden voters largely didn't hate Sanders. The Sanders voters do appear to largely hate Biden. 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, alguien said:

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying! 

One of my most liberal friends shared this article: Biden and Sanders vow joint climate work as part of endorsement with the text:

I do think Biden would sign M4A and I hope there's enough of a Blue Wave to send one to him if he wins. Or his VP pushes him on it. 

That, his VP pick, and the Supreme Court are my biggest concerns. 

Here's an article on the Biden vetoing M4A issue. He actually does use the word "veto". Here is the statement by Biden:

Quote

“I would veto anything that delays providing the security and the certainty of health care being available now,” Biden responded. “If they got that through in by some miracle or there’s an epiphany that occurred and some miracle occurred that said, ‘OK, it’s passed,’ then you got to look at the cost.”

Biden added: “I want to know, how did they find $35 trillion? What is that doing? Is it going to significantly raise taxes on the middle class, which it will? What’s going to happen?”

That's the key part to me. If the bill is on his desk, I'm fairly sure that's all been worked out, and there must be overwhelming support for it. That shows to me that providing healthcare to all Americans is not a priority for him.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I don't think that's accurate at all and is projection. There are a lot of people who were very pro-Sanders and some people who were very anti-Sanders, but they aren't equivalent. The Biden voters largely didn't hate Sanders. The Sanders voters do appear to largely hate Biden. 

Come on man. A pretty good-sized number of people on this very board post regularly about how much they hate Sanders.

The entire Democratic establishment nearly lost its collective shit when they thought he might win for a week. I'm not projecting anything; I'm observing behavior.

[Martell Spy]

I think that the closest thing we have to a consensus candidate is Warren. Sanders supporters would only even remotely accept this if the candidate was Warren or Sanders. And moderates would never accept Sanders being nominated after having lost the vote.

And that still leaves the inconvenient fact of making the votes of African-Americans that helped Biden win have their votes not matter. It looks to me there is no moral choice here, unless future events change the equation.

And yes, Sanders drives crazy certain liberals. I've seen it many times. I think it's mainly his style more than any policy thing. That is exactly why he can't be the nominee.

[alguien]

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Here's an article on the Biden vetoing M4A issue. He actually does use the word "veto". Here is the statement by Biden:

That's the key part to me. If the bill is on his desk, I'm fairly sure that's all been worked out, and there must be overwhelming support for it. That shows to me that providing healthcare to all Americans is not a priority for him.

Fair. I do think if a Medicare-for-All bill somehow even got to his desk if he was president, it would only be after the political climate had shifted immensely, which would also change the calculus of him signing it.

In any event, his campaign at least has made several policy changes, healthcare and otherwise, to align with the Sanders campaign and I hope they make more. 

[Fury Resurrected]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

When every single one of your friends, family members and most everyone else you know does the same thing. 

And then start making progressive candidates more like AOC and less like Sanders. Stop voting in progressives that literally had gone to the Soviet Union for their honeymoon. (yes, I KNOW that it's a bullshit thing, but again, it doesn't matter in the US, because image is everything).

That's still the case. That'll be the case for a long while. 

The average American will see any woman running for office and feel that it's somehow wrong, and won't know why, but they'll find ways to rationalize that feeling. The average American will naturally assume that any man being accused of anything by a woman is because that woman is taking that man down a peg. There is a good chance that if you pick a random American they will believe that Obama is a Muslim, that Trump reduced the deficit, that Clinton did break the law, and a smaller but good chance that said American believes that there is a grand conspiracy run by jews or muslims or big vaccine manufacturers. 

You know I’m in Ilhan Omar’s district, right? And for all the good things about AOC, she’s not there on Indigenous issues. So far we mostly have Sanders for that (we have two indigenous female house members elected last cycle and that’s awesome, but they haven’t gotten a lot of great opportunities like the squad because we are not the glitzy minorities). And most of my friends and family also do the same thing, the thing is is that they also are not stellar on the issues most pertinent to indigenous women because I am surrounded by white centrists who are no better than Republicans on this issue and my mother who literally told me I should choose to be white.