US Politics: Help Me Vladimir!!! Xi Wants Me to Lose!!!

[Jace, Extat]

3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Yeah, I get it, I'm sure I've attacked the person instead of the argument too at times.  But it's a lousy way to do things; attacking the argument instead of the person prevents a lot of needless bullshit.

So even if it's about the person, attack their argument. 

I'm tired of attacking every facile argument he and other sore losers pull out of their asses every day. It's constant. At some point between being condescended at for following through on opposition to fascists and BUTTERICECREAM I'm no longer dealing with honest disagreements about political issues or actors. 

They're trolls, dude. They didn't get their way and now they want to see everyone pay for not knowing they were the rightestest all along. It's infantile behavior of the purest form and they keep doing it because folks like you don't want to see people get brain spanked. You're a nice guy. We all have our character flaws. 

But letting people blithely spout ignorant bullshit is how we got to this point as a society, in case you haven't been paying attention.

[Week]

2 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

I am only pointing out that she didn't post this on a fringe, far right outlet. She posted it in a centrist publication, with centrist editors. I don't care if she agrees with me. I only am responding to assertions that no one else is talking about this possibility. They are. It's out there. It's in the ether. 

ETA: Why would I know anything about Liz Peak? I don't know her, follow her--I read this in a centrist publication. You seem to be asserting I follow these people. I just see what is on the news feed. In fact, I have a lot of far right outlets (like Fox News) blocked from my feed. So, again, I don't know who she is, I just know where I found it. So, to be clear, I don't vouch for her, I don't care about her. I shared a centrist publication's story. That's it. You can read your conspiracy theories into all you want. 

Here's another good OPINION on THE HILL from the first page of googling "Liz Peek"

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/490734-5-reasons-democrats-fear-trumps-briefings

It's all bullshit i.e. 

Quote

Third, the briefings on the coronavirus have relegated Democrats’ favorite agenda items to the back page. Clearly, this pandemic is the story of the day, whether or not the president addresses the nation each afternoon. But having a daily one or two-hour session about therapies and equipment deliveries soaks up a lot of the evening news cycle.
That leaves little time to celebrate Greta Thunberg’s latest conquests or the struggles of transgender people, topics that tend to dominate liberal talk shows and newspapers. 

The kicker is the last -- here's the good brain that also thinks Hillary may be on the ticket in 2020.

Quote

Finally, liberals want to shut down the president’s TV exposure because the information given out during those briefings is important, like how low-income Americans can access expanded SNAP benefits or how small business owners can apply for a loan to tide them over these tough times.

Viewers are relying on that stream of news; they are communing with their president and the federal government in a way we rarely see. It is not clear how this virus will progress, when we can get back to work or how bad the economy will be over the next several months. But Americans see Trump fighting for them, every day, as hard as humanly possible. 

Democrats know that will help him win four more years. 

Where else will Americans get such critical information like the miracle of hydroxychloroquine, UV light, injecting disinfectant into the lungs, the terror of the 1918 flu epidemic in 1917, or what reporters are the big meanie of the day.

THAT IS WHY YOU TAKE 30 SECONDS TO LOOK AT YOUR SOURCE.

[Rippounet]

22 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Sometimes it becomes about the person. Or should I constrain myself to attacking Donald's arguments because you think this is the debate club?

Simon isn't anywhere close to Trump, and what's wrong with seeing the board as a debate club? No one here has actual power (save Ran, perhaps ).

4 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I'm tired of attacking every facile argument he and other sore losers pull out of their asses every day. It's constant.

This is a politics thread on the internet. Quite frankly, if you're tired of attacking facile arguments maybe you're the one in need of a break, because that's what we usually do here I think.
Not saying this to be an ass, I take breaks off my favorite forums every once in a while to avoid turning into a raving lunatic (not that I'm always successful at that ).

Even if most people here agree on 90% of things we're always going to focus on the other 10%, and it's always going to be the other people who spout ignorant bullshit. I'm not against biting/snarky comments here and there but lately this looks more like cyber-bullying than wit. Could it be, maybe -just maybe- that real-life anxieties are getting to people here and just a little amplifying the usual crosstalk?

But if brain spanking is your thing, just ignore me, we all have our kinks.

[mcbigski]

If I could make a modest proposal, perhaps Simon could refrain from reading centrist news sources?  Between the ostracizing for heresy and the higher cognitive load that comes with independent thought, the lot of you would all be happier I'm sure.

Of course if Simon is interested in learning more about Tara Reade he can't really just watch MSNBC.  In a recent poll 37% of their audience when asked about Biden and Tara Reade thought that Biden must have had a cameo as Stifler's Dad in American Pie IV.

And directly to Simon, we dont agree on much policy wise, but kudos for still being able to wrongthink.  Far too many posters here seem to find dissent not just wrong but evil.  Not sure what sort of meaningful political discussions we're going to have if we all have to conform or get dogpiled.

(Also what Rip just posted at the same time.  See above.)

[DanteGabriel]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

Attacking arguments is one thing.  Just seems like there's been a lot of attacking the person rather than the argument lately.  There's a big difference between hearing (or saying) "you're saying crazy shit" versus "what the hell happened to you"?

Fair enough. I need to try and do better about that. But the shitpost that Simon shared on top of previous arguments has been enough to make me question the person. Sad that it's come to that, but here we are.

Even if you think it's unreasonable to vet every author whose work you share, or if you think the author doesn't matter, the column itself was obvious garbage. Simon seems to think it's enough to declare victory that someone out there with a shingle on a website had the same idea as him. And sure, I guess it disproves the narrow claim that no one is making the argument. I'd say that it's telling that the person putting the argument out is a Fox News myrmidon who's just doing it to troll the libs and probably to create the kind of arguments we're having. That's why I accused him of trying to divide the left. It smacked of bad faith and deliberate shit-stirring, which was backed up by his "so what, I don't care" attitude about this Hillary Clinton theory.

[Zorral]

OK -- talking about a commentator here, rather than politics in the politics thread. That's how bankrupt politics has gotten? Really, nobody here has shred of influence over how any election plays out -- or even whether or not there will be an election, and that's the issue, isn't it?

There is not a single person that posts here than has not posted stupid shyte, and more than once, except, maybe, Rippounet?  There are also those who post mean and nasty as a personal choice and policy and boast of it, think its all about the lulz, which is gddamned counter-productive, but mmv, I guess. 

But again, the point is what's showing here, like unwashed underwear, is just how bankrupt the entire system and process is. 

Nevertheless! Our Congresswoman sent us the instructions and link to request our absentee ballot online so we can vote by mail. Which we will do, in spite of everything. We still have a local election here in June, even though the Dem Presidential Primary has been canceled.

 

[Rippounet]

10 minutes ago, Zorral said:

There is not a single person that posts here than has not posted stupid shyte, and more than once, except, maybe, Rippounet? 

Oh là là, I have to say I've definitely posted my fair share of stupid shyte. But thanks for forgetting.

As a return to serious business:

Quote

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/30/meet-trump-most-conservative-judicial-picks

Meet some of Trump’s most conservative judicial picks

Neomi Rao District of Columbia circuit court of appeals Washington DC

Rao, a former Trump White House official, created headlines before she took the bench because she had opposed prohibitions on “dwarf tossing”, by arguing that such bans strip little people of legal agency. She disavowed this position during her confirmation hearing, as well as past seemingly victim-blaming in writing on date rape in columns as a student such as when she wrote “a good way to avoid a potential date rape is to stay reasonably sober”.

Rao replaced Brett Kavanaugh, who despite extensive controversy during his confirmation hearing is now on the US supreme court.

 

Kavanaugh's replacement seems charming.

[Lollygag]

In an ideal world, it would be just about facts, but the alt-right is using these pieces to mind-warp their followers so there's a responsibility to be careful to not spread them.

For the Trump-set, whataboutism (What about Bill/Hillary?) excuses Trump from anything and is a defense mechanism to keep them from processing actual facts. "Clinton" has been raised to the level of a Pavlovian, rabid hate response and with the Clintons being less relevant, they've tried and as yet been unable to find a replacement (Obama, AOC, Schiff, Pelosi in 2018 all failed to reach the effect of "Clinton"). They come up with conspiracy theories about how the Clintons are somehow still relevant and a threat (the Clintons are behind an Obama shadow government operating in DC). Talk radio and Fox News have been repeatedly raising the specter of Hillary as Pres or VP in a variety of absurd and baseless scenarios to keep their base riled up and from drifting to Biden, especially the blue-collar white male voters. The more they get Biden linked to Hillary in the minds of these voters, the better for them.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, Week said:

Here's another good OPINION on THE HILL from the first page of googling "Liz Peek"

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/490734-5-reasons-democrats-fear-trumps-briefings

It's all bullshit i.e. 

The kicker is the last -- here's the good brain that also thinks Hillary may be on the ticket in 2020.

Where else will Americans get such critical information like the miracle of hydroxychloroquine, UV light, injecting disinfectant into the lungs, the terror of the 1918 flu epidemic in 1917, or what reporters are the big meanie of the day.

THAT IS WHY YOU TAKE 30 SECONDS TO LOOK AT YOUR SOURCE.

Edit: I am letting it go. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

 

56 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

If I could make a modest proposal, perhaps Simon could refrain from reading centrist news sources?  Between the ostracizing for heresy and the higher cognitive load that comes with independent thought, the lot of you would all be happier I'm sure.

Of course if Simon is interested in learning more about Tara Reade he can't really just watch MSNBC.  In a recent poll 37% of their audience when asked about Biden and Tara Reade thought that Biden must have had a cameo as Stifler's Dad in American Pie IV.

And directly to Simon, we dont agree on much policy wise, but kudos for still being able to wrongthink.  Far too many posters here seem to find dissent not just wrong but evil.  Not sure what sort of meaningful political discussions we're going to have if we all have to conform or get dogpiled.

(Also what Rip just posted at the same time.  See above.)

I did see that Tara Reade can't get something like MSNBC to talk to her, and she's been hit up by Fox News repeatedly and turned them down repeatedly. Here is a NYT article about it. For everyone's sake, I definitely did not look into Ben Smith, who wrote the article, and I don't plan to. It sounds like she's going to go on Fox with Chris Wallace, which I do know about him, and I think he's respectable and a good journalist.

I know you and I don't agree, but I certainly disparaged Republicans for similar things, and I always said if it were a democrat, then I'd do the same. I don't care if it's Biden or if it turned out to be Sanders--some type of investigation has to be done (like was attempted with Kavanaugh) no matter what position the candidate is up for. In fact, I'd say the position Biden is running for makes this more than imperative. 

 

54 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Fair enough. I need to try and do better about that. But the shitpost that Simon shared on top of previous arguments has been enough to make me question the person. Sad that it's come to that, but here we are.

Even if you think it's unreasonable to vet every author whose work you share, or if you think the author doesn't matter, the column itself was obvious garbage. Simon seems to think it's enough to declare victory that someone out there with a shingle on a website had the same idea as him. And sure, I guess it disproves the narrow claim that no one is making the argument. I'd say that it's telling that the person putting the argument out is a Fox News myrmidon who's just doing it to troll the libs and probably to create the kind of arguments we're having. That's why I accused him of trying to divide the left. It smacked of bad faith and deliberate shit-stirring, which was backed up by his "so what, I don't care" attitude about this Hillary Clinton theory.

Dante, I don't know if I'm trying to divide the left, or if I'm just letting out my frustrating about Biden in unproductive ways, but you're right--it's not fair to your or others for me to do that. So, I apologize, and I hope we can move past it. I'll leave the VP things alone, because I absolutely agree, Clinton being chosen is super low. It's just my personal favorite prediction right now--you know, like how every August, I declare that the Broncos will win the Super Bowl. It's not important enough to upset people, and I'm sorry to everyone I did anger. I hope we can just let this whole thing go, and I'll be more careful (and thoughtful) in my future posts. I think you're one hundred percent right. If Sean Hannity had written that article (or that blonde lady or funny looking guy on Fox) I would have not even considered using it here. 

Knowing what you showed me about the writer of that article, you are right, and I am wrong, and it's a bad article.

[Kalbear]

59 minutes ago, Zorral said:

OK -- talking about a commentator here, rather than politics in the politics thread. That's how bankrupt politics has gotten? Really, nobody here has shred of influence over how any election plays out -- or even whether or not there will be an election, and that's the issue, isn't it?

Didn't you call me something like a callous horrific ghoul because you misread what I said one time?

I'll take my answer offline thanks

 

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

There is not a single person that posts here than has not posted stupid shyte, and more than once, except, maybe, Rippounet?

That's my answer, Kal; no need to go offline, since it was already posted.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

Former Vice President Joe Biden is expected to address a recent allegation of sexual assault for the first time on Friday when he appears on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

Joe Biden set to break his silence on Tara Reade allegations
The Biden campaign has until now avoided public questioning about the accusation by Tara Reade.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/30/biden-tara-reade-response-227319

[Week]

34 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Joe Biden set to break his silence on Tara Reade allegations
The Biden campaign has until now avoided public questioning about the accusation by Tara Reade.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/30/biden-tara-reade-response-227319

Glad to see some response ... on Morning Joe? I don't know how that is going to do anything for anybody.

[Guest]

Quote

There is an increasing amount of bad blood between the center left and the left wings of the Democratic party over the past five years.  This is of course exacerbated by trolls and Russian hackers actively trying to divide the party (we've had both in these threads over the years).  What to do about it is hard to say, but I have been making an effort, both on the forum and in real life to foster a dialogue with Sanders supporters. 

@Maithanet

Long post incoming.

So, I've been thinking a lot about this post the past couple of days, and I think I am ready to address it somewhat coherently.

I'm going to start off by both-siding, but it's both-siding the wings of the left-of-center (and center, if they want to come along), and left of the political spectrum in the U.S. (myself included).

I'm going to use a quick example from the 2016 election as an example (please note, I am NOT interested in rehashing the 2016 election, this is for illustrative purposes only): the brouhaha when the Sanders staffer hacked the Clinton DNC files (oh, those were more innocent hacking times). 

To take the blame of the Sanders side, we mainly ignored the severity of such an infraction. I'm not really in much of a "linking to proofs and stuff" mood, but if I recall correctly, the staffer hacked in to Clinton's donor lists held by the DNC. 

That's some serious shit. Those lists are jealously guarded, and for good reason. Even though the campaign fired the staffer, the DNC was absolutely right to sanction the Sanders campaign. We should have recognized that was a big no-no. How would we have reacted if a Clinton staffer had hacked into Sanders' donors? We would just see it as "oh, it's no big deal, just a lone wolf hacker"? No, we would have lost our shit and called it a DNC plot.

Bad lefties, go sit in the corner for an hour and then write "I shall hang the cappie pig from the highest lamppost in the land" on the blackboard 26,000,000 times, or until the Bernie Bros shut the fuck up, whichever comes first.

Left-of-centers/moderates reacted pretty much like Sanders supporters would have under the same circumstances. But what gets lost in all the back and forth is wondering why we ever heard about the incident in the first place, which happened because the DNC massively overreacted to the breach by shutting off all access of the campaign to Sanders' donor lists, which if I recall from the time, was in breach of contract with the DNC (again, not looking to argue).

So, who at the DNC decided that it would be a great idea to blast this story into the public realm by using a sledgehammer to kill a gnat, especially in such a way that plays precisely into the distrust that many Sanders supporters had/have of the DNC? Bad left-of-centers/moderates, go sit in the corner and watch Sanders, Glenn Greenwald, and Cenk Uyger (or whatever his fucking name is) brain-fuck each other with anti-establishment rhetoric until universal healthcare gets passed in the U.S.

Bad actors and bad faith on both sides, and neither side is willing to unilaterally disarm. I absolutely feel that I'm right to distrust the motives of the DNC and powerbrokers in the Democratic party. But, I'm sure people on the other side of the aisle feel that whatever they think about Sanders supporters like me is justified too. It may even be justified. But it doesn't get us anywhere.

Look, I'll admit right now that I don't know the scope of the Bernie-bro shit. I'm not on Twitter, and I haven't checked my FB page since my mom died 3 years ago. So I'll admit that there's a lot of "see-no-evil" on my part. There's a lot of stuff the campaign did that I wish they hadn't. I really wish he hadn't gone on with Joe Rogan and the other group(s). But, at the same time, it's not exactly a revelation to point out that Sanders doesn't really have much naturally friendly media. So, I can see why the decision was made, even if I didn't agree with it.

You mention the primary loss, and yes, that was rather painful, and I'm saying that as someone who said on this board before Sanders announced (I think) that I hoped he wouldn't run this year, in order to give a chance for the bad blood to die down, and saying that after his heart attack that I hoped he would realize he'd fought the good fight and that it was time to pass the torch. Well, unfortunately he didn't take my advice, but you dance with the one what brung you, so I backed him again (although I did donate to a wide and diverse group of candidates, some which may surprise some people here based on my rhetoric). I never really expected him to actually even have a real shot at winning, up until his win in Nevada, so I had about a week of hope lol.

I badly misread that win. For me, the pain of his loss wasn't really that he lost; it was the way that it happened.

I hadn't really been officially volunteering for his campaign, but I attended some events and went on a couple of door knocking events in Latinx neighborhoods (I'm not Latinx, but I speak - whatever the step right above "broken" - Spanish would be called, can understand it fairly well, depending on the regional dialect, and spent several years living with and among some of the OKC Latinx community, so I'd go along if they couldn't find a Latinx volunteer who could go). The group of volunteers that I interacted with were, yes, mainly white, but it was a surprisingly more diverse group than you'd expect, especially here in Oklahoma. The only real lack of diversity was age; other than me and a couple of other old burnouts were bumming around, but most everyone was really fucking young (go figure).

So when Sanders won Nevada in the way he did, overwhelmingly, and among so many demographic groups, I mistakenly saw it as evidence that Sanders' appeal had broadened out beyond his usual constituency.

I was really not expecting the level of hostility that was directed at him by, yes mainly the media, but also by some influential Democratic elected officials and operatives in the week between the Nevada caucus and the South Carolina primary. It was really disheartening to learn that we are perceived as such a threat by our allies, or that's how it felt, at least. I know that just means I should grow a thicker skin (I'm a pretty outspoken progressive in a ruby-red state, after all), but I'm kind of constitutionally incapable of growing thicker skin past a certain point (more on that later).

I really think that, if Clinton was going to lose in 2016, it would have been better if she had been blown out than the way it happened. If she had been blown out, it wouldn't have mattered whose "fault" it was. We could have picked a scapegoat and moved on. But with such a small margin, you can essentially blame anyone, because everyone carries some of the blame. Yes, there were Sanders supporters who were stridently anti-Clinton, and either stayed home, voted 3rd party, or voted Trump. Other than those who voted Trump, there's an argument to be made that for some at least, it was a statement or protest vote, or a statement of not voting, because they (like everyone else) thought Clinton was a shoo-in. So, I'm not sure how much culpability can be accrued to voters like that - Clinton's inevitability was big part of her campaign, after all.

Clinton, and her campaign, bears some of the blame as well. She could have made Wisconsin more of a priority, for example. But, there's also an argument to be made that the focus on winning the popular vote in addition to the EC was an entirely rational concern. We had, after all, witnessed how Republicans were able to bash Obama for 8 years as an illegitimate president, so what do you think they would have done if Trump's and Clinton's positions had been reversed?

But we are still fighting the last war. The vote was so close at the margins that something as simple as weather or an early flu season may have reduced turnout. Republican disenfranchisement of PoCs definitely helped reduce turnout at the margins. So it's probably best to quit arguing about it.

Please note, I'm posting some personal and possibly triggering stuff below, which is something my therapist has been wanting to do for a while (I'm kinda cheating), but if anyone is going to quote this post could you please delete the part posted below? I'd like to have the opportunity to edit it out if I don't feel comfortable leaving it out there.

Re: the Biden allegations.

I'm incapable of being objective about the allegations. I was serially sexually abused by my best friend's father (and my peewee baseball and soccer leagues coach) between the ages of 6-8 or 9. I'm not exactly sure how old I was when it ended, just that it finally stopped when they moved to New York (don't worry, he's in prison now - speaking of, I really hope no one thinks I'm making stuff up to get sympathy or something, but if anyone thinks I'm full of shit, feel free to DM me and I'll send you the newspaper articles of his arrest, trial, and sentencing, as well as pictures proving he was my coach; that's all the evidence I have, but I can prove opportunity and history of behavior - which is more than probably 99% of people who've been abused/assaulted have). 

To this day, I don't remember the actual abuse (thank god). I can't really remember hardly anything of my life before the age of 10. What I do remember is how he gave me a cool nickname when I scored my first goal in soccer, and how I thought it was so cool that their house had a basement (not a ton of basements in Oklahoma), and it was even cooler that the basement was filled with the coolest fucking toys (hello, Death Star!) and how we got to sleep down there (of course, now I know I was just being groomed). And I can only remember that he'd come down and tuck me in whenever I'd stay the night (which was often; he was my coach and a respected professor at the college, why wouldn't my parents have trusted him), but not what happened during, and then always the image in my head of him being silhouetted by the hall light as he'd climb up the stairs to leave the basement.

After my semi-breakdown the other day, I wondered why I had such a visceral reaction to the evidence seemingly corroborating Reade's story. So, I looked up my abuser. When I saw his mugshot, it made sense; there are certain shared features (that my subconscious is probably over-exaggerating) between him and Biden.

So, I'm just going to back out of all further discussion on that topic. The last thing I will say on the topic is that Biden needs to address them soon, and seriously. I've been seeing reports that the women who backed him (Klobuchar, Warren, etc., are growing increasingly frustrated that they're having to answer questions about it, while Biden seems to be trying to starve the story of oxygen. If that is what he's doing, that's just bad politics, because you're alienating the people who helped you become the nominee.

I don't know if I'll be able to vote for him, but I have the luxury of not doing so, because if Oklahoma is in play enough to be close enough for 1 vote to matter, Trump would have already been blown out. However, I will be donating to Abby Broyles' Senate campaign to hopefully unseat Jim Inhofe, and will be donating to and volunteering for Kendra Horn to retain her congressional seat. 

I'm not a moron. Trump absolutely cannot win another term. My heart is still in the right place, but I don't know if that'll be enough for me to be able to pull the lever for Biden in November.

[GrimTuesday]

4 minutes ago, Week said:

Glad to see some response ... on Morning Joe? I don't know how that is going to do anything for anybody.

It allows Joe to address it without actually having to address it. Morning Joe is prime Biden demo, older, more centrists dems who are already sympathetic towards him, so it is less likely that he will be pressed on anything or have to worry about questions will be framed in a way that makes him look bad. Alternatively they are doing it early in the morning so that they can capture the news xycle rather than allowing it to keep rolling on. This isn't a judgement on whether I think that is right or wrong, it I was running his campaign, I'd probably do the same.

My third theory is that it is because they want to call it Morning Joe Biden.

[Guest]

Okay, I'm going to try to link to a tweet, not sure how it'll go.

Goddamn, Democrats should just pay Xinhua News however much it would take to get the full rights to this video, and just run it 24/7 non-stop between now and November. It's the most effective distillation of the idiocy of the U.S. response to the coronavirus I've seen yet 

https://mobile.twitter.com/XHNews/status/1255734356728922113?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1255864182332948482&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftalkingpointsmemo.com%2F

Yeah, it's propaganda. But it's goddamn effective propaganda.

[Fury Resurrected]

6 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

@Maithanet

Long post incoming.

/snipped/

So, I'm just going to back out of all further discussion on that topic. The last thing I will say on the topic is that Biden needs to address them soon, and seriously. I've been seeing reports that the women who backed him (Klobuchar, Warren, etc., are growing increasingly frustrated that they're having to answer questions about it, while Biden seems to be trying to starve the story of oxygen. If that is what he's doing, that's just bad politics, because you're alienating the people who helped you become the nominee.

I don't know if I'll be able to vote for him, but I have the luxury of not doing so, because if Oklahoma is in play enough to be close enough for 1 vote to matter, Trump would have already been blown out. However, I will be donating to Abby Broyles' Senate campaign to hopefully unseat Jim Inhofe, and will be donating to and volunteering for Kendra Horn to retain her congressional seat. 

I'm not a moron. Trump absolutely cannot win another term. My heart is still in the right place, but I don't know if that'll be enough for me to be able to pull the lever for Biden in November.

I just wanted to acknowledge your post with some solidarity and that I relate very much to your feelings and appreciate your candor.

[Stannis Cool-Ranchus]

At the risk of getting my head bitten off again, as an American citizen whose been living abroad in Germany for the past few years, basically all of the Trump administration, I see all these liberals ditching the #MeToo act as soon as it turns onto a politician they support with such incredulity it almost borders on comical. I mean this is exactly what happened during Bill Clinton's administration.

I'l fully admit I have plenty of political reasons to hate Joe Biden, and I probably wouldn't have voted for him anyway. I'd never vote for Trump either, or anyone else in his party. But the thing is Biden is more or less in lockstep with that party in a lot of really significant ways. You all act like Republicans are so anathema to you, but you still support these Democrat candidates that are basically Republicans with a slightly "woke" veneer.

I consider myself a leftist, not a liberal. I'm focusing on down-ballot elections. Republicans could very easily lose the Senate this time around, which would protect the Supreme Court. But I'm not doing this "lesser of two rapists" bullshit centrists are trying to push, and biting my head off for pointing out an unpleasant reality isn't going to change anything.

[DanteGabriel]

55 minutes ago, Stannis Cool-Ranchus said:

 

I'l fully admit I have plenty of political reasons to hate Joe Biden, and I probably wouldn't have voted for him anyway. I'd never vote for Trump either, or anyone else in his party. But the thing is Biden is more or less in lockstep with that party in a lot of really significant ways. You all act like Republicans are so anathema to you, but you still support these Democrat candidates that are basically Republicans with a slightly "woke" veneer.

 

Please list these ways, and be as specific as you can. Because these threads have seen a ton of "the parties are the same" arguments.

There is some amount of truth to it, which is how people get there in the first place. The Democrats are captive to corporate interests and run by wealthy, out of touch plutocrats  whose top priority is preserving their own power. But they are still, to me, very different from the apocalyptic death cult for billionaires that the Republican Party has turned into. Endless wars of choice, trickle down economics, waging war on organized labor, suppressing the rights of LGBTQ+ people, white supremacy, lack of gun regulation, pillaging the environment, being willing to listen to scientists -- you really think the parties are the same? Because a shitty primary process got us a presumptive nominee with a rape allegation that has only surfaced recently? The Democrats won't give us a perfect, or even very nice world. But they're the only thing, corrupt and feckless as they are, preventing the Republicans from burning down the world we do have.

So make your case, and please make it a good one, because this shit has been done before. And give us something better than "I heard it on a podcast" like when you tried to sell us some lame, easily verifiable bullshit about Clinton's website getting updated policy positions. That's how you get marked as a troll and get your head bitten off.