|
Who will you vote for in 2020? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Biden |
|
425 | 18.06% |
| Trump |
|
105 | 4.46% |
| whoever the Green Party runs |
|
307 | 13.05% |
| GOOGLE RON PAUL |
|
151 | 6.42% |
| Bernie Sanders |
|
346 | 14.70% |
| Stalin |
|
246 | 10.45% |
| Satan |
|
300 | 12.75% |
| Nobody |
|
202 | 8.58% |
| Jess Scarane |
|
110 | 4.67% |
| mystery man Brian Carroll of the American Solidarity Party |
|
61 | 2.59% |
| Dick Nixon |
|
100 | 4.25% |
| Total: | 2089 votes | ||
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What makes you mad? Biden wants to raise taxes, the article is the one saying “woah there, raise taxes on the rich? 400,000 isn’t so rich buster!” How does that make you mad at Biden? Perhaps you could consider the distinction between "Biden" and "these fuckers" in the post and why the poster bothered to make that distinction? e: and yes, we are all quite well aware of how you're trying to quietly slink away from your prior dumb things you posted and the perfectly cogent responses thereto, as usual eviltastic fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Oct 7, 2020 |
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 04:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:02 |
|
|
eviltastic posted:Perhaps you could consider the distinction between "Biden" and "these fuckers" in the post and why the poster bothered to make that distinction? Dude doesn't even know what a leftist is but claims to be one, Tim Pool style
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 05:20
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What makes you mad? Biden wants to raise taxes, the article is the one saying “woah there, raise taxes on the rich? 400,000 isn’t so rich buster!” How does that make you mad at Biden? You might get into fewer dumb arguments if you bothered to read what people post. Fewer still if you read charitably. Nothing there made me mad at Biden. Biden being a rapist warmongering new-jim-crow-building dog-whistling cop-loving wholly owned subsidiary of business lobbyists makes me mad at Biden. But the "$400k/yr isn't that much!" people also make me mad. Not madder than Biden - they are just acting out their base greed. What makes me madder than Biden? The fact that major news outlets will unfailingly run stories like that. How the gently caress is there ever going to be a workers movement if every major media outlet is operated for the exclusive benefit of capital? We can't vote them out because they'll rig it if it gets close. We can't change people's minds by pointing out capital's manifest crimes against humanity because the media is running cover for them every day. We can't even organize effectively against power because it's literally a police state where the government is constantly spying on its own citizens. The police have unlimited budgets and the will to commit any crime in order to stitch up leftists. It's loving dire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 06:33
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 08:55
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:There's no need for duping anyone; they're just in ideological agreement on most things to begin with. If anyone is saying that these Republicans are tricking the Democrats into being right-wing, they're also wrong. There was simply never a major ideological division between Democratic Party leadership and neoconservatives to begin with. Well, in that case the appearance of current or former GOP pols at the DNC isn't evidence or the beginning of some sort of corrupt bargain for GOP influence in the Biden administration anyway, and the whole conversation is just kind of moot and silly. We can have an argument about a uni-party and the pervasiveness of neo-conservativism without getting into what is frankly supposition about whether their appearance at the DNC convention is evidence of that or not. There is plenty of more evidence out there than a speaking gig in a minor time slot at the convention. Obama's cabinet picks, for instance, are a pretty good marker (in the absence of any other tea leaves) for what Biden's will look like. And there is plenty there that should scare the poo poo out of Democrats and Leftists. moths posted:I'm asking you to consider what these Republicans have that granted them the access you and I do not have. This ties in to the prior point. I'm not missing that possibility. I just don't see it as the most plausible explanation. Certainly not manifest proof. They didn't need to have influence to appear, just as the kid whose parents got deported or died of COVID didn't need influence to appear. All you need to appear at the DNC is something the DNC wants. My experience with politics is that it is extremely transactional, but also like herding cats. Even within the party, everything is an exchange or transaction. Strong leadership from the top is difficult, because these cats you are trying to herd are also all crabs in a bucket that want to be at the top. There are expansive systems of patronage and favors that are very often personal to the pols in question. So when I see anyone get a speaking slot, I don't see it as evidence of some pre-existing alignment on a party level, I see it as a mutually beneficial transaction. The benefit for the DNC is obvious. Why did the GOP pols agree to appear? As I linked in an earlier post, what comes to mind to me are things like resume-padding for private sector careers and relationships, personal grudges, intra-party fights to direct the future of the GOP, etc. Way down on that list for me is "they are buying influence in the Biden administration" because that's not the kind of transaction you make-- especially with a pol from the other party. Its unenforceable. Once you speak at the convention, you have no leverage anymore. How can you be sure the other side will hold up their end of the deal? Transactions in politics are like drug deals-- the money and the goods either need to exchange immediately, or there needs to be some form of escrow both sides can trust. Your analogy to Phillip Morris and a elementary school doesn't track. Why are they there? Has the CEO decided to move Phillip Morris away from tobacco products, and is there to speak about how smoking is wrong and what we did in the past is wrong? I might question the motives, sure. But if we vet them, and it all checks out, why not? There is plenty of evidence out there for a corrupt bargain and uni-party establishment. A speaking role at the DNC for former or current GOP pols just isn't that. At least not for me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 14:20
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What makes you mad? Biden wants to raise taxes, the article is the one saying “woah there, raise taxes on the rich? 400,000 isn’t so rich buster!” How does that make you mad at Biden? Care to cite what makes you think that tweet gets them mad about Biden? It's unclear to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 14:40
|
|
|
Grayly Squirrel posted:There is plenty of evidence out there for a corrupt bargain and uni-party establishment. A speaking role at the DNC for former or current GOP pols just isn't that. At least not for me. I guess I'm confused because you seem to be agreeing with the premise but somehow concluding that other people are wrong because they are making their conclusion based only on this one specific piece of evidence as if they don't know about all the other evidence that you agree exists. I think they do. You seem to be arguing that they are right, but that this specific evidence pointing to that conclusion doesn't actually point that way, just vaguely nearby in the same direction. It's tedious. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Oct 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 14:46
|
|
|
There was a page on league of women's voters for my state (Texas), which specifically mentioned that COVID-19 would be a legitimate reason to put disability. Turns out that's not the case, at all and I could be prosecuted. Now I'm in this weird limbo where I have to wait for the mail in ballot to arrive so I can surrender it, and I'll have to go in to vote anyway. Just with an additional barrier in my way. Great. That's what I get for trusting someone else to do the legwork for me, but I'm still pretty annoyed at the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 15:17
|
|
|
When the campaign ad is a little too historically accurate. https://twitter.com/mattdanzico/status/1313555589247754240
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 15:57
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Thank you for this information, that was a good read. It was interesting to see the differences in proactive vs maintenance arrests as the gentrification occurred. Overall, none of it was too surprising, but it's always great to see (what looks to be) well researched data becoming more available. Although, I wish that New York made 911 calls public. The biggest part that made me cringe in that research paper was the following assumption: I don't know the particular stats on it, but generally, the police are extremely hands off of minority majority areas for a variety of reasons. They'll still show up and try to ruin lives, but they generally consider those areas hostile territory. Conversely cops in 'nicer' (read: whiter) neighborhoods treat it like their god given duty to stop anyone who looks like they don't belong. So I could 100% see how there would be dramatically more racially targeted stops.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 15:58
|
|
|
Quiet Enable posted:When the campaign ad is a little too historically accurate. this seems like a pretty big stretch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 16:28
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Newsweek/status/1313797239572176897?s=19 Dare you enter... The Bone Zone? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 16:32
|
|
|
I wasn't sure if this was long-term capital gains tax so I looked around and it appears that it is. Its a good policy. I was worried that this was just a new marginal bracket on short-term gains, which doesn't address root causes of tax advantages for the rich. Regarding taxes on corporations, a while ago I read some stuff from economists that recommended that instead of taxing corporations directly we should tax capital gains and dividends, because those target the capital class more specifically. It goes markedly against leftist thought, but it does seem to make sense to me (overall corporation tax covers a broad swath of people including employees potentially, whereas capital gains is targeted specifically to the benefitting class). So for Biden's policy, at least, I'm not so concerned if capital gains is where he wants to focus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 16:40
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:I don't know the particular stats on it, but generally, the police are extremely hands off of minority majority areas for a variety of reasons. They'll still show up and try to ruin lives, but they generally consider those areas hostile territory. Conversely cops in 'nicer' (read: whiter) neighborhoods treat it like their god given duty to stop anyone who looks like they don't belong. So I could 100% see how there would be dramatically more racially targeted stops. What do you mean by "extremely hands off"? If you mean it has a lower priority when it comes to 911 calls versus richer neighborhoods, absolutely. If you mean the police stays out of the neighborhood in general, I don't know if I'ld completely agree with that statement. I can't imagine a neighborhood in any US city that doesn't have beat cops assigned to it. If you look at that research article that The Oldest Man linked, it states the following: quote:The associations between racial gentrification and low‐level police actions were mixed. When more white people moved into the typical gentrifiable neighborhood, police made fewer street stops and fewer proactive arrests, but more order maintenance arrests. Edit: I misread the values in Table 1. It appears that the change in order maintenance arrests isn't a lot more than proactive arrests as I initially thought. Kalit fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Oct 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 16:47
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I guess I'm confused because you seem to be agreeing with the premise but somehow concluding that other people are wrong because they are making their conclusion based only on this one specific piece of evidence as if they don't know about all the other evidence that you agree exists. I think they do. I don't necessarily agree with the premise. But if you want to discuss it, there are not only better ways to do that, but more accurate ways, which is what I was pointing out. Maybe its tedious to you, but being accurate about why something is being done is important to me. Otherwise we can just all agree with each, and stop thinking critically. We basically created an entire new thread to actually discuss the election because of NoJoe hive mind mentality that goes on in here. Conclusory statements like "having GOP pols speak at the DNC convention is either evidence of a corrupt bargain, or prima facie evidence that they are the same entity" is bad logic and confirmation bias that should be pushed back on. Because we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. If you find it tedious, I think you should examine why you feel that way. There are certainly moderate, neo-con, establishment (whatever you want to call it) elements in both parties, and they have more in common than most who don't follow these things probably realize. I don't think its as pervasive or coordinated as the NoJoes here seem to think. If you want to know what I think, my experience and evidence suggests to me that political parties aren't monoliths, and the various factions inside parties are often times more personal than ideological. That can often seem like uniparty from the outside. But what I find more likely (and more horrifying) is not that these "establishment" groups actively coordinate across party lines as a uniparty, but that transactional and non-ideological self interest by "establishment" politicians in the context of a capitalist system leads all but true political ideologues towards similar corrupt deals with the capital class. The "horse race" is real, because there are essentially two different "teams" which actually do compete for power, albeit in order to extra wealth and privilege for their "team" in largely the same manner. In that context, not only is the presence of GOP speakers at the DNC convention totally irrelevant, its really a red herring. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 16:48
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:There was a page on league of women's voters for my state (Texas), which specifically mentioned that COVID-19 would be a legitimate reason to put disability. That sucks. Sorry to hear that. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 17:30
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:That sucks. Sorry to hear that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 17:34
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:The thing is, it's not like they can request my medical records to prove disability, so it's basically an empty threat? I just don't want to risk getting my ballot thrown out. I wouldn't put it past Texas government to throw away legitimate ballots over a technicality. tbh if I were in your shoes I'd surrender it, get some proof they received it, then just not vote on the assumption that they're gonna claim your in person was fraudulent because you illegally requested a mail in or whatever. Texas isn't flipping no matter what the permanent loser TXDEMs say but they do love tossing out felonies for this sort of thing edit - or I guess you can show up in a bunch of camo and loudly talk about how stoked you are to vote to re-elect MY PRESIDENT or whatever. I've never seen someone who voted for a Republican punished for illegal voting even when they actually did it
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 17:40
|
|
|
This is a Republican internal poll showing Biden up 5 in FL, and it’s before he got Covid. This is a very bad sign for Trump. https://twitter.com/ppollingnumbers/status/1313862523381190657?s=21
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 17:45
|
|
|
I'd like to see someone poll NoJoes on their beliefs. It seems pretty clear to me that anyone with the tag falls roughly into line on a host of issues, but now it's unfair to generalize? Which NoJoes, for example, don't believe there is a corrupt bargain or tit for tat going on between Republicans (i.e. convention attendees, lincoln project) and democrats?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 17:53
|
|
|
Shammypants posted:I'd like to see someone poll NoJoes on their beliefs. It seems pretty clear to me that anyone with the tag falls roughly into line on a host of issues, but now it's unfair to generalize? This is bad comedy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 17:56
|
|
|
StealthArcher posted:This is bad comedy. Do you believe it or not? I don't think I have ever seen a NoJoe post otherwise. I'm not making any value judgment about it, maybe it is true and maybe it is not, just that it's such a common trope that it's impossible not to generalize.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 17:59
|
|
|
Shammypants posted:I'd like to see someone poll NoJoes on their beliefs. It seems pretty clear to me that anyone with the tag falls roughly into line on a host of issues, but now it's unfair to generalize? No bullshit generalizations in the “bullshit generalization“ thread, please.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 18:03
|
|
|
Shammypants posted:I'd like to see someone poll NoJoes on their beliefs. It seems pretty clear to me that anyone with the tag falls roughly into line on a host of issues, but now it's unfair to generalize? I'd like to see both nojoe and projoe filtered to goon
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 18:03
|
|
|
I think the notion that the two parties are far enough apart for coordination between members of one with the other constitutes some kind of corruption or smoky room dealmaking is where the mistake rests here. The Dems want nothing more than to reach out and give the Republicans final say on anything they do, and the Republicans want nothing more than to instruct the Dems as to what they will be doing. It's not some political 12D chess, it's just that the Dems are a male anglerfish and now both parties share the same blood supply. The only thing that would be shocking or unprecedented would be if they started formally aligning with their left and granting them even half as much of the platform to dictate as they have the Republican wing of their party
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 18:04
|
|
|
Quiet Enable posted:When the campaign ad is a little too historically accurate. We've reached part where Jared steals an Air Force bomber and flies to Scotland in a mad attempt to negotiate the regime's surrender.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 18:07
|
|
|
Shammypants posted:I'd like to see someone poll NoJoes on their beliefs. It seems pretty clear to me that anyone with the tag falls roughly into line on a host of issues, but now it's unfair to generalize? there is no quid pro quo, the democrats are just loving stupid enough to think that tacking towards the middle is how Mature Grown Ups do politics, and the lincoln project exists as a bunch of disaffected neocon true believers who were left out in the cold after 2008 who think of the democrats as one giant bloc of useful idiots it's not a conspiracy theory in the sense that there is some dark machination going on, it's just that the democrats think that this is the only practical way to govern and to lead: by working with people who want to deny your party any power or leverage this is not a secret, and it is in fact openly and proudly trumpeted by biden and obama
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 18:08
|
|
|
Shammypants posted:Do you believe it or not? I don't think I have ever seen a NoJoe post otherwise. I'm not making any value judgment about it, maybe it is true and maybe it is not, just that it's such a common trope that it's impossible not to generalize. If what you're looking for is for one of us to say that there was some sort of accusation of there being an overt "i'll give you x if you do y for me" agreement, I don't think you'd find many (if any) people espousing that belief. Speaking strictly for myself on this, I believe it's more of an unspoken understanding that there are certain conditions that are good for both parties regardless of which party is the figurehead of the US government at the time. Trump hasn't necessarily been bad for the common interest (read: wealth) of both parties, but he has been unpredictable which is less than ideal. From my perspective, it's more like a coded message that Democrats are willing to make concession social issues to Republicans if they'll just get on board and help get the chaos element out of the white house so they can all go back to the sort of performative tug-of-war that's normally on display.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 18:09
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I think the notion that the two parties are far enough apart for coordination between members of one with the other constitutes some kind of corruption or smoky room dealmaking is where the mistake rests here. The Dems want nothing more than to reach out and give the Republicans final say on anything they do, and the Republicans want nothing more than to instruct the Dems as to what they will be doing. Especially when Joe Biden keeps repeatedly saying he is going to work directly with Republicans, campaigned for a Republican in 2018, wants a strong Republican Party, is hiring Republicans, and has a history of “capitulating” to Republicans (the words of a D senate staffer). Yet it’s treated as some grand conspiracy to point out that Republicans love Biden because they will get what they want from him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 18:10
|
|
|
As a reminder too: its not just Biden. There's multiple folks like Coons, Carper, Manchin, etc in the party who are very proud to work with republicans and go as far as making it clear that THEY are the ones reaching across the aisle to do things like grant companies immunity against any lawsuits over COVID infections due to lack of PPE for employees. Or like Coons stating he would 100% be happy to vote for war with Iran.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 18:13
|
|
|
Look, theres just no way you can prove that conservative ghouls are backing the most conservative democrat alive because they believe he will govern conservatively.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 18:14
|
|
|
silicone thrills posted:As a reminder too: its not just Biden. There's multiple folks like Coons, Carper, Manchin, etc in the party who are very proud to work with republicans and go as far as making it clear that THEY are the ones reaching across the aisle to do things like grant companies immunity against any lawsuits over COVID infections due to lack of PPE for employees. Or like Coons stating he would 100% be happy to vote for war with Iran. In advoice: and I'm not afraid to reach across the aisle to GET. IT. DONE.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 18:15
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Look, theres just no way you can prove that conservative ghouls are backing the most conservative democrat alive because they believe he will govern conservatively. it really is so loving patronizing. We have multiple neocon freaks backing a man that has said he's pro-war and pro-austerity and 'tough on crime' all his career, and if we say 'I think the right wing ghouls are supporting him because they know his agenda is in line with theirs, even if they need to do the kabuki of saying everything he does is literal communism once he wins' then it becomes 'oh, so what, you think there's some GRAND CONSPIRACY?!' No, rear end in a top hat, it's not a grand conspiracy at all, it's in fact very overt and simple!
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 18:18
|
|
|
Shammypants posted:I'd like to see someone poll NoJoes on their beliefs. It seems pretty clear to me that anyone with the tag falls roughly into line on a host of issues, but now it's unfair to generalize? You'll have to be more specific. What do you mean by a tit for tat? Like, an R politician did something in exchange for a D politician to do something? Isn't that just called a compromise? Doesn't that happen every day in a functioning political system?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 18:21
|
|
|
Or are you including actual monetary payments between the parties? Or donors? Or what?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 18:21
|
|
|
Shammypants posted:I'd like to see someone poll NoJoes on their beliefs. It seems pretty clear to me that anyone with the tag falls roughly into line on a host of issues, but now it's unfair to generalize? i dont believe there is a bargain or tit for tat going on. because democrat leadership believes the exact same poo poo the lincoln project rubes do so what is there to trade
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 18:37
|
|
|
If by corrupt bargain you mean deliberate sabotage of the party in order to undermine leftist elements within it, as happened with Corbyn, no, I don't think that's what's going on with convention speaker selection. Why would they? They won that fight already, and a public convention isn't how you'd do that anyway. We'd probably be talking about sabotage if Bernie had won, but he lost. The convention was about signaling to voters what Biden's victory means for the future of the party. That's not some kind of tit for tat dealmaking except insofar as it's politicians doing politics. Do you mean to reference leftists talking about democrats wanting to lose and preferring to be in the minority? I do not think that is true of the Biden campaign. I think they're playing the hand they've been dealt quite well lately, and are being rewarded for it in the polls.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:i dont believe there is a bargain or tit for tat going on. because democrat leadership believes the exact same poo poo the lincoln project rubes do so what is there to trade I can't remember if your allowed to empty quote here but this sums up my feelings. Conservative members of the democratic party are happily dragging it right to meet up with their buds on the right. It's not a tit for tat thing. It's not even a compromise. It's where they want to be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
Biden got his career start by specifically attacking the Republican incumbent for supporting the civil rights legislation. He literally put out campaign materials saying "“To Cale Boggs, an unfair tax was the 1948 poll tax, to Joe Biden, an unfair tax is the 1972 income tax.” It is not at all an accident that he was friendly with segregationists. The idea that it requires some backroom deal to get republicans and democrats on the same page on a number of issues is ridiculous. It is as simple as knowing where the power lies. There's no need to have a "corrupt bargain" to privatize the USPS. All you gotta do is be aware that there is far more campaign money, connections etc to be made from supporting it than opposing it. The real remarkable thing about the USPS for example, is that the number of mailboxes removed per year are nearly identical under Obama and Trump.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:02 |
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:This is a Republican internal poll showing Biden up 5 in FL, and it’s before he got Covid. This is a very bad sign for Trump. my brain has been trained to assume the worst possible outcome will result out of everything that happens at all times, so I find myself assuming this will help, not hurt, trump. I really don't know how anyone is supposed to meaningfully predict it, especially when he might die at any moment
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 19:07
|
|
