Biden clenches the nomination.

[tstorm823]

That sounds kind of like communism. Please do not re-frame the scriptures to suit your personal desires.

You understand that's what you're doing, right? They were explicitly condemned for lying. The line "was it not your own" is there to make it clear having property wasn't the problem. Notably absent is the chapter where someone is condemned for not selling their things in the first place. But that context weakens your political argument, so you're ignoring it.

Nevermind that you still haven't grasped that supporting people by selling your possessions to someone else isn't communism. It's generosity, sure. Sharing is caring. But you'll note, the apostles didn't divvy up chores among themselves to generate a self-sustaining community of equals. No, the wealthy among them cared for the poor, leaving it to the religious authority to identify the needs. That's not communism, that's charity, and it's also system that collapses the moment you run out of rich people. You're idealizing a system that had classes and required the wealthy, and just ignoring those parts that don't suit you.

Do you mean the parable of the talents? That was a clear metaphor. It was not literally about making physical money, it was about using the gifts and the privileges that god gave you at birth to achieve his spiritual will on earth. It wasn't about money at all.

It was about money. It being a metaphor doesn't make it not about money. Do you really think Jesus would give a parable explaining what proper behavior is and choose an immoral behavior as the metaphor? The parable doesn't work if you think the literal idea of it is immoral. Jesus wasn't saying "the boss gave them money and expected them to make more out of it, and whoever best exploited the underclass was the most loved, and that's how you should use the gifts God gave you!" That's not a very good parable.

 

[Worgen]

I think even if the Democratic candidate IS racist... more racist than his Republican opponent, it would not matter as long as the Democratic candidate can be counted on to follow up on preferred policies. For example, I've read Hillary Clinton is a monstrous racist bigot. But if she really would employ the right Democratic programs, spending and appoint the correct judges, she'll get the votes of those that care about such matters, regardless of their personal feelings for that candidate. Policy matters more than individual conduct. And actually, I think it should to the extent that we can count on the candidate to follow through as they have campaigned

I would take anything you read about Hillary with a grain of salt. She is the most attacked politician in american politics. The republican party has had her on their hit list since the mid 90s, I am not exaggerating.

 

[Houseman]

You understand that's what you're doing, right? They were explicitly condemned for lying. The line "was it not your own" is there to make it clear having property wasn't the problem. Notably absent is the chapter where someone is condemned for not selling their things in the first place. But that context weakens your political argument, so you're ignoring it.

Nevermind that you still haven't grasped that supporting people by selling your possessions to someone else isn't communism. It's generosity, sure. Sharing is caring. But you'll note, the apostles didn't divvy up chores among themselves to generate a self-sustaining community of equals. No, the wealthy among them cared for the poor, leaving it to the religious authority to identify the needs. That's not communism, that's charity, and it's also system that collapses the moment you run out of rich people. You're idealizing a system that had classes and required the wealthy, and just ignoring those parts that don't suit you.



It was about money. It being a metaphor doesn't make it not about money. Do you really think Jesus would give a parable explaining what proper behavior is and choose an immoral behavior as the metaphor? The parable doesn't work if you think the literal idea of it is immoral. Jesus wasn't saying "the boss gave them money and expected them to make more out of it, and whoever best exploited the underclass was the most loved, and that's how you should use the gifts God gave you!" That's not a very good parable.

You're right about the charity part, but I disagree with you about the money part.

What was Jesus trying to teach us? "Make money or else it's a sin"? "Make sure your savings account gives you a good interest rate?"

The traveling man entrusted his belongings to his slaves. That's the first hint as to what this parable is about. Jesus entrusted his congregation to a few slaves: those who would be leaders. When he returns "in his glory", as the next few verses say, there will be an accounting. See also Matthew 24:45-47

I agree that this parable shouldn't be used to try and say that communism had God's stamp of approval, however.

 

[Trunkage]

This is the problem with the social democrats. They assume that the person voted into office will fight for social policies they support through some kind of social pressure. In truth, even Obama never really fought for the social progress of black ameriacans. Why would a frumpy 60 year old white woman who hates gay people, and a dementia ridden racist from the 1970's, care at all about fixing social issues? They don't have to be antagonistic to do massive damage. They just have to be indiferent, because that social or political pressure you imagine doesn't exist in any meaningful way. They can get elected, do nothing, and still pretend to be morally superior. In fact, social justice has become weaponized by a class of wealthy elites to avoid actually instituting social reform that helps minorities in this country, because their wealthy landed corporate owners don't want them to. If you're one of the social democrats supporting biden and hillary, then you are supporting both the right wing billionaire class, and the systematic racism that permeates society. And when confronted with the truth, you shrug your shoulders and say that things are just stuck the way they are, which is what your rich corporate owners tell you. Stop simping for right wing politicians.

1. Obama wasn’t a social democrat
2. He was known as Deporter-in-Chief and put up a buttload of wall. Trump is trying to be Obama and can't keep up
3. His policy was 'not Bush' plus Medicare but not for all
4. He definitely wasn’t about Social Justice. He was going up against people who were tearing down the current level of equality. He had to do was nothing

It's why the Dems thought Clinton could win. She wasnt for much, just 'not Trump.' And the idiots are doing it again in 2020

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

You've got people in this thread saying they won't vote for Biden because of things like that.

OTOH, the Republican party is full of obviously worse people, so saying "Don't vote for that rapist, vote for this rapist who is much worse and has lots of rapist friends and colleagues" might not be that convincing.

I've been saying don't vote for either rapist.

The US is a 2 party system only in so much that everyone is convinced it's a 2 party system. If everyone chose to back literally any other 3rd party candidate who isn't a rapist suddenly it's not a 2 party system anymore.

Of course people won't do that, so it won't work, but the only reason that people won't do that is because they're convinced that people won't do that and no other reason.

 

[Worgen]

1. Obama wasn’t a social democrat
2. He was known as Deporter-in-Chief and put up a buttload of wall. Trump is trying to be Obama and can't keep up
3. His policy was 'not Bush' plus Medicare but not for all
4. He definitely wasn’t about Social Justice. He was going up against people who were tearing down the current level of equality. He had to do was nothing

It's why the Dems thought Clinton could win. She wasnt for much, just 'not Trump.' And the idiots are doing it again in 2020

He still got gay marriage going for people, the ACA was still way better then what we had and he did push for more but would take what he could get, despite the claim he was the deporter in chief, he also made DACA happen using the only means he could and he gave us our first Hispanic supreme court justice.

 

[Worgen]

I've been saying don't vote for either rapist.

The US is a 2 party system only in so much that everyone is convinced it's a 2 party system. If everyone chose to back literally any other 3rd party candidate who isn't a rapist suddenly it's not a 2 party system anymore.

Of course people won't do that, so it won't work, but the only reason that people won't do that is because they're convinced that people won't do that and no other reason.

Well, with that you run into the issue of those on the left being split so someone from the right gets in and vice versa, which we saw with Clinton in the 90s. Despite the 'read my lips, no new taxes' then new taxes that Bush Sr had to set, he was still most likely going to win that election. Except there was the Ross Perot and he ended up splitting the republican vote which allowed Clinton to win. We have a ton of 3rd parties, but none of them are viable in a national election, they are barely viable in state elections.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yeah, a viable third party isn't going to happen.

A radical change in our society is absolutely necessary.

A radical change also isn't going to happen, though.

 

[Asita]

I've been saying don't vote for either rapist.

The US is a 2 party system only in so much that everyone is convinced it's a 2 party system. If everyone chose to back literally any other 3rd party candidate who isn't a rapist suddenly it's not a 2 party system anymore.

Of course people won't do that, so it won't work, but the only reason that people won't do that is because they're convinced that people won't do that and no other reason.

Except that doesn't work. The design of First Past the Post voting makes a two-party system the inevitable result. The reason is explained pretty succinctly here, so I won't go into too much detail. Suffice it to say that when faced with the reality that your preferred candidate has no chance of winning, people predictably respond by switching their votes to a candidate with better chances, slowly eliminating viable parties until you're left with a two-party system. Trying to change that not only inevitably fails but backfires, as it relies so heavily on poaching votes from the two main parties. Assuming you get a suitably charismatic candidate for your new party, the bulk of the voters you'll be relying on will be the ones that you poach from the party most idealistically similar to your own, and you'll be far less successful in poaching from the party more opposed to your ideals. This ends up splitting the vote in a way that usually locks in the latter candidate as the winner, and due to the spoiler effect you're no closer to ending the two-party system than you were before you ran.

The best you can hope for is trading out one of the two parties for another, but that's very much a "when the stars align" kind of thing that only really happens when one of the two parties drops the ball when reinventing itself, causing its base to flee. And even then that's largely dependent on them believing that the other party being in power for the foreseeable future is preferable to whatever their old party has become.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Ocasio-Cortez blasts New York elections board for canceling presidential primary

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Monday blasted the New York Board of Elections for canceling this year’s Democratic presidential primary. Ocasio-Cortez challenged the notion th…

thehill.com

I will not vote Democrat. Period. They are an anti-democratic openly plutocratic party. They don't want my vote, they won't get my vote.

There is not a single thing that will persuade me to support them, they are the absolute worst and need to die. They are the enemy of any left leaning person.

 

[Saelune]

Ocasio-Cortez blasts New York elections board for canceling presidential primary

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Monday blasted the New York Board of Elections for canceling this year’s Democratic presidential primary. Ocasio-Cortez challenged the notion th…

thehill.com

I will not vote Democrat. Period. They are an anti-democratic openly plutocratic party. They don't want my vote, they won't get my vote.

There is not a single thing that will persuade me to support them, they are the absolute worst and need to die. They are the enemy of any left leaning person.

Because you're a Trump supporter.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Because you're a Trump supporter.

No, because if the Republicans actually went full Nazi, the Democrats would be right there to point out Jews and put down protests. They are the Vichy collaborator government and deserves no more support than the Vichy government did.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Except that doesn't work. The design of First Past the Post voting makes a two-party system the inevitable result.

Nothing about that says it has to be these two parties.

 

[gorfias]

Biden is the weakest major party nominee in recent history — but that might be the point

No one will believe that a once-in-a-generation political talent has been wasted if Trump wins a second term, which is still the most likely outcome in November

theweek.com

Not a lot here we didn't know already. Biden is the weakest major party nominee in recent history.

 

[Agema]

I've been saying don't vote for either rapist.

The US is a 2 party system only in so much that everyone is convinced it's a 2 party system. If everyone chose to back literally any other 3rd party candidate who isn't a rapist suddenly it's not a 2 party system anymore.

Of course people won't do that, so it won't work, but the only reason that people won't do that is because they're convinced that people won't do that and no other reason.

We could use allegories of capitalism to describe the two party system.

The concept is "barrier to entry". The two main parties have vast infrastructure: income, established processes, in large part just the huge number of people in the grassroots who do everyday tasks like local organisation and canvassing. Any third party would somehow need to overcome this vast disadvantage and somehow build up. And the minute one got anywhere, one of the two main parties would simply launch a "takeover": aggressively move policy into the territory of the upstart to take over its supporters. Underlying all this is the problem that a lot of voters are voting for a party to defeat their opponents, not because they particularly like the party they vote for. In a way, such unenthusiastic voting should be fertile ground for a third party, but in practice it's not because such voters are terrified they may split the vote and let their worst nightmare in.

The two party system is thus in large part a product of a political system, both in the basic electoral system (most prevalent in winner-takes-all "first past the post") but also the host of more cultural practices - how funding is done, organisation, etc. You can say it's a matter of people believing they can break it, but this vastly underestimates the huge institutional forces that underpin two-party systems. If you want to break a two-party system, you need to change the fundamental underlying way elections and parties are run. And of you course that's incredibly hard to do too, because for obvious reasons the main parties use their power to jealously guard their duopoly.

 

[Agema]

Ocasio-Cortez blasts New York elections board for canceling presidential primary

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Monday blasted the New York Board of Elections for canceling this year’s Democratic presidential primary. Ocasio-Cortez challenged the notion th…

thehill.com

I will not vote Democrat. Period. They are an anti-democratic openly plutocratic party. They don't want my vote, they won't get my vote.

There is not a single thing that will persuade me to support them, they are the absolute worst and need to die. They are the enemy of any left leaning person.

The Democrats are the logical result of tying together several camps of voters where the left requires an alliance with centreists/moderates to compete, that requires huge funding in a political system heavily influenced by enormous quantities of money, and where a disproportionate quantity of its "natural" voter base (i.e. the working poor) cannot or will not vote.

It is thus in large part what the wider system of US politics forces it to be.

 

[Silvanus]

I will not vote Democrat. Period. They are an anti-democratic openly plutocratic party. They don't want my vote, they won't get my vote.

There is not a single thing that will persuade me to support them, they are the absolute worst and need to die. They are the enemy of any left leaning person.

The New York Board of Elections is not the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party also includes AOC herself, who takes the same stance as yourself in that very article; it includes Sanders, who was to be the other option in that contest; it includes Cuomo, who had sent absentee ballots to everybody in the state and waived existing restrictions to make it easier to vote. As Sanders himself noted, neither Biden nor the DNC requested that the Board take this action.

If you want it to be easier to vote, the very most self-defeating course of action you can take is to not vote, thereby further convincing the polling agencies (and by extension the future candidates) that you're not invested in the outcome.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

The Overton Window shifts towards the incumbent, inevitably-- through mere exposure, normalisation, and time. Allowing the worse candidate to get in because there's no good candidate doesn't just impact this election-- it shifts the centre ever further rightward than it would shift otherwise.

In short, a Trump victory over Biden makes the future victory of a Sanders, Warren or AOC less likely.

Is that what history teaches us, though? 8 years of Bill Clinton lead to Bush, 8 years of Barrack Obama lead to Trump. If a pattern can be derived from this it's that a weak Democratic presidency brings about a radical Republican presidency. Call me cynical but I doubt anyone is excited about 4 or 8 years of another empty suit warming the seat for someone like Trump, or worse. People want change. People want an end to fear, people want to break free from the constant humiliation that is Republican policy.

And after 4 years of that fear and 4 years of that humiliation, there's Joe Biden and you expect people to be hopeful? At best he'll be another Obama. He's not gonna shift the Overton Window to the left. Because the right controls the narrative and to wrestle that away from the more radical measures are needed than someone like Biden would ever be willing to take.

 

[Silvanus]

Is that what history teaches us, though? 8 years of Bill Clinton lead to Bush, 8 years of Barrack Obama lead to Trump. If a pattern can be derived from this it's that a weak Democratic presidency brings about a radical Republican presidency. Call me cynical but I doubt anyone is excited about 4 or 8 years of another empty suit warming the seat for someone like Trump, or worse. People want change. People want an end to fear, people want to break free from the constant humiliation that is Republican policy.

The immediate predecessor did not just lead to those presidencies; longer political history laid the groundwork. The Overton Window shifts over generations. Extreme Republican policies like those of Bush and Trump were normalised slowly, by numerous predecessor party leaders.

And after 4 years of that fear and 4 years of that humiliation, there's Joe Biden and you expect people to be hopeful? At best he'll be another Obama. He's not gonna shift the Overton Window to the left. Because the right controls the narrative and to wrestle that away from the more radical measures are needed than someone like Biden would ever be willing to take.

I don't expect people to be hopeful; I want them to make a cost-benefit analysis. And I don't expect Biden to shift the window to the left; but Trump will definitely shift it further to the right.

 

[Worgen]

Not a lot here we didn't know already. Biden is the weakest major party nominee in recent history.

Meh, that article doesn't really say anything and it doesn't really define what they mean by 'weakest' candidate. Trump was a very weak candidate and he still managed to win in enough places that mattered to end up in the white house. Hillary was a strong candidate but she didn't connect well with people and a large portion of the US hate boner for her that had been going since the 90s. If you remember to the 2000s Kerry was a pretty strong candidate who won the highest military honor in a medal of honor and they still managed to turn that into a bad thing with the swift boat idiots.