Biden clenches the nomination.

[lil devils x]

I categorically disagree, the quickest way to oust the Dem leadership is to take away their incumbency. As a bonus, we'll stop having war crimes tied to the (D). And rapes, that'd be good too, to not have a rapist (D) in the news cycle.

Because I disagree that the Dems as they are are an alternative to the Republicans. They escalate. Biden would just push what Trump's doing, who's pushing what Obama did, who pushed what Bush did, who pushed what Clinton did. I'm not going to vote for someone unless I think they'll actually apply a brake to this nonsense.

You claim that replacing one seat at a time is wrong, when THAT IS WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN to take away their incumbency. It is each seat that has to be replaced BY THE VOTERS IN EACH REGION to be able to accomplish that. How do you go about replacing each and every seat that votes in favor of the polices you dislike? You do what Bernie has been doing and throwing money and support behind viable candidates. You win some and you lose some. It isn't like the candidates he supported win enough votes every time no matter how much money and support they get. In the end it is left up to voters and that can often be harder than you think regardless of whatever party infighting you may have going on. We wind up getting these conservative democrats elected in conservative regions or you lose the seat to a conservative republican and get nothing. How is that somehow better?

I honestly don't care what Biden " pushes" it isn't like he is the one who is going to writing the bills and he isn't going to run attack ads on Democratic members of congress running them out of office that openly oppose him like Trump does. That is the difference here. Biden can say whatever he wants and congress can do what they want independently. Biden doesn't try to micromanage everything like trump does. Biden isn't going to fire anyone who isn't a yes man and order illegal investigations into conspiracy theories. Biden is going to say stupid shit then go let other people do the work. That sadly is a MONUMENTALLY HUGE improvement over what we have going on now. In Trump's case, we don't want him to make any decisions because they are terrible decisions. We do not want the people he has with him to make any decisions because those are just as bad if not worse than trumps. We are screwed if either Trump or his people make any decisions right now either way.

At least with Biden, he will usually shut up in the end and let the experts do their jobs. He may be a wishy washy foot in mouth fool and have his opinion easily changed by those around him, but at least there are people within the party that are pushing for experts to call the shots and will be able to influence him to sign what they can manage to get to his desk. I see that both Bernie and Warren have a chance to get their plans approved through him, none of that is even remotely possible if Trump is reelected. We at least have a chance to have good done under Biden, that does not exist at all under Trump.

All of that goes away and the dangers are increased further because Trump would no longer have to worry about losing another election after and will no longer hold back on anything and will feel like he can do whatever he wants at that point without the risks he has now. As we have seen repeatedly when Trump goes unhinged bad things happen, this will be all the time in his second term, and will be on an unprecedented scale when there are no repercussions for his actions. He has already shown he will do anything and everything to protect his Families Saudi investments. Trump has shown repeatedly that his priorities are with his families investments, not what is in the best interests of the nation. You can be sure that his second term will be focused on setting himself up nicely after he regains control over his businesses when his presidency ends and trying to protect himself and his friends and the people will be who pays the price for it.

You have to weigh the alternative as well as look at what you want to have happen. The alternative to Biden is far worse right now. It sucks, but it is our reality. We cannot just have tunnel vision and go all or nothing, or we will always end up with nothing. Every. Single. Time.

Sure I would love a miracle to happen, but until that happens, we have to weigh what happens either way and take the best of the worst because that is what we have to deal with.

 

[Dreiko]

While I think that democrats will indeed take just about anyone, the fact that they won't take Bernie is just that much more egregious due to this, and doesn't engender a spirit of cooperation and support from within me.

My goal primarily isn't to prevent the potential harm republicans will cause, it is to enact the good I want enacted first and foremost. Whether that takes the form of the republicans first enacting their harm or not is not relevant. If the democrats don't start comprehending this they will just keep losing forever and ever more.

"We won't take away your and your family's rights if you vote for us" isn't a sales pitch, it's a ransom note.

 

[Trunkage]

I have heard a number of women here locally say they didn't think a woman should be president. Sadly, this backwards idea still exists in our society and does impact a woman's electability. I have heard reasons from women varying from " People do not listen to a woman the way they do a man" to " women are just not built for that". This coming from other women so yea, it is pretty well ingrained in society still so unless something is actually done to remedy that mindset, I am not seeing it go away anytime soon.

You know what it is, right? Identity Politics. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

PS. I swear to god, the amount of times I heard someone say Identity Politics is bad, followed by a rant about how a certain person's Identity is invalid, is insane

 

[Trunkage]

While I think that democrats will indeed take just about anyone, the fact that they won't take Bernie is just that much more egregious due to this, and doesn't engender a spirit of cooperation and support from within me.

My goal primarily isn't to prevent the potential harm republicans will cause, it is to enact the good I want enacted first and foremost. Whether that takes the form of the republicans first enacting their harm or not is not relevant. If the democrats don't start comprehending this they will just keep losing forever and ever more.

"We won't take away your and your family's rights if you vote for us" isn't a sales pitch, it's a ransom note.

But we have to get back to NORMAL. Everyone enjoyed how it used to be /sarcasm. (Life was bad enough under Obama.)

+1 to all the things you said here. There is a gaping wound. Your choices are do nothing or put a small bandaid on it. Neither will help save your life

 

[lil devils x]

But we have to get back to NORMAL. Everyone enjoyed how it used to be /sarcasm. (Life was bad enough under Obama.)

+1 to all the things you said here. There is a gaping wound. Your choices are do nothing or put a small bandaid on it. Neither will help save your life

That is just it, this choice WILL save lives. Whether or not people live or die right now depends on holding on to their access to their medications and treatments provided under the ACA, Trump put the case that will take away their access to healthcare on hold until after the election. If Trump wins, the case moves forward and those depending on it to stay alive will die. It is seriously that scary right now. We really do only have one option to save lives. It sucks, but it is our sad reality.

 

[fOx]

This page is starting to look like those emails i get from my grandma

Anyway, I agree with lil devils. I'm glad that the democrats are running a candidate that cares about womens rights.

 

[lil devils x]

While I think that democrats will indeed take just about anyone, the fact that they won't take Bernie is just that much more egregious due to this, and doesn't engender a spirit of cooperation and support from within me.

My goal primarily isn't to prevent the potential harm republicans will cause, it is to enact the good I want enacted first and foremost. Whether that takes the form of the republicans first enacting their harm or not is not relevant. If the democrats don't start comprehending this they will just keep losing forever and ever more.

"We won't take away your and your family's rights if you vote for us" isn't a sales pitch, it's a ransom note.

The only option we have to enact good at all is to make sure Republicans do not maintain control. We basically get republicans causing harm+ blocking ability to do good at the same time as long as they maintain control. We have both bad things happen is why this sucks so bad tbh.

Democrats DID take Bernie, just more Democrats took Biden instead of Bernie. Bernie had 1,893 delegates in 2016 and 974 in 2020. He uses the delegates as leverage to make changes to the democratic platform. The lasting changes Bernie is making on the platform and within the party are even more important than him winning the election long term. The biggest obstacle to getting Bernie garnering enough votes across the board is the sheer amount of " Socialist Phobia" rampant in much of the US.
At least Bernie understands what is important here, sadly though I do not think many of his supporters do.

 

[lil devils x]

This page is starting to look like those emails i get from my grandma

Anyway, I agree with lil devils. I'm glad that the democrats are running a candidate that cares about womens rights.

We don't have a candidate running that cares about women's rights. It is now just about which candidate will sign bills passed by congress that support women's rights or will work to harm them further. Whether or not they actually care doesn't really matter in the end, what actually matters now is what they will sign when it reaches their desk, what funding they will allow to be allocated and how judges will rule that they put on the bench. Ruth Bader Ginsburg may not last another term and her seat needs to be replaced. Is Trump going to replace her with someone who will support women's rights as she has or will work against them? That decision will determine the course of this and many other issues for the rest of our lifetimes as the courts rule determines what is legal and what is not.

 

[Sneed's SeednFeed]

If it was endless, you wouldn't need me to provide you with more.

You clearly have something to say about what you think my ideology is with your suggestions. I'm interested to hear them. Otherwise I'll just assume you're creating a generic caricature, and that you are totally uninformed, which would still provide me amusement. If you think education activism and labour are bad things then maybe you should qualify that instead of speaking in shadows.

 

[tstorm823]

If you think education activism and labour are bad things then maybe you should qualify that instead of speaking in shadows.

Education can be bad if you're teaching lies.
Activism can be bad if you're advocating for deadly policies.
Labor can be bad if your work tears things down.

You're doing the first two in this thread.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Even I who called Trump a Nazi back in 2016 am astonished how much of a Nazi he is.

Really? Why? He hasn't even departed that much from previously established policy.

Yeah, he's in the fascist direction. But we were already heading that way.

 

[Odin]

I categorically disagree, the quickest way to oust the Dem leadership is to take away their incumbency. As a bonus, we'll stop having war crimes tied to the (D). And rapes, that'd be good too, to not have a rapist (D) in the news cycle.

*alleged rapist. Innocent until proven guilty still applies to those you disagree with politically. And that goes for Trump, too. After the Carl Beech affair in the UK (Google it if you are unfamiliar), it is wise to take any lone allegations against political figures with a grain of salt.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Innocent until proven guilty still applies to those you disagree with politically.

In the legal system, yes. Which this forum is not. Here, I'm perfectly happy with pointing out crimes of people that aren't ever going to see a trial.

 

[lil devils x]

*alleged rapist. Innocent until proven guilty still applies to those you disagree with politically. And that goes for Trump, too. After the Carl Beech affair in the UK (Google it if you are unfamiliar), it is wise to take any lone allegations against political figures with a grain of salt.

While yes, a grain of salt is recommended, however, having a record of attempts to bribe numerous women to keep silent doesn't help bolster the president's case. Everyone from his ex wife, business partner, people he publicly dated all said he has done these things adds a bit of credibility to the allegations I would think. Then of course you have his own admission of assaulting women recorded as he bragged about it to reckon with as well, yet people were still okay with it enough to elect him anyways.

 

[Odin]

In the legal system, yes. Which this forum is not. Here, I'm perfectly happy with pointing out crimes of people that aren't ever going to see a trial.

The legal principle extends beyond a court of law, though. For example, stating that an unproven allegation is true could be classed as libel (despite what some people might think, social media isn't immune to the law). In practice, nobody's going to be sued for a random comment on a gaming forum but the principle stands.

 

[lil devils x]

In the legal system, yes. Which this forum is not. Here, I'm perfectly happy with pointing out crimes of people that aren't ever going to see a trial.

Right. Even when Trump was recorded saying he would kiss women and grab them by their genitals without permission, people still attempted to say " he didn't mean it", although there is a long paper trail of credible allegations against him to back it up, he still manages to worm his way out of anything and everything.

 

[lil devils x]

The legal principle extends beyond a court of law, though. For example, stating that an unproven allegation is true could be classed as libel (despite what some people might think, social media isn't immune to the law). In practice, nobodies going to be sued for a random comment on a gaming forum but the principle stands.

Actually that is why Trump is being sued by the women he claimed are lying for HIS lying about them and what happened.

'Apprentice' contestant's lawsuit against Trump goes to top New York court

New York state's highest court will consider whether U.S. President Donald Trump must face a defamation lawsuit by a former contestant on "The Apprentice," in a showdown that could help determine whether Trump can be sued while in the White House.

www.reuters.com

 

[Dreiko]

But we have to get back to NORMAL. Everyone enjoyed how it used to be /sarcasm. (Life was bad enough under Obama.)

+1 to all the things you said here. There is a gaping wound. Your choices are do nothing or put a small bandaid on it. Neither will help save your life

This thing you call normal is roughly the same thing we have right now, just with a black dude with a muslim name who speaks in full sentences making it more palatable to the neoliberal globalists. Not interested.

The only option we have to enact good at all is to make sure Republicans do not maintain control. We basically get republicans causing harm+ blocking ability to do good at the same time as long as they maintain control. We have both bad things happen is why this sucks so bad tbh.

Democrats DID take Bernie, just more Democrats took Biden instead of Bernie. Bernie had 1,893 delegates in 2016 and 974 in 2020. He uses the delegates as leverage to make changes to the democratic platform. The lasting changes Bernie is making on the platform and within the party are even more important than him winning the election long term. The biggest obstacle to getting Bernie garnering enough votes across the board is the sheer amount of " Socialist Phobia" rampant in much of the US.
At least Bernie understands what is important here, sadly though I do not think many of his supporters do.

They did everything in their power NOT to get Bernie.

They changed their rules so that Blumberg could participate in the debates, they kept talking about how if you have a contested convention you can pick someone outside of who got the most votes, aiming to bring in the super-delegates and steal it from Bernie. They organized that all of the establishment folk would drop out right when it counted but Warren would stay in to keep votes that'd go to Bernie.

This is a clear pattern that goes back to 2016 when they had the Clinton campaign controlling the DNC, getting debate questions ahead of time, actually funding the thing through indirect means.


But to narrow this down, what I'm saying is that Bernie clearly would beat Trump (he even thought so himself, which is an oddly honest thing for Trump to say) and the democrats did all of the above stuff cognizant of that reality. So when we say "they'd pick just anyone with a pulse" yet somehow Bernie who has a whole lot more than that needs to be met with the resistance that he has, that reveals your true intentions being the continuation of the status quo. Something, btw, that Trump is much more likely to uphold than Bernie. So their calculation is that as long as Bernie doesn't win they're more or less fine.

 

[lil devils x]

This thing you call normal is roughly the same thing we have right now, just with a black dude with a muslim name who speaks in full sentences making it more palatable to the neoliberal globalists. Not interested.



They did everything in their power NOT to get Bernie.

They changed their rules so that Blumberg could participate in the debates, they kept talking about how if you have a contested convention you can pick someone outside of who got the most votes, aiming to bring in the super-delegates and steal it from Bernie. They organized that all of the establishment folk would drop out right when it counted but Warren would stay in to keep votes that'd go to Bernie.

This is a clear pattern that goes back to 2016 when they had the Clinton campaign controlling the DNC, getting debate questions ahead of time, actually funding the thing through indirect means.


But to narrow this down, what I'm saying is that Bernie clearly would beat Trump (he even thought so himself, which is an oddly honest thing for Trump to say) and the democrats did all of the above stuff cognizant of that reality. So when we say "they'd pick just anyone with a pulse" yet somehow Bernie who has a whole lot more than that needs to be met with the resistance that he has, that reveals your true intentions being the continuation of the status quo. Something, btw, that Trump is much more likely to uphold than Bernie. So their calculation is that as long as Bernie doesn't win they're more or less fine.

They being his opposition vs they that supported him? We had good numbers of both within the democratic party, especially when you break down the factions in the democratic party as I linked earlier:

Biden clenches the nomination.

Except the old swing vote that defended it before is gone. Kennedy retired which allowed trump toadie Kavanaugh to come in. While the court had a conservative majority before, Kennedy would sometimes go with the more left wing justices. And yet, still nothing has changed. That's the big...

forums.escapistmagazine.com

How is letting Bloomberg in all that different than when they let Bernie in when he wasn't even a member of their party? If you think Warren strategically tried to prevent Bernie from getting votes then I don't think you understand much about Warren. Warren wanted to win and she wanted to be able to change polices just as much as Bernie does, why do you think they pretty much were hands off of each other and supporting each other on the same team pretty much all the way until the final stretch? Bernie's and Warrens polices are the same, they have minor differences about implementation, that's it. They would vote for one another over any other candidate. they made that clear early on.

I would like to think anyone would beat Trump, however, I am concerned about being able to get the votes in the states where they are needed to win rather than just getting more votes in regions they would already have a majority. I am worried that the prevalence in socialist phobia in regions we need to win in swing states may hurt Bernie. Just because I like Bernie, doesn't mean we can get grandma to vote for him in states where it matters most. Bernie had the Youth vote, but regretfully they didn't even show up for him when it mattered. I thought they would, I had hoped they would, but in the end, they just didn't turn out. The grandmas always turn out, and that is what could hurt him in the end. That was how we wound up with Trump. :S

You have to consider that the reason we like him so much is also what will make it more difficult for him to get elected in some necessary regions. Corporations will throw the kitchen sink at him to stop him with attack ads and on the ground " grass roots" hostility, even worse than they did against Hillary. Bernie had it easier because he didn't win the primary, the reality though if he had, ALL the big money in the US would be behind one candidate, not split among two. and all of it would be used against him to stop him instead.

Also to address this specifically:
"your true intentions being the continuation of the status quo "

If my true intentions were to uphold the status quo why did I say that I wished Biden was not running the day he announced it?
My bottom line is trying to save lives. Period. Sure I want more, but that is the line I draw as being the most important.

 

[ObsidianJones]

If Biden loses even harder than Hillary you should really examine why you follow the DNC come hell or high water, not just because they don't like you, but because they can't even do their job of winning to save their lives.

Excuse me, but I'm trying to understand your point because... well, it's confusing to me.

Why should anyone reconsider their political beliefs if they don't see victory? How many people questioned if they should be Republicans during the reign of Obama? Clinton? Your beliefs will be your beliefs no matter losses or victories.

Also, I can't for the life of me understand why everything must be on the Democrats. Republicans have had other choices In 2016. They barely let anyone speak in the nominations in 2019-2020... there are better choices than Trump. The republicans didn't want to chose any. We don't talk about it. We shrug and then look at Democrats to make the right decisions and lambaste them if they do not. Yet we have a man who tell so many falsehoods that the most current estimate is 18000.

And lastly, winning in these elections are having less and less to do with having a good candidate. Republicans know that. Hell, they been speaking about it for years, admitting that they lose when actual people go out to get their voice heard.

Paul Weyrich - "I don't want everybody to vote"

That good man is Paul Weyrich, basically one of the founding fathers of the modern religious conservative political mindset. Or as one man put it, ""Paul Weyrich fought tirelessly for three decades to protect the preborn, preserve traditional marriage and ensure that people of faith had a voice in shaping the public policy that affected their lives," James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on Families, said in a statement on Thursday. "Had there been no Paul Weyrich, there would be no conservative movement as we know it.""

From these 'pillars', we have such wonders as Redmap, Voter Purges and [urlhttps://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/08/17/donald-trump-voter-id-laws-must-part-election-security-measures/2030487001/=]ID Laws[/url], marked efforts to make the Republican voice count more than the Democratic one. Hell, redistricting alone is the most damaging, as that determines how a state leans.

This is well-documented and somehow hasn't outraged ever 'moral' republican voter who "might not agree with the methods", but will not certain waste the chance afford to them by such machinations. Why isn't it up to moral Republicans to stay at home and either vote for Biden or not vote for Trump when faced with all these things?

Oh, right. Because no matter losses or victories, your beliefs will be your beliefs. I guess this is just what the majority of them believe in.