So Biden-Haters: why Trump over Biden?

[lil devils x]

You really don't read, do you? The person she ousted is anti-abortion, anti-lgbt, anti-healthcare, against raising the minimum wage, and so on. She ousted a Republican. That he had a D next to his name was immaterial.



And the second lady nearly won the last time she ran, but if you had actually read the links you'd know the Democrat party dropped her and withdrew all their support of her. And then she still nearly won.

Because the Democrat party are the biggest obstacles to progressives, fuck them and fuck their supporters.

I read it all right, it has been controlled by democrats since 1975. We haven't won anything until we win the general election though. Now, that has been a pretty solid Democrat seat for a long time, so I too will have my fingers crossed that she keeps it that way. THAT is the way we shift seats to progressive, however, you have to have the seat in the first place at all to be able to do so. If we lose the seat when we try, we have lost more than we gained. Shifting seats from conservative to progressive though within the democratic party doesn't give us the majority though, we have to take them from republicans to gain the majority in order for the gains to not be worthless. Though that is still in Illinois, Hillary won that state with almost 56% of the vote. We need gains in non democrat states for it to really help us here right now or none of these votes matter. The majority IS everything here.

In Nebraska's 2nd congressional district however, Kara Eastman nearly won a primary last time, not the general election. Her Republican opponent won the seat last time with 90% of the vote. So winning the primary while losing the general is a pointless waste of time and money. She hasn't won ANYTHING until she actually flips that seat. I really really hope she does, that would be awesome, but when her opponent took 90% of the vote last time, and the seat has a long conservative history. Her opponent is just another one of Trump's "yes men":

Tracking Congress In The Age Of Trump

FiveThirtyEight is tracking which senators and representatives agree and disagree most with Donald Trump.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

We can only hope that this district who voted for Trump isn't happy with him this time around, but considering this guy's previous landslide victory, this will prove difficult to flip.

The democrats are not the biggest obstacle to progressives this election, those that are blocking a democrat majority in the house, senate and white house are. Without that, none of their seats matter than much in the end as they have Zero hope of passing anything. Once we have the majority and can start passing this stuff, then we can talk about drilling the middle of the road Dems to get these progressive policies passed. I honestly would rather progressives keep a bit mum until after we win a some of these conservative districts so it isn't used as ammo against the candidates in those districts costing them the seats. See the objective here is to silently get this stuff passed AFTER we take the conservative districts needed to get the majority needed to pass them/ I would rather us have more "progressives in conservative clothing" who do/ say whatever to get elected and then pass what we actually need done here instead. I do not care what they have to say to get elected in those districts needed, just get the majority for us so we can work on getting the needed bills passed after.

 

[Revnak]

Then why the hell don't you just say what your issue is if I don't get it off whatever hints because I know jack shit about where you live??

I didn't presume anything about who you have to vote for. I've stated who is likely to win, I've said nothing about what you *have* to do so if you're so horribly offended by anything regarding that that I said, then that's the fault of your own reading of it.

So to boil down the latter bit, your issue also includes that you think the reaction from conservative voters if Biden wins will worsen the situation and things like gun confiscation (which ftr I'm pretty sure seems unlikely) is gonna cause push back that's worse for people overall?

Yes, among other reasons mentioned in my first post three pages ago. But honestly have zero desire to argue the details given that I disagree with the framing to begin with, so I’m done there.

Edit- Also, I’ve never even seen a pearl. The prior accusation is very rude.

 

[SupahEwok]

Edit- Also, I’ve never even seen a pearl. The prior accusation is very rude.

Here, I'll give ya a hand.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I read it all right, it has been controlled by democrats since 1975. We haven't won anything until we win the general election though. Now, that has been a pretty solid Democrat seat for a long time, so I too will have my fingers crossed that she keeps it that way. THAT is the way we shift seats to progressive, however, you have to have the seat in the first place at all to be able to do so. If we lose the seat when we try, we have lost more than we gained. Shifting seats from conservative to progressive though within the democratic party doesn't give us the majority though, we have to take them from republicans to gain the majority in order for the gains to not be worthless. Though that is still in Illinois, Hillary won that state with almost 56% of the vote. We need gains in non democrat states for it to really help us here right now or none of these votes matter. The majority IS everything here.

In Nebraska's 2nd congressional district however, Kara Eastman nearly won a primary last time, not the general election. Her Republican opponent won the seat last time with 90% of the vote. So winning the primary while losing the general is a pointless waste of time and money. She hasn't won ANYTHING until she actually flips that seat. I really really hope she does, that would be awesome, but when her opponent took 90% of the vote last time, and the seat has a long conservative history. Her opponent is just another one of Trump's "yes men":

Tracking Congress In The Age Of Trump

FiveThirtyEight is tracking which senators and representatives agree and disagree most with Donald Trump.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

We can only hope that this district who voted for Trump isn't happy with him this time around, but considering this guy's previous landslide victory, this will prove difficult to flip.

The democrats are not the biggest obstacle to progressives this election, those that are blocking a democrat majority in the house, senate and white house are. Without that, none of their seats matter than much in the end as they have Zero hope of passing anything. Once we have the majority and can start passing this stuff, then we can talk about drilling the middle of the road Dems to get these progressive policies passed. I honestly would rather progressives keep a bit mum until after we win a some of these conservative districts so it isn't used as ammo against the candidates in those districts costing them the seats. See the objective here is to silently get this stuff passed AFTER we take the conservative districts needed to get the majority needed to pass them/ I would rather us have more "progressives in conservative clothing" who do/ say whatever to get elected and then pass what we actually need done here instead. I do not care what they have to say to get elected in those districts needed, just get the majority for us so we can work on getting the needed bills passed after.

Hogwash, complete bullshit. Progressives flip conservative seats because progressive policies are the most popular policies in the country. The progressive caucus grows every year and I have two examples shown of progressives scoring in conservative districts. Your entire assertion that the country is too conservative for progressive policies is a fantasy contained entirely within your head and Democrat stooges who are paid to make you think that way.

In Nebraska's 2nd congressional district however, Kara Eastman nearly won a primary last time, not the general election. Her Republican opponent won the seat last time with 90% of the vote.

You're also completely fucking wrong and I know you don't actually read. She won the primary last time, which is why the DCCC blacklisted her. She went on to lose to the Republican 51-49. She lost by less than 5000 votes. If the Democrats had backed her, she probably would have won. But Dems don't want progressives to win. That's why I don't support the DNC.

 

[Revnak]

Here, I'll give ya a hand.

Gross, disgusting, would never clutch.

 

[lil devils x]

If this is about the lol's, it's because the idea of direct action being tossed aside for sitting on your ass for 4 years and just voting is the most laughable position. Here's someone who helps people and has helped people for a while if they're telling the truth (and I do believe them), and you're saying it doesn't count and conflating what he does with rapists.

It's laughable, but also really horrible.

You also do realize that I have been working with this very same issue as well right? Who is sitting on their ass and just voting? You are speaking to someone who has worked in this very area a very long time as well, and have seen the good the bad and the ugly of it all here in one of the largest immigration areas in North America in one of the states with the least amount of resources available making this problem so much worse than it ever should have been. Not only have I helped with the fundraising and construction of their physical housing, providing free medical treatment for the homeless and low income community, pressured officials into funding for programs, organized events with local dentists to get them care they desperately need, I have driven women and children to safe houses myself in my own vehicle. ANYONE who has worked with the homeless understands all too well the severity of the issues facing homeless women here and also do not pretend that this hasn't been an extreme issue with staffing as well as the other homeless residents. Many shelters house men and women separate for very good reason, we are talking about women who are raped and abused on a repeated and regular basis due to their vulnerability while homeless and when they are building homeless housing communities, regretfully those same issues impacting shelters have persisted. This is not an issue isolated to this region either, this is rampant all across the US, and when I was working with MSF in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria, the homeless women there were facing even more extreme issues due to the sheer numbers involved and desperation of their situation compounded by a severe lack of resources. I touched only a little bit on here after recovering from that, but the severity of the conditions there still give me nightmares to this day.

I in no way conflated what he did with being a rapist, and anyone who actually works with the homeless understands EXACTLY what I am talking about and the level of the severity and urgency of the present situation. I want to see real options here, because at present we have little if any. Creating " low income housing" areas actually make the problem worse long term, that is why community integration programs like Obama has pushed into affluent communities are so vitally important to being able to provide long term solutions. Instead we need to create an abundance of " middle class housing" and just utilize vouchers to assist low/no income families so they can move into existing neighborhoods. While programs like habitat for humanity are nice and all, their resources are extremely limited both in what they can provide and who they will provide it to, we need permanent, universal long term solutions that actually solve the problem rather than just repeating the unending cycle of poverty that is persistent in the creation of low income communities.

 

[lil devils x]

This still isn’t walking it back. Walk it back. You can say there is extensive sexual abuse within homeless communities, often by those who try to help them, without implying that the people who try and set up voluntary support networks for them are abusers. After all, I can easily point to a long history of sexual abuse among medical professionals like yourself or various analogous government or charitable services to your proposed solution.

I said no such thing and there is nothing to walk back here. What I stated was 100% accurate. People think the issues we have in care homes are bad. The issues we have in homeless support networks are so much worse. The homeless are not only preyed upon by random jerks, but also by those who are supposed to be helping them along with police and other homeless. That is not in any way stating that everyone is bad. It is accurately stating the level of the severity and urgency of problems in this area are extreme. If you read that as " everyone is bad" that is your error, not mine.

 

[Revnak]

I said no such thing and there is nothing to walk back here. What I stated was 100% accurate. People think the issues we have in care homes are bad. The issues we have in homeless support networks are so much worse. The homeless are not only preyed upon by random jerks, but also by those who are supposed to be helping them along with police and other homeless. That is not in any way stating that everyone is bad. It is accurately stating the level of the severity and urgency of problems in this area are extreme. If you read that as " everyone is bad" that is your error, not mine.

Pretty aware of all that, my previous jobs have put me in close contact with the homeless communities in my area as well as the city’s total disregard for helping them. You just really could’ve phrased it in a way that wouldn’t say what you did. Further, you’re thoroughly unaware of the work done by Greek anarchists that Neuro’s referring to here, as well as the general absurdity of saying to him “my way’s better because there’s less abuse and rape” given that context, seeing Greece’s history of fascism. In all, I do not trust a Nation driven approach to resolving migrant homelessness since Nations and Nationalism are by and large what makes migrant homelessness such a problem.

 

[lil devils x]

Hogwash, complete bullshit. Progressives flip conservative seats because progressive policies are the most popular policies in the country. The progressive caucus grows every year and I have two examples shown of progressives scoring in conservative districts. Your entire assertion that the country is too conservative for progressive policies is a fantasy contained entirely within your head and Democrat stooges who are paid to make you think that way.



You're also completely fucking wrong and I know you don't actually read. She won the primary last time, which is why the DCCC blacklisted her. She went on to lose to the Republican 51-49. She lost by less than 5000 votes. If the Democrats had backed her, she probably would have won. But Dems don't want progressives to win. That's why I don't support the DNC.

It would be nice if this only existed in my head as you suggest, but the facts state otherwise:
The GOP controls 29 state legislatures, the democrats only control 19.

List of United States state legislatures - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The GOP has 26 governors, the democrats have 24.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_governors

It isn't the democrats that are telling me these districts are conservative, it is the voting records of their constituents and the causes they vocally champion.

There was nothing wrong in what I posted, you may want to recheck the article you linked as that was a direct quote from YOUR LINK. Before going off with personal attacks, you may want to check your own source first.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

It would be nice if this only existed in my head as you suggest, but the facts state otherwise:
The GOP controls 29 state legislatures, the democrats only control 19.

List of United States state legislatures - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The GOP has 26 governors, the democrats have 24.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_governors

It isn't the democrats that are telling me these districts are conservative, it is the voting records of their constituents and the causes they vocally champion.

There was nothing wrong in what I posted, you may want to recheck the article you linked as that was a direct quote from YOUR LINK. Before going off with personal attacks, you may want to check your own source first.

Using Dem vs Republican numbers is meaningless since the Dems keep conservative legislators in power. Meanwhile if you look up even just the Prgoressive caucus, it grows every election cycle and in the south and, more importantly, in the states Hillary lost in 2016.

And you're probably looking at where her Republican opponent won his primary with 90% of the vote, being the incumbent this makes sense.

Kara Eastman

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

But no, please go on, keep putting your foot in your mouth.

 

[lil devils x]

Pretty aware of all that, my previous jobs have put me in close contact with the homeless communities in my area as well as the city’s total disregard for helping them. You just really could’ve phrased it in a way that wouldn’t say what you did. Further, you’re thoroughly unaware of the work done by Greek anarchists that Neuro’s referring to here, as well as the general absurdity of saying to him “my way’s better because there’s less abuse and rape” given that context, seeing Greece’s history of fascism. In all, I do not trust a Nation driven approach to resolving migrant homelessness since Nations and Nationalism are by and large what makes migrant homelessness such a problem.

Saying that something is often the case was exactly how it should be stated and I stand by what I wrote. After my time in Malta, I understand all too well the desperation of the situation within the migrant communities when resources are exhausted, however, I would not apply that situation to addressing the homeless issue in the US in a thread specifically addressing those issues in the US as this is a thread about Biden, thus why the groundwork layed out by Obama in regards to expanding low income families into affluent neighborhoods and being expanded on by Biden being relevant to this discussion. What applies to Greece's current situation should not be applied to the US.

Repeating the mistakes of the past by continuing the cycle of poverty that is increased by segregating low income housing from the wider community only creates a larger long term problem rather than actually solving it in any way. That is not saying " my plan is better" it is pointing out that our previous class segregation methods have failed entirely to eliminate poverty and served only to increase it, creating multiple generational poverty not decrease it or help solve it in any way. It isn't a solution if it makes it worse for a longer period of time.

 

[lil devils x]

Using Dem vs Republican numbers is meaningless since the Dems keep conservative legislators in power. Meanwhile if you look up even just the Progressive caucus, it grows every election cycle and in the south and, more importantly, in the states Hillary lost in 2016.

Of course the progressive caucus is growing, it just isn't anywhere near a majority yet, especially not in conservative states. If the people in those states will only elect conservative officials at every level of government why would that suddenly change when the numbers have not yet showed that to be true?
Using Republican vs dems numbers works like this:
Republicans = 100% conservative.

In 2018, Gallup's ideology polling found that 35% of Democrats self-identified as moderate and 13% identified as conservative; 50% of Democratic respondents described their ideology as liberal.

Conservative Democrat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Although by your standards, Biden is a conservative, but by most standards, that is not true:

Joseph Biden, President of the United States - GovTrack.us

Legislative profile for President Joseph Biden [D], the President of the United States

www.govtrack.us

Even the democrats who claim themselves to be progressive are considered conservative by you, so I do not view your perception of their actual position to be accurate.
Even if you just add the numbers of local state and federal officials that claim to be conservative from both the republicans and democrats however, you can see the conservative still have a clear majority in terms of districts due to how votes are weighted towards rural counties over urban.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Of course the progressive caucus is growing, it just isn't anywhere near a majority yet, especially not in conservative states. If the people in those states will only elect conservative officials at every level of government why would that suddenly change when the numbers have not yet showed that to be true?
Using Republican vs dems numbers works like this:
Republicans = 100% conservative.

In 2018, Gallup's ideology polling found that 35% of Democrats self-identified as moderate and 13% identified as conservative; 50% of Democratic respondents described their ideology as liberal.

Conservative Democrat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Although by your standards, Biden is a conservative, but by most standards, that is not true:

Joseph Biden, President of the United States - GovTrack.us

Legislative profile for President Joseph Biden [D], the President of the United States

www.govtrack.us

Even the democrats who claim themselves to be progressive are considered conservative by you, so I do not view your perception of their actual position to be accurate.
Even if you just add the numbers of local state and federal officials that claim to be conservative from both the republicans and democrats however, you can see the conservative still have a clear majority in terms of districts due to how votes are weighted towards rural counties over urban.

I'd post a rebuttal link, but you don't read sources so it doesn't do anything. You're incapable of admitting you're wrong about something, even something like a simple verifiable fact. So this is my last post to you, you're going on my ignore list.

I can't talk with someone who argues in bad faith.

 

[lil devils x]

I'd post a rebuttal link, but you don't read sources so it doesn't do anything. You're incapable of admitting you're wrong about something, even something like a simple verifiable fact. So this is my last post to you, you're going on my ignore list.

I can't talk with someone who argues in bad faith.

Says the guy who engages in a constant barrage of personal attacks and logical fallacies, including but not limited to falsely accusing me of calling Necromancer a rapist, ignoring all verifiable evidence of policies, voting records and positions of candidates and instead screaming everyone wants you to vote for bad people who will do things that all evidence has shown us otherwise and has repeatedly represented debunked conspiracy theories as facts. Good day to you then.

 

[Lykosia]

For the left, voting for Trump or not voting at all, would be a way to show to the DNC who time after time screws them over and expects the left to fall in line afterwards. That would be looking a much bigger picture and in long term.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

For the left, voting for Trump or not voting at all, would be a way to show to the DNC who time after time screws them over and expects the left to fall in line afterwards. That would be looking a much bigger picture and in long term.

Definitely not Trump, the whole point is to not support people like him. You vote. Just not for Biden or Trump.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

For the left, voting for Trump or not voting at all, would be a way to show to the DNC who time after time screws them over and expects the left to fall in line afterwards. That would be looking a much bigger picture and in long term.

1. If people are voting based on principles I don't see how that makes sense

2. Even assuming someone wanted to do this sort of tactic, how would it even effectively communicate your message properly? At the least voting a third party shows where popular support exists. Voting Trump does not send a message of what you want, it sends a message that people like Trump.

 

[Thaluikhain]

1. If people are voting based on principles I don't see how that makes sense

2. Even assuming someone wanted to do this sort of tactic, how would it even effectively communicate your message properly? At the least voting a third party shows where popular support exists. Voting Trump does not send a message of what you want, it sends a message that people like Trump.

I'd also add that not voting due to principles isn't going to look much different from not bothering to vote, or from voter suppression I guess.

I'm totally opposed to not supporting the lesser (viable) evil, but voting for an unviable one would be better if you are going to do that.

 

[Agema]

Anyhow, I'm guessing you both are sold on Biden, regardless. Getting rid of Trump would be your priority and Biden will be less bad than him anyway? It makes sense if that is your political persuasion.

"Sold on Biden" would be an overstatement. Prefer him to Trump, definitely. I wouldn't necessarily mind a Romney or McCain type that much - after all, it's not my country and the USA's domestic policy is "not my business", so to speak, so I have low emotional investment in it.

However, I specifically don't like Trump because I think he's authoritarian, greedily amoral and corrupt, undermines democratic norms and Rule of Law, is pathologically dishonest, disgraces his office with puerile and pathetic Tweets and media rants. His temperament is suspect: he's lazy, ignorant, weakly insecure, he's an unprofessional bully who treats his staff in a way that would see the average worker face disciplinary action.

He is manifestly unfit to be president. There have been men of dubious ethics and conduct in the Oval Office before now, but we could at least say of them that they worked hard for the national interest and broadly respected the system of government, and we can't say that of Trump. That the USA functions is a testament to modern governmental systems designed to spread powers and responsibilities, include checks and balances, to mitigate catastrophes like Trump. But he's busy unravelling a lot of those, and the precedent he's setting will last for decades.

 

[Revnak]

He is manifestly unfit to be president. There have been men of dubious ethics and conduct in the Oval Office before now, but we could at least say of them that they worked hard for the national interest and broadly respected the system of government, and we can't say that of Trump.

As is my habit, I’m gonna focus on the one detail here I find in any way interesting. I don’t think that’s even kinda true. Nixon and LBJ had zero respect for American government as written unless it benefited them, Bush Sr. can credibly be blamed for all the blatant crimes the CIA carried out while he was in charge of it and his family nearly did a coup against the US during the interwar, Reagan was senile for half his presidency, FDR did not care about anything but winning and wielding power as a true New York Democrat, Jackson was insane. Trump’s really not that uniquely abominable, presidents are uniquely abominable.