Jump to content

Joe Biden beats Donald Trump, officially making Trump a one-term twice impeached, twice popular-vote losing president


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Massdriver said:

I think a negative income tax would be a lot cheaper and would be more likely to pass. It's the same concept but targeted at just the middle class and poor.  $12k/year plus medicare for all is going to cost a fortune. 

Agreed.  But at least when he was interviewed about it (on Fox News no less) he had the cohones to actually put a number on the policy and describe a feasible way of funding it. 

 

Although for me the whole UBI thing actually isn't  his most attractive policy.  For me it's the changing of the measurement of GDP to something that more accurately captures people's economic quality of life.  A policy that changes the way our elites currently measure growth would be of huge beneficial long-term benefit in ways policies about individual issues can't be,  especially as we face a more and more automated economy.   Not very confident anything of the sort will actually ever be implemented, but oh well there it is anyway.   But hell I'd settle for shifting the conversation a little more towards ways of dealing with an increasingly automated economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

This entire thread is all about just how socialist the nominee should be. You all support more gun control. None of you bat an eye at third trimester abortions. While you guys deny being “open borders” I haven’t seen a single one of you support any sort of immigration restrictions. So where’s the lie in anything that was said?

  • Guillotine 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dodger said:

This entire thread is all about just how socialist the nominee should be. You all support more gun control. None of you bat an eye at third trimester abortions. While you guys deny being “open borders” I haven’t seen a single one of you support any sort of immigration restrictions. So where’s the lie in anything that was said?

 

I support open borders so Mexicans can come here and steal your job. Specifically your job. :daydream:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dodger said:

 

This entire thread is all about just how socialist the nominee should be. You all support more gun control. None of you bat an eye at third trimester abortions. While you guys deny being “open borders” I haven’t seen a single one of you support any sort of immigration restrictions. So where’s the lie in anything that was said?

 

Gun control = gun grabber (NRA language, not language in intelligent disource)

Third-trimester abortion exceptions including life of the mother = killing an actual infant (which is what the word means)

Enforcing current law instead of diverting money to build a dumb wall = no countries

 

???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dodger said:

 

This entire thread is all about just how socialist the nominee should be. You all support more gun control. None of you bat an eye at third trimester abortions. While you guys deny being “open borders” I haven’t seen a single one of you support any sort of immigration restrictions. So where’s the lie in anything that was said?

You don't understand abortion at all, you jackass. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dodger said:

 

This entire thread is all about just how socialist the nominee should be. You all support more gun control. None of you bat an eye at third trimester abortions. While you guys deny being “open borders” I haven’t seen a single one of you support any sort of immigration restrictions. So where’s the lie in anything that was said?

 

We have never had anything close to "open borders" even at the peak of illegal immigration over a decade ago. You are so blatantly full of shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jose said:

 

What else could he have done? The hearings were held and he voted against her. Is there some power that the chairman has that I am missing?

 

Just off the top of my head, he could have called her corroborating witnesses.  Instead he made it her word against his.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dodger said:

 

This entire thread is all about just how socialist the nominee should be. You all support more gun control. None of you bat an eye at third trimester abortions. While you guys deny being “open borders” I haven’t seen a single one of you support any sort of immigration restrictions. So where’s the lie in anything that was said?

 

Go away, trumpet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dodger said:

 

This entire thread is all about just how socialist the nominee should be. You all support more gun control. None of you bat an eye at third trimester abortions. While you guys deny being “open borders” I haven’t seen a single one of you support any sort of immigration restrictions. So where’s the lie in anything that was said?

If instead of labeling it ‘calling for more immigration restrictions’ , I call it ‘soft eugenics’, and if instead of calling it a ‘tax cut’ I call it ‘a handout to kleptocratic oligarchs’, and if instead of calling it ‘liberalizing gun ownership’ I call it ‘propagating gun violence’—do I qualify as a liar?

 

Political rhetoric, whether deployed by liberal or conservative politicians, is very often aimed at oversimplifying one side of an issue to better manipulate you into turning politics into an ‘us vs them’ culture war and getting you to overlook the complexity of our political problems, often with the goal of getting you to advocate against your own self-interest.

 

Don’t let them make you their monkey by buying into it.

 

You do have a point about most of the nominees embracing some degree of ‘socialism ‘—but you also ought to be smart enough to know what they mean by ‘socialism’ (capitalism with a more expansive welfare state under a democratic government) is quite different than what boilerplate right-wing political rhetoric usually defines as ‘socialism.’ (some variant of the totalitarian Soviet command economy)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

If instead of labeling it ‘calling for more immigration restrictions’ , I call it ‘soft eugenics’, and if instead of calling it a ‘tax cut’ I call it ‘a handout to kleptocratic oligarchs’, and if instead of calling it ‘liberalizing gun ownership’ I call it ‘propagating gun violence’—do I qualify as a liar?

 

Political rhetoric, whether deployed by liberal or conservative politicians, is very often aimed at oversimplifying one side of an issue to better manipulate you into turning politics into an ‘us vs them’ culture war and getting you to overlook the complexity of our political problems, often with the goal of getting you to advocate against your own self-interest.

 

Don’t let them make you their monkey by buying into it.

 

You do have a point about most of the nominees embracing some degree of ‘socialism ‘—but you also ought to be smart enough to know what they mean by ‘socialism’ (capitalism with a more expansive welfare state under a democratic government) is quite different than what boilerplate right-wing political rhetoric usually defines as ‘socialism.’ (some variant of the totalitarian Soviet command economy)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

Yep, can’t wait for the DNC to ignore him and anoint a candidate because of their sex and/or race. They’ll push THAT aspect of the candidate, and get trounced by Trump. 

 

Pushing the first LGBT president would be huge, too. Even first Jewish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Amazatron said:

Stop the identity politics, just give me the best damn candidate.  As of now, for me it’s Buttigieg by a wide margin.

 

I'll be honest that I don't know all of Buttigieg's policy positions, and I would likely disagree with many of them, but he just seems like a solid candidate without a lot of baggage.  As far as being a gay candidate...He doesn't come off as "gay", or flamboyant, so it's going to be difficult for opponents to use that particular aspect against him.  Plus it absolutely helps that he served in the military.  I wish we had more candidates who were veterans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

I'll be honest that I don't know all of Buttigieg's policy positions, and I would likely disagree with many of them, but he just seems like a solid candidate without a lot of baggage.  As far as being a gay candidate...He doesn't come off as "gay", or flamboyant, so it's going to be difficult for opponents to use that particular aspect against him.  Plus it absolutely helps that he served in the military.  I wish we had more candidates who were veterans.

 

"Buttboy-gieg LIED about his gayness to illegally serve in the military!"

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Any young candidate (who by definition doesn’t have a long record) would do somewhat well this round of candidates by the sheer fact that the track record of every single (major) candidate is what is holding each one back. 

 

True.  But as a counterpoint:  People under 40 have spent a large portion of their lives online, often non-anonymously, and often saying/doing things that would be embarrassing or career ending if they were brought to attention.  This is something that is going to have to be grappled with as more and more gen-x/y/millennial run for public office.  

 

Their only hope to keep all of that stuff hidden is an EMP attack on the United States. 

:beatup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

True.  But as a counterpoint:  People under 40 have spent a large portion of their lives online, often non-anonymously, and often saying/doing things that would be embarrassing or career ending if they were brought to attention.  This is something that is going to have to be grappled with as more and more gen-x/y/millennial run for public office.  

 

Their only hope to keep all of that stuff hidden is an EMP attack on the United States. 

:beatup:

Counter-counter point, Trump.

 

But I don't think Dems are running someone who can come close to that, lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

True.  But as a counterpoint:  People under 40 have spent a large portion of their lives online, often non-anonymously, and often saying/doing things that would be embarrassing or career ending if they were brought to attention.  This is something that is going to have to be grappled with as more and more gen-x/y/millennial run for public office.  

 

Their only hope to keep all of that stuff hidden is an EMP attack on the United States. 

:beatup:

 

Counter-counter point: Americans well eventually know what the penis/vagina/bare ass of a future president looks like so we might as well speed up the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Counter-counter point: Americans well eventually know what the penis/vagina/bare ass of a future president looks like so we might as well speed up the process.

Counter x3 point: we really don't give a shit about what you did as long as it was consensual and not harassing, demeaning, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc because this is the world we're living and growing up in

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Counter x3 point: we really don't give a shit about what you did as long as it was consensual and not harassing, demeaning, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc because this is the world we're living and growing up in

 

triple dog counter point late bloomer angst leading to mass murder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...