Biden vs Trump 2020 - vote now and discuss!
Comments
-
Biden
Yeah, it kind of makes a difference, considering we are a Republic.pjl44 said:
Different avenues but they both want government oversight in ways that suit them. Just because a piece of legislation is passed appropriately vs. inappropriately doesn't make the intent better. See: Patriot Act.mrussel1 said:
He's arguing that Biden wants the same as Trump, which is true if laws, details and penalties mean nothing to you.Gern Blansten said:
so then why are you arguing that fact checks limit free speech? You lost mepjl44 said:
A website can do whatever they want. If Kat edits or deletes a comment on here, it's not limiting anyone's free speech. Same goes for Twitter, Facebook, etc.Gern Blansten said:
Disagree...editing the comment would be limiting free speech. Or not allowing the comment at all.pjl44 said:
Mandating a fact check is absolutely limiting free speech, so now we're arguing process because winning an argument is the only thing that mattersmrussel1 said:
Well as soon as Trump discusses it as a modification of section 230, then maybe I'll agree with you. Trump is pissed because that put a fact check on him, that's quite a bit different than modifying 230, which could be as simple as mandating a fact check. That's not eliminating free speech. Was this a serious rebuttal or cheeky?pjl44 said:
Threatening to shut down or regulate the speech of private companies is a concern, eh? It's something that Trump and Biden are both interested in.mrussel1 said:
Attacked? Countering your argument is commensurate with being attacked? I think you misunderstand, or just willfully ignore the points that people are making. The criticisms of Joe are small and petty and many of us here don't have interest in seeing them breathe. If you want to post your 'slightest reservation' (which is kind of funny since you said you're not voting for Biden, yet speaking for those that are), don't expect many of us not to counter those with our arguments. Your sensibilities aren't really a concern when the commander in chief is tweeting conspiracy theories and threatening to shut down or regulate the speech of private companies.pjl44 said:
It's absurdly hilarious to watch. Declaring that you're voting for Biden isn't enough. If you express even the slightest reservation, you still get attacked.static111 said:
It’s better to just attack people’s opinions when they are critical of joe, because this election is a referendum on trump and Biden has the victory in hand.pjl44 said:
People carry on like there isn't 30+ years of video clips where you can notice a difference. It's emperor's-new-clothes level shit. It makes sense to me that people would vote for him regardless, but let's talk about this stuff like reasonable adults.pjhawks said:
don't get me wrong I'm voting for Biden or anyone who is on that line, but i don't think if you look at it honestly that Biden looks good. It's pretty clear he is losing his faculties.Gern Blansten said:
He's fine...tRump looks horrible. He's loud so he comes across as more "fit" but he's a walking heart attack.pjhawks said:Biden’s age and condition has me worried. I mean he looks out of it. just a bad idea to have such an old man at the top of the ticket. I mean you know only the possible future of the country and the world is at stake with this election so it’s not like it’s important or anything. Heck if he makes it to November and wins there is just very little chance he will be cognizant for four years either. I can’t believe the dems might blow another election0 -
How adult of you. Again, re-read my post. The parenthesis in particular and the reason for the quotes was, not as you misrepresented, but because that's what the anti-Sleepy Woke Joe crowd seems to focus on, along with "decline in mental acuity," and not being "as sharp as he was when he was 30."pjl44 said:Halifax2TheMax said:
Re-read my post, particularly the part in parenthesis. Sorry, in advance, for attacking you.pjl44 said:
No evidence of creepiness you say?Halifax2TheMax said:
The only thing I read from the Sleepy Woke Joe naysayers are is that “he’s creepy,” “his mental acuity is in decline,” and “if you vote for him and disagree, you’re attacked.” All without any evidence despite 30 years of YouTube videos (Yea, I’ve seen the “creepy” behavior) or discussion of his policies. The interviews I’ve seen of Sleepy Woke Joe, he comes across as intelligent, well spoken in his way, informed, knowledgeable and expressing empathy for those less fortunate. But you know, he’s not as sharp as he was when he was 30. The guy knows how the levers of power work without running roughshod over the constitution.mrussel1 said:
Attacked? Countering your argument is commensurate with being attacked? I think you misunderstand, or just willfully ignore the points that people are making. The criticisms of Joe are small and petty and many of us here don't have interest in seeing them breathe. If you want to post your 'slightest reservation' (which is kind of funny since you said you're not voting for Biden, yet speaking for those that are), don't expect many of us not to counter those with our arguments. Your sensibilities aren't really a concern when the commander in chief is tweeting conspiracy theories and threatening to shut down or regulate the speech of private companies.pjl44 said:
It's absurdly hilarious to watch. Declaring that you're voting for Biden isn't enough. If you express even the slightest reservation, you still get attacked.static111 said:
It’s better to just attack people’s opinions when they are critical of joe, because this election is a referendum on trump and Biden has the victory in hand.pjl44 said:
People carry on like there isn't 30+ years of video clips where you can notice a difference. It's emperor's-new-clothes level shit. It makes sense to me that people would vote for him regardless, but let's talk about this stuff like reasonable adults.pjhawks said:
don't get me wrong I'm voting for Biden or anyone who is on that line, but i don't think if you look at it honestly that Biden looks good. It's pretty clear he is losing his faculties.Gern Blansten said:
He's fine...tRump looks horrible. He's loud so he comes across as more "fit" but he's a walking heart attack.pjhawks said:Biden’s age and condition has me worried. I mean he looks out of it. just a bad idea to have such an old man at the top of the ticket. I mean you know only the possible future of the country and the world is at stake with this election so it’s not like it’s important or anything. Heck if he makes it to November and wins there is just very little chance he will be cognizant for four years either. I can’t believe the dems might blow another election
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/yfmksi/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-the-audacity-of-grope
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
You still believe Tara?pjl44 said:Halifax2TheMax said:
Re-read my post, particularly the part in parenthesis. Sorry, in advance, for attacking you.pjl44 said:
No evidence of creepiness you say?Halifax2TheMax said:
The only thing I read from the Sleepy Woke Joe naysayers are is that “he’s creepy,” “his mental acuity is in decline,” and “if you vote for him and disagree, you’re attacked.” All without any evidence despite 30 years of YouTube videos (Yea, I’ve seen the “creepy” behavior) or discussion of his policies. The interviews I’ve seen of Sleepy Woke Joe, he comes across as intelligent, well spoken in his way, informed, knowledgeable and expressing empathy for those less fortunate. But you know, he’s not as sharp as he was when he was 30. The guy knows how the levers of power work without running roughshod over the constitution.mrussel1 said:
Attacked? Countering your argument is commensurate with being attacked? I think you misunderstand, or just willfully ignore the points that people are making. The criticisms of Joe are small and petty and many of us here don't have interest in seeing them breathe. If you want to post your 'slightest reservation' (which is kind of funny since you said you're not voting for Biden, yet speaking for those that are), don't expect many of us not to counter those with our arguments. Your sensibilities aren't really a concern when the commander in chief is tweeting conspiracy theories and threatening to shut down or regulate the speech of private companies.pjl44 said:
It's absurdly hilarious to watch. Declaring that you're voting for Biden isn't enough. If you express even the slightest reservation, you still get attacked.static111 said:
It’s better to just attack people’s opinions when they are critical of joe, because this election is a referendum on trump and Biden has the victory in hand.pjl44 said:
People carry on like there isn't 30+ years of video clips where you can notice a difference. It's emperor's-new-clothes level shit. It makes sense to me that people would vote for him regardless, but let's talk about this stuff like reasonable adults.pjhawks said:
don't get me wrong I'm voting for Biden or anyone who is on that line, but i don't think if you look at it honestly that Biden looks good. It's pretty clear he is losing his faculties.Gern Blansten said:
He's fine...tRump looks horrible. He's loud so he comes across as more "fit" but he's a walking heart attack.pjhawks said:Biden’s age and condition has me worried. I mean he looks out of it. just a bad idea to have such an old man at the top of the ticket. I mean you know only the possible future of the country and the world is at stake with this election so it’s not like it’s important or anything. Heck if he makes it to November and wins there is just very little chance he will be cognizant for four years either. I can’t believe the dems might blow another election
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/yfmksi/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-the-audacity-of-grope
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Biden
Whenever people have in the past voiced any concern they are met with comments like “ Don't you hate it when millions of people disagree with your choices? Democracy sucks. ” “Berniebro”. or “look at the record of a career civil servant” that are intended to delegitimize their Concerns. Maybe it is not an outright attack, but their isn’t an awful lot of discussion going on when people level any concern about Biden’s electability.mrussel1 said:
Attacked? Countering your argument is commensurate with being attacked? I think you misunderstand, or just willfully ignore the points that people are making. The criticisms of Joe are small and petty and many of us here don't have interest in seeing them breathe. If you want to post your 'slightest reservation' (which is kind of funny since you said you're not voting for Biden, yet speaking for those that are), don't expect many of us not to counter those with our arguments. Your sensibilities aren't really a concern when the commander in chief is tweeting conspiracy theories and threatening to shut down or regulate the speech of private companies.pjl44 said:
It's absurdly hilarious to watch. Declaring that you're voting for Biden isn't enough. If you express even the slightest reservation, you still get attacked.static111 said:
It’s better to just attack people’s opinions when they are critical of joe, because this election is a referendum on trump and Biden has the victory in hand.pjl44 said:
People carry on like there isn't 30+ years of video clips where you can notice a difference. It's emperor's-new-clothes level shit. It makes sense to me that people would vote for him regardless, but let's talk about this stuff like reasonable adults.pjhawks said:
don't get me wrong I'm voting for Biden or anyone who is on that line, but i don't think if you look at it honestly that Biden looks good. It's pretty clear he is losing his faculties.Gern Blansten said:
He's fine...tRump looks horrible. He's loud so he comes across as more "fit" but he's a walking heart attack.pjhawks said:Biden’s age and condition has me worried. I mean he looks out of it. just a bad idea to have such an old man at the top of the ticket. I mean you know only the possible future of the country and the world is at stake with this election so it’s not like it’s important or anything. Heck if he makes it to November and wins there is just very little chance he will be cognizant for four years either. I can’t believe the dems might blow another electionPersonally I think that immediately delegitimizing someone’s point Rather than have a discussion is akin to attacking especially on a message board where nuance and tone aren’t always coming through as intended.I mean a statement like. “ Don't you hate it when millions of people disagree with your choices? Democracy sucks. ” Is basically the type of argument that MAGA people make when you criticize their illustrious leader. So yeah democracy sucks and it got us Trump I will agree with the statement as far as that goes.
Back to Biden, I think people are forgetting that politics as usual are what got us tRump in the first place. If we are to just look at his career and stand by his record without critiquing anything, isn’t that the same in a way as saying that we are ok with the system and policies of the last 40 years that led to us to ultimately having that sucky Democracy deliver us the death dirge of Trumpism?Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
I'm sitting this one out
1. It is not possible to do. Too much subjectivity.mrussel1 said:
That's a fine opinion, but don't act like 1. It's not possible to do 2. Large platforms should be exempt from libel whereas newspapers should not and 3. Threatened EOs by Trump is the same as a thoughtful argument on section 230 on how to restructure laws using the legislative process.pjl44 said:
Mandatory (government-required) fact checks. If a website wants to offer fact checks on posts, they should absolutely do that. If they don't want to bother, they should be able to do that, too.Gern Blansten said:
so then why are you arguing that fact checks limit free speech? You lost mepjl44 said:
A website can do whatever they want. If Kat edits or deletes a comment on here, it's not limiting anyone's free speech. Same goes for Twitter, Facebook, etc.Gern Blansten said:
Disagree...editing the comment would be limiting free speech. Or not allowing the comment at all.pjl44 said:
Mandating a fact check is absolutely limiting free speech, so now we're arguing process because winning an argument is the only thing that mattersmrussel1 said:
Well as soon as Trump discusses it as a modification of section 230, then maybe I'll agree with you. Trump is pissed because that put a fact check on him, that's quite a bit different than modifying 230, which could be as simple as mandating a fact check. That's not eliminating free speech. Was this a serious rebuttal or cheeky?pjl44 said:
Threatening to shut down or regulate the speech of private companies is a concern, eh? It's something that Trump and Biden are both interested in.mrussel1 said:
Attacked? Countering your argument is commensurate with being attacked? I think you misunderstand, or just willfully ignore the points that people are making. The criticisms of Joe are small and petty and many of us here don't have interest in seeing them breathe. If you want to post your 'slightest reservation' (which is kind of funny since you said you're not voting for Biden, yet speaking for those that are), don't expect many of us not to counter those with our arguments. Your sensibilities aren't really a concern when the commander in chief is tweeting conspiracy theories and threatening to shut down or regulate the speech of private companies.pjl44 said:
It's absurdly hilarious to watch. Declaring that you're voting for Biden isn't enough. If you express even the slightest reservation, you still get attacked.static111 said:
It’s better to just attack people’s opinions when they are critical of joe, because this election is a referendum on trump and Biden has the victory in hand.pjl44 said:
People carry on like there isn't 30+ years of video clips where you can notice a difference. It's emperor's-new-clothes level shit. It makes sense to me that people would vote for him regardless, but let's talk about this stuff like reasonable adults.pjhawks said:
don't get me wrong I'm voting for Biden or anyone who is on that line, but i don't think if you look at it honestly that Biden looks good. It's pretty clear he is losing his faculties.Gern Blansten said:
He's fine...tRump looks horrible. He's loud so he comes across as more "fit" but he's a walking heart attack.pjhawks said:Biden’s age and condition has me worried. I mean he looks out of it. just a bad idea to have such an old man at the top of the ticket. I mean you know only the possible future of the country and the world is at stake with this election so it’s not like it’s important or anything. Heck if he makes it to November and wins there is just very little chance he will be cognizant for four years either. I can’t believe the dems might blow another election
2. You are continuing to not differentiate between the responsibility of a journalist making a comment vs. a customer/user.
3. I absolutely agree with you on this point, but in a weird way we're being saved by the brazenness and stupidity of it. One could even make the argument that it's not actually meant to be upheld, but to just be antagonistic. I'm more frightened by Biden’s remarks or Josh Hawley's because it could actually happen.0 -
Biden
I don't understand that argument either...tRump is clearly worse than Biden in any category of health or mental acuityHalifax2TheMax said:
How adult of you. Again, re-read my post. The parenthesis in particular and the reason for the quotes was, not as you misrepresented, but because that's what the anti-Sleepy Woke Joe crowd seems to focus on, along with "decline in mental acuity," and not being "as sharp as he was when he was 30."pjl44 said:Halifax2TheMax said:
Re-read my post, particularly the part in parenthesis. Sorry, in advance, for attacking you.pjl44 said:
No evidence of creepiness you say?Halifax2TheMax said:
The only thing I read from the Sleepy Woke Joe naysayers are is that “he’s creepy,” “his mental acuity is in decline,” and “if you vote for him and disagree, you’re attacked.” All without any evidence despite 30 years of YouTube videos (Yea, I’ve seen the “creepy” behavior) or discussion of his policies. The interviews I’ve seen of Sleepy Woke Joe, he comes across as intelligent, well spoken in his way, informed, knowledgeable and expressing empathy for those less fortunate. But you know, he’s not as sharp as he was when he was 30. The guy knows how the levers of power work without running roughshod over the constitution.mrussel1 said:
Attacked? Countering your argument is commensurate with being attacked? I think you misunderstand, or just willfully ignore the points that people are making. The criticisms of Joe are small and petty and many of us here don't have interest in seeing them breathe. If you want to post your 'slightest reservation' (which is kind of funny since you said you're not voting for Biden, yet speaking for those that are), don't expect many of us not to counter those with our arguments. Your sensibilities aren't really a concern when the commander in chief is tweeting conspiracy theories and threatening to shut down or regulate the speech of private companies.pjl44 said:
It's absurdly hilarious to watch. Declaring that you're voting for Biden isn't enough. If you express even the slightest reservation, you still get attacked.static111 said:
It’s better to just attack people’s opinions when they are critical of joe, because this election is a referendum on trump and Biden has the victory in hand.pjl44 said:
People carry on like there isn't 30+ years of video clips where you can notice a difference. It's emperor's-new-clothes level shit. It makes sense to me that people would vote for him regardless, but let's talk about this stuff like reasonable adults.pjhawks said:
don't get me wrong I'm voting for Biden or anyone who is on that line, but i don't think if you look at it honestly that Biden looks good. It's pretty clear he is losing his faculties.Gern Blansten said:
He's fine...tRump looks horrible. He's loud so he comes across as more "fit" but he's a walking heart attack.pjhawks said:Biden’s age and condition has me worried. I mean he looks out of it. just a bad idea to have such an old man at the top of the ticket. I mean you know only the possible future of the country and the world is at stake with this election so it’s not like it’s important or anything. Heck if he makes it to November and wins there is just very little chance he will be cognizant for four years either. I can’t believe the dems might blow another election
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/yfmksi/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-the-audacity-of-gropeRemember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt20 -
Biden
To those of us that are liberal leaning on a PJ message boardGern Blansten said:
I don't understand that argument either...tRump is clearly worse than Biden in any category of health or mental acuityHalifax2TheMax said:
How adult of you. Again, re-read my post. The parenthesis in particular and the reason for the quotes was, not as you misrepresented, but because that's what the anti-Sleepy Woke Joe crowd seems to focus on, along with "decline in mental acuity," and not being "as sharp as he was when he was 30."pjl44 said:Halifax2TheMax said:
Re-read my post, particularly the part in parenthesis. Sorry, in advance, for attacking you.pjl44 said:
No evidence of creepiness you say?Halifax2TheMax said:
The only thing I read from the Sleepy Woke Joe naysayers are is that “he’s creepy,” “his mental acuity is in decline,” and “if you vote for him and disagree, you’re attacked.” All without any evidence despite 30 years of YouTube videos (Yea, I’ve seen the “creepy” behavior) or discussion of his policies. The interviews I’ve seen of Sleepy Woke Joe, he comes across as intelligent, well spoken in his way, informed, knowledgeable and expressing empathy for those less fortunate. But you know, he’s not as sharp as he was when he was 30. The guy knows how the levers of power work without running roughshod over the constitution.mrussel1 said:
Attacked? Countering your argument is commensurate with being attacked? I think you misunderstand, or just willfully ignore the points that people are making. The criticisms of Joe are small and petty and many of us here don't have interest in seeing them breathe. If you want to post your 'slightest reservation' (which is kind of funny since you said you're not voting for Biden, yet speaking for those that are), don't expect many of us not to counter those with our arguments. Your sensibilities aren't really a concern when the commander in chief is tweeting conspiracy theories and threatening to shut down or regulate the speech of private companies.pjl44 said:
It's absurdly hilarious to watch. Declaring that you're voting for Biden isn't enough. If you express even the slightest reservation, you still get attacked.static111 said:
It’s better to just attack people’s opinions when they are critical of joe, because this election is a referendum on trump and Biden has the victory in hand.pjl44 said:
People carry on like there isn't 30+ years of video clips where you can notice a difference. It's emperor's-new-clothes level shit. It makes sense to me that people would vote for him regardless, but let's talk about this stuff like reasonable adults.pjhawks said:
don't get me wrong I'm voting for Biden or anyone who is on that line, but i don't think if you look at it honestly that Biden looks good. It's pretty clear he is losing his faculties.Gern Blansten said:
He's fine...tRump looks horrible. He's loud so he comes across as more "fit" but he's a walking heart attack.pjhawks said:Biden’s age and condition has me worried. I mean he looks out of it. just a bad idea to have such an old man at the top of the ticket. I mean you know only the possible future of the country and the world is at stake with this election so it’s not like it’s important or anything. Heck if he makes it to November and wins there is just very little chance he will be cognizant for four years either. I can’t believe the dems might blow another election
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/yfmksi/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-the-audacity-of-gropeScio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
Biden
1. Financial services are regulated in this environment every single day. I live this world of imperfection and ambiguity.pjl44 said:
1. It is not possible to do. Too much subjectivity.mrussel1 said:
That's a fine opinion, but don't act like 1. It's not possible to do 2. Large platforms should be exempt from libel whereas newspapers should not and 3. Threatened EOs by Trump is the same as a thoughtful argument on section 230 on how to restructure laws using the legislative process.pjl44 said:
Mandatory (government-required) fact checks. If a website wants to offer fact checks on posts, they should absolutely do that. If they don't want to bother, they should be able to do that, too.Gern Blansten said:
so then why are you arguing that fact checks limit free speech? You lost mepjl44 said:
A website can do whatever they want. If Kat edits or deletes a comment on here, it's not limiting anyone's free speech. Same goes for Twitter, Facebook, etc.Gern Blansten said:
Disagree...editing the comment would be limiting free speech. Or not allowing the comment at all.pjl44 said:
Mandating a fact check is absolutely limiting free speech, so now we're arguing process because winning an argument is the only thing that mattersmrussel1 said:
Well as soon as Trump discusses it as a modification of section 230, then maybe I'll agree with you. Trump is pissed because that put a fact check on him, that's quite a bit different than modifying 230, which could be as simple as mandating a fact check. That's not eliminating free speech. Was this a serious rebuttal or cheeky?pjl44 said:
Threatening to shut down or regulate the speech of private companies is a concern, eh? It's something that Trump and Biden are both interested in.mrussel1 said:
Attacked? Countering your argument is commensurate with being attacked? I think you misunderstand, or just willfully ignore the points that people are making. The criticisms of Joe are small and petty and many of us here don't have interest in seeing them breathe. If you want to post your 'slightest reservation' (which is kind of funny since you said you're not voting for Biden, yet speaking for those that are), don't expect many of us not to counter those with our arguments. Your sensibilities aren't really a concern when the commander in chief is tweeting conspiracy theories and threatening to shut down or regulate the speech of private companies.pjl44 said:
It's absurdly hilarious to watch. Declaring that you're voting for Biden isn't enough. If you express even the slightest reservation, you still get attacked.static111 said:
It’s better to just attack people’s opinions when they are critical of joe, because this election is a referendum on trump and Biden has the victory in hand.pjl44 said:
People carry on like there isn't 30+ years of video clips where you can notice a difference. It's emperor's-new-clothes level shit. It makes sense to me that people would vote for him regardless, but let's talk about this stuff like reasonable adults.pjhawks said:
don't get me wrong I'm voting for Biden or anyone who is on that line, but i don't think if you look at it honestly that Biden looks good. It's pretty clear he is losing his faculties.Gern Blansten said:
He's fine...tRump looks horrible. He's loud so he comes across as more "fit" but he's a walking heart attack.pjhawks said:Biden’s age and condition has me worried. I mean he looks out of it. just a bad idea to have such an old man at the top of the ticket. I mean you know only the possible future of the country and the world is at stake with this election so it’s not like it’s important or anything. Heck if he makes it to November and wins there is just very little chance he will be cognizant for four years either. I can’t believe the dems might blow another election
2. You are continuing to not differentiate between the responsibility of a journalist making a comment vs. a customer/user.
3. I absolutely agree with you on this point, but in a weird way we're being saved by the brazenness and stupidity of it. One could even make the argument that it's not actually meant to be upheld, but to just be antagonistic. I'm more frightened by Biden’s remarks or Josh Hawley's because it could actually happen.
2. Journalists are not the only people that can be sued for libel. I'm not even advocating for strengthening of libel laws, I'm arguing for some regulatory platform on social media. You can disagree with it, but it's certainly not against the Constitution (using established precedent).
3. Great.0 -
Biden
I think this is very important to keep in mind. It is time to kneecap Mitch, Lindsey and the rest of the deplorable Senate Republican leadership. The best way to do that is to make them the minority party. There's encouraging signs on that front:gimmesometruth27 said:plus we need to eliminate republican control of the senate. even though we know that a gop minority will lead to filibuster on every single piece of legislation. we need to trounce them so badly in the senate that we get about 63 seats. impossible i know, but it is what we need to happen to right this path we are on.The White House is getting *very* worried about the Senate majority
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/080 -
Biden
It's not the type of argument a MAGA person makes. Look at the point I'm countering that "Dems" made a terrible choice, as if the party elders sat in a smoke filled room and rolled him out. Rather, the candidate with a fraction of the cash on hand vs Sanders and Warren whipped them. That's democracy in action. The people made the choice. If PJHawks wants to lament the choice of the people, that's fine, but it's not the party.static111 said:
Whenever people have in the past voiced any concern they are met with comments like “ Don't you hate it when millions of people disagree with your choices? Democracy sucks. ” “Berniebro”. or “look at the record of a career civil servant” that are intended to delegitimize their Concerns. Maybe it is not an outright attack, but their isn’t an awful lot of discussion going on when people level any concern about Biden’s electability.mrussel1 said:
Attacked? Countering your argument is commensurate with being attacked? I think you misunderstand, or just willfully ignore the points that people are making. The criticisms of Joe are small and petty and many of us here don't have interest in seeing them breathe. If you want to post your 'slightest reservation' (which is kind of funny since you said you're not voting for Biden, yet speaking for those that are), don't expect many of us not to counter those with our arguments. Your sensibilities aren't really a concern when the commander in chief is tweeting conspiracy theories and threatening to shut down or regulate the speech of private companies.pjl44 said:
It's absurdly hilarious to watch. Declaring that you're voting for Biden isn't enough. If you express even the slightest reservation, you still get attacked.static111 said:
It’s better to just attack people’s opinions when they are critical of joe, because this election is a referendum on trump and Biden has the victory in hand.pjl44 said:
People carry on like there isn't 30+ years of video clips where you can notice a difference. It's emperor's-new-clothes level shit. It makes sense to me that people would vote for him regardless, but let's talk about this stuff like reasonable adults.pjhawks said:
don't get me wrong I'm voting for Biden or anyone who is on that line, but i don't think if you look at it honestly that Biden looks good. It's pretty clear he is losing his faculties.Gern Blansten said:
He's fine...tRump looks horrible. He's loud so he comes across as more "fit" but he's a walking heart attack.pjhawks said:Biden’s age and condition has me worried. I mean he looks out of it. just a bad idea to have such an old man at the top of the ticket. I mean you know only the possible future of the country and the world is at stake with this election so it’s not like it’s important or anything. Heck if he makes it to November and wins there is just very little chance he will be cognizant for four years either. I can’t believe the dems might blow another electionPersonally I think that immediately delegitimizing someone’s point Rather than have a discussion is akin to attacking especially on a message board where nuance and tone aren’t always coming through as intended.I mean a statement like. “ Don't you hate it when millions of people disagree with your choices? Democracy sucks. ” Is basically the type of argument that MAGA people make when you criticize their illustrious leader. So yeah democracy sucks and it got us Trump I will agree with the statement as far as that goes.
Back to Biden, I think people are forgetting that politics as usual are what got us tRump in the first place. If we are to just look at his career and stand by his record without critiquing anything, isn’t that the same in a way as saying that we are ok with the system and policies of the last 40 years that led to us to ultimately having that sucky Democracy deliver us the death dirge of Trumpism?
And 'politics as usual' didn't give us Trump, the rise of right wing media in the 90s gave us Trump. You're using Sanders language but we learned, emphatically, that the left of center didn't buy that argument.0 -
I'm sitting this one out
1. I work in healthcare, where aspects of our business that involve government programs are also regulated every day. I do not see that and finance being remotely similar to websites that allow users to post comments.mrussel1 said:
1. Financial services are regulated in this environment every single day. I live this world of imperfection and ambiguity.pjl44 said:
1. It is not possible to do. Too much subjectivity.mrussel1 said:
That's a fine opinion, but don't act like 1. It's not possible to do 2. Large platforms should be exempt from libel whereas newspapers should not and 3. Threatened EOs by Trump is the same as a thoughtful argument on section 230 on how to restructure laws using the legislative process.pjl44 said:
Mandatory (government-required) fact checks. If a website wants to offer fact checks on posts, they should absolutely do that. If they don't want to bother, they should be able to do that, too.Gern Blansten said:
so then why are you arguing that fact checks limit free speech? You lost mepjl44 said:
A website can do whatever they want. If Kat edits or deletes a comment on here, it's not limiting anyone's free speech. Same goes for Twitter, Facebook, etc.Gern Blansten said:
Disagree...editing the comment would be limiting free speech. Or not allowing the comment at all.pjl44 said:
Mandating a fact check is absolutely limiting free speech, so now we're arguing process because winning an argument is the only thing that mattersmrussel1 said:
Well as soon as Trump discusses it as a modification of section 230, then maybe I'll agree with you. Trump is pissed because that put a fact check on him, that's quite a bit different than modifying 230, which could be as simple as mandating a fact check. That's not eliminating free speech. Was this a serious rebuttal or cheeky?pjl44 said:
Threatening to shut down or regulate the speech of private companies is a concern, eh? It's something that Trump and Biden are both interested in.mrussel1 said:
Attacked? Countering your argument is commensurate with being attacked? I think you misunderstand, or just willfully ignore the points that people are making. The criticisms of Joe are small and petty and many of us here don't have interest in seeing them breathe. If you want to post your 'slightest reservation' (which is kind of funny since you said you're not voting for Biden, yet speaking for those that are), don't expect many of us not to counter those with our arguments. Your sensibilities aren't really a concern when the commander in chief is tweeting conspiracy theories and threatening to shut down or regulate the speech of private companies.pjl44 said:
It's absurdly hilarious to watch. Declaring that you're voting for Biden isn't enough. If you express even the slightest reservation, you still get attacked.static111 said:
It’s better to just attack people’s opinions when they are critical of joe, because this election is a referendum on trump and Biden has the victory in hand.pjl44 said:
People carry on like there isn't 30+ years of video clips where you can notice a difference. It's emperor's-new-clothes level shit. It makes sense to me that people would vote for him regardless, but let's talk about this stuff like reasonable adults.pjhawks said:
don't get me wrong I'm voting for Biden or anyone who is on that line, but i don't think if you look at it honestly that Biden looks good. It's pretty clear he is losing his faculties.Gern Blansten said:
He's fine...tRump looks horrible. He's loud so he comes across as more "fit" but he's a walking heart attack.pjhawks said:Biden’s age and condition has me worried. I mean he looks out of it. just a bad idea to have such an old man at the top of the ticket. I mean you know only the possible future of the country and the world is at stake with this election so it’s not like it’s important or anything. Heck if he makes it to November and wins there is just very little chance he will be cognizant for four years either. I can’t believe the dems might blow another election
2. You are continuing to not differentiate between the responsibility of a journalist making a comment vs. a customer/user.
3. I absolutely agree with you on this point, but in a weird way we're being saved by the brazenness and stupidity of it. One could even make the argument that it's not actually meant to be upheld, but to just be antagonistic. I'm more frightened by Biden’s remarks or Josh Hawley's because it could actually happen.
2. Journalists are not the only people that can be sued for libel. I'm not even advocating for strengthening of libel laws, I'm arguing for some regulatory platform on social media. You can disagree with it, but it's certainly not against the Constitution (using established precedent).
3. Great.
2. If there is a way (or desire) to go after the individual making a libelous comment, have at it. If Trump tweets something libelous, I have no issue with someone pursuing action against Trump. I have an issue with someone pursuing action against Twitter for something libelous that Trump tweeted.0 -
Biden
Teh point is there's a clear distinction on what Biden suggested and what Trump is threatening. Your original post treated them equally. I think that's way off base, regardless of whether you think it's a good idea or not.pjl44 said:
1. I work in healthcare, where aspects of our business that involve government programs are also regulated every day. I do not see that and finance being remotely similar to websites that allow users to post comments.mrussel1 said:
1. Financial services are regulated in this environment every single day. I live this world of imperfection and ambiguity.pjl44 said:
1. It is not possible to do. Too much subjectivity.mrussel1 said:
That's a fine opinion, but don't act like 1. It's not possible to do 2. Large platforms should be exempt from libel whereas newspapers should not and 3. Threatened EOs by Trump is the same as a thoughtful argument on section 230 on how to restructure laws using the legislative process.pjl44 said:
Mandatory (government-required) fact checks. If a website wants to offer fact checks on posts, they should absolutely do that. If they don't want to bother, they should be able to do that, too.Gern Blansten said:
so then why are you arguing that fact checks limit free speech? You lost mepjl44 said:
A website can do whatever they want. If Kat edits or deletes a comment on here, it's not limiting anyone's free speech. Same goes for Twitter, Facebook, etc.Gern Blansten said:
Disagree...editing the comment would be limiting free speech. Or not allowing the comment at all.pjl44 said:
Mandating a fact check is absolutely limiting free speech, so now we're arguing process because winning an argument is the only thing that mattersmrussel1 said:
Well as soon as Trump discusses it as a modification of section 230, then maybe I'll agree with you. Trump is pissed because that put a fact check on him, that's quite a bit different than modifying 230, which could be as simple as mandating a fact check. That's not eliminating free speech. Was this a serious rebuttal or cheeky?pjl44 said:
Threatening to shut down or regulate the speech of private companies is a concern, eh? It's something that Trump and Biden are both interested in.mrussel1 said:
Attacked? Countering your argument is commensurate with being attacked? I think you misunderstand, or just willfully ignore the points that people are making. The criticisms of Joe are small and petty and many of us here don't have interest in seeing them breathe. If you want to post your 'slightest reservation' (which is kind of funny since you said you're not voting for Biden, yet speaking for those that are), don't expect many of us not to counter those with our arguments. Your sensibilities aren't really a concern when the commander in chief is tweeting conspiracy theories and threatening to shut down or regulate the speech of private companies.pjl44 said:
It's absurdly hilarious to watch. Declaring that you're voting for Biden isn't enough. If you express even the slightest reservation, you still get attacked.static111 said:
It’s better to just attack people’s opinions when they are critical of joe, because this election is a referendum on trump and Biden has the victory in hand.pjl44 said:
People carry on like there isn't 30+ years of video clips where you can notice a difference. It's emperor's-new-clothes level shit. It makes sense to me that people would vote for him regardless, but let's talk about this stuff like reasonable adults.pjhawks said:
don't get me wrong I'm voting for Biden or anyone who is on that line, but i don't think if you look at it honestly that Biden looks good. It's pretty clear he is losing his faculties.Gern Blansten said:
He's fine...tRump looks horrible. He's loud so he comes across as more "fit" but he's a walking heart attack.pjhawks said:Biden’s age and condition has me worried. I mean he looks out of it. just a bad idea to have such an old man at the top of the ticket. I mean you know only the possible future of the country and the world is at stake with this election so it’s not like it’s important or anything. Heck if he makes it to November and wins there is just very little chance he will be cognizant for four years either. I can’t believe the dems might blow another election
2. You are continuing to not differentiate between the responsibility of a journalist making a comment vs. a customer/user.
3. I absolutely agree with you on this point, but in a weird way we're being saved by the brazenness and stupidity of it. One could even make the argument that it's not actually meant to be upheld, but to just be antagonistic. I'm more frightened by Biden’s remarks or Josh Hawley's because it could actually happen.
2. Journalists are not the only people that can be sued for libel. I'm not even advocating for strengthening of libel laws, I'm arguing for some regulatory platform on social media. You can disagree with it, but it's certainly not against the Constitution (using established precedent).
3. Great.
2. If there is a way (or desire) to go after the individual making a libelous comment, have at it. If Trump tweets something libelous, I have no issue with someone pursuing action against Trump. I have an issue with someone pursuing action against Twitter for something libelous that Trump tweeted.0 -
I'm sitting this one out
I think there is a clear distinction on how they're going about it and the way they talk about it, but I think their intent is indeed similarmrussel1 said:
Teh point is there's a clear distinction on what Biden suggested and what Trump is threatening. Your original post treated them equally. I think that's way off base, regardless of whether you think it's a good idea or not.pjl44 said:
1. I work in healthcare, where aspects of our business that involve government programs are also regulated every day. I do not see that and finance being remotely similar to websites that allow users to post comments.mrussel1 said:
1. Financial services are regulated in this environment every single day. I live this world of imperfection and ambiguity.pjl44 said:
1. It is not possible to do. Too much subjectivity.mrussel1 said:
That's a fine opinion, but don't act like 1. It's not possible to do 2. Large platforms should be exempt from libel whereas newspapers should not and 3. Threatened EOs by Trump is the same as a thoughtful argument on section 230 on how to restructure laws using the legislative process.pjl44 said:
Mandatory (government-required) fact checks. If a website wants to offer fact checks on posts, they should absolutely do that. If they don't want to bother, they should be able to do that, too.Gern Blansten said:
so then why are you arguing that fact checks limit free speech? You lost mepjl44 said:
A website can do whatever they want. If Kat edits or deletes a comment on here, it's not limiting anyone's free speech. Same goes for Twitter, Facebook, etc.Gern Blansten said:
Disagree...editing the comment would be limiting free speech. Or not allowing the comment at all.pjl44 said:
Mandating a fact check is absolutely limiting free speech, so now we're arguing process because winning an argument is the only thing that mattersmrussel1 said:
Well as soon as Trump discusses it as a modification of section 230, then maybe I'll agree with you. Trump is pissed because that put a fact check on him, that's quite a bit different than modifying 230, which could be as simple as mandating a fact check. That's not eliminating free speech. Was this a serious rebuttal or cheeky?pjl44 said:
Threatening to shut down or regulate the speech of private companies is a concern, eh? It's something that Trump and Biden are both interested in.mrussel1 said:
Attacked? Countering your argument is commensurate with being attacked? I think you misunderstand, or just willfully ignore the points that people are making. The criticisms of Joe are small and petty and many of us here don't have interest in seeing them breathe. If you want to post your 'slightest reservation' (which is kind of funny since you said you're not voting for Biden, yet speaking for those that are), don't expect many of us not to counter those with our arguments. Your sensibilities aren't really a concern when the commander in chief is tweeting conspiracy theories and threatening to shut down or regulate the speech of private companies.pjl44 said:
It's absurdly hilarious to watch. Declaring that you're voting for Biden isn't enough. If you express even the slightest reservation, you still get attacked.static111 said:
It’s better to just attack people’s opinions when they are critical of joe, because this election is a referendum on trump and Biden has the victory in hand.pjl44 said:
People carry on like there isn't 30+ years of video clips where you can notice a difference. It's emperor's-new-clothes level shit. It makes sense to me that people would vote for him regardless, but let's talk about this stuff like reasonable adults.pjhawks said:
don't get me wrong I'm voting for Biden or anyone who is on that line, but i don't think if you look at it honestly that Biden looks good. It's pretty clear he is losing his faculties.Gern Blansten said:
He's fine...tRump looks horrible. He's loud so he comes across as more "fit" but he's a walking heart attack.pjhawks said:Biden’s age and condition has me worried. I mean he looks out of it. just a bad idea to have such an old man at the top of the ticket. I mean you know only the possible future of the country and the world is at stake with this election so it’s not like it’s important or anything. Heck if he makes it to November and wins there is just very little chance he will be cognizant for four years either. I can’t believe the dems might blow another election
2. You are continuing to not differentiate between the responsibility of a journalist making a comment vs. a customer/user.
3. I absolutely agree with you on this point, but in a weird way we're being saved by the brazenness and stupidity of it. One could even make the argument that it's not actually meant to be upheld, but to just be antagonistic. I'm more frightened by Biden’s remarks or Josh Hawley's because it could actually happen.
2. Journalists are not the only people that can be sued for libel. I'm not even advocating for strengthening of libel laws, I'm arguing for some regulatory platform on social media. You can disagree with it, but it's certainly not against the Constitution (using established precedent).
3. Great.
2. If there is a way (or desire) to go after the individual making a libelous comment, have at it. If Trump tweets something libelous, I have no issue with someone pursuing action against Trump. I have an issue with someone pursuing action against Twitter for something libelous that Trump tweeted.0 -
BidenYou like him. Admit it.
www.myspace.com0 -
Biden
wouldn't it be nice to make tRump eat his words about an "electoral college landslide"? I can't fucking waitThe Juggler said:You like him. Admit it.Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt20 -
Biden
I took the OPs point differently I didn’t read any smoky rooms into it. Some legitimate criticisms of electability and a genuine worry that (we) Dems might blow another election.mrussel1 said:
It's not the type of argument a MAGA person makes. Look at the point I'm countering that "Dems" made a terrible choice, as if the party elders sat in a smoke filled room and rolled him out. Rather, the candidate with a fraction of the cash on hand vs Sanders and Warren whipped them. That's democracy in action. The people made the choice. If PJHawks wants to lament the choice of the people, that's fine, but it's not the party.static111 said:
Whenever people have in the past voiced any concern they are met with comments like “ Don't you hate it when millions of people disagree with your choices? Democracy sucks. ” “Berniebro”. or “look at the record of a career civil servant” that are intended to delegitimize their Concerns. Maybe it is not an outright attack, but their isn’t an awful lot of discussion going on when people level any concern about Biden’s electability.mrussel1 said:
Attacked? Countering your argument is commensurate with being attacked? I think you misunderstand, or just willfully ignore the points that people are making. The criticisms of Joe are small and petty and many of us here don't have interest in seeing them breathe. If you want to post your 'slightest reservation' (which is kind of funny since you said you're not voting for Biden, yet speaking for those that are), don't expect many of us not to counter those with our arguments. Your sensibilities aren't really a concern when the commander in chief is tweeting conspiracy theories and threatening to shut down or regulate the speech of private companies.pjl44 said:
It's absurdly hilarious to watch. Declaring that you're voting for Biden isn't enough. If you express even the slightest reservation, you still get attacked.static111 said:
It’s better to just attack people’s opinions when they are critical of joe, because this election is a referendum on trump and Biden has the victory in hand.pjl44 said:
People carry on like there isn't 30+ years of video clips where you can notice a difference. It's emperor's-new-clothes level shit. It makes sense to me that people would vote for him regardless, but let's talk about this stuff like reasonable adults.pjhawks said:
don't get me wrong I'm voting for Biden or anyone who is on that line, but i don't think if you look at it honestly that Biden looks good. It's pretty clear he is losing his faculties.Gern Blansten said:
He's fine...tRump looks horrible. He's loud so he comes across as more "fit" but he's a walking heart attack.pjhawks said:Biden’s age and condition has me worried. I mean he looks out of it. just a bad idea to have such an old man at the top of the ticket. I mean you know only the possible future of the country and the world is at stake with this election so it’s not like it’s important or anything. Heck if he makes it to November and wins there is just very little chance he will be cognizant for four years either. I can’t believe the dems might blow another electionPersonally I think that immediately delegitimizing someone’s point Rather than have a discussion is akin to attacking especially on a message board where nuance and tone aren’t always coming through as intended.I mean a statement like. “ Don't you hate it when millions of people disagree with your choices? Democracy sucks. ” Is basically the type of argument that MAGA people make when you criticize their illustrious leader. So yeah democracy sucks and it got us Trump I will agree with the statement as far as that goes.
Back to Biden, I think people are forgetting that politics as usual are what got us tRump in the first place. If we are to just look at his career and stand by his record without critiquing anything, isn’t that the same in a way as saying that we are ok with the system and policies of the last 40 years that led to us to ultimately having that sucky Democracy deliver us the death dirge of Trumpism?
And 'politics as usual' didn't give us Trump, the rise of right wing media in the 90s gave us Trump. You're using Sanders language but we learned, emphatically, that the left of center didn't buy that argument.
potato potato as far as right wing media giving rise to trump. What condition led to the dissatisfaction that so many people’s politics started drifting to the right?. It isn’t all right wing propaganda conspiracy. We have some great propaganda outlets on outside too.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
Biden
Right, which conditions... gay marriage, Mexicans. Anything else? You think it's taxes? Free market capitalism? Free trade? War? These are all the things that right wing media supported without fail until 2016, and mostly still supports today. So it must be the gays and Mexicans. Shame on the Democrats for fostering that environment.static111 said:
I took the OPs point differently I didn’t read any smoky rooms into it. Some legitimate criticisms of electability and a genuine worry that (we) Dems might blow another election.mrussel1 said:
It's not the type of argument a MAGA person makes. Look at the point I'm countering that "Dems" made a terrible choice, as if the party elders sat in a smoke filled room and rolled him out. Rather, the candidate with a fraction of the cash on hand vs Sanders and Warren whipped them. That's democracy in action. The people made the choice. If PJHawks wants to lament the choice of the people, that's fine, but it's not the party.static111 said:
Whenever people have in the past voiced any concern they are met with comments like “ Don't you hate it when millions of people disagree with your choices? Democracy sucks. ” “Berniebro”. or “look at the record of a career civil servant” that are intended to delegitimize their Concerns. Maybe it is not an outright attack, but their isn’t an awful lot of discussion going on when people level any concern about Biden’s electability.mrussel1 said:
Attacked? Countering your argument is commensurate with being attacked? I think you misunderstand, or just willfully ignore the points that people are making. The criticisms of Joe are small and petty and many of us here don't have interest in seeing them breathe. If you want to post your 'slightest reservation' (which is kind of funny since you said you're not voting for Biden, yet speaking for those that are), don't expect many of us not to counter those with our arguments. Your sensibilities aren't really a concern when the commander in chief is tweeting conspiracy theories and threatening to shut down or regulate the speech of private companies.pjl44 said:
It's absurdly hilarious to watch. Declaring that you're voting for Biden isn't enough. If you express even the slightest reservation, you still get attacked.static111 said:
It’s better to just attack people’s opinions when they are critical of joe, because this election is a referendum on trump and Biden has the victory in hand.pjl44 said:
People carry on like there isn't 30+ years of video clips where you can notice a difference. It's emperor's-new-clothes level shit. It makes sense to me that people would vote for him regardless, but let's talk about this stuff like reasonable adults.pjhawks said:
don't get me wrong I'm voting for Biden or anyone who is on that line, but i don't think if you look at it honestly that Biden looks good. It's pretty clear he is losing his faculties.Gern Blansten said:
He's fine...tRump looks horrible. He's loud so he comes across as more "fit" but he's a walking heart attack.pjhawks said:Biden’s age and condition has me worried. I mean he looks out of it. just a bad idea to have such an old man at the top of the ticket. I mean you know only the possible future of the country and the world is at stake with this election so it’s not like it’s important or anything. Heck if he makes it to November and wins there is just very little chance he will be cognizant for four years either. I can’t believe the dems might blow another electionPersonally I think that immediately delegitimizing someone’s point Rather than have a discussion is akin to attacking especially on a message board where nuance and tone aren’t always coming through as intended.I mean a statement like. “ Don't you hate it when millions of people disagree with your choices? Democracy sucks. ” Is basically the type of argument that MAGA people make when you criticize their illustrious leader. So yeah democracy sucks and it got us Trump I will agree with the statement as far as that goes.
Back to Biden, I think people are forgetting that politics as usual are what got us tRump in the first place. If we are to just look at his career and stand by his record without critiquing anything, isn’t that the same in a way as saying that we are ok with the system and policies of the last 40 years that led to us to ultimately having that sucky Democracy deliver us the death dirge of Trumpism?
And 'politics as usual' didn't give us Trump, the rise of right wing media in the 90s gave us Trump. You're using Sanders language but we learned, emphatically, that the left of center didn't buy that argument.
potato potato as far as right wing media giving rise to trump. What condition led to the dissatisfaction that so many people’s politics started drifting to the right?. It isn’t all right wing propaganda conspiracy. We have some great propaganda outlets on outside too.0 -
Biden
to those of you "sitting this one out", THIS is what you are voting for by not voting.Kat said:Clearly we need action on the 25th amendment. There's a president lunatic in the White House."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
Buh, buh, buh both sides are the same.gimmesometruth27 said:
to those of you "sitting this one out", THIS is what you are voting for by not voting.Kat said:Clearly we need action on the 25th amendment. There's a president lunatic in the White House.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Biden
clearly.Halifax2TheMax said:
Buh, buh, buh both sides are the same.gimmesometruth27 said:
to those of you "sitting this one out", THIS is what you are voting for by not voting.Kat said:Clearly we need action on the 25th amendment. There's a president lunatic in the White House.
not voting is encouraging more of what we currently have. i have no use for people like that. pick a fucking side."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help