He wasn’t licensed to carry so they will get him on that, but good luck proving first degree murder.
As long as he is sentence for murder I don't care which degree.
He wasn’t licensed to carry so they will get him on that, but good luck proving first degree murder.
As long as he is sentence for murder I don't care which degree.
Ok so.. September's right here and it feels like elections are just around the corner.
How are polls doing atm?
@Dorobō:
First off they already are doing that before he even has won this thing and it's not working. Also this assumes Biden can't get this mess under control as well. Huh wonder why you assume that?
There's no good reason to believe anyone on Earth can solve this mess in under four years.
Biden's not special.
@Dorobō:
I think you hate Biden because you have actually said that. You're wishing that he takes blame for Trump's failures right now. Which is weird and says a lot.
I said I hated him because there was a seemingly credible rape allegation against him that his allies in the media were attempting to bury at the time.
I'm really just frustrated with him now.
@Dorobō:
According to you, people forgot who Biden was after 8 years of him being a popular VP. So sure, why not.
Now you're just completely misrepresenting what I said.
I was talking about how a lot of people aren't familiar with his record, not saying that the whole country developed some sort of weird Joe Biden-centric amnesia.
@Dorobō:
Yeah because you hate him for some reason and wished he didn't win the primary in a landslide. Hell you wished he would drop out after he won in a landslide which is just ???????? So maybe start thinking about why I think you want the GOP to win when you start hoping for a primary that would only help the GOP.
I don't think it was that unreasonable to demand that the frontrunner drop out in response to a then-credible rape allegation that his staff and allies tried to bury.
Ok so.. September's right here and it feels like elections are just around the corner.
How are polls doing atm?
Basically exactly where we were in 2016.
Polls look strongly in favor of Biden, but in each battleground state they are steadily trending towards evening out.
Bear in mind one or both candidates may be seeing bumps from the recent conventions, and Trump may be seeing the bigger one because his was more recent.
Meanwhile, Trump has tweeted, and I quote:
It never ends! Now they are trying to say that your favorite President, me, went to Walter Reed Medical Center, having suffered a series of mini-strokes. Never happened to THIS candidate - FAKE NEWS. Perhaps they are referring to another candidate from another Party!
More here for anyone who wants to keep his Twitter off your histories:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/01/trump-health-mini-strokes-406953
The interesting thing is nobody said ANYTHING about mini-strokes specifically at any point until just now with Trump himself.
^ I remember seeing that being broached sometime after midnight or so. So it's of course been making the rounds a bit.
Didn't think too much about it though since of course it's just speculation.
Basically exactly where we were in 2016.
Polls look strongly in favor of Biden, but in each battleground state they are steadily trending towards evening out.
Correct me if I'm wrong but Biden only has to win 5 of the swing states or Texas (yes Robby, I know how unlikely it is, I've read your posts) to win, right?
I personally think Trump would get destroyed in a fair election but this is not gonna be a fair election so who knows.
Ooo, good burn, Biden.
Yeah, the problem with those polls? They say Biden has a chance of winning Arizona.
That's not happening. I live here, I have all my life. This is a conservative hell-hole.
He's not winning Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, or Ohio. We already lost those to the GOP.
The math just doesn't work for Biden to win.
Ohio is always in play.
Yeah, the problem with those polls? They say Biden has a chance of winning Arizona.
That's not happening. I live here, I have all my life. This is a conservative hell-hole.
He's not winning Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, or Ohio. We already lost those to the GOP.
The math just doesn't work for Biden to win.
Dems won a Senate seat in Arizona in 2018 , and it's not like Trump is any more popular than he was then. It's definitely not out of reach.
I'm pretty dubious about Ohio, but Arizona and Wisconsin seem like a 60ish% chance of going blue, and I'm more optimistic about Pennsylvania.
Arizona might get another Dem senator as the same candidate who lost originally is running again.
I'm actually starting to like Demon Rin's defeatist view of US politics.
Yeah I think it's fucking hilarious. Only because it gets the bidenites riled up, lol.
I'm not a defeatist, the world has just gotten so awful that realism sounds defeatist.
I absolutely want a reason to hope again. I honestly and sincerely do, but I just don't see one.
I'm not a defeatist, the world has just gotten so awful that realism sounds defeatist.
I absolutely want a reason to hope again. I honestly and sincerely do, but I just don't see one.
That's how I see it. But I basically got told to shut up and quit spreading that kind of thinking, so I keep it to myself now. I just don't see biden winning in an election like this. In a standard, no pandemic/postal service crippled election maybe. But not like this.
I'm not a defeatist, the world has just gotten so awful that realism sounds defeatist.
I absolutely want a reason to hope again. I honestly and sincerely do, but I just don't see one.
Here's something you can do: make a Youtube compilation of all the times Trump or members of the Trump administration has talked about herd immunity.
If word gets around that Trump really does plan to screw us all and kill millions of people, it'll affect the election.
@The:
That's how I see it. But I basically got told to shut up and quit spreading that kind of thinking, so I keep it to myself now. I just don't see biden winning in an election like this. In a standard, no pandemic/postal service crippled election maybe. But not like this.
I agree.
I'm still going to risk my health to go out and vote for him but it's annoying to see people panic and try to shut it down whenever someone expresses concern for the future.
I kind of understand it. To an extent. I mean, I'm straight up defeatist by nature, not just pessimistic. I live my life believing the worst possible outcome is always the most likely. And that kind of thinking can definitely affect people. I don't want anyone to think exactly as I do, but being aware of the very real possibility biden will lose could soften the blow for some people. Nothing good can come from burying your head in the sand and refusing to accept even the possibility of a different outcome than the one you've assured yourself after all.
@The:
That's how I see it. But I basically got told to shut up and quit spreading that kind of thinking, so I keep it to myself now. I just don't see biden winning in an election like this. In a standard, no pandemic/postal service crippled election maybe. But not like this.
I dunno, Maybe I should take the same direction. I've already muted every political phrase I can think of on twitter.
@RoboBlue:
Here's something you can do: make a Youtube compilation of all the times Trump or members of the Trump administration has talked about herd immunity.
If word gets around that Trump really does plan to screw us all and kill millions of people, it'll affect the election.
Smarter people with a bigger platform than me have done that, it doesn't help. Nobody
I agree.
I'm still going to risk my health to go out and vote for him but it's annoying to see people panic and try to shut it down whenever someone expresses concern for the future.
Robo, it's because Trump and the GOP are going straight up full force Fascist so to a lot of people "Yeah, but the Democrats aren't doing enough to fix things either" makes us nervous.
It's like the house is on fire and a bunch of people keep going "Yeah, it's on fire and that's bad, but what are you going to do about all the broken stuff you've been ignoring for years? The roof needs to be re-shingled, The plumbing needs to be redone! When are you going to do that?!" and everyone else is just like "Can we please take care of the fire first and worry about that once it's out?!"
Constantly shitting on Biden and insisting on never voting for him is only going to turn undecideds off of him.
Which, another sign things are horrible: How can anyone have watched literally everything Trump has done and still be undecided?!
Also Robo: Don't take anything I just said as me "Blaming" you for anything or telling you what to say or what to do or how to do it, I'm just explaining why some people are so viscerally opposed to constant crapping on Biden.
The internet has developed this conflict between the Progressive heroes who want real change vs. The evil Neoliberal shills who believe fundamental change is impossible and you should just sit down and shut up and accept that, but this straight up isn't true.
There are a lot of us who would normally fall in the progressive camp who are genuinely TERRIFIED of how far towards Fascism Trump and the GOP have fallen and desperately want to stop that regardless of the cost.
I ABSOLUTELY want real change. I want M4A. I want UBI, I want to Defund the Cops. I want literally all of that, but I GENUINELY believe that right now our options are "Vote Biden and there will still be a country to fix later or Let Trump win and watch as he establishes an Authoritarian regime and then literally nothing progressives want will ever happen. Ever."
There are lots of undecided voters because of defeatist ideas like "my vote doesn't matter" and "the system is too fucked anyway".
That's exactly what Trump and Putin want you to think, because it's thinking like that which helps keep them in power.
Nilitch saying that he likes this perspective is a prime example of why you should do your best to change your outlook. Saying the same thing over and over is definitely not doing your best. Instead, it's merely spreading that toxic thinking to others who are vulnerable, too.
I ABSOLUTELY want real change. I want M4A. I want UBI, I want to Defund the Cops. I want literally all of that, but I GENUINELY believe that right now our options are "Vote Biden and there will still be a country to fix later or Let Trump win and watch as he establishes an Authoritarian regime and then literally nothing progressives want will ever happen. Ever."
The truth is that, even if the worst case scenario happens and Trump does get reelected, it is extremely unlikely that the result will literally be the end of the world, or even America. Everything changes, eventually, and at some point in the future the progressive ideas of today will become mainstream. The more optimistic you are, and the harder you work for that sort of future, the more people you can adopt into your cause and the faster that change will come about.
Speaking purely for myself
Re: Defeatism
Declaring Trump will absolutely win just comes off to me as baseless doomsaying that is (a) unproductive and (b) ignores the polling that has Biden leading in just about every state that isn't dyed in the wool red, and even some of them are leaning purple. It's one thing to be concerned Trump can still win, he can and he's trying to rig things as much at he can to achieve that, but there's a balance between "We can't lose!" and "We can't win!"
Re: Biden's Flaws
I've said as much already, but as far as I'm concerned Biden's flaws or potential weaknesses as a President are irrelevant until he's sworn in on Inauguration Day. Then, and only then, will any issues he might have as a leader matter. If he doesn't win, then his issues are as irrelevant as Hillary Clinton's and Bernie Sanders's.
And if Biden does lose? If Donald Trump wins a second term despite his utter incomptetence and blatant and obvious attempts to cheat the system (which, incidentally,
) then the United States of America will owe the rest of the world an apology but, other than that, will have proven that it deserves whatever happens to it, far as I'm concerned.
I dunno, Maybe I should take the same direction. I've already muted every political phrase I can think of on twitter.
Smarter people with a bigger platform than me have done that, it doesn't help. Nobody
Robo, it's because Trump and the GOP are going straight up full force Fascist so to a lot of people "Yeah, but the Democrats aren't doing enough to fix things either" makes us nervous.
It's like the house is on fire and a bunch of people keep going "Yeah, it's on fire and that's bad, but what are you going to do about all the broken stuff you've been ignoring for years? The roof needs to be re-shingled, The plumbing needs to be redone! When are you going to do that?!" and everyone else is just like "Can we please take care of the fire first and worry about that once it's out?!"
Constantly shitting on Biden and insisting on never voting for him is only going to turn undecideds off of him.
Which, another sign things are horrible: How can anyone have watched literally everything Trump has done and still be undecided?!
Also Robo: Don't take anything I just said as me "Blaming" you for anything or telling you what to say or what to do or how to do it, I'm just explaining why some people are so viscerally opposed to constant crapping on Biden.
The internet has developed this conflict between the Progressive heroes who want real change vs. The evil Neoliberal shills who believe fundamental change is impossible and you should just sit down and shut up and accept that, but this straight up isn't true.
There are a lot of us who would normally fall in the progressive camp who are genuinely TERRIFIED of how far towards Fascism Trump and the GOP have fallen and desperately want to stop that regardless of the cost.
I ABSOLUTELY want real change. I want M4A. I want UBI, I want to Defund the Cops. I want literally all of that, but I GENUINELY believe that right now our options are "Vote Biden and there will still be a country to fix later or Let Trump win and watch as he establishes an Authoritarian regime and then literally nothing progressives want will ever happen. Ever."
Your last paragraph here is almost 1 for 1 of what I want and believe.
https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/2020/09/01/day-1321/
[h=1]Day 1321: "Sounds like conspiracy theory."[/h]
! * [h=3] Dept. of “We Have It Totally Under Control.”[/h]
! * * *
! 1/ Trump compared police officers who shoot unarmed people to golfers who “choke” while putting. While discussing the shooting of Jacob Blake, who was shot seven times in the back by an officer, with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, Trump said sometimes an officer “makes a mistake” or “chokes” under pressure, “Just like in a golf tournament, they miss a three-foot putt.” Ingraham interjected and redirected Trump: “You’re not comparing it to golf, because of course that’s what the media would say.” Trump responded: “No, I’m saying people choke. People choke. And people are bad people. […] You have some bad people, and they choke. […] People choke under those circumstances, and they make a bad decision.” (Politico / The Guardian / USA Today / The Hill / Business Insider)
2/ Trump defended the Kenosha gunman charged with murdering two people and claimed that the 17-year-old acted in self-defense. Trump suggested that video he had seen showed Kyle Rittenhouse “trying to get away from them, I guess, it looks like” and that protesters “very violently attacked him. I guess he was in very big trouble.” Trump added: “He probably would have been killed.” Video of Rittenhouse at the protests showed him carrying an assault rifle and telling someone on the phone: “I just killed somebody.” Rittenhouse has been charged as an adult with two counts of first-degree homicide and one count of attempted homicide. (Reuters / Politico / CBS News / USA Today / NPR / CNN)
! * Trump visited Kenosha despite objections from Wisconsin’ governor and Kenosha’s mayor, where he blamed “anti-police and anti-American riots” for the property damaged during the civil unrest that followed the the shooting of Jacob Blake. “You have anarchists and you have the looters and you have the rioters. You have all types. You have agitators,” Trump said. (USA Today / Wall Street Journal / Washington Post / New York Times)
! 3/ Trump spread a baseless conspiracy theory that “people that are in the dark shadows” are “controlling the streets” in Kenosha and other cities, and manipulating Biden’s campaign. When Fox News host Laura Ingraham asked “What does that mean,” saying the statement “sounds like conspiracy theory,” Trump claimed “We had somebody get on a plane from a certain city this weekend, and in the plane it was almost completely loaded with thugs, wearing these dark uniforms, black uniforms, with gear and this and that.” Trump declined to elaborate, but claimed the matter was “under investigation right now” because “a lot of the people were on the plane to do big damage.” Trump provided no evidence for his claims. (Washington Post / NBC News / CNN / New York Times / ABC News)
4/ Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf said Attorney General William Barr is “working on” conspiracy charges against leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement. During an interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News, Wolf said charging antifascists and leaders of the BLM movement with conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act statute is “something that I have talked to [Attorney General William Barr] personally about.” He added: “I know that they are working on it.” RICO is a federal law that focuses on acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization and was used to take down organized crime in the U.S. Wolf said Barr was “targeting and investigating the heads of those organizations” as well as those who are “paying for those individuals to move across the country.” (Daily Beast)
! * Trump called companies supporting the Black Lives Matter movement “weak” and that they’re led by “weak people.” Trump added that he considered the movement’s name “so discriminatory.” (Bloomberg)
! 5/ Trump denied that his unscheduled visit to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center last November was because he had “suffered a series of mini-strokes.” No media outlets have reported that Trump had a series of mini-strokes. Trump, however, tweeted that it “Never happened to THIS candidate – FAKE NEWS.” Hours later, Trump’s physician issued an official statement saying Trump has not had a stroke, mini-stroke or heart-related emergencies. (@realDonaldTrump / The Guardian / CNBC / Washington Post)
! * Day 1033: Trump made an unscheduled visit to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center to “begin portions of his routine annual physical exam” that included a “quick exam and labs,” according to the White House.
! 6/ Pence was put on “standby to take over the powers of the presidency temporarily” if Trump needed to be anesthetized during an unscheduled hospital visit last November. Trump’s visit did not follow the protocol of a routine presidential medical exam, and the White House has claimed that Trump had undergone a “quick exam and labs” as part of his annual physical out of anticipation of a “very busy 2020.”(CNN)
7/ A federal appeals court temporarily blocked the release of Trump’s tax returns to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. Oral arguments for Trump’s appeal were set for Sept. 25. Even if Cyrus Vance is allowed to enforce the subpoena for eight years of Trump’s financial records, grand jury secrecy laws would prevent the documents from becoming public. Trump, meanwhile, complained that “the deck was clearly stacked against” him, and said he would ask the Supreme Court to intervene if necessary. (Washington Post / Axios / NBC News / Wall Street Journal / Reuters)
poll/ 52% of Americans say they will vote early, of which 19% say they will vote early in person and 33% say they will vote by mail. 33% say they will vote in person on Election Day, while 11% say they might not vote at all. (NBC News)
! * * *
! [h=3]️ Notables.[/h]
! 1. The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis investigation found that over $1 billion in emergency coronavirus aid relief went to companies who “double dipped” and received multiple Paycheck Protection Program loans. The Subcommittee found over 10,000 loans where the borrower obtained more than one loan, and over 600 loans for nearly $100 million went to companies that had been suspended from doing business with the federal government. (NBC News)
There's no good reason to believe anyone on Earth can solve this mess in under four years.
Then how about 8 years instead of a dumb primary with a mythic "progressive" that won't win anyway and just give the White House back to the GOP?
I said I hated him because there was a seemingly credible rape allegation against him that his allies in the media were attempting to bury at the time.
It was never credible and the media never tried to bury it. We have been over this before. You listened then as well as you do now. A Dem primary vs a President Biden would cause the GOP to win. Remember that.
I was talking about how a lot of people aren't familiar with his record, not saying that the whole country developed some sort of weird Joe Biden-centric amnesia.
Which is just as ridiculous. Instead of letting the GOP blame Biden for Trump's failures by wanting a primary that results in a GOP win, how about fighting for progressive change with a President Biden? Because again a Dem primary vs a President Biden would cause the GOP to win. Remember that. Repeat that.
I don't think it was that unreasonable to demand that the frontrunner drop out in response to a then-credible rape allegation that his staff and allies tried to bury.
First thing here is he was the nom at the point it happened, not just the front-runner. Second it was, once again, never credible. Third, that never happened. And fourth what you were asking for was for Trump to win with that. It's a dead horse topic but it still shows you have trouble listening. Because again, you can't seem to counter the fact a primary in 2024 vs a President Biden would be a terrible idea.
I am done with this topic since I am not fond of talking to walls. So all I'll say to you and all the doomsayers here is to listen Kirbycide who has the right ideas and positive message we should be listening to right now instead of fighting over dead horses or hoping the GOP wins in 4 years. We need to focus on the good and actually want to win.
To be fair, Neko, it does seem like Biden intends to only serve one term. I expect that Kamala will probably get the nomination in 2024 if their first term goes well.
To be fair, Neko, it does seem like Biden intends to only serve one term. I expect that Kamala will probably get the nomination in 2024 if their first term goes well.
If I recall he said he'll serve a single term if his health is not looking great. If his health is good, I don't see the point in wasting an incumbent advantage.
But either way 2024 or 2028 as long as he does good, Harris will probably and hopefully have an easy clear primary that lands her the nom. And she is a good progressive to take over after Biden.
@Dorobō:
If I recall he said he'll serve a single term if his health is not looking great. If his health is good, I don't see the point in wasting an incumbent advantage.
But either way 2024 or 2028 as long as he does good, Harris will probably and hopefully have an easy clear primary that lands her the nom. And she is a good progressive to take over after Biden.
I see, I hadn't heard that. Most of what I heard was that he was really taking time to consider who he'd choose for his running mate because he wanted them to be the ideal candidate for a future presidential election after his term.
My hope is that by 2024 Kamala can build a strong reputation as a progressive. Some of her policies as attorney general of California made me think that she's not as socially progressive as I'd prefer, but she claims that she was beholden to the state government at the time and was forced to make hard decisions she didn't always agree with. I'm optimistic that in the White House she'll be more focused on the optics of her decisions, especially since she's probably going to be the left's best candidate for the presidency going forward.
@Dorobō:
And she is a good progressive to take over after Biden.
In terms of going after the "progressive" base? Absolutely not.
Elizabeth Warren, a true progressive who is pretty much "Bernie but actually smart" has been lambasted by the "progressive" left for not bowing out and endorsing Bernie, to the point that every tweet she shares is bombed with snake emojis from Bernie supporters who believe her DARING to go against Bernie means she's a backstabbing snake.
That is somebody who's policies and record is ACTUALLY progressive.
I have no problem with Kamala Harris as the moderate Dem choice. In fact I was REALLY surprised she wasn't the "establishment" choice for the Dem nomination and didn't really become a frontrunner in the primary outside of her one debate moment with Biden.
But to say the Progressive left has "some" questions about her spotty record as the CA Attorney General is an understatement.
To the Bernie supporters, she's the devil, no different than George W Bush at her worst, and a money grabbing opportunist now seeking to profit of the Left at her best.
There are legitimate critiques about her role as AG, and on the otherside redeeming qualities that make her a qualified high level politician.
However to state she's a "good progressive to take over after Biden" is ignoring both what a "progressive" is, and ignoring what the progressive voters want in a candidate.
An accurate statement would say "She's a good mainstream, moderate Dem that would be a good choice to take over after Biden instead of another over 60 year old Straight White man"
I mean to be fair when Harris ran, Bernie world media and supporters were the first ones to attack her record as a progressive. So she is not far from the same hand Warren got dealt with by dumb twitter kids. How dare a woman run vs Bernie! I swear AOC had she been able to run would be viewed as the devil by these kids had she ran vs Bernie as well.
Harris is a progressive. But she is a progressive that is now popular with well, 9 in 10 Democrats. So hopefully this weird view of whoever the Bernie Bros hates at the moment is a moderate will die out when she runs but overall she is very popular right now so I can still see her going far. But again everyone loves women politicians until they run for president so let's see what happens.
In terms of going after the "progressive" base? Absolutely not.
Elizabeth Warren, a true progressive who is pretty much "Bernie but actually smart" has been lambasted by the "progressive" left for not bowing out and endorsing Bernie, to the point that every tweet she shares is bombed with snake emojis from Bernie supporters who believe her DARING to go against Bernie means she's a backstabbing snake.
That is somebody who's policies and record is ACTUALLY progressive.
I have no problem with Kamala Harris as the moderate Dem choice. In fact I was REALLY surprised she wasn't the "establishment" choice for the Dem nomination and didn't really become a frontrunner in the primary outside of her one debate moment with Biden.
But to say the Progressive left has "some" questions about her spotty record as the CA Attorney General is an understatement.
To the Bernie supporters, she's the devil, no different than George W Bush at her worst, and a money grabbing opportunist now seeking to profit of the Left at her best.
There are legitimate critiques about her role as AG, and on the otherside redeeming qualities that make her a qualified high level politician.
However to state she's a "good progressive to take over after Biden" is ignoring both what a "progressive" is, and ignoring what the progressive voters want in a candidate.
An accurate statement would say "She's a good mainstream, moderate Dem that would be a good choice to take over after Biden instead of another over 60 year old Straight White man"
The snake emoji thing is really weird to me for multiple reasons.
I went to her timeline just now and it took me a while to even find one reply with a snake emoji, so it doesn't seem like anyone's been actively "bombing her with snake emojis" for months.
You'd think someone running for president would be above whining about a few angry but nonthreatening Twitter replies.
Why does her fanbase keep bringing this up as if people were breaking into her house and threatening her family? It's not like the media treated Warren unfairly, and somehow Trump's years of racist attacks on her just fell to the wayside in the wake of this snake emoji thing.
Harris's position is kind of hard to pin down. She definitely wasn't too progressive as California's AG, but she has an extremely progressive voting record in the Senate. She co-sponsored the Green New Deal and has worked with AOC since then on refining and promoting it. During the primary, Harris seemed pretty interested in courting Elizabeth Warren's base (while still also trying to appeal to moderates- that indecision is part of what sunk her campaign).
I interpret that as Harris wanting to lean hard progressive but also being conscious of the establishment she rose through. My heart says, given the freedom to do so, Harris could end up being a powerful progressive candidate just a bit center of Warren.
But the simple truth is probably that Kamala Harris is simply more progressive about some things than others. She's got strong stances on environmentalism, education, and racial justice but somewhat softer views on economic disparities and criminal justice reform. She's about the most progressive VP candidate that fit Biden's parameters but pretty much everyone in the Democratic Party will say she's not perfect for one reason or another. And that's fine.
That all said, I do think Harris will have trouble defining herself as "progressive" while acting as Biden's VP. He's a moderate and her first role is to support him, which means she'll be tied to the moderate establishment no matter what. Maybe she can quietly push for more liberal policies, kind of like how Biden's statement on gay marriage pushed Obama to do the same. But she'll be limited. It's also rather difficult, as a member of the President's Cabinet and particularly as the VP, to run farther to the left of his policies as a successor. It's rather difficult to criticize leadership you've been working closely with.
I would like to point out that people really began calling warren a snake after she lied about Bernie being a secret sexist. It's not like it just came out of nowhere.
Well, didn't Warren imply that because Bernie had told her she probably couldn't get elected since she was a woman? Sounds sexist to me, even if there probably is a sexist bias in most American voters.
Ah yes, the guy who said he believed a woman could become president long before 2020 suddenly changes his mind because reasons. I don't buy it. I don't remember the source, but you could probably just do a youtube search of Bernie saying he believes a woman could be president. He's on video saying it, and he's a younger man in the video.
Well, didn't Warren imply that because Bernie had told her she probably couldn't get elected since she was a woman? Sounds sexist to me, even if there probably is a sexist bias in most American voters.
The timeline is important, even if you believe Warren over Sanders.
First, the claim that Sanders had told Warren that he didn't believe a woman could be president at a private meeting in 2018 when only the two of them were in the room was leaked to CNN. CNN immediately used it to smear Sanders as a horrible sexist, which was typical of the media coverage he got before and during the primaries.
Shortly before the January 14th debate, Warren put out a statement confirming that she stood behind the claim.
Then at the debate (which was hosted by CNN), this happened:
The CNN debate moderator treated Warren's claim as fact and completely dismissed Sanders' denial, despite the fact that he has an established history of supporting female politicians and strongly pushed for Warren to run in 2016.
If Warren lied, she helped a bitterly hated enemy of progressives damage the most popular progressive's campaign in a blatantly unfair way.
If she told a half-truth, and what Bernie actually said was he didn't believe a woman could get elected due to increased sexism among voters, nothing really changes from the above. This is the most believable possibility if you trust Warren.
If she was completely truthful, she still made no attempt to be fair to Sanders and either actively participated in her story being used for mudslinging in a dishonest manner or stood back and let CNN do it for her.
Even after the scandal died down, CNN and MSNBC used the "Sanders supporters are sending her snake emojis!" story to crap all over Bernie's supporters for months, after having publicly hated on them and encouraged attacks on them for years, and Warren actively participated in that, which is unforgiveable to me.
Don't get me wrong, I do like Bernie's positions on a lot of things.
But Warren's positions are just as good if not better on everything… and I don't see exactly why the "most believable possibility if you trust Warren" is that she told a half-truth just to damage Bernie's campaign.
Something tells me that negative bias towards women has to do with the general perception that female politicians are spiteful, catty, untrustworthy snakes. Maybe I'm crazy.
Also, just because you say one thing in public and another thing in private doesn't mean that the private conversation has no bearing on your character.
Like I said women are liked until they run for president then they got unnecessary hatred. Especially against Bernie Sanders it seems.
Speaking purely for myself
Re: Defeatism
Declaring Trump will absolutely win just comes off to me as baseless doomsaying that is (a) unproductive and (b) ignores the polling that has Biden leading in just about every state that isn't dyed in the wool red, and even some of them are leaning purple. It's one thing to be concerned Trump can still win, he can and he's trying to rig things as much at he can to achieve that, but there's a balance between "We can't lose!" and "We can't win!"Re: Biden's Flaws
I've said as much already, but as far as I'm concerned Biden's flaws or potential weaknesses as a President are irrelevant until he's sworn in on Inauguration Day. Then, and only then, will any issues he might have as a leader matter. If he doesn't win, then his issues are as irrelevant as Hillary Clinton's and Bernie Sanders's.And if Biden does lose? If Donald Trump wins a second term despite his utter incomptetence and blatant and obvious attempts to cheat the system (which, incidentally,
) then the United States of America will owe the rest of the world an apology but, other than that, will have proven that it deserves whatever happens to it, far as I'm concerned.
I agree with your views on these things, excluding maybe the flaws. You do consider how a candidate will be as potential president, flaws included. It's all about context and competition though, so against Trump they shouldn't be much of an issue.
I'm following the polls and it doesn't look too bad at the moment, it's just that Covid makes everything even more insecure regarding the voting outcome. Election night will be one hell of a night.
I agree with your views on these things, excluding maybe the flaws. You do consider how a candidate will be as potential president, flaws included. It's all about context and competition though, so against Trump they shouldn't be much of an issue.
I'm following the polls and it doesn't look too bad at the moment, it's just that Covid makes everything even more insecure regarding the voting outcome. Election night will be one hell of a night.
For better or worse, like it or not, Biden's our man, and next to the only alternative, his flaws don't matter to me and won't until and unless he's sworn into office.
–--
Meanwhile, since we still have at least one person spreading the Biden's senile nonsense
DHS withheld July intelligence bulletin calling out Russian attack on Biden’s mental health
The Trump campaign has repeatedly engaged in a similar line of attack.
For a tiny sigh of relief today, Edward Markey beat Joe Kennedy III for the Massachusetts senator primary, thus keeping the Warren-Markey tag-team going:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53980982?SThisFB&fbclid=IwAR3nsEnvJURkf1FxkJrBouORyt7Osr9LiIAyM53Ki8qHWVSMRaZGOWvT9kM
Not that I've got anything in particular against you, grandson of Robert Kennedy, you're just not ready yet.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53994209
Expect to see this be brought up by Trump in the near future.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53994209
Expect to see this be brought up by Trump in the near future.
"This" is "Nancy Pelosi seen without mask inside San Francisco hair salon"
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/2020/09/02/day-1322/
[h=1]Day 1322: "Why would he do this?"[/h]
! * [h=3] Dept. of “We Have It Totally Under Control.”[/h]
! * * *
! 1/ The CDC directed states to prepare to distribute a coronavirus vaccine to health care workers and high-risk groups as soon as late October or early November, heightening concerns that the Trump administration is seeking to rush a vaccine before Election Day. Public health officials in all states and territories, as well as New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston, and San Antonio, were sent CDC guidance outlining scenarios for distributing two vaccine candidates — each requiring two doses a few weeks apart — at hospitals, mobile clinics, and other facilities. And, in a letter to state governors and health departments last week, CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield asked state governors to waive permits for building vaccine distribution sites “that would prevent these facilities from becoming fully operational by November 1, 2020.” Dr. Anthony Fauci and FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn have both recently said that a vaccine could be available before clinical trials have been completed. “I believe that by the time we get to the end of this calendar year,” Fauci said, “we will feel comfortable that we do have a safe and effective vaccine.” Hahn added that an emergency authorization for a vaccine could be appropriate even before the vaccine has completed Phase 3 clinical trials. (New York Times / CNN / The Hill / NBC News / Washington Post / Bloomberg / Wall Street Journal / Politico)
2/ The Trump administration backed out of a $646.7 million deal to buy ventilators after a congressional investigation found “evidence of fraud, waste and abuse” in the acquisition, which negotiated by White House trade advisor Peter Navarro. The House Committee on Oversight and Reform’s Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy has since opened a probe of all federal contracts negotiated by Navarro. (ProPublica / Washington Post / CNBC)
! * Congressional investigators uncovered more than $1 billion dollars in potential waste and fraud in the Paycheck Protection Program. The money went to companies that “double dipped” and received multiple in violation of the program’s rules, according to a preliminary analysis by the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis. The report says there is a “high risk that PPP loans may have been diverted from small businesses truly in need to ineligible businesses or even to criminals.” The subcommittee found more than 10,000 loans in which the borrowers obtained more than one loan. Because the Trump administration decided to only audit loans for more than $2 million, only 65 of the loans would otherwise have been subject to additional review. More than 600 loans totaling nearly $100 million went to companies that are barred or suspended from doing business with the federal government. More than 350 loans worth roughly $200 million went to government contractors that had been flagged by the federal government for performance or integrity issues. More than 11,000 additional borrowers had other red flags of various types. (NBC News / Chicago Tribune)
! 3/ FEMA will no longer reimburse states for the cost of face masks and personal protective equipment in nonemergency settings. Under the new guidance, which goes into effect on Sept. 15., cloth face coverings and PPE for teachers, schools, public housing, and courthouses will no longer be eligible for the public assistance fund because they don’t meet FEMA’s definition of a “direct emergency protective measures.” The Department of Health and Human Services, however, said “schools in need will still receive cloth face masks” from HHS instead of FEMA. (NPR)
4/ The Department of Homeland Security withheld an intelligence bulletin warning of a Russian campaign to spread misinformation about Joe Biden’s mental health. In the draft July bulletin, titled “Russia Likely to Denigrate Health of US Candidates to Influence 2020 Election,” analysts said with “high confidence” that “Russian malign influence actors are likely to continue denigrating presidential candidates through allegations of poor mental or physical health to influence the outcome of the 2020 election.” An hour after its submission, however, DHS Chief of Staff John Gountanis intervened, saying “Please hold on sending this one out until you have a chance to speak to [acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf].” The Biden campaign, meanwhile, accused Trump of blocking the release of the report, saying the Russian narrative “aligns with Trump’s own constantly backfiring attacks” that Biden is not mentally competent to be president. “And why would he do this?” a spokesperson for the Biden campaign said, “Because Russia and the Trump campaign are speaking from the same script of smears and lies.” Nearly two months later, the bulletin has not been circulated to local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. (ABC News / NBC News / CNN / CNBC / Axios)
5/ Melania Trump “regularly” used a private email account while in the White House. Stephanie Winston Wolkoff said she corresponded multiple times per day with Melania through a private Trump Organization email account, iMessage, and Signal, an encrypted messaging app. Trump made the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private emails and server a major part of his 2016 campaign, calling it “worse than Watergate.” (Washington Post / Associated Press / Axios)
poll/ 8% of Americans said crime was a top priority for the country, compared with 30% who said it was the economy or jobs, and 16% who said it was healthcare. (Reuters)
poll/ 52% of voters view the Black Lives Matter movement favorably – a 9 percentage point drop since June. (Politico)
poll/ 28% of Biden supporters say they won’t accept a Trump victory as fair and accurate, while 19% of Trump’s supporters say they won’t accept a Biden victory as legitimate. (USA Today)
poll/ 57% of Democratic voters plan to cast their ballots before Election Day, either through the mail (28%), a drop box (11%), or voting early at a satellite location (18%). 66% of Republicans, meanwhile, plan to vote in-person on Election Day. (Grinnell College)
poll/ 36% of Americans expect the winner of the 2020 presidential election to be announced on election night. 24% expect the results announced within one or two days of Election Day, 14% think we’ll know in a week, and 13% think it will take a few weeks. (Axios)
! * A Democratic data and analytics firm warned of a “red mirage” on election night, where it’ll appear that Trump has won, but lose days later when mail ballots are counted. (Axios)
! Editor’s note: Friendly reminder that polls should be thought of as directional evidence of a prevailing feeling. They’re inherently flawed, biased, and should never be used for prediction. Like the weather report, polls are a point-in-time temperature check. We’ve all been caught out in the rain on sunny day, right?
! * * *
! [h=3]️ Notables.[/h]
! 1. An internal Census Bureau document warned that cutting the 2020 census short increased the risk of “serious errors” in the national head count, which “may not be fixed.” Last month, the Trump administration forced the bureau to end all counting efforts a month sooner and prepare state population totals for Trump by the end of this year, as required by federal law. (NPR)
- A former top Department of Homeland Security official accused the Trump administration of “throwing fuel on the fire” of domestic extremism in the United States. Elizabeth Neumann, who resigned in April, said right-wing extremist groups “borrowed from ISIS’s playbook and they learned how to radicalize people online.” White House Communications Director Alyssa Farah, meanwhile, dismissed Neumann’s concerns as those of a “disgruntled employee.” (NPR)
- Trump told Sarah Sanders to “go to North Korea and take one for the team” after Kim Jong-un appeared to wink at her during a summit in Singapore in June 2018. “We made direct eye contact and Kim nodded and appeared to wink at me,” the former White House press secretary wrote in her memoir. “I was stunned. I quickly looked down and continued taking notes.” When Sanders told Trump and John Kelly, then chief of staff, about the incident, Trump replied: “Kim Jong Un hit on you! He did! He fucking hit on you! […] That settles it. You’re going to North Korea and taking one for the team!” Sanders replied: “Sir, please stop.” (The Guardian)
Oh yeah, the long tradition of prostitution of staff members. Absolutely discussing, and predictable given his character.
Don't get me wrong, I do like Bernie's positions on a lot of things.
But Warren's positions are just as good if not better on everything… and I don't see exactly why the "most believable possibility if you trust Warren" is that she told a half-truth just to damage Bernie's campaign.
The claim conflicts with everything we know about Bernie over a long period of time, it's weirdly vague, and it's a he-said she-said situation because there's no evidence supporting her claim.
Think of it this way: let's say you had a friend who you trusted not to lie to you, and that person came to you and told you that she had a private meeting with Donald Trump and he provided her with absolute proof that he was not a racist. Given Trump's extensive public history, it would be very hard to believe that claim… but you trust that your friend wouldn't lie to you. The obvious assumption in that scenario is that she misunderstood what she was shown and didn't think it through properly.
That's what I'm suggesting Warren did, but she later went on to use that misunderstanding as a political pawn.
If you trust Warren then it's not believable that she made it up completely, but if you think critically about the situation it's also not believable that Bernie would say that.
Something tells me that negative bias towards women has to do with the general perception that female politicians are spiteful, catty, untrustworthy snakes. Maybe I'm crazy.
There is a general bias against women in power across the population, but it's a huge stretch to say that the snake thing was an anti-woman statement. Random internet people just wanted to criticize her for what they saw as a betrayal of the left.
Maybe I'm wrong and women in politics have a history of being spammed with snake emojis whenever they say or do something controversial, but I've never seen that happen before or since.
Also, just because you say one thing in public and another thing in private doesn't mean that the private conversation has no bearing on your character.
True, and you should never completely trust a politician or public figure.
However… we all have skeletons in our closets and there's a financial incentive for people to dig up dirt on politicians, so if they've said or done something sketchy or wrong in the past, a lot of the time it'll come out during a campaign.
For Bernie, who was by far the most hated candidate among those with wealth and power in the US, a ridiculous amount of money was spent trying to paint him as a bad person, so if he was secretly a misogynist it would have come out. Someone from his past would have come forward shortly after Warren made her accusation to bolster the credibility of the claim.
Yeah calling a woman a dirty snake because she didn't bend the knee to a man who already fucked us over having a woman for a president is in no way anti-women or as the kids like to call it misogynistic.
People still blame Bernie for Hillary's loss? Jesus christ, personal responsibility is a completely foreign concept to you people, isn't it? "We failed? Impossible! That election was ours, we were entitled to a victory! It must be someone else's fault!" Grow up.
Just skimming through an election map shows that while trumpy absolutely demolished Hillary in the electoral college, gary johnson and jill stein cost her much much more than whatever people think Bernie did. And yet the centrist dems aren't ceaselessly whining about them. I wonder why…
@The:
Just skimming through an election map shows that while trumpy absolutely demolished Hillary in the electoral college, gary johnson and jill stein cost her much much more than whatever people think Bernie did. And yet the centrist dems aren't ceaselessly whining about them. I wonder why…
Quick correction here- in terms of area, Trump might have won big, but his Electoral College victory was fairly small. Of presidential elections in the past 50 years, his margin is 4th worst, better than Dubya's wins but smaller than Obama's, Clinton's, Bush Sr.'s, and Reagan's. Don't be fooled.
Dems also despise anyone that voted for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson rather than Hillary Clinton. A good portion of Bernie supporters did go to Stein instead, so the two groups aren't discrete.
Bernie could have done more to support Hillary, but he's not the only reason she lost.
It’d be understandable if you liked Bernie over Hillary because of his progressive views, but when it’s clear that you also idolize him over Elizabeth, it begins to seem like you are more interested in the Bernie cult of personality than progressivism itself.
So uh, maybe get off your high horse, use that critical thinking you seem to value so much, and take a good long look at yourself in the mirror. Because you and Roboblue are sounding more and more like Trump supporters every day, the D.
It’d be understandable if you liked Bernie over Hillary because of his progressive views, but when it’s clear that you also idolize him over Elizabeth, it begins to seem like you are more interested in the Bernie cult of personality than progressivism itself.
So uh, maybe get off your high horse, use that critical thinking you seem to value so much, and take a good long look at yourself in the mirror. Because you and Roboblue are sounding more and more like Trump supporters every day, the D.
Why is it that when you support a candidate because of her views and goals it's fine, but when I do it I'm a cultist?
I never thought less of you for supporting Warren but now I'm starting to wonder if you're projecting with this cult garbage.
Do I have to dig through my post history and prove that I repeatedly complained that Bernie lost because he was too much of a coward to go after Biden properly?
The sad fact is that Bernie just wasn't up to the task of being a cutthroat politician in the way that, say, Kamala Harris was.
That's fair, Roboblue. I suppose the post is more directed at the D than at you.
Listen, I still like Bernie, but I just don't see an overwhelming rationale to doubt Elizabeth's claim. Regardless of the reasoning behind his private admission to her, it shows that he also probably has (unconscious) biases against women (in politics). Why bend over backwards to defend the guy when it's clear that he's certainly not perfect in every way?
That's what I mean when I say that many Bernie supporters sound a lot like the worst Trumpers. It's pretty transparent that they love the person most, even when his behavior contradicts his very own ideals (or what he says are his ideals). It's a cult of personality, and it's honestly kind of disgusting how many of the cultists tend to treat everyone who isn't one, especially when those they are attacking actually believe in the principles that the idol supposedly espouses.