Biden's speech today/ seems pretty sharp

Long speech and he seems pretty sharp. I don't like everything he's saying (won't ban fracking) but he is empathetic and compassionate and does say things I like about a lot of issues.

According to Michael Schmidt's new book, Trump's unexpected and unexplained visit to Walter Reed in November 2019 had Pence on "standby" in case Trump went under anesthesia. For what? Stroke? Cerebral bleed?

Bone spurs acting up.

Sphincter cleansing.

And isn't it sad (horrifying?) that "seems pretty sharp" is a glowing endorsement for the potential President of the United States?

The bar has never been lower.

Nowhere to go but up?

> Nowhere to go but up?

Only if you think we've hit bottom already. I'm not convinced that that's the case.

you can tell that everyone knows deep down that he's not all there because every time the dude speaks for 20 or 30 min, doesnt fall all over himself and makes sense the whole time, there are countless social media comments and opinion pieces talking about how sharp he seemed, as if it were some kind of accomplishment

"he seemed pretty sharp today" is the kind of thing you say when you are visiting a friend who is caring for their dad who has alzheimers to brighten the mood, even though you both ultimatley know there is only one direction things can progress

And yet he still laps, nay, DESTROYS his competition in terms of basic competency.

What a world.

And yes I agree, the bar can go far lower.

Oh my.

Buckle up kids!

you can tell that everyone knows deep down that he's not all there<<<<

He's plenty "there" for what counts

Even if he wasn't, would it be a reason to elect a tyrant who's dividing the nation and eroding the foundation of our Republic to suit his own ends because he's somehow "sharper"?

donald trump is not relevant to the question of whether or not biden's mental capacity is declining...if someone suggests that you should vote for trump because of bidens mental state, then that is another story, but it should be perfectly reasonable to question the mental capacity of a person who is running for president without making a statement on who you support or what party you typically vote with - either he is all there or he's not. which candidate gets your support or vote is a different issue than can intersect with the issue of bidens mental capacity, but the two are not inexorably linked.

A few weeks ago I said he looked strong. Here, someone said he looked sharp. I can only speak for myself, but my comment was in direct response to all the ageists who have decided that he's unfit because of his mental state. Honestly, it's pretty sad that a whole chunk of people have decided to focus on some bullshit lie that he has dementia, or whatever.

Welcome to Trump's America. Lie about people, and put them in a place to refute the lies. When the facts disprove the lies, downplay those facts, or spin them to suit your needs.

Once again, a whole hunk of the Left, and especially the far left, have grabbed on to the far Right's propaganda and lies. There is no reason to believe his mental capacity is diminished. A slurred word at minute 6 of an 18 minute speech means nothing. It's really just the   constant "Sleepy Joe" that has made the difference..

"What you all know but most people don't know, unlike the African American community with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things," Biden said

 

 

^If saying something stupid is an indication of dementia, then several on this board should consider a thorough neurological exam. 

Right? You say 15,000 words, and 15 of them make little sense. All of a sudden, the 14,985 "good" words are forgotten.

he looks sharp? 

he did the classic 2020 biden jumbled up word nonsensical word vomit. 

many here were saying bernie was too old and angry lol. 

pointing out that biden literally can't form sentences is right wing taking points? 

bk i think you're confused man. the dem establishment are the ones pushing right wing talking points, validating neofascist rule -- see how biden said there's violence on bitch sides? just like trump said there's good people on both sides in charlottesville. 

also biden yelling he won't ban fracking was hilarious. trump playing that fool already. it's just incredible. the oligarchs prefer biden but are fine w/ trump. this shit is fucked majorly. 

the "far left" as you state. which is also a hilarious description (used by neoliberals), want m4a -- it doesn't matter that biden has dementia -- it's just something everybody has noticed. we would like biden to endorse a m4a plan so we can vote for him. 

he's not allowed to though. nothing will fundamentally change biden said. 

mother fucker hasn't earned that vote. he looks to be in trouble as well. 

sad. 

Lumber Truck nails it from downtown. Some of these political threads look like a freakin' online psych ward. Keyboard geniuses who do nothing to change things in their community. 

Remember the man is a stutterer. To a lesser degree than what he was as a child, but the remnants are still there and reappear occasionally.      

To equate that with dementia is just what the occupant wants you to do. Shit, there's times I walk into a room to get something, get distracted, and then space what I came for. You've never done that?   

 

^this post literally says nothing. 

And yours do? I laughed when I saw you posted while I was typing about online psych wards and keyboard geniuses who do nothing to change things in their community. How appropriate. 

I was gonna post something else but won't bother and waste my time. Have a nice day.

Take a breath, ogkb, you're 're all over the place.

I didn't say he has dementia. He said something stupid but didn't know until he was told the next day.

slick is a republican -- no wonder he loves biden. 

nobody wants to touch the m4a thing. 

very telling. 

 

It sounds like Biden touched your m4a thing, ogkb. That must have been very traumatic.

We get it, ogkb. Although 66% of the population supports universal healthcare, regardless of political affiliation, yet almost nobody wants to touch it. It makes no sense.

Well, it kind of makes sense. It has little support in Congress, where laws get made. Everyone is afraid of being labeled a "commie."

All three of my Congresspeople support M4A. 

it'll help biden beat trump. 

otherwise, looking very risky. 

the dems are here to serve their corporate masters -- corona has especially made that available for all to see

yeah, congress. where we have pelosi and the dems rubber stamping everything mcconnell and trump throw at them. 

 

>> there are countless social media comments and opinion pieces talking about how sharp he seemed, as if it were some kind of accomplishment <<

Derp. He's constantly being accused of having dementia. Then, when he notice he acts normal you complain. Make up your mind.

I'm not so sure that it would help him beat Trump. It would maybe get you to vote for Biden, but your Electoral votes are already going to Biden. It might swing some Independents, but it won't swing any Republicans.

>> where we have pelosi and the dems rubber stamping everything mcconnell and trump throw at them.  <<

Maybe look at the Cares Act. 

That support for M4A changes REAL fast when taxes to pay for it come up.

 

Same old suspects casting stones at Biden...almost like they want Trump to win.

I saw this on the zone in 2016.

Do we really need to do this "both sides are evil" shit again?

If you were really a Bernie supporter you'd be following his lead and enthusiastically support Biden.

demanding better of the dems equates to wanting trump to win? 

^haha word for word that is what the corporate media says. amazing. 

policy over party, folks. neolibs refuse to understand that. 

>> demanding better of the dems equates to wanting trump to win?  <<

No, not voting for Biden equates to helping Trump win, even if your state doesn't in the electoral college. Biden needs to win with a huge margin to shut up Trump and his idiot followers.

 

 

> I  didn't say he has dementia. He said something stupid but didn't know until he was told the next day<

 

Biden has long said stupid, clueless and inappropriate things. Biden's gaffes have been an issue in just about every campaign he has ever run.

^ True....the good thing is that Trump says stupider stuff daily.

Meanwhile the current President is talking like a straight up Nazi on national TV:

At another point in their interview, when Ms. Ingraham asked Mr. Trump who was behind Mr. Biden’s campaign, he replied, “People that you’ve never heard of, people that are in the dark shadows.”

She responded, “That sounds like a conspiracy theory.”

“There are people that are on the streets, there are people that are controlling the streets,” Mr. Trump said. “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.”

There were “a lot of the people were on the plane to do big damage,” Mr. Trump said.

He provided no evidence for his claims. When Ms. Ingraham asked for more detail, he said the matter was still under investigation, adding, “I’ll tell you sometime.”

Heater 

do you have dementia?

>>>>>thugs, wearing these dark uniforms, black uniforms, with gear and this and that.”  There were “a lot of the people were on the plane to do big damage,” Mr. Trump said.

 

Sounds just like Trump's private army.

>Biden needs to win with a huge margin to shut up Trump and his idiot followers.<

how many are enough?

hilldawg had + 2mil...

 

^how many are enough?

 

 

10 million. 

You do realize that if Trump wins the electoral college, it doesn't matter what the difference in votes is, he still wins? I didn't see Biden's speech but I'll pipe in the thread anyways:

1) The fact that M4A is considered far-left should be enough evidence to anyone that the US has been radically pushed to the right. Every single developed first world nation in the world, along with most developing nations, has some kind of socialized medical program. It's just obvious. It's not left wing - it's part of the reason why governments exist: to provide for the wellbeing of the citizens.

2) The fact that Biden, two months before even potentially becoming president, has to cave to the oil industry by flat-out stating that he won't ban fracking, should be as clear an indication as any of what direction his presidency is going to go. This is just starting. Everybody knows fracking has to be banned. That's a no-brainer. The only people promoting it really are Canada (who has a lot to lose if they don't do it) and China. 

Trump is going to contest the election if he loses the electoral college.

Javs, 66% of Americans support universal healthcare, across parties. That's a huge change from 10 years ago. This country hasn't been pushed farther to the right on that issue. It has always been to the right.

The American psyche is fucked. My girlfriend works in healthcare eligibility. Here in Vermont it's routine for people to qualify for Medicare, the best healthcare one can get, for free, and they refuse it. Why? They don't want government handouts. That's not an easy mindset to break, and it's more widespread than one would think. 

 

 >you do realize that if Trump wins the electoral college, it doesn't matter what the difference in votes is, he still wins? >

 

Yes. 

 

>two months before even potentially becoming president, has to cave to the oil industry by flat-out stating that he won't ban fracking...<

 

He's pandering to the people of western Pennsylvania...

Why?

The electoral college. 

>>> slick is a republican -- no wonder he loves biden. <<<  You've said this before and it's bullshit. Just silly and wrong. You are fully capable of having intelligent and rational discussions about politics, without being disingenuous.
pyramidheat, as many before Slick have done, he registered as a Repub so he could vote against a Repub candidate in a closed primary. If you've listened to him over the years you will remember that Slick is a thinking person, not a Republican party kind of guy.

Brian, Medicare isn't free. Medicare coverage for hospitalization (to a point) is free, but coverage is not complete. Any coverage other than hospital care requires a secondary insurance which no matter if there is an additional premium or not, there is a yearly deductible or copays for service. Also, I think I remember that there's a payroll deduction combined with employer contribution for Medicare. I might not remember that correctly, it's been a while since I had an employer.

I meant Medicaid, the income based one.

Right, there is no cost for Medicaid. 

<it's part of the reason why governments exist: to provide for the wellbeing of the citizens.>

Really? What governments are you referring to? it seems lke you are talking about modern Western ones that we romanticize. For instance, from what I read about the Spaniards, when they imposed their rule on Chile, they were not too concerned about the well being of the indigenous "citizens." One could argue that the whole concept of citizenship is modern and not too well defined. 

I mean do you think when there is a group of people that they naturally come together peacefully with the common good in mind and choose a leader who can guide public tasks? Or does a leader just emerge and say, fuck you group... I'm in charge and you'll do what me and my subordinates say. And just maybe by doing my bidding you can benefit in some way. 

 

so slick is a republican, lol. 

he's just pushing neolibs b/c the republicans are now neofascist. 

lltd -- no. 

but, why are you racist? 

 

slick -- who'd you support in the primary this run? 

Javs, you usually seem well reasoned but there's two other blanket statements you made I don't think hold water:

"the US has been radically pushed to the right".and "Everybody knows fracking has to be banned."

I don't see how the former is possible historically --  when was the good ol USA ever "left?"  Corporate tycoons have been beating their workers and the socialists since the Industrial Age and before that many people were considered property in order for "Big Ag" to prosper -- that's pretty right wing.  It was different when? You mean in the past 20 years? 60 years? How we more rightwing now than when Clinton was President? or Kennedy? 

And certainly the people that don't care about the environmental and health consequences of fracking don't want fracking banned if they are benefiting from it. So saying everyone is your assumption everyone thinks like you. Try walking in a bar in bumfuck Western Pennsylvania and declaring Everyone knows fracking needs to be banned. "Everyone" would number..... one -- you. 

(no offense - I'm just pointing out how your wading in the political poop puddle of the Zone might be affecting you adversely. You're not making sense. Or maybe you're just trolling and I'm just to lazy to scroll by.)

 

The majority of Americans want gun control. We're of getting it. The majority wants M4A. We're not getting it. The majority wants legal weed. Nope. The majority wants a livable minimum wage. Ain't happening.

It's easy to blame the Democratic Party, but that's kind of bullshit. The majority won't vote for lawmakers who support all these things. If they did, we'd have them.

Lawmakers...Congress,  not the Executive. That's who has to make all these changes. We, the people, don't vote for our own best interests, or even what we believe in.

Why? Beats the fuck out of me. That's what we do. Again, though, if we elected the Congresspeople who reflected our views, the Party would follow suit.

>>>  The majority of Americans want gun control. We're of getting it. 

I think you are nuts, have you looked at the Supreme Court?

What makes you think any gun control can make it past the SC?

Sorry, I thought you wrote we ARE getting gun control.

 

>>  The majority wants M4A. We're not getting it.

>>>  The majority wants legal weed. Nope.

>>>   The majority wants a livable minimum wage. Ain't happening.

 

I bet Biden makes all three happen if he gets a Dem Senate.

Shit, he can't say he supports the first two, because support for M4A disappears once paying for it comes up..and free dope does not turn on swing voters.

But hell, his fucking PLATFORM calls for a livable minimum wage!

https://joebiden.com/empowerworkers/

 

 

You 

can't 

do 

anything

if

you

lose

the 

election

to 

Trump

 

 

ps, I have now visited legal weed stores three times in the past six months, just to look around.

:)

>>>  if we elected the Congresspeople who reflected our views, the Party would follow suit.

yep, win the Senate and game ON, which is why I supported Biden:  win the Senate and the Presidency.

Thanks Judit, but you're wasting your time.

Hey heat, guess who's hand is shaking Barack's on Feb 5, 2008 at a rally in Phoenix  (while trying to shoot a pic at the same time)? 

Guess who took this pic at a Bernie rally in SLC in the "Fight Back" tour in April 2017. I waited 3 hours in the cold to vote for Bernie in 2016. 

Did you see the guy I voted for in the primary speak at the repub convention? Burgess Owens.

Spouting Q Anon crap and advocating for renewed nuclear testing, an issue Utahns, as downwinders, care deeply about.

I picked the right opponent for Ben, who's latest ad features four repubs saying how they are voting for Ben. Not a demo in sight, just four repubs. 

Some day heat, you'll admit you just might be wrong about something. But I won't be holding my breath. Your opinions don't mean much.

You're a political neophyte, and I hope that someday you're able to channel your energy and intensity into an effective and winning strategy on issues we both care about.   

obama is a neoliberal. lol. him running on progressive policy, then letting citi bank pick his cabinet, and bailing out wall st, etc etc etc., has lead us to trump. 

what makes you think i have all the answers? that's insane. 

what interesting is calling out establishment dems gets people all riled up. sucks they cater to mega corporations and give us crumbs. 

again -- policy over party. incrementalism hasn't and won't work. things will get a lot more fucked up, no matter who wins. 

 

>>>   what makes you think i have all the answers? that's insane. 

 

irony is dead

what about 2020, slick? bernie again? 

have a good night! 

^pelosi endorsed corporatist kennedy in MA, against markey -- who supports a GND and federal cannabis legalization. 

pelosi and her kind are not on our side. she supported the guy that supports racist policy. 

good thing her guy got his ass whooped tonight. 

uncle joe and mamala will make it all better. you just wait and see heater. 

i hope your are correct. everything they say just says otherwise. 

do people really call her mamala? or just you? 

Her family calls her Mamala. I voted Biden, heat.

Glad I did. With the occupant trying to stir up this culture war and trying to portray Dems as ready to destroy our culture, that dog just flat out doesn't hunt with Biden.

And people see him as a decent and empathetic person.   

But with Bernie or Elizabeth as the nominee, though still not true, he may have had more success with some undecideds on that front. It's close enough as it is. Surprising scary. 

Though not progressive enough for many folks (maybe even me), Biden is the candidate that gives Dems the best chance to retake the White House and bring along the Senate. 

Then we continue the work.  JMHO. 

^thats what i thought (biden guy). party over policy. 

biden primary supporters will be responsible for a trump 2nd term. plain and simple. 

the neoliberal pain has lasted long enough. the dnc is working just as planned tho. 

the people's party is what must work going forward. 

i will never vote for joe biden and kamala harris, or any other neoliberal going forward. 

tough times, huh? 

 

>>biden primary supporters will be responsible for a trump 2nd term. plain and simple. 

You keep saying this. What's the data you're using to draw this conclusion? That ardent Progressives are more susceptible to the anti Biden fake news being planted by Russian trolls?

There's a phrase used in the west. "All Hat and No Cattle."

fuck that pelosi lady, take feinstein with ya and beat it.

dnc just keeps pissing on our heads and zoners say it's just a shower...

Why the hell do you Californians keep electing the people who piss on us? You blame the DNC, but it's your pals in the Golden State that are fucking us.

Both of my Senators, who I voted for, support M4A. One is pretty powerful in the DNC. The other is an influential red headed step child.

Blaming the DNC is a fucking cop out. We have direct democracy for our law makers. Rally your fellow Californians to do something about the problems they give us. 

>> i will never vote for joe biden and kamala harris, or any other neoliberal going forward.  <<

I would accept that if you're talking primaries. Are you going to defy Bernie's request you vote for Biden/Harris in the general?

Bernie who? he's been relegated to the trash bins of history. just ask timpane. 

i don't live in sf bk.

however, living in one of the most conservative counties in the country.....i am pretty proud of orange county-ians voting in katie porter and mike levin.

i can't vote outside of my district, its a big state...

 

I haven't had a lot of time these days, but to address two things that were said in here:

1) BK, I understand that Vermonters are likely a very DIY bunch. I can believe that, and I know from living in Montana that a lot of those types of folks are very reluctant of some forms of government help. Nonetheless, I don't remember anyone complaining about receiving unemployment benefits or WIC benefits. So who knows? Maybe they would accept something like M4A. I tend to think that your more urban American wouldn't really have an issue with receiving M4A benefits, as long as they could tangibly perceive the very real benefits and also be assured that they won't get hit financially for it.

2) Which is what Mannfred keeps saying: "When people ask how to pay for M4A, things get shaky." Yeah, if you ask the middle class to pay for it, it should get shaky. This is very clearly something that the 1% should pay for. This is not an issue of morality or ethic, even. It's a matter of a work-benefit equation. How much benefit does every employee and individual in a massive corporation create for the company versus how much wealth are they perceiving. If that ratio is off, then the balance is off. I think we can all agree that everyone should get paid according to the value that they add to a business. And that value that has not been paid in the last 40 years, has been accrued by the .01%. A tax plan like Bernie's or even Warren's would easily pay for M4A, without hurting the middle class, and in the process creating massive amounts of liquidity that citizens could reinject into the economy.

3) Alan, you're right - I think I overestimate how liberal the US has ever been. It's a country of serious contradictions, a near schizophrenic identity. Polar extremes of itself. But I feel like FDR type liberal policies were very readily accepted and part of the overall paradigm of post-war USA, and today, ideas that were once considered fairly normal, are relegated to what is labelled as "the far left".

4) As for "everyone knows fracking should be banned", I mean, fuck dude. It's the Zone. Can I not have any space for hyperbole anywhere? Ok, I'll modify. Anyone who's opinion is worth a shit regarding fracking is of the opinion that it should be banned. By worth a shit, I mean scientists who have studied the effects of fracking AND who do not work for the oil industry proper.

You unknowingly hit the nail on the head, Javs. It's rural vs urban. Look at the red and blue on election maps. It's exactly why the Electoral College went to Trump.

I agree that that's a gigantic issue in the United States. And not to keep beating that dead horse, but what they have in common is that they are both sick of being sold bullshit by politicians, decade after decade. So that's when populism becomes a thing. That populism will either latch on to the violent, negative angle of blaming someone, etc. Or it can latch on to a common goal of having things that benefit everyone. The dems had a chance to do it with Bernie, but they went another way. My understanding is that Republican governors and politicians pretty much won't touch Obama Care now, because their constituents love it. I may be wrong again, but people pretty quickly figure out when something is working to their benefit and when it's not.

And again, if a right-wing politician emerged who showed integrity and a willingness to actually implement genuine ideas to help people, I'd be a lot more inclined to listen to her or him than I would be to your standard Dem.

Integrity = Where does your campaign finances come from? Where does your wealth come from? Have you paid all your fair share of taxes? Do you have ANY conflicts of interest?

And several other topics, but that's the key one, for me.

For the most part, I don't think that the majority of people are sick of being fed BS. It's a minority that are.

The others are being told lies about the BS that they are being fed, and are angry about it. Face it, most Americans aren't educated or literate enough to know what the real BS is. Sad, but true, and part of the problem. "The pedagogy of the oppressed."

Javs, can you please do me a favor as we move forward? Maybe stop with the, "Bernie would/could have won..." stuff. It's pure conjecture, isn't really backed by data, and just muddles or redirects the conversation.

Heater would rather have Trump 

we get it

 

victim or the crime?

 By the way, Javs, take a look at the Republican governor of Vermont, Phil Scott. He's the Republican you are looking for.

Heater must be a racist while I'm at it.  
After all he calls me one knowing nothing  just lashey outy adnauseim

Heater must be a hater

<<it's rural vs urban

55 year old white men with goatees and oakley wrap around sunglasses are immediately judged by me and thrown in the 'stay away from' bucket. 

lltd -- you posted "all lives matter". that's what trumpers and racists believe. then you doubled down on it. maybe triple? 

do i really think you're racist? i hope not. 

i just think youre dumb as fuck, especially when you post shit like <<<>>> Heater would rather have Trump 

 

this is wrong. but people like you think calling out the dems equates to supporting trump.

sad. 

 >>>>>if a right-wing politician emerged who showed integrity and a willingness to actually implement genuine ideas to help people, I'd be a lot more inclined to listen to her

Ain't no such animal.

>>>>>i will never vote for joe biden and kamala harris, or any other neoliberal going forward. 

 

 >>>>>but people like you think calling out the dems equates to supporting trump.

 

No, but averring that you will not vote for the candidate running against him does equate to that.

 

 

 

 

^surf, weren't you anti bernie this primary? 

i recall your hes too old and angry and socialist. 

hey guys 

your neoliberal queen, the woman who rubber stamped all of trump's military budgets (you're all ok w/ that, right? she HATES trump tho, that's all that matters), whose wealth has grown immensely since taking office in 1987 (!), b/c of her trusted service to mega corps., was getting her hair done w/o a mask on. 

this must upset thod. 

I believe I said I agree with most of his positions but he is unelectable. I guess we'll never know. He wasn't on the ballot when I voted - had already dropped out.

Shampoogate... lol the trumpkins getting pretty desperate when this is all they are left with

If Bernie couldn't win in the Democratic primary, there's no way in hell that he could win the general election. He may not have been the DNC's favorite, but there wasn't some vast conspiracy against him. Millions of individuals cast their votes, and be lost. It's as easy as that.

Now, can we please move past it? 

More arguing about past shit that doesn't matter now. Let's work with what we got and move on to the future. 

Some people don't want incrementalism because it's too slow. I get that.

However, not one person has proposed a viable alternative. It has to come from Congress, which inherently takes a long time and the s incremental.

Electing a progressive POTUS, at this point, won't do shit. Getting a new Congress isn't viable, nor is some sort of revolution.

Pointing out problems is easy. So is blame. I see them all the time here. I've yet to see those people give real solutions that could work. That's the hard part.

This is a single-issue election. Trump: yea or nay? Everything else can be dealt with later.

guns n god...

 

If Trump loses, you better believe that the guns n God crew will be out in full force. It isn't going to be pretty, and the cops won't get in their way.

Here's a chilling report from the Election Integrity Project. It's worth skimming through. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7013152/Preventing-a-Disrupte...

The whole 2A crowd is nuts. Who in their right mind thinks their little AR-15 gun toy is preventing government oppression.

.

>>No, but averring that you will not vote for the candidate running against him does equate to that.

that is  
how I see it, and the opinion I project

socialist's  lives matter    Not mutually exclusive, but your ranting gave you something muddy to sling because I disagree with many of your (black or white) premise and logic driven opinions

all good

 

so are you guys upset that biden is promoting the rick snyder endorsement? 

do we still care about the disenfranchised, or was that last month only? 

 

if  biden wins, and changes nothing like he said, trump 2.0 in 2024 will still be bernie's fault? aoc? nah, def ilhan. 

<<<>>>Shampoogate... lol the trumpkins getting pretty desperate when this is all they are left with

masks only matter when the people we hate don't wear them? 

Ogkb, you have too many "what if" scenarios going on. I have no ide what that "Trump 2.0 in 2024 blame aoc" means.

"No, but averring that you will not vote for the candidate running against him does equate to that."

I disagree. That kind of polarized thinking is what creates the problem in the first place. I don't live in a world of black and white. There are hues and tones to my reality. Not voting for Biden amounts to not voting for Biden. There is no obligation in a democracy to vote for someone, there is no obligation to give your trust to someone that you feel doesn't represent you.

As for the guns and god crew coming out after the election, sorry, not to judge, but I'm willing to guess that a majority percentage of liberals on the zone also own guns. And maybe even a  majority of liberals in the US. It's shocking as hell to me to know that my old hippie friends are now mostly all gun owners. So really, the constant blind support of the 2nd amendment by the liberals, this belief that somehow owning a gun is a right that human being has (L. O. fucking L) ultimately empowers the gun fanatics. Once again, liberal policies create the platform upon which the far right spews their abuse of loopholes.

Or have the Dems ever put any real barriers in the NRA's way, that I'm not aware of?

One idea I wonder about frequently is mandatory voting. Any thoughts on that?

On the one hand, it's essentially authoritarian to FORCE your populace to do anything.

On the other hand, mandatory voting might yield a REAL democratic result in elections.

Thoughts?

How have liberal policies allowed the far right gun freaks to do their thing? If you make a statement like that, please back it up with something.

 Boy, you really do blame everything on liberals, from gun nuts to Trump. 

What concrete steps have the dems taken to curtail gun rights in the US? 

Here ya go buddy -- 

New York

In January 2013, New York became the first U.S. state to act after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act passed in the state Senate 43-18 on January 15 and cleared the New York State Assembly after about five hours of debate on Tuesday, January 16. It was signed by Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo one hour later. The act expanded the definition of assault weapons banned in New York, created a state database for pistol permits, reduced the maximum number of rounds legally allowed in magazines to seven from ten, and required universal background checks on all gun sales.

A dozen Republican conference members voted for the measure, but its Senate Republican leader did not attend the signing ceremony.[45] The NRA called the assembly's actions "a secretive end run around the legislative and democratic process ... with no committee hearings and no public input," and said the law was "draconian."

 

Connecticut

In the early morning hours of April 4, 2013, the Connecticut General Assembly passed new restrictions to the state's existing assault weapons ban. Democratic Governor Dannel Malloy signed them into law later the same day.The law banned the sale or purchase of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition like those used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, and required universal background checks for all firearm purchases.

Gun owners challenged the law, but federal judge Alfred Covello upheld the law, ruling it constitutional

There is so much that you don't understand about America and Americans, Javs, stuff that isn't black and white and can't be intellectualized.

The whole "gun rights" thing is a mess, and it defies party lines. There's that pesky Amendment that people don't want to fuck with. And then the NRA, which only looks at the first half of the Amendment.

Many, many gun owners do not support the NRA.

Gun control is a tough issue. Not to pick on Bernie, but he's a good example. He's always been soft on gun control. Why? He'd have no friggin' chance of winning an election in Vermont if he was.

That all changed a few years ago, when the Democratic Party, as a whole, decided that it was time. He became a follower, not a leader.

At the same time, our Republican governor passed some pretty major gun law reforms, pissing off his Party followers. It was long enough ago so that it probably won't stop him from getting re-elected.

BK, I use gun control as an example of how far-right politics in the US are just an (extreme) extension of policies and ideas that the dems support anyhow. So, here in Chile I can buy a gun. It's not that difficult. I don't even think I need to do any tests or take any classes. And yet, nobody in Chile would ever think of gun ownership as a right. I understand the basis of the 2nd Amendment where it was born from, but it's really this incredibly strange (and possibly ridiculous) anomaly of American culture, where gun ownership is enshrined as a right. Now, let's just play along with that idea, of guns as a right. So, for hunting you need shotguns for ducks, a couple different gauge rifles for big game, and that's it, right? Am I forgetting something? For self-defense, realistically, you only need a small sidearm. A six-shooter, a 7 clip maybe. That's it. Any sensible human being on the planet can see that an AR-15 should not be defended under any parameter as a weapon that anyone other than a soldier has a right to bear. And yet when I asked for what the dems have done about gun control, Raz (Thank you, Raz!) posted two examples. Which are great. But, really? That's it? In a country of 300 million people, dems have managed to introduce some kind of gun control in two states?

So what I'm saying is that probably 80 to 90% of dems would vehemently defend the rights of citizens to bear arms. So, now you're just creating a playing field where the question is not, is there a right, but rather what's included in that right. For a far-right wingnut, that means walking through the streets with basically a machine gun on your back. For a centrist dem it means? Basically, you're talking about gradations. 

The 2nd amendment is bullshit, sorry. What a weird exhaltation of violence to have in your founding statement. And once again, as the far right pushes the public perception of how far this 'right' extends, the centrist politicians have to constantly move their policy and their rhetoric further to the right so as to not alienate the bulk centre TV watching masses, who are now debating whether or not an AR-15 is legitimately allowed, rather than guffawing in shock at the notion.

So yes, once again, far right politics are merely a gradation of what the centrist politicians espouse, they are not fundamentally different. It's not about whether or not privatization in health care is good or not, it's about how much privatization. It's not about whether or not private industry should control educational facilities but rather how much privatization. Etc, etc, etc...

The gun rights issue is a terrible example to use, Javs, because as you said, Dems, Reps, Independents, and virtually everyone else supports gun ownership. For some reason it is seen as a "god given right" issue. However, most Americans do support common sense gun regulation.

So why don't we have it? Welcome to America, where even though an issue can be popular in both sides of the aisle, laws can't be made. It again comes down to Congress, which everyone agrees does a bad job. Everyone also thinks their lawmakers are the bees knees. So, we have the same old, same old. It's not a "weak, centrist Democrat" problem.

Now, healthcare is a weak centrist problem, but it's the centrists on both sides of the aisle that are pussies. Republicans are scared shitless of the far right, and the have let them do whatever they want. There's a Butterfly Effect to that.

Congressional term limits would probably be a very easy way to get shit done in this country, and would make our lawmakers far more beholden to their constituents.

>>>>>Congressional term limits would .....make our lawmakers far more beholden to their constituents.

 

I think it wou;d be just the opposite. They wouldn't need to worry about being re-elected, so they could do just about anything they wanted.

There's also the problem of institutional memory. Entities that have too much turnover rarely get anything accomplished because they're too busy reinventing the wheel.

Finally, why should the government be allowed to throw even more roadblocks in the way of citizens voting for whomever they want to represent them? That's just as bad as gerrymandering or poll tests or breaking the USPS so folks can't vote by mail.

how come obama didn't re-ban the assault weapons than W unbanned? 

b/c he simply didn't want to. he called for it in 2016? lol. trash. 

>>> Not voting for Biden amounts to not voting for Biden. There is no obligation in a democracy to vote for someone, there is no obligation to give your trust to someone that you feel doesn't represent you.

There is no obligation to give your trust to someone, but there is, I believe, a moral obligation to vote for the candidate less likely to inflict suffering on the vulnerable, or at least more likely to cause a lower degree of harm. That principle of harm reduction is, as I understand it, why 90% of Black voters support Democrats. A large percentage would not say they trust most Democratic politicians, and there is actually a wide range of ideologies among African-Americans, but they vote against Republicans, regardless of how liberal or conservative they are, on a harm reduction basis.

Having trouble posting an image for some reason but this tweet and the replies capture it well: https://twitter.com/AsteadWesley/status/1298976582321741825

 

<<<>>>They wouldn't need to worry about being re-elected, so they could do just about anything they wanted.

huh, that's strange. congress spends 90% of their time fundraising. 

they literally accomplish nothing as is. 

comgress is on vacation during a pandemic, people are being evicted for not paying rent, many have lost their healthcare. they all need to be fired. 

biden is the most anti black democratic nominee in the modern era. 

>> how come obama didn't re-ban the assault weapons than W unbanned? b/c he simply didn't want to. he called for it in 2016? lol. trash. 

The AWB expired in 2004 per the terms of the original legislation. Democrats proposed and voted on legislation to reinstate it in 2013 after Sandy Hook, with Obama's support: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/01/16/obama-gun-violen.... But they could only get 40 votes in the Senate and they didn't control the House: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban_of_2013

They would all need to be fired if they all voted for the things we don't like, but that's not the case. Up to 49% of the House and 59% of the Senate could vote for something and it still wouldn't pass.

>> biden is the most anti black democratic nominee in the modern era. 

Maybe, but Bill Clinton left the campaign trail in January 1992 to oversee the execution of a mentally disabled Black man who killed a white police officer in a very clear signal to white voters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ray_Rector

And he had the infamous Sister Souljah moment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Souljah_moment

At least as a matter of campaign behavior, Biden's recognition and willingness to talk about systemic racism and the need to atone for the country's original sin of slavery is easily the most racially progressive stance any Democratic nominee has taken in the modern era.

>> So yes, once again, far right politics are merely a gradation of what the centrist politicians espouse, they are not fundamentally different.

This is inaccurate for the United States, at least today. Centrist American politicians have moderate views about distribution of wealth, resources, and services to Americans, though there's a good argument those views are immoral because they permit too much suffering. In contrast, far-right politics in America is increasingly dominated by white nationalism, which calls for heavy redistribution to only white Americans, coupled with and in support of the maintenance of white dominance of social, cultural, and political institutions:

"America is not, strictly speaking, a center-right or center-left nation. Rather, it remains the nation of the Dixiecrats, in which the majority’s desire for equal opportunity and a robust welfare state is mediated by the addiction of a large chunk of the polity to racial hierarchy. It is no coincidence that the Democratic Party’s dominant period in American history coincided with its representation of both warring impulses and ended when it chose one over the other." -- https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/gop-mid-term-campaign-...

Great analysis, Sam.

how come obama didn't ban it in 2010 when he had the house and senate? 

same for healthcare. 

same for ........

exactly

. they didn't want to pass those pieces, the assault weapon ban at all, and healthcare they needed their corporate masters to first dissect his "universal" plan so they could paint the republicans as the evil ones, even though the dems won't listen to their constituents who are screaming for coverage. 

 corporations own our government, not the people. 

until that changes, dems will continue legitimatizing republican law and oppressive rule, which they favor but just approach differently. 

  

You make it seem like dismantling the health insurance industry is easy. It's a multi-trillion dollar industry that employs hundreds of thousands.

It's a vicious cycle. The only way to have universal is to dismantle it overnight, but if you do, you create a massive hole in the economy. And yeah, when an industry has that much money it also has power, which it doesn't want to give up, so you also have to contend with that.

yeah but there's also a difference when the politicians intentionally allow for the handicapping of a universal bill, b/c their corporate masters tell them to. 

you can't ignore that. 

and that's where the truth lies. 

we can't have healthcare b/c the corporations say no. 

That's why we have to get rid of Citizen's United, and also implement comprehensive campaign finance reform. I've heard that lawmakers are required to spend 70% of their time fundraising. Whether 70 or 90%, it's way too much and exemplifies the problem. They should be making laws, not fundraising.

Until we have campaign finance reform, nothing is going to change. 

Hmmm....lots of points, not sure if I'll cover them all.

I disagree on the gun rights thing, and think it's a perfect exemplification of yet another policy that the dems and the reps are merely a spectrum of, nothing else. But tomato tomahtoeeeee

Dems are moderate on wealth redistribution? Haven't the dems voted in every single bailout and every single tax break for the corporate class over the last 30 or 40 (with some minor exceptions)? I feel like the democratic voting record is pretty much majority voting for that kind of thing since I can remember. Not to mention military budgets which are FAAAAAAR from moderate in terms of wealth. I'm not going to review every single vote of the last few decades, but please, correct me if I'm wrong.

Moderate on resources? How so? The dems have expanded the oil industry, the military industry, and have applied very few limits to any of the resource guzzling, planet destroying industries that dominate the global economy. I'm not sure what you mean by moderate with resources. They are theoretically better at managing a budget, but it's all smoke and mirrors anyhow. Whether the US is in 1 trillion debt or 4 trillion, it's all just made up digital money that powers economies anyhow. Besides, the Don seems to be moving the US economy right along, so...(According to the Washington Post, 1.4 million jobs were added in August, and unemployment fell below 10%).

Moderate on services? Like Health Care? Refresh my memory because I honestly don't know about this topic but, what have the dems done for education in the past 30 years? And ok, Obamacare was an interesting movement with massive concessions to the insurance industry, but I'll take it as a win for healthcare from the Dems. Other than that, what has their policy track record been on healthcare?

 

And BK, I'm having a hard time understanding the Citizens United ruling vote. If I understand correctly, it got voted in with a massive majority, no? Made up of many dems/"liberals"?

McCain-Feingold, a bipartisan Act, sought to overturn at least parts of Citizen's United, but the SCOTUS upheld it.

My point, though, is that it has to go because it provides corporations with the legal means to buy influence.

And Javs, when you ask, "what have the Dems done?", which do you mean? It seems that you solely focus on Congress and overlook the thousands of lawmakers in State legislatures.

On healthcare alone, I can tell you what the Dems in VT did. First, and our past  Dem governor kept us off the national healthcare exchange. Sure, it was a mess to get straight, but it allowed us to set our own assistance  thresholds, much lower than the feds, and create our own rules and laws that go above and beyond what could be done on the Exchange.

Day in and day out, throughout this country, Dems do all sorts of positive shit.

The campaign finance point illustrates why the Supreme Court is so important as an election issue. Presidents pick Supreme Court justices, and Republican judges generally believe that money is speech, corporations are people, and campaign finance laws are by and large unconstitutional. Roberts and the other conservatives on the Court now have been slowly chipping away at campaign finance law for years. But if Joe Biden instead of Trump gets to pick the replacements for RBG, Breyer, and maybe others, that will help keep alive the few campaign finance laws we still have left -- not to mention abortion rights, which will be gone by 2024 if Trump replaces RBG with a conservative. It's really that simple.

That's what people aren't quite getting. If Trump gets to stack the Supreme Court, in 12 years we could have a very progressive president and a liberal majority in Congress, but the court will throw out anything and everything that they do. There will be no progressive reforms in this country without a decent Supreme.

When certain people say, "the slow burn has done us no good, we need to do it faster," it shows a dire lack of understanding of how the American political system works. All they focus on is the presidency, as if that's the only branch of government that matters.

Exactly right. I've always thought that part of every Democratic presidential campaign should be some civics lessons about what a president can and can't do and the checks and balances in the system. At the risk of kicking the hornet's nest, I think Bernie's campaigns actually set that cause back a little by creating the impression for millions that progressive reforms are possible through moral appeals and sheer force of will. The system isn't built that way, though we could and should get closer by abolishing the filibuster in the Senate.

so b/c rbg is a greedy neoliberal, we have to vote to save her spot? 

fuck that. 

she should've retired under obama. 

Yes she should've. Doesn't change the fact that if she gets replaced with a conservative, it's likely nothing progressives want will happen for decades. But being a noxious dickhead about it is definitely the right move. 

the far left has way more in common with the far right then they do with my views. 

being a noxious dickhead about it is definitely the right move.  atta boy - never change ( Bryen too)

Ogkb, with a stacked Supreme Court, do you believe that any progressive reforms could hold up? If so, how?

i don't think we'll ever see any progressive reforms -- from either party. they don't agree w/ any of it. they aren't allowed to reform. maybe a crumb just to keep people slightly engaged, and to continue the voting for the lesser of two evils. 

Biden and trump prob wear the same granny diapers. 

     Biden's #1 Problem:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     ...regrettably, he's a square

     https://youtu.be/u1DX3hw_9A0

 

     

 bryen supports neo-fascism. 

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1204486/

 

 

I miss Al

 

Not that anyone cares but Flint Michigan is still without clean drinking water since April 2014. Obama 2 yrs of complete neglect, and trump 4 years of complete neglect. The presidents, senators, congress people, Supreme Courts justices best line of action in real issues that involve real Americans is to do absolutely nothing and hand it off to the next elected official. When it comes to big time companies and wall st, boom next day 4 trillion dollars. 
 

This is why people like myself and pyramid Don't agree that anything will change with Biden, or any elected official in a two party system. The two party system ended up being infiltrated and was branded by industry leading up to the civil war. It's just a trash heap lies that spins around in circles and things progressively get worse and worse. The only real purpose the two party system seems to serve is that of giving large amounts of free federal tax dollars to companies who's net worth are well into the billions while hard working citizens and those in poverty have to scrape and claw to survive. Trickle down economics is just as much as a democrat virtue as it is a republican virtue. In the end both Biden and Trump will do everything they can to make sure that all those huge oil, drug and military manufacturers are all set and sitting pretty long before they give a rats ass about American people. But fuck them peasants, right? That's the American way boi

The ongoing crisis in Flint is a moral abomination and everyone with power to improve things that hasn't or won't should be held accountable. No disagreement there.

But that doesn't change the fact that if Trump is reelected, the suffering of vulnerable people will continue to increase, and will be even more deeply entrenched in federal policy, while with Biden there is hope for improvement. Harm reduction.

If Dems are able to take the WH and the Senate, they will almost double the minimum wage. That's a huge anti-poverty measure that Democrats are committed to if they take power. It's far from enough, obviously, but the contrast is real. And the trickle down lie is not a Democratic virtue. Biden will raise the corporate tax rate and the top individual rates.

Biden's plans don't go nearly far enough of course, but he's still running on the most progressive platform of any Democratic nominee in modern history (https://www.vox.com/21322478/joe-biden-overton-window-bidenism, search for the quote by Waleed Shahid from the Justice Democrats). And having him in, with a Democratic Senate and House, would be a serious down payment toward the progressive reforms we need, while helping stop the creation of a Supreme Court that would block any real progress for the next 30-40 years.

biden is against banning fracking lol. 

fuck joe biden. 

 

 

>>> This is why people like myself and pyramid Don't agree that anything will change with Biden <<<

 

 

Covid?

 

 

 

Once again, you crazy kids are fantastic at pointing out the problem: the 2 party system.

And once again, you fall short at suggesting viable solutions.

You know my feelings on it. Bernie could have and should have run as an Independent in 2016. He wouldn't have won and Trump would still be president, but if would have blazed a path for third party candidates. He's the only person in recent history to have been in that position, but his ego got in the way.

^i don't disagree. it was naive of him to think the dnc would let him anywhere near the nom. 

thod, biden will make covid go away? 

support the people's party. 

>>> thod, biden will make covid go away? <<<

if trump wins...

 

whats's gonna happen to the local pizza joint?

who's gonna paint the local pizza joint?

will a dank weed tent save both?

smh

 

 

 

I would have voted for Bernie if he had run on a 3rd party ticket. He pissed me off when he ran as a Dem. Instead, I voted for the person that had a chance of winning. 

dank weed tent? 

paint? 

so, no answer. got it. 

 >>> so, no answer. got it. <<<

2 choices dipshit

 

plan or no plan

 

even the dumbest motherfucker gets it, but somehow you don't 

 

smh

haha covid fucked you up man. 

been a tough year no doubt. 

hopefully you can continue to fuck yourself quietly, pain free. 

Why would I have some sort of all knowing answer? These issues and problems are incredibly complex and multi layered and as far as a solution the only one I can see is time. I'm in the same boat as you guys with all of this but I do think it's important to discuss these issues as they are so often thrown to the back burner during elections. It is possible that before any kind of a solution for these large societal and economic issues can be found that our two party system will fail. Not sure if it will be in my lifetime or not but "change" isn't profitable so it doesn't happen very often.

A rare occurrence for a positive change would be something like renewable fuels and energies where it is actually now cheaper to produce and saving large companies money so because they can't look away from saving their dollars change is occurring. They also see huge returns in things like solar so it is becoming a new investment for large companies to dominate the market. That will still take time as well though for thorough change. That's all I got for ya. I'm not and kinda of all knowing Buddha or anything. I just try to call it as I see it.

 

>>> haha covid fucked you up man. 

been a tough year no doubt. 

hopefully you can continue to fuck yourself quietly, pain free. <<<

covid is real 

but flounce away poser

fuck'n custie

 

 

there it is. 

keep fucking yourself, buddy. you sound incredibly stupid. 

par for the course. 

 

so if you don't vote for biden (plan for covid)

you're voting for trump (no plan for covid)

 

I know, incredibly stupid 

 

smh

 

you already voted for trump by not supporting sanders in the primary. 

>>> you already voted for trump by not supporting sanders in the primary. <<<

 

there it is. 

keep fucking yourself, buddy. you sound incredibly stupid. 

par for the course. 

- P heat

 

your logic sucks, right? 

i thought so. 

covid plan

no covid plan

 

yeah, logic sucks

 

>> A rare occurrence for a positive change would be something like renewable fuels and energies where it is actually now cheaper to produce and saving large companies money so because they can't look away from saving their dollars change is occurring.

Biden is big on renewables and clean energy jobs! Part of a $2 trillion plan: https://joebiden.com/clean-energy/
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12082020/inside-clean-energy-joe-bide...

now thod cares. 

before he didn't b/c he was told not to. 

shits hilarious. 

almost as hilarious as your brother not saying...

 

pssst, you might wanna pump your brakes, you're actually hurting bernie

 

 

But I digress, you can't tell the pizza taliban nothing

 

 

^this is awesome. 

that's sociopathic right there. 

Yes, It is good that Biden can't look the other way of spending on renewable energies. Even trump and Republicans are now forced to put money into renewable energies. Biden plays both sides of the coin and his track record with Obama proves to be that his stance is firmly with oil but he can't look away from the federal returns of renewable energies Nd of course the popularity from his party. 
 

Funny though the most liberal and progressive states (cali, ny) are actually some of the largest oil refining and oil boded production states in the country. These states billions of tax dollars towards maintaining and expanding the oil industry.

Yes, It is good that Biden can't look the other way of spending on renewable energies. Even trump and Republicans are now forced to put money into renewable energies. Biden plays both sides of the coin and his track record with Obama proves to be that his stance is firmly with oil but he can't look away from the federal returns of renewable energies Nd of course the popularity from his party. 
 

Funny though the most liberal and progressive states (cali, ny) are actually some of the largest oil refining and oil boded production states in the country. These states billions of tax dollars towards maintaining and expanding the oil industry.