Jump to content
Simon

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Pariah said:

I've heard it said that political debates are like NASCAR races: Nobody cares who wins. People just want to see who's going to crash.

 

Yeah, but sometimes, and no I'm not screaming "Fake news", when they do the analysis, instead of "And here is what was said" it comes cross as "Here's juicy bits that sound sensational with no context and we need ratings" :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Hermit said:

 

Yeah, but sometimes, and no I'm not screaming "Fake news", when they do the analysis, instead of "And here is what was said" it comes cross as "Here's juicy bits that sound sensational with no context and we need ratings" :)

 

Why I always like when people provide a detailed source.  ;) Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read an op-ed piece today suggesting that the current Republican agenda is, ironically, a twisted form of Socialism:

 

Socialize costs, privatize profits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Pariah said:

I read an op-ed piece today suggesting that the current Republican agenda is, ironically, a twisted form of Socialism:

 

Socialize costs, privatize profits.

 

Oh, I agree.  For me, Capitalism died when the banks got bailed out in 2008

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One hour in the debate, and man, Sanders and Warren are feeling their oats.

 

"I wrote the damn bill" from Sanders

and "“You know, I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for.” From Warren

 

Yes. I realize, I just posted quotes with no context and thus did what annoys me about new organizations- but I'm not a new organization! :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pariah said:

I read an op-ed piece today suggesting that the current Republican agenda is, ironically, a twisted form of Socialism:

 

 

“Many people consider the things government does for them to be social progress but they regard the things government does for others as socialism.”

---Earl Warren, jurist (1891-1974)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First Debate night, anyone wanting Warren and Sanders to turn on each other got quite the opposite. The two went back to back like a buddy duo in a martial arts movie beset by enemy ninjas on all sides. And won, I would say.. but I maybe having some cognitive bias there. Warren is looking really on the ball as bold.

 

 

Second Debate night

 

Gabbard ripped into Harris, and brought up some of the very reasons I'm not crazy about Harris as president. Kamala Harris had power before, she rated success over what I feel is true justice. Ironically, this may have taken some of the teeth out of Kamala's finger pointing at Biden.

 

Biden got it from all sides and.. survived. He performed better than last debate but that's not saying much.

 

Yang didn't get to say much at all, but almost always swung it around to his 1000 dollars a month idea. This is either a feature or a bug, and to his credit, he often looked unwilling to attack Biden or the others. He also had a damn good line about Immigrants getting scapegoated when increased automation has been a real job killer.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Her stance on military involvements overseas is pretty inconsistent.  In fact, it's pretty hard to pin down her stance on anything really.  She represents my district, so I've been trying to figure that out for a while now.  I don't vote for her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it amusing that Biden was getting attacked over the deportation numbers from the Obama era.

 

The Obama administration changed the reporting standards for what counted as a "deportation" in order to inflate their deportation numbers. Previously "deported" had meant that the person in question went through the system then were expelled from the country only after going through the legal system.

 

The Obama administration changed that in order to also include everyone who was turned back at the border (without actually getting into the country and spending any time here) as being a deportation.

 

At one point when I was doing political blogging during the Obama administration, I got my hands on months of hard government data which showed that if the government was reporting deportations using the same definition as previous administrations that actual deportations had decreased significantly.

 

I mean, Biden can't really stand up on the debate stage and admit that the Obama administration deliberately doctored the numbers in order to escape criticism at the time. But it has to rankle him to take criticism from Democrats when he knows that they know it isn't deserved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, archer said:

I find it amusing that Biden was getting attacked over the deportation numbers from the Obama era.

 

The Obama administration changed the reporting standards for what counted as a "deportation" in order to inflate their deportation numbers. Previously "deported" had meant that the person in question went through the system then were expelled from the country only after going through the legal system.

 

The Obama administration changed that in order to also include everyone who was turned back at the border (without actually getting into the country and spending any time here) as being a deportation.

 

 

I did not know this.

 

The more I know.. 🌈

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like the consistency in the Russian election interference narrative.

 

Now, apparently, it is Russian bots that caused the destruction of Kamala Harris by Tulsi Gabbard to trend...  pffft.  And here I thought it was just a sick burn that drew actual applause when it happened.

 

The DNC is going to have their own Trump moment if they don't improve their game.  Politics as usual isn't working for the electorate any more.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/455712-kamalaharrisdestroyed-trending-after-democratic-debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

I do like the consistency in the Russian election interference narrative.

 

Now, apparently, it is Russian bots that caused the destruction of Kamala Harris by Tulsi Gabbard to trend...  pffft.  And here I thought it was just a sick burn that drew actual applause when it happened.

 

The DNC is going to have their own Trump moment if they don't improve their game.  Politics as usual isn't working for the electorate any more.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/455712-kamalaharrisdestroyed-trending-after-democratic-debate

Yeah. I mean, yup, Russian interference IS a thing, but alas, it is in danger of becoming an excuse when it doesn't apply as well.  Honestly, it went beyond Burn, whatever you think of Tulsi, she stated what fact checkers later found to be dead on FACTS about Harris' performance while in a position of power. That is germane to someone hoping to be Prez.

 

8 minutes ago, Starlord said:

 

Well goodness, this man is a medical genius. He needs to leave the presidency and get t work as Surgeon General!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

I do like the consistency in the Russian election interference narrative.

 

Now, apparently, it is Russian bots that caused the destruction of Kamala Harris by Tulsi Gabbard to trend...  pffft.  And here I thought it was just a sick burn that drew actual applause when it happened.

 

The DNC is going to have their own Trump moment if they don't improve their game.  Politics as usual isn't working for the electorate any more.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/455712-kamalaharrisdestroyed-trending-after-democratic-debate

 

*Shrug*  Something can be a sick burn that gets a fair amount of tweets on its own merits and also get further amplification from bots.  It is not cool having the Russians meddle in our elections even if some of the information they spread is the truth.  Moreover, Twitter needs to find a way to purge itself of bots, even the advertising.  This would make the platform much less harmful, annoying and as a side benefit keep people from hiding behind claims of bots when opinion just doesn't go their way,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ranxerox said:

 

*Shrug*  Something can be a sick burn that gets a fair amount of tweets on its own merits and also get further amplification from bots.  It is not cool having the Russians meddle in out elections our elections even if some of the information they spread is the truth.  Moreover, Twitter needs to find a way to purge itself of bots, even the advertising.  This would make the platform much less harmful, annoying and as a side benefit keep people from hiding behind claims of bots when opinion just doesn't go their way,

 

Oh the screams from corporations everywhere if you take away their advertising bots.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say, Warren probably lost my primary vote with something that may seem small: her demand for a "no first use of nukes" pledge.

 

First, I don't like litmus-test policy oaths. It's so... Republican.

 

Second, it's either posturing or it's incredibly arrogant. We can't know what the future may bring. It's foolish to imagine there could never be a circumstance in which first use becomes the least bad option. And very often, leaders are forced to choose least-bad options.

 

A fair and honest pledge would be, "My administration's policy would be to not be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict. [Which, IIRC has been US military policy for long periods -- someone check me on this, please.] But extraordinary events may force policies to change." Not as good a sound bite, though.

 

Dean Shomshak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DShomshak said:

I have to say, Warren probably lost my primary vote with something that may seem small: her demand for a "no first use of nukes" pledge.

 

That's an irresponsible pledge.  Whoever fires second in a fight involving nukes - loses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DShomshak said:

I have to say, Warren probably lost my primary vote with something that may seem small: her demand for a "no first use of nukes" pledge.

 

First, I don't like litmus-test policy oaths. It's so... Republican.

 

Second, it's either posturing or it's incredibly arrogant. We can't know what the future may bring. It's foolish to imagine there could never be a circumstance in which first use becomes the least bad option. And very often, leaders are forced to choose least-bad options.

 

A fair and honest pledge would be, "My administration's policy would be to not be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict. [Which, IIRC has been US military policy for long periods -- someone check me on this, please.] But extraordinary events may force policies to change." Not as good a sound bite, though.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

Honestly? With so many Americans afraid to go to doctors for fear of being bankrupt for the rest of their lives, with corporations increasingly calling the shots on what form our laws take and damn the rights of real humans if it means profits, and with a planet ecosytem possibly irreversibly harmed for future generations already?

 

I guess a possible piecrust promise made with good intentions doesn't shake me much

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...