By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

LurkerJ on 02 May 2020
Machiavellian said:

When has politics ever been fair.  What is the difference between Bernie now and Trump during 2016 when just about everything in his pass was being reported.  The reason Bernie lost is because he could not get enough people in power to support him.  Reporting is never going to be balanced and expecting it to be would be naive of the person running for office.  Bernie already experienced this going up against Clinton, why would he expect any different going up against Biden.  The problem with Bernie knowing this situation is that he did not run a good campaign to overcome his disadvantages.  Bernie knows he had a large hill to climb and he needed to take serious risk to propel himself over someone like Biden in order to get the Dem nomination.  When you know the game is fixed you have to have a clear plan to overcome it or you easily fall without ever having a chance to compete.

We don't disagree a lot then, the game is rigged, and the nominee was practically chosen by the DNC and the MSM.

I just don't understand why some lash out at the progressive left for refusing to bend the knee to the same people who rigged it in the first place, one of the major reasons the USA only has two parties has been the trap of the lesser evil that progressives keep falling into, preventing them from mobilizing outside the box, and I must say, what an effective trap this has been.

Last edited by LurkerJ - on 02 May 2020

Around the Network
Raven on 03 May 2020
coolbeans said:

I wonder how many of the same people who cried "sexism" for snake emojis are unrepentantly lambasting a potential sexual assault victim.

Conversely, I wonder how many of those people lobbing those snake emojis have suddenly made a miraculous epiphany of what staunch feminists they are. 

I found the snake emojis to be incredibly bizarre and unnecessary, and I also speak for myself in saying that I would never lambast someone coming forward with an allegation of a crime committed against them. The process of the allegation has to go forward and then people can make their judgements. Harassing the accuser in this case is completely unwarranted.

Unfortunately though it seems like this thread has pretty much solely devolved into exploiting the divide between the staunchly left and less-left/center-left portions of the Democratic base and pitting them against each other, and it's really sad to see. 

Last edited by Raven - on 03 May 2020

VGShare: Screenshot/Gameplay Sharing Thread | Club Nintendo | Official VGC Discord 

Raven on 03 May 2020
coolbeans said:
Raven said:

Conversely, I wonder how many of those people lobbing those snake emojis have suddenly made a miraculous epiphany of what staunch feminists they are. 

I found the snake emojis to be incredibly bizarre and unnecessary, and I also speak for myself in saying that I would never lambast someone coming forward with an allegation of a crime committed against them. The process of the allegation has to go forward and then people can make their judgements. Harassing the accuser in this case is completely unwarranted.

Unfortunately though it seems like this thread has pretty much solely devolved into exploiting the divide between the staunchly left and less-left/center-left portions of the Democratic base and pitting them against each other, and it's really sad to see. 

But that's the problem when you flip it around: you don't get the same effect.  One doesn't have to be an anti-feminist to communicate what that emoji means.  Being alluded to as a 'snake' didn't carry any sexist implications beforehand, b/c a man or woman is capable of being seen as a 'traitor.'  In Warren's case, this came down to siphoning votes from the socialist icon in this election and then burdening his chances later on--despite sharing more policy ideas with him.

I appreciate your take on the allegation process.  I honestly have a different view about the split, then again it's not like I plant my flag on this 'side.'  I guess since I still remember the likes of Lawrence O' Donnell's creepy grin and prognostication about a coming Rep. fall in the early 2010's, it puts a smile on my face to think of how he's seeing his own party handle what--statistically--should be the easiest presidential race against an incumbent.  Beyond that personal take, it's not something that should be surprising.  D's have a habit of gathering coalitions, sure, but they're also a lot of disparate groups that are single-issue or dual-issue voters.  The vast political expanse some of these historically make up suggests the party will never be able to satisfy all of them.  

What that translates to for me?  I favor these arguments now for it to pave the way for what I think this country needs: viable third-parties.

The problem is that there is an assumption being made about how many people are engaging in each kind of behavior in the first place and whether we can really treat any of it as representative because social media tends to be incredibly manipulated. I haven't seen anyone going after Tara Reade in here, so I feel like mentioning it at all is irrelevant unless we're discussing some actual examples.

Also, in terms of there being disparate and single-issue groups within the Democratic party, you're correct. The same is also very much true of the Republican party as well, the difference is that Republicans (unfortunately, to me) still live the lesson that unity wins elections, and even if you might not get everything you want, you'll at least move in a direction to make the change you want more likely.



VGShare: Screenshot/Gameplay Sharing Thread | Club Nintendo | Official VGC Discord 

tsogud on 04 May 2020
Shadow1980 said:
tsogud said:

Hon... You're talking about white people.

A whole other ballgame when it comes to black and Native people and POC, especially if they're poor.

You prolly were going about it wrong and so you couldn't convince the folks you were talking to. Idk tho, I don't know you personally so I don't know how politically and socially tactful you are irl to make that judgement.

Also, you moved the goalpost but I won't open up that can of worms.

Uh... 'kay?

Anywho, given the demographics of my area and the voting patterns of different races around here, I guess my experience is a lot different from yours. POC around here are almost all African-American, and I've only know a couple who weren't solidly Democratic. White people around here are overwhelmingly conservative Republicans. The number of white progressives I know is rather small (and usually a good bit younger than me), though exit polls from elections suggest that around 20-25% of white people in the area are Democratic voters (assuming they're equally distributed through the state). And in all my years, I don't think I've ever met someone who had opinions on political matters that didn't already have their minds made up.

As for my interactions with my conservative relatives and acquaintances, well, I do struggle with direct face-to-face confrontations. I've always been socially awkward. When I don't have time to gather and organize my thoughts, I get flustered easily, I lose my train of thought easily when I can't focus (especially when conversations naturally involve someone cutting me off), and I'm not as articulate when actually speaking. The way I write online is not even remotely indicative of my speech patterns in actual conversation. Combine that with people that believe climate science is literally a communist plot, and it is incredibly difficult for me to engage with them on the subject. Either I don't have the necessary debate skills in a face-to-face conversation, or I've only been dealing with people that simply can't be reached, or a little of both.

When it comes to online discussions, I can be a lot more articulate and lay out my argument in a calm and coherent manner. However, I am obviously not beyond a bit of sass or snark. In the case of "discussions" on climate, it does get tiresome dealing with people that refuse to accept evidence of a simple physical process and make their own claims that often tread into total non-sequitur "not even wrong" territory. But as an example of a post I made elsewhere:

The key pieces of evidence are as follows:

1) There has been a steady increase in global temperature over the past century, an increase that has been accelerating in more recent decades, with the global average temperature now higher than it's been in thousands of years. Prior to the Industrial Revolution global temperatures were on a multi-millennium cooling trend.

2) CO2 is a heat-trapping "greenhouse gas," a fact that was determined through spectroscopic analysis back in the 19th century. Other notable GHGs include nitrous oxide and methane, though CO2 is more important than the other two.

3) The amount of CO2 has been rapidly increasing an at accelerating rate since, in tandem with the rate of CO2 emissions from humans burning fossil fuels since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Pre-industrial CO2 emissions were relatively stable for thousands of years before present. Atmospheric concentrations of NO2 and methane have also been increasing rapidly since the Industrial Revolution after thousands of years of prior stability. This increase correlates with the increase in global temperatures.

4) Isotopic evidence shows that the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in atmospheric CO2 has been decreasing on a trajectory inversely proportional to the increase in total atmosphere CO2. This can only be caused through burning fossil fuels, which are deficient in carbon-13.

5) No other short-term forcings capable of producing a warming trend, such as solar output or changes in planetary albedo, can account for the observed warning.

Conclusion: The global average surface temperature is increasing primarily due to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gasses, primarily carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.

I was heavily downvoted relative to the overall activity of the thread, and dismissed out of hand by another poster who trotted out tired denialist talking points. But that's the kind of level-headed, non-confrontational posts I'm capable of and try to default to (EDIT: And you've probably seen how dry and technical I can be in non-political stuff like video game sales).

Maybe I'm just talking to the wrong people.

Ahh okay I see. Well I feel we just have different experiences, come from differing backgrounds and are surrounded by different people which contribute to our different understandings of topics and the strengths we have when debating and articulating political matters to people. I have a different approach when it comes to online and real life and, admittedly, I'm soooo much better irl than online because I need to be face-to-face with someone in order to really understand them and connect. Idk, it's weird, but that's how I function when it comes to serious complicated topics like these.

On the whole I've found that when you come to someone irl and have an honest open two-way conversation with them about their views, in which you're actually interested in the way they think they become more receptive of your ideas. Even if they don't necessarily agree with it. You don't have to always hit them with the facts at first. I find I get the best responses when I ask the other person specific questions and, instead of thinking of what I want to say, I listen to why they think the way they do with my full attention. And yeah there are people who definitely have their minds made up on certain issues but you really just have to sus them out and know that if a convo ain't going nowhere to drop it on a good note.

Politics is complicated and someone's political views are complex, personal and multi-faceted so I don't think you can pin the average person down as "such and such" just because they vote or view a position a certain way and take it at face value. You always have to ask questions of the other to find out why they came to the conclusion they did and walk back from there. At least that's usually what I do irl and I've had few problems. Idk tho you seem completely fine and articulate online that's for sure.

Last edited by tsogud - on 04 May 2020

 

Machiavellian on 04 May 2020
tsogud said:
Machiavellian said:

Most rape cases do not have any evidence.  Stats really do not mean anything until we can actually get this taken to court because you really have no clue if this is one of those situations.  I totally agree that making it easier to come forward should be something we seek but if the person does not have the courage, the court of public opinion isn't where it should be judged.  As a father, I have to have these types if talks with my daughter.  What do you do in a situation like this, how do you protect yourself,  How not to put yourself into a situation like this.  How to recognize you are in a situation etc.  Rape is a power accusation because usually a man is considered guilty in most people eyes without going to court.  Even if the person get acquitted, people will still believe something had to happen. This is why its hard to defend against such allegations even if you are innocent because people make up their minds that you are guilty without any thing to go on.  

If the only time we are going to hear about an issue is when a person is seeking power like Trump or Biden, then we need more than that.  Take their asses to court and let all the women come forward with their stories and whatever evidence they have have.  If not then its just a waste of time. 

You're contradicting yourself here. If most rape cases don't have any evidence then how in the hell do you expect every victim to be empowered enough to come forward and every allegation to be justly determined by the court of law? How do you personally square that inconsistency?

Stats do matter a lot here, it shows us that victims (95% of the time) are honest about what happened. So it'd make sense to first believe the victim and give them the benefit of the doubt.

I completely understand what you're saying though, your issues are not falling on deaf ears. A co-worker (and ex-acquaintance) of mine had accused another co-worker of raping her. I believed her and let her tell her story. I asked my friend who knew him and turns out he was gay but in the closet (my friend was sleeping with him lmaooo.) Management was notified that it was false and she was dealt with. So yeah I get that at times the "victim" is not telling the truth but we need to deal with these issues with moral integrity and consistency.

The accuser has the right to take everything that lead to the incident to court and the defendant has every right to defend themselves.  On the stand things change, people stories get jumbled and they make mistakes.  I never said it would be easy for the accuser but they have to be strong during this time.

The reason stats do not matter because we are talking about 2 lives here not percentages.  Its as if you are saying we should find Biden guilty and every man accused of rape guilty because of stats.  I cannot agree with this, its the reason saying someone rape you is very powerful since most people already made up their mind the person is guilty without really anything to go on but your stats.  How many men sit in jail today wrongly accused, lives ruined.  Its even worst when the person comes out decades later.  How are we to ascertain who story of events is correct with such a huge gap in time.  If Reade takes Biden to court he has to give his side of the incident, without that we can never know the truth or if the person has some other agenda.



Around the Network
tsogud on 04 May 2020
Machiavellian said:
tsogud said:

You're contradicting yourself here. If most rape cases don't have any evidence then how in the hell do you expect every victim to be empowered enough to come forward and every allegation to be justly determined by the court of law? How do you personally square that inconsistency?

Stats do matter a lot here, it shows us that victims (95% of the time) are honest about what happened. So it'd make sense to first believe the victim and give them the benefit of the doubt.

I completely understand what you're saying though, your issues are not falling on deaf ears. A co-worker (and ex-acquaintance) of mine had accused another co-worker of raping her. I believed her and let her tell her story. I asked my friend who knew him and turns out he was gay but in the closet (my friend was sleeping with him lmaooo.) Management was notified that it was false and she was dealt with. So yeah I get that at times the "victim" is not telling the truth but we need to deal with these issues with moral integrity and consistency.

The accuser has the right to take everything that lead to the incident to court and the defendant has every right to defend themselves.  On the stand things change, people stories get jumbled and they make mistakes.  I never said it would be easy for the accuser but they have to be strong during this time.

The reason stats do not matter because we are talking about 2 lives here not percentages.  Its as if you are saying we should find Biden guilty and every man accused of rape guilty because of stats.  I cannot agree with this, its the reason saying someone rape you is very powerful since most people already made up their mind the person is guilty without really anything to go on but your stats.  How many men sit in jail today wrongly accused, lives ruined.  Its even worst when the person comes out decades later.  How are we to ascertain who story of events is correct with such a huge gap in time.  If Reade takes Biden to court he has to give his side of the incident, without that we can never know the truth or if the person has some other agenda.

@bolded: again, I had already said that I am not saying that. I already clarified that and if you are just going to keep putting words into my mouth I think it's best we just end the conversation. I understand what you're saying but I don't think what I'm saying is getting through to you, so yeah I think this convo has run it's course.



 

Machiavellian on 05 May 2020
tsogud said:
Machiavellian said:

The accuser has the right to take everything that lead to the incident to court and the defendant has every right to defend themselves.  On the stand things change, people stories get jumbled and they make mistakes.  I never said it would be easy for the accuser but they have to be strong during this time.

The reason stats do not matter because we are talking about 2 lives here not percentages.  Its as if you are saying we should find Biden guilty and every man accused of rape guilty because of stats.  I cannot agree with this, its the reason saying someone rape you is very powerful since most people already made up their mind the person is guilty without really anything to go on but your stats.  How many men sit in jail today wrongly accused, lives ruined.  Its even worst when the person comes out decades later.  How are we to ascertain who story of events is correct with such a huge gap in time.  If Reade takes Biden to court he has to give his side of the incident, without that we can never know the truth or if the person has some other agenda.

@bolded: again, I had already said that I am not saying that. I already clarified that and if you are just going to keep putting words into my mouth I think it's best we just end the conversation. I understand what you're saying but I don't think what I'm saying is getting through to you, so yeah I think this convo has run it's course.

I am reading your entire post and you stated stats matter.  You cannot be in the middle on this, you either believe stats matter and thus will assume all women are telling the truth or we assume nothing until we get all the information in court so a well informed as possible conclusion can be formed.  From your last post, I cannot tell exactly where you fall but it's my opinion you are trying to play the middle.  I can tell you from my experience, I am definitely not in the middle.  I have seen what happens when people assume without anything to go on.  I have seen how stating some raped you can destroy a person life without any evidence.  I want justice for everyone so my opinion is that the accuser has to have the courage to come forward, take that person to court and try to get that person persecuted.  There is no middle ground because we are talking about a person life and thus their needs to be a greater responsibility on the accuser to present their case.

Either way, that is all I have to say on the topic.  I wanted to make it clear exactly where I stand on this subject even as a father and husband.



tsogud on 06 May 2020
Machiavellian said:
tsogud said:

@bolded: again, I had already said that I am not saying that. I already clarified that and if you are just going to keep putting words into my mouth I think it's best we just end the conversation. I understand what you're saying but I don't think what I'm saying is getting through to you, so yeah I think this convo has run it's course.

I am reading your entire post and you stated stats matter.  You cannot be in the middle on this, you either believe stats matter and thus will assume all women are telling the truth or we assume nothing until we get all the information in court so a well informed as possible conclusion can be formed.  From your last post, I cannot tell exactly where you fall but it's my opinion you are trying to play the middle.  I can tell you from my experience, I am definitely not in the middle.  I have seen what happens when people assume without anything to go on.  I have seen how stating some raped you can destroy a person life without any evidence.  I want justice for everyone so my opinion is that the accuser has to have the courage to come forward, take that person to court and try to get that person persecuted.  There is no middle ground because we are talking about a person life and thus their needs to be a greater responsibility on the accuser to present their case.

Either way, that is all I have to say on the topic.  I wanted to make it clear exactly where I stand on this subject even as a father and husband.

Just because you're a father and husband does not make your opinion any more valid than mine.

I told you that I understood your concerns and I even gave a personal account of what happened when an accusation turned out to be false. I'm not playing the "middle" I've stated clearly where I stand. You can believe the victim and still continue on through an investigation and trial, it's a complicated process and not a "this or that/all or nothing" type of situation the way you make it out.

We are talking about PEOPLE'S LIVES not just the 5% people who were of the falsely accused. Tara Reade and her family are getting doxed and are receiving death threats from people, most of them Biden supporters. Which has caused her to want to stay out of the public eye and you wonder why most victims don't continue on with an investigation and trial??? JFC part of it is because of people who don't believe them, which makes it so hard for them to come forward because people are so focused on the 5% of falsely accused abusers. They're willing to throw the 95% of actual victims under the bus by not defending their right to speak up by creating an unneeded barrier for the victim.

There's a way to make sure everyone receives a just outcome and I don't believe the way you're describing puts the victims best interests and safety first.

Last edited by tsogud - on 06 May 2020

 

sethnintendo on 06 May 2020

Love all the trump and fox news people jumping on Biden for this one allegation. Hypocrites.  You have no moral authority.



uran10 on 06 May 2020
the-pi-guy said:
https://apnews.com/a454d2cabfdcc00af60aebbe4aacda87

This is why I think it's important to have a Democrat, regardless of who, in the White House. The number one reason right here.

Everything else can change pretty quickly. But the Supreme Court can't.

Then the DNC, Media and entire establishment shouldn't have gone out of their way to destroy bernie's campaign from the outside and in. Supreme court isn't gonna convince anyone whose sick of the current system and sick of the lack of change to vote for the person who was the architect behind the majority of the legislation and decisions that have made our lives harder today. Its already lost for a generation and a certain somebody had the choice to retired during Obama's years but decided "nah, I want Hillary to replace me" so I honestly don't want to hear this or see this as some excuse to vote for Biden. I've said it before but there really isn't a lesser evil in this choice and even if there was I'm not convinced that its Biden. Trumps terrible, but if I can't tell you whose more evil because your record shows your just as bad if not worse than trump with actual actions then it would just be the same as voting for trump with a D next to his name.

Don't worry tho, I think Biden can win due to how crazy things are, I mean... he'll get destroyed in the debates, and Trump supporters are enthusiastic, and 51% of Bernie supporters are thinking about voting third party, but I'm sure with Trump's handling of covid-19 that Biden can somehow win.... except he's not even able to use this to go after trump and every appearance has had him saying very questionable things, but I'm sure its just a stutter.

But I'm sure Biden is doing some great outreach to Bernie supporters, he's enthusiastically for... wait no he's still against M4A during a pandemic. Okay enthusiastically for free public college.. nope not even that. Enthusiastically for cancelling debt.... wait no that's not a thing. I mean to be fair to Biden, he could turn around and start saying he's adopting Bernie's policies and no one would believe him since he's been a good boy for corporate america for over 40 years now.

The point I'm making is, you cannot convince people to vote for Biden by holding the supreme court above their heads. We've heard this argument time and time again and hillary also made the argument and it didn't work. It may work on you but for people like me who knows it'll be the same old same old neoliberal nonsense that got us trump in the first place if Biden wins, its not enough. Quite frankly, I'm going to be completely honest here. Biden winning is a complete and utter defeat of the left and a further shift to the right. A neoliberal leads to another Trump a worse Trump. The first time we got a neoliberal it lead to the worst president in modern history, George W Bush. The next time we got a neoliberal an incompetent fascist won, and you better thank god that's he's incompetent. You think the next time a neoliberal wins that the fascist wont be competent? The true left wing of this country is always weaker when a neoliberal is in power which leads to this process repeating itself. But I honestly think the democratic party now is a complete waste of time, and any real efforts to reform of have just been corrupted by it.

Weaver almost convinced Bernie in 2016 to take billionaire money through our revolution and was only stopped because people walked out on it. Weaver hired the insiders who destroyed Bernie's campaign from the inside and now he's basically a dull blade. AOC, Ilhan and the rest Justice democrats just watched the organizing that prided themselves on grassroots and help them get elected start a super pac, and Their voting has started to look a lot more like neoliberals than leftist. They talk a good game on twitter then when push comes to shove they always fold. Once you're inside the democratic party apparatus you clearly compromise your values away. The saddest part about all this to me? The GOP was outflanking them from the left for a while when it came to the stimulus and their response to covid. Trump was flirting with universal healthcare ffs even if it was just gonna be a temporary thing he still flirted with it while Biden is here like "lol no".

The Democratic party is not a left wing party but the 2nd corporate party and while we foolishly thought we could drag them back to being the party of FDR we were wrong and those we put in who promised to do that became modern day dems and not FDR dems. Every elected official the left has put there has disappointed this time around, some less than others but they've all failed in major ways.

Once again being 100%, if the left actually ever manages to get its s*it together then the democratic party will die. I don't see them shifting to the left to try to snub out a real left wing party. They've proven that they refuse to do so even with someone like Bernie so they definitely wont regardless. If the left creates a new party and unifies, the dem dies. If the Left gets behind the Greens, the dems die. They continue to treat the left like garbage but they need us. The reason they continue to treat us like that is because we roll over and vote for them regardless. What's the correct way to get humane policy that helps the masses through? I don't know but putting our eggs in the democratic party basket has failed and it will never work unless the left comes together and works in a certain way. They can keep trying to elect left wing dems, I don't think it'll work since that party rots everything that enters it but it doesn't completely surrender the party to the corporate class. They can at the same time build up a left wing party and advocate for RCV so this "electable" argument that's used to kill the left can die forever. Basically what the left needs is a broad coalition of leftist, all of these groups like the DSA and the Green party etc working together instead of arguing which method is the best way to get things passed. Anyway that's enough ranting.

NY Primary is back on thanks to Yang btw.



Follow my Gaming and Graphics Business on facebook and on Twitter:

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=101878997952596&ref=br_rs

https://twitter.com/KellyGGWD