Democrats
Re: Democrats
Post re: Biden running.
Last edited by Phoebe on Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Democrats
This is why we should be always open to believing claims of assault, without throwing our critical thinking parts out the window:
The woman who penned the fawning love letter to Putin before accusing Biden with a story that made no sense, now wishes to be Russian and has moved there. Shocker.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65764319
The woman who penned the fawning love letter to Putin before accusing Biden with a story that made no sense, now wishes to be Russian and has moved there. Shocker.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65764319
Re: Democrats
This is one of the reasons I think Biden should and could run again, because he's too much for the idiots who cover him in the press: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 332100007/
He says this particular thing all the time to mean "God help us", but only in the context of stupid stuff going on.
He says this particular thing all the time to mean "God help us", but only in the context of stupid stuff going on.
Last edited by Phoebe on Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Democrats
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cu2tVIbMij6/
Combines political advertising with trolling in some type of new high art form.
Combines political advertising with trolling in some type of new high art form.
Re: Democrats
Why is this the first I'm hearing of the grandma congresswoman known for her "colorful"ness? I don't think I had heard of her at all!
Re: Democrats
Say you are an 80 year old president and your only surviving son has been indicted. You have the ability to pardon him, though it'd cost you any future election. What do you do:
A. pardon him now, consequences be damned
B. pardon him once he's convicted/sentenced
C. you choose not to run for reelection so you can pardon him on your last day in office, Jan 2025
D. you run for reelection and pardon him on your last day in office, Jan 2025 or 2029
E. you don't pardon him, if you do he'll never learn
F. other
My guess is he really wants to do C. But D or E is most likely.
A. pardon him now, consequences be damned
B. pardon him once he's convicted/sentenced
C. you choose not to run for reelection so you can pardon him on your last day in office, Jan 2025
D. you run for reelection and pardon him on your last day in office, Jan 2025 or 2029
E. you don't pardon him, if you do he'll never learn
F. other
My guess is he really wants to do C. But D or E is most likely.
Re: Democrats
If he wins reelection, he could always pardon him on the first day of his second term. At that point, he doesn't have to worry about reelection anymore.
Re: Democrats
This is how I have learned that someone indicted Hunter Biden.
Re: Democrats
I had not realized the extent to which Hunter Biden is the source of all the nation's problems but luckily the Maga Nation is clear about that.
Re: Democrats
MAKE IT HAPPEN
Last edited by Phoebe on Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Democrats
That'd be cool but Newsom says he's not going pick someone running for the seat next year, so the person will only be in place for 15 months and then be unemployed. Dunno if that'd be worth giving up being mayor of the second biggest city in the US.
My uneducated guess is he'll pick someone who has retired, a steady hand who won't rock the boat or have left a position that would then need to be filled (sorry Maxine Waters). But I would love if he grabbed someone young say out of the Assembly to anoint them part of the new crop of leaders.
My uneducated guess is he'll pick someone who has retired, a steady hand who won't rock the boat or have left a position that would then need to be filled (sorry Maxine Waters). But I would love if he grabbed someone young say out of the Assembly to anoint them part of the new crop of leaders.
Re: Democrats
Read an interesting article that tried to grapple honestly with the difficult Biden poll numbers.
Is this just a reflection of negative sentiment that will coalesce in another direction once things really get rolling in the campaign season?
Does it reflect disenchantment with Biden among Democrats and NPs, particularly the young or the swing voter? Robust turnout is definitely necessary to win this thing.
Or does it reflect on widespread sentiment that Biden is too old for the job, regardless of whether this turns out to be factually correct? Perhaps voters chose Biden because they wanted to take a sharp turn away from magaville, but the magas remain fully energized behind their guy, while others have drifted off and never were particularly excited about Biden?
Honestly it scares me - the elections feel very much like existential threats. I do feel democracy itself is on the line and it boggles my mind that anybody could consider electing Trump again after what happened. I don't know what to do with that information. When I listen to Republican media, I hear them also saying it's an existential threat but in the other direction. Existential to what, then, I wonder? Because I'm thinking the existential crisis is to American democracy and the precious constitution. What are they worried about going away?
Meanwhile, I struggle to support the Democrats because they support things I don't agree with. The progressive movement is just anti-free speech - they have lost what it means to have freedom of thought and expression. I'm not saying the other side gets it either - for example they don't think you should be able to give money to a group that targets recipients of a specific race, even though they think taxpayer dollars definitely can be earmarked for religious institutions. So that violation is worse, but I just can't get on board with people who think speech needs to be shut down so we can all feel safe.
Is this just a reflection of negative sentiment that will coalesce in another direction once things really get rolling in the campaign season?
Does it reflect disenchantment with Biden among Democrats and NPs, particularly the young or the swing voter? Robust turnout is definitely necessary to win this thing.
Or does it reflect on widespread sentiment that Biden is too old for the job, regardless of whether this turns out to be factually correct? Perhaps voters chose Biden because they wanted to take a sharp turn away from magaville, but the magas remain fully energized behind their guy, while others have drifted off and never were particularly excited about Biden?
Honestly it scares me - the elections feel very much like existential threats. I do feel democracy itself is on the line and it boggles my mind that anybody could consider electing Trump again after what happened. I don't know what to do with that information. When I listen to Republican media, I hear them also saying it's an existential threat but in the other direction. Existential to what, then, I wonder? Because I'm thinking the existential crisis is to American democracy and the precious constitution. What are they worried about going away?
Meanwhile, I struggle to support the Democrats because they support things I don't agree with. The progressive movement is just anti-free speech - they have lost what it means to have freedom of thought and expression. I'm not saying the other side gets it either - for example they don't think you should be able to give money to a group that targets recipients of a specific race, even though they think taxpayer dollars definitely can be earmarked for religious institutions. So that violation is worse, but I just can't get on board with people who think speech needs to be shut down so we can all feel safe.
Re: Democrats
I agree with a lot of the rest of your post, and I have trouble supported Biden as well, but for different reasons. Like you, the Dems aren't making me happy, but I definitely think allowing Trump to win would be the greater evil.
I have other thoughts that are not quite fully formed yet, but while I'm stewing on that, I'm interested in this part:
I have other thoughts that are not quite fully formed yet, but while I'm stewing on that, I'm interested in this part:
I've been finding a lot of my earlier presuppositions about the world to be in error, so I'm curious on this point. I don't really see what you're describing. Where do you see this happening? In what way and to what effect?
Any time the solution is "banjo rifle", I'm in 100%.
Re: Democrats
The anti-free speech stuff on the right is really easy to see: book bans! content bans for schools! free speech "zones" on campuses! shutting down public assemblies for no good reason! trying to make anything race-conscious illegal, even when it involves free expression like donating money!
This stuff is happening all the time, seemingly more than ever.
But on the other side of the coin, there's a stream of progressive or liberal thought that believes employees should be fired or otherwise prevented from exercising their free speech rights if they do not express the orthodox opinion. Or that speakers should be shouted down or classes prevented from being taught, etc. because of wacky conceptions about the content. In recent examples, just as some universities prevented pro-Palestinian groups from protesting or have investigated faculty who expressed pro-Palestinian views on social media, likewise you have other universities investigating (or in the case of USC, actively suspending or removing from classroom) faculty for saying pro-Israel/anti-Hamas things. Universities are a weird sub-section in a way but also reflect the state of the conflict over free speech since that's where it often arises. I read a recent survey about this here that illustrates what I'm worried about: https://apnorc.org/projects/public-perc ... 7900390625
(This surveys the public generally - a sample of adults, but students tend to have even more anti-free-speech views when it comes to not wanting to permit "offensive" views that violate the progressive take on a variety of issues.)
People say they want free expression in a general sense - i.e. big majorities do NOT want book bans or content controls on teachers from government and boards. But at the same time, many people think these free expression rights even on a campus/at a school should be limited in ways I find totally unacceptable. The effect is really a chilling effect on free speech. Like you might think, how is it acceptable to permit a professor to say something sexist when they have to teach everyone? But the way that plays out is student complaints calling for their instructor to be fired for incorporating words like "bitch" - not calling anyone a bitch, mind you, but talking about someone else's use of the word colloquially. (And the firing threat is real, not just a suggestion.) Or the idea that you cannot talk about a religious idea in a physics class or a question about racial equity in an accounting class - why is this wrong, exactly? Knowledge and the examples used to learn are complex and interconnected, so the supposed common sense on the matter is not particularly sensible. People often express comfort with restricting speech when it happens to restrict speech they don't like, but the sword always cuts both ways in practice. Indeed one of the big reasons I think it's a terrible idea for progressives to promote shutting down "offensive" speech is that it not only can be used against them, but is far more likely to be - it's guaranteed to be.
This stuff is happening all the time, seemingly more than ever.
But on the other side of the coin, there's a stream of progressive or liberal thought that believes employees should be fired or otherwise prevented from exercising their free speech rights if they do not express the orthodox opinion. Or that speakers should be shouted down or classes prevented from being taught, etc. because of wacky conceptions about the content. In recent examples, just as some universities prevented pro-Palestinian groups from protesting or have investigated faculty who expressed pro-Palestinian views on social media, likewise you have other universities investigating (or in the case of USC, actively suspending or removing from classroom) faculty for saying pro-Israel/anti-Hamas things. Universities are a weird sub-section in a way but also reflect the state of the conflict over free speech since that's where it often arises. I read a recent survey about this here that illustrates what I'm worried about: https://apnorc.org/projects/public-perc ... 7900390625
(This surveys the public generally - a sample of adults, but students tend to have even more anti-free-speech views when it comes to not wanting to permit "offensive" views that violate the progressive take on a variety of issues.)
People say they want free expression in a general sense - i.e. big majorities do NOT want book bans or content controls on teachers from government and boards. But at the same time, many people think these free expression rights even on a campus/at a school should be limited in ways I find totally unacceptable. The effect is really a chilling effect on free speech. Like you might think, how is it acceptable to permit a professor to say something sexist when they have to teach everyone? But the way that plays out is student complaints calling for their instructor to be fired for incorporating words like "bitch" - not calling anyone a bitch, mind you, but talking about someone else's use of the word colloquially. (And the firing threat is real, not just a suggestion.) Or the idea that you cannot talk about a religious idea in a physics class or a question about racial equity in an accounting class - why is this wrong, exactly? Knowledge and the examples used to learn are complex and interconnected, so the supposed common sense on the matter is not particularly sensible. People often express comfort with restricting speech when it happens to restrict speech they don't like, but the sword always cuts both ways in practice. Indeed one of the big reasons I think it's a terrible idea for progressives to promote shutting down "offensive" speech is that it not only can be used against them, but is far more likely to be - it's guaranteed to be.
Re: Democrats
Okay. You clearly have more.knowledge on this and probably more direct recent experience as well, so hopefully you can provide some more clarity.
From my perspective, in general, most Americans claim to believe in free speech, but also, most Americans believe there is a certain point at which speech becomes a direct danger to people's well being and must be curtailed (shouting FIRE in a crowded theater is the stereotypical example). And for a chunk of people within any ideology, "people who disagree with me" often conveniently falls into that category of "dangerous" speech. I think that is just selfish human nature and is inevitable in some portion of all groups. Most people want free speech, but they also want people who disagree with them to shut up.
But our right to free speech is that we may think, speak, and assemble with others of like mind free from government interference. I think one side is seeking to shut up their opposition by weaponizing our government, its laws, its judicial process, its enforcement arms, etc. They want to use government to limit speech. The other side seems (from what I've seen and what you describe) to largely be using their own freedom of expression to to discourage and silence their opposition. They are speaking out loudly, they are protesting, they are boycotting, they are contacting employers and businesses to draw attention to speech they don't like in hopes that those with money can exert influence to discourage and silence such people. I'm not aware of people on the left trying to use government to shut down conservative speech, but I'm sure there are some examples.
And also I'm sure things are much more complicated in educational settings where young people have such intense passion for their ideas and you have student led groups and activities in colleges that are public institutions and/or partially publicly funded.
It does feel like mob rule at times when trolls of any ideology use their free speech to silence others with anonymous online threats of physical harm, sexual assault, death, doxxing, etc etc.
I don't know. I kinda see what you're saying, but it still feels like there's a clear difference between our two major political factions, and one is most likely to use private action to silence opposition, and the other side wants to use the government to silence opposition. I don't see the comparison in this respect.
From my perspective, in general, most Americans claim to believe in free speech, but also, most Americans believe there is a certain point at which speech becomes a direct danger to people's well being and must be curtailed (shouting FIRE in a crowded theater is the stereotypical example). And for a chunk of people within any ideology, "people who disagree with me" often conveniently falls into that category of "dangerous" speech. I think that is just selfish human nature and is inevitable in some portion of all groups. Most people want free speech, but they also want people who disagree with them to shut up.
But our right to free speech is that we may think, speak, and assemble with others of like mind free from government interference. I think one side is seeking to shut up their opposition by weaponizing our government, its laws, its judicial process, its enforcement arms, etc. They want to use government to limit speech. The other side seems (from what I've seen and what you describe) to largely be using their own freedom of expression to to discourage and silence their opposition. They are speaking out loudly, they are protesting, they are boycotting, they are contacting employers and businesses to draw attention to speech they don't like in hopes that those with money can exert influence to discourage and silence such people. I'm not aware of people on the left trying to use government to shut down conservative speech, but I'm sure there are some examples.
And also I'm sure things are much more complicated in educational settings where young people have such intense passion for their ideas and you have student led groups and activities in colleges that are public institutions and/or partially publicly funded.
It does feel like mob rule at times when trolls of any ideology use their free speech to silence others with anonymous online threats of physical harm, sexual assault, death, doxxing, etc etc.
I don't know. I kinda see what you're saying, but it still feels like there's a clear difference between our two major political factions, and one is most likely to use private action to silence opposition, and the other side wants to use the government to silence opposition. I don't see the comparison in this respect.
Any time the solution is "banjo rifle", I'm in 100%.
Re: Democrats
As for the shine being off of Biden for many Democrats, especially young ones and people of color, I'm telling you, I think it's Palestine. I mean, it's a lot of things, many of which you mentioned, but Palestine/Israel is a trigger that put a lot of things in perspective.
[After this, I typed A LOT until I realized it belonged in the Protest thread. So I'll go put it there.]
The short answer is that Biden's actions have highlighted for many a perception that Biden is not truly serving their interests. Obviously Trump is worse... much worse... but for many that means they won't vote for either.
[After this, I typed A LOT until I realized it belonged in the Protest thread. So I'll go put it there.]
The short answer is that Biden's actions have highlighted for many a perception that Biden is not truly serving their interests. Obviously Trump is worse... much worse... but for many that means they won't vote for either.
Any time the solution is "banjo rifle", I'm in 100%.
Re: Democrats
But if it's Palestine affecting Biden, why has it been this way for so long? Granted some people have been just this concerned about the issue for a long time now, but most have not. If you had asked people back in June, they would not have cited Palestine as the reason but the numbers were about the same.