American hero and GOAT Aaron Rodgers on COVID-19...

4,432 Views | 111 Replies | Last: 7 days ago by Mocha Joe Roth
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

dajo9 said:

Joe Biden will be the Democrats candidate as chosen by Democratic voters. I don't know who he'll pick as VP but I suspect Warren, Harris, or Abrams.

The most likely option 6 months ago was Biden / Harris and that is probably the case today.
How much drinking does one have to do prior to pulling the lever for any of those combos?


The drinking on election day will be after the vote is cast as we sit in fear of another awful 4 years of Trump
An old white dude
OdontoBear66
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lucas Lee said:

LMK5 said:

dajo9 said:

Joe Biden will be the Democrats candidate as chosen by Democratic voters. I don't know who he'll pick as VP but I suspect Warren, Harris, or Abrams.

The most likely option 6 months ago was Biden / Harris and that is probably the case today.
How much drinking does one have to do prior to pulling the lever for any of those combos?
I don't know. Will you be casting your vote for Trump?
The gaffes just continue with Biden. Add today's. One's a narcissistic bully, the other with one foot in the door of memory care. Choices?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You forgot to add that the narcissistic bully is also a rocket scientist (as are all in his F Troop):



Every second that tRump prolongs the flow from his mouth, another knot in a balloon animal is made.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OdontoBear66 said:

Lucas Lee said:

LMK5 said:

dajo9 said:

Joe Biden will be the Democrats candidate as chosen by Democratic voters. I don't know who he'll pick as VP but I suspect Warren, Harris, or Abrams.

The most likely option 6 months ago was Biden / Harris and that is probably the case today.
How much drinking does one have to do prior to pulling the lever for any of those combos?
I don't know. Will you be casting your vote for Trump?
The gaffes just continue with Biden. Add today's. One's a narcissistic bully, the other with one foot in the door of memory care. Choices?
Trump is both at once.
smh
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Trump is both at once.
reminds of 10 y.o. me's Fave joke, apologies in advance:

Q: what's the difference between a duck

A: one of its feet are both the same.
https://en.gravatar.com/cupertinojay
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

OdontoBear66 said:

Lucas Lee said:

LMK5 said:

dajo9 said:

Joe Biden will be the Democrats candidate as chosen by Democratic voters. I don't know who he'll pick as VP but I suspect Warren, Harris, or Abrams.

The most likely option 6 months ago was Biden / Harris and that is probably the case today.
How much drinking does one have to do prior to pulling the lever for any of those combos?
I don't know. Will you be casting your vote for Trump?
The gaffes just continue with Biden. Add today's. One's a narcissistic bully, the other with one foot in the door of memory care. Choices?
Trump is both at once.
Yeah, we don't have an opportunity to elect a smart person to be our president right now or one who isn't prone to verbal gaffes. Fortunately for Biden, he's found the one idiot to run against for whom Biden's problems aren't disqualifying because in addition to those problems, Trump is also morally bankrupt, corrupt, has extremely poor judgment, and on and on.

The republicans' only hope to re-elect the worst president in history is voter suppression. They used it to great effect in 2016 and they know it's their only hope now. They aren't trying to convince swing voters to go for Trump, they are going to try to convince people not to vote at all.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

OdontoBear66 said:

Lucas Lee said:

LMK5 said:

dajo9 said:

Joe Biden will be the Democrats candidate as chosen by Democratic voters. I don't know who he'll pick as VP but I suspect Warren, Harris, or Abrams.

The most likely option 6 months ago was Biden / Harris and that is probably the case today.
How much drinking does one have to do prior to pulling the lever for any of those combos?
I don't know. Will you be casting your vote for Trump?
The gaffes just continue with Biden. Add today's. One's a narcissistic bully, the other with one foot in the door of memory care. Choices?
Trump is both at once.
Yeah, we don't have an opportunity to elect a smart person to be our president right now or one who isn't prone to verbal gaffes. Fortunately for Biden, he's found the one idiot to run against for whom Biden's problems aren't disqualifying because in addition to those problems, Trump is also morally bankrupt, corrupt, has extremely poor judgment, and on and on.

The republicans' only hope to re-elect the worst president in history is voter suppression. They used it to great effect in 2016 and they know it's their only hope now. They aren't trying to convince swing voters to go for Trump, they are going to try to convince people not to vote at all.
Let's not get into voter fraud. Saying that the Republicans engaged in voter fraud or Democrats engaged in voter fraud is just fringe arguments to weaken our trust in our Democracy. The person that runs the smartest (or the least idiotic) campaign will win this. Again, we are talking about who will do the least amount of damage, and just convince America that you can act like an adult once in awhile and you can win. Even Biden cannot mess this up, can he? What more does the universe need to gift him to win this?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"... our trust in our Democracy..."

America is not a Democracy.

" When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.."

" Trump has no real intention of devolving power back to the people. He's filled his administration with members of the same elite he disparaged on the campaign trail. His biggest legislative success, the tax bill, has handed gifts to corporations and the donor class. A little more than a year after America rebelled against political elites by electing a self-proclaimed champion of the people, its government is more deeply in the pockets of lobbyists and billionaires than ever before."



America Is Not a Democracy - The Atlantic


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/america-is-not-a-democracy/550931/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/550931/
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

OdontoBear66 said:

Lucas Lee said:

LMK5 said:

dajo9 said:

Joe Biden will be the Democrats candidate as chosen by Democratic voters. I don't know who he'll pick as VP but I suspect Warren, Harris, or Abrams.

The most likely option 6 months ago was Biden / Harris and that is probably the case today.
How much drinking does one have to do prior to pulling the lever for any of those combos?
I don't know. Will you be casting your vote for Trump?
The gaffes just continue with Biden. Add today's. One's a narcissistic bully, the other with one foot in the door of memory care. Choices?
Trump is both at once.
Yeah, we don't have an opportunity to elect a smart person to be our president right now or one who isn't prone to verbal gaffes. Fortunately for Biden, he's found the one idiot to run against for whom Biden's problems aren't disqualifying because in addition to those problems, Trump is also morally bankrupt, corrupt, has extremely poor judgment, and on and on.

The republicans' only hope to re-elect the worst president in history is voter suppression. They used it to great effect in 2016 and they know it's their only hope now. They aren't trying to convince swing voters to go for Trump, they are going to try to convince people not to vote at all.
Let's not get into voter fraud. Saying that the Republicans engaged in voter fraud or Democrats engaged in voter fraud is just fringe arguments to weaken our trust in our Democracy. The person that runs the smartest (or the least idiotic) campaign will win this. Again, we are talking about who will do the least amount of damage, and just convince America that you can act like an adult once in awhile and you can win. Even Biden cannot mess this up, can he? What more does the universe need to gift him to win this?
Voter suppression isn't the same as voter fraud. A lot of Trump's digital marketing in 2016 was directed at specific groups to convince them not to vote for Hillary. They weren't trying to get them to vote for Trump, but not to vote at all.

I agree with you by the way - the stars are lined up to gift wrap the election to Biden. To mix metaphors, hopefully he doesn't pull a Leon Lett (or Desean Jackson Army game).
smh
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

The republicans' only hope to re-elect the worst president in history is voter suppression. They used it to great effect in 2016 and they know it's their only hope now. They aren't trying to convince swing voters to go for Trump, they are going to try to convince people not to vote at all.
there's another threat too rarely spoken of imo. recall the disastrous UK brexit election? turns out a stealth misinformation / lying facebook based operation was underway. briefly, voters' FB pet peeves were noted, then in the last week (under the radar) electors were micro-targeted by email to discredit EU. worked grrrreat, and surely the technique can also do serious damage across the pond in november.

related april 2019's 15min ted talk, rolling along towards 4 million views..

> In an unmissable talk, journalist Carole Cadwalladr digs into one of the most perplexing events in recent times: the UK's super-close 2016 vote to leave the European Union. Tracking the result to a barrage of misleading Facebook ads targeted at vulnerable Brexit swing voters -- and linking the same players and tactics to the 2016 US presidential election -- Cadwalladr calls out the "gods of Silicon Valley" for being on the wrong side of history and asks: Are free and fair elections a thing of the past?

https://www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwalladr_facebook_s_role_in_brexit_and_the_threat_to_democracy?language=en
https://en.gravatar.com/cupertinojay
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

OdontoBear66 said:

Lucas Lee said:

LMK5 said:

dajo9 said:

Joe Biden will be the Democrats candidate as chosen by Democratic voters. I don't know who he'll pick as VP but I suspect Warren, Harris, or Abrams.

The most likely option 6 months ago was Biden / Harris and that is probably the case today.
How much drinking does one have to do prior to pulling the lever for any of those combos?
I don't know. Will you be casting your vote for Trump?
The gaffes just continue with Biden. Add today's. One's a narcissistic bully, the other with one foot in the door of memory care. Choices?
Trump is both at once.
Yeah, we don't have an opportunity to elect a smart person to be our president right now or one who isn't prone to verbal gaffes. Fortunately for Biden, he's found the one idiot to run against for whom Biden's problems aren't disqualifying because in addition to those problems, Trump is also morally bankrupt, corrupt, has extremely poor judgment, and on and on.

The republicans' only hope to re-elect the worst president in history is voter suppression. They used it to great effect in 2016 and they know it's their only hope now. They aren't trying to convince swing voters to go for Trump, they are going to try to convince people not to vote at all.
Let's not get into voter fraud. Saying that the Republicans engaged in voter fraud or Democrats engaged in voter fraud is just fringe arguments to weaken our trust in our Democracy. The person that runs the smartest (or the least idiotic) campaign will win this. Again, we are talking about who will do the least amount of damage, and just convince America that you can act like an adult once in awhile and you can win. Even Biden cannot mess this up, can he? What more does the universe need to gift him to win this?
Voter suppression =/= voter fraud. Fraud is casting false votes. Suppression is preventing people from voting. Republicans definitely do the lion's share of the latter.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

OdontoBear66 said:

Lucas Lee said:

LMK5 said:

dajo9 said:

Joe Biden will be the Democrats candidate as chosen by Democratic voters. I don't know who he'll pick as VP but I suspect Warren, Harris, or Abrams.

The most likely option 6 months ago was Biden / Harris and that is probably the case today.
How much drinking does one have to do prior to pulling the lever for any of those combos?
I don't know. Will you be casting your vote for Trump?
The gaffes just continue with Biden. Add today's. One's a narcissistic bully, the other with one foot in the door of memory care. Choices?
Trump is both at once.
Yeah, we don't have an opportunity to elect a smart person to be our president right now or one who isn't prone to verbal gaffes. Fortunately for Biden, he's found the one idiot to run against for whom Biden's problems aren't disqualifying because in addition to those problems, Trump is also morally bankrupt, corrupt, has extremely poor judgment, and on and on.

The republicans' only hope to re-elect the worst president in history is voter suppression. They used it to great effect in 2016 and they know it's their only hope now. They aren't trying to convince swing voters to go for Trump, they are going to try to convince people not to vote at all.
Let's not get into voter fraud. Saying that the Republicans engaged in voter fraud or Democrats engaged in voter fraud is just fringe arguments to weaken our trust in our Democracy. The person that runs the smartest (or the least idiotic) campaign will win this. Again, we are talking about who will do the least amount of damage, and just convince America that you can act like an adult once in awhile and you can win. Even Biden cannot mess this up, can he? What more does the universe need to gift him to win this?
Voter suppression =/= voter fraud. Fraud is casting false votes. Suppression is preventing people from voting. Republicans definitely do the lion's share of the latter.
I think these nuances are not meaningful. The Republicans argue that election results are questionable because people who were not allowed to vote actually voted (whether through mob actions during the Kennedy election or most recently with non-citizens voting). Democrats argue that election results are questionable because people who should be able to vote had unreasonable restrictions put on them. In either case, questioning the validity of elections and trust in the election process.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
smh said:

Unit2Sucks said:

The republicans' only hope to re-elect the worst president in history is voter suppression. They used it to great effect in 2016 and they know it's their only hope now. They aren't trying to convince swing voters to go for Trump, they are going to try to convince people not to vote at all.
there's another threat too rarely spoken of imo. recall the disastrous UK brexit election? turns out a stealth misinformation / lying facebook based operation was underway. briefly, voters' FB pet peeves were noted, then in the last week (under the radar) electors were micro-targeted by email to discredit EU. worked grrrreat, and surely the technique can also do serious damage across the pond in november.

related april 2019's 15min ted talk, rolling along towards 4 million views..

> In an unmissable talk, journalist Carole Cadwalladr digs into one of the most perplexing events in recent times: the UK's super-close 2016 vote to leave the European Union. Tracking the result to a barrage of misleading Facebook ads targeted at vulnerable Brexit swing voters -- and linking the same players and tactics to the 2016 US presidential election -- Cadwalladr calls out the "gods of Silicon Valley" for being on the wrong side of history and asks: Are free and fair elections a thing of the past?

https://www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwalladr_facebook_s_role_in_brexit_and_the_threat_to_democracy?language=en

This, I believe, is the biggest threat. I don't know if this is really "rarely spoken of". I think most people know the dangers of people getting news from facebook, twitter and those platforms taking a very hands off approach to screening out election interference from Russia and China.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

OdontoBear66 said:

Lucas Lee said:

LMK5 said:

dajo9 said:

Joe Biden will be the Democrats candidate as chosen by Democratic voters. I don't know who he'll pick as VP but I suspect Warren, Harris, or Abrams.

The most likely option 6 months ago was Biden / Harris and that is probably the case today.
How much drinking does one have to do prior to pulling the lever for any of those combos?
I don't know. Will you be casting your vote for Trump?
The gaffes just continue with Biden. Add today's. One's a narcissistic bully, the other with one foot in the door of memory care. Choices?
Trump is both at once.
Yeah, we don't have an opportunity to elect a smart person to be our president right now or one who isn't prone to verbal gaffes. Fortunately for Biden, he's found the one idiot to run against for whom Biden's problems aren't disqualifying because in addition to those problems, Trump is also morally bankrupt, corrupt, has extremely poor judgment, and on and on.

The republicans' only hope to re-elect the worst president in history is voter suppression. They used it to great effect in 2016 and they know it's their only hope now. They aren't trying to convince swing voters to go for Trump, they are going to try to convince people not to vote at all.
Let's not get into voter fraud. Saying that the Republicans engaged in voter fraud or Democrats engaged in voter fraud is just fringe arguments to weaken our trust in our Democracy. The person that runs the smartest (or the least idiotic) campaign will win this. Again, we are talking about who will do the least amount of damage, and just convince America that you can act like an adult once in awhile and you can win. Even Biden cannot mess this up, can he? What more does the universe need to gift him to win this?
Voter suppression =/= voter fraud. Fraud is casting false votes. Suppression is preventing people from voting. Republicans definitely do the lion's share of the latter.
I think these nuances are not meaningful.
I'm making a different argument. I'm not saying the results are questionable but discussing legal election strategy. Trump's strategy isn't to create the biggest tent but to pick off a bunch of single issue voters along with mainline republicans and do everything he can to convince people who would never vote for Trump that they should also not vote for the other guy. That's why he is always pretending to care about Bernie Bro's etc. He knows they will never vote for him and his only goal is to make sure they don't vote for anyone else. He ran thousands of different ads on facebook and other platforms targeted to democratic voters to convince them to sit out the election in 2016. It's despicable but a perfectly legal strategy.

Perhaps I should have been more clear to distinguish that type of behavior from voter suppression like voter ID laws and other mechanisms to actually make it hard for people to vote, rather than just to cause them not to want to vote.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

OdontoBear66 said:

Lucas Lee said:

LMK5 said:

dajo9 said:

Joe Biden will be the Democrats candidate as chosen by Democratic voters. I don't know who he'll pick as VP but I suspect Warren, Harris, or Abrams.

The most likely option 6 months ago was Biden / Harris and that is probably the case today.
How much drinking does one have to do prior to pulling the lever for any of those combos?
I don't know. Will you be casting your vote for Trump?
The gaffes just continue with Biden. Add today's. One's a narcissistic bully, the other with one foot in the door of memory care. Choices?
Trump is both at once.
Yeah, we don't have an opportunity to elect a smart person to be our president right now or one who isn't prone to verbal gaffes. Fortunately for Biden, he's found the one idiot to run against for whom Biden's problems aren't disqualifying because in addition to those problems, Trump is also morally bankrupt, corrupt, has extremely poor judgment, and on and on.

The republicans' only hope to re-elect the worst president in history is voter suppression. They used it to great effect in 2016 and they know it's their only hope now. They aren't trying to convince swing voters to go for Trump, they are going to try to convince people not to vote at all.
Let's not get into voter fraud. Saying that the Republicans engaged in voter fraud or Democrats engaged in voter fraud is just fringe arguments to weaken our trust in our Democracy. The person that runs the smartest (or the least idiotic) campaign will win this. Again, we are talking about who will do the least amount of damage, and just convince America that you can act like an adult once in awhile and you can win. Even Biden cannot mess this up, can he? What more does the universe need to gift him to win this?
Voter suppression =/= voter fraud. Fraud is casting false votes. Suppression is preventing people from voting. Republicans definitely do the lion's share of the latter.
I think these nuances are not meaningful. The Republicans argue that election results are questionable because people who were not allowed to vote actually voted (whether through mob actions during the Kennedy election or most recently with non-citizens voting). Democrats argue that election results are questionable because people who should be able to vote had unreasonable restrictions put on them. In either case, questioning the validity of elections and trust in the election process.
The point isn't really about the validity of the election results, it's about what kinds of strategies are used by candidates/parties to win.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

OdontoBear66 said:

Lucas Lee said:

LMK5 said:

dajo9 said:

Joe Biden will be the Democrats candidate as chosen by Democratic voters. I don't know who he'll pick as VP but I suspect Warren, Harris, or Abrams.

The most likely option 6 months ago was Biden / Harris and that is probably the case today.
How much drinking does one have to do prior to pulling the lever for any of those combos?
I don't know. Will you be casting your vote for Trump?
The gaffes just continue with Biden. Add today's. One's a narcissistic bully, the other with one foot in the door of memory care. Choices?
Trump is both at once.
Yeah, we don't have an opportunity to elect a smart person to be our president right now or one who isn't prone to verbal gaffes. Fortunately for Biden, he's found the one idiot to run against for whom Biden's problems aren't disqualifying because in addition to those problems, Trump is also morally bankrupt, corrupt, has extremely poor judgment, and on and on.

The republicans' only hope to re-elect the worst president in history is voter suppression. They used it to great effect in 2016 and they know it's their only hope now. They aren't trying to convince swing voters to go for Trump, they are going to try to convince people not to vote at all.
Let's not get into voter fraud. Saying that the Republicans engaged in voter fraud or Democrats engaged in voter fraud is just fringe arguments to weaken our trust in our Democracy. The person that runs the smartest (or the least idiotic) campaign will win this. Again, we are talking about who will do the least amount of damage, and just convince America that you can act like an adult once in awhile and you can win. Even Biden cannot mess this up, can he? What more does the universe need to gift him to win this?
Voter suppression =/= voter fraud. Fraud is casting false votes. Suppression is preventing people from voting. Republicans definitely do the lion's share of the latter.
I think these nuances are not meaningful. The Republicans argue that election results are questionable because people who were not allowed to vote actually voted (whether through mob actions during the Kennedy election or most recently with non-citizens voting). Democrats argue that election results are questionable because people who should be able to vote had unreasonable restrictions put on them. In either case, questioning the validity of elections and trust in the election process.


If only some of us had access to higher education where we could learn critical thinking to differentiate between these "nuances".

Were elections in the South during Jim Crow "valid". That was extreme voter suppression. The elections were "valid" because the law and white people supported it. What do you support? What are you willing to validate?

Voter suppression is real and has a long history in this country. When you see long lines to vote, which is common in communities where you and I DON'T live, that is Voter suppression before our very eyes. Voter fraud is very rare.
An old white dude
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

OdontoBear66 said:

Lucas Lee said:

LMK5 said:

dajo9 said:

Joe Biden will be the Democrats candidate as chosen by Democratic voters. I don't know who he'll pick as VP but I suspect Warren, Harris, or Abrams.

The most likely option 6 months ago was Biden / Harris and that is probably the case today.
How much drinking does one have to do prior to pulling the lever for any of those combos?
I don't know. Will you be casting your vote for Trump?
The gaffes just continue with Biden. Add today's. One's a narcissistic bully, the other with one foot in the door of memory care. Choices?
Trump is both at once.
Yeah, we don't have an opportunity to elect a smart person to be our president right now or one who isn't prone to verbal gaffes. Fortunately for Biden, he's found the one idiot to run against for whom Biden's problems aren't disqualifying because in addition to those problems, Trump is also morally bankrupt, corrupt, has extremely poor judgment, and on and on.

The republicans' only hope to re-elect the worst president in history is voter suppression. They used it to great effect in 2016 and they know it's their only hope now. They aren't trying to convince swing voters to go for Trump, they are going to try to convince people not to vote at all.
Let's not get into voter fraud. Saying that the Republicans engaged in voter fraud or Democrats engaged in voter fraud is just fringe arguments to weaken our trust in our Democracy. The person that runs the smartest (or the least idiotic) campaign will win this. Again, we are talking about who will do the least amount of damage, and just convince America that you can act like an adult once in awhile and you can win. Even Biden cannot mess this up, can he? What more does the universe need to gift him to win this?
Voter suppression =/= voter fraud. Fraud is casting false votes. Suppression is preventing people from voting. Republicans definitely do the lion's share of the latter.
I think these nuances are not meaningful. The Republicans argue that election results are questionable because people who were not allowed to vote actually voted (whether through mob actions during the Kennedy election or most recently with non-citizens voting). Democrats argue that election results are questionable because people who should be able to vote had unreasonable restrictions put on them. In either case, questioning the validity of elections and trust in the election process.


If only some of us had access to higher education where we could learn critical thinking to differentiate between these "nuances".

Were elections in the South during Jim Crow "valid". That was extreme voter suppression. The elections were "valid" because the law and white people supported it. What do you support? What are you willing to validate?

Voter suppression is real and has a long history in this country. When you see long lines to vote, which is common in communities where you and I DON'T live, that is Voter suppression before our very eyes. Voter fraud is very rare.


Opinions stated as facts justifying partisan conclusions that you believe to be irrefutable. You are trite.

In you little world where you have to parrot liberal views that you don't really believe and manifest in your life, any kind of request for identification constitute vote suppression. And voter fraud is real as well. How do you think Kennedy won the election? You think the mob was just was putting up posters? And why not bring up slavery? Didn't realize we were talking about Jim Crow. I thought we were talking about allegations by both parties on why results should be questioned NOW. The more the left do this, the more justification Trump has to rile up his base if he loses. You are the Warren type of person. Completely delusional about how inauthentic you are.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

I thought we were talking about allegations by both parties on why results should be questioned NOW.
That's not what we were talking about. That's what you started talking about.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

I thought we were talking about allegations by both parties on why results should be questioned NOW.
That's not what we were talking about. That's what you started talking about.


If you complain about voter suppression or voter fraud, that is the basis for bringing into question future election results.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

I thought we were talking about allegations by both parties on why results should be questioned NOW.
That's not what we were talking about. That's what you started talking about.


If you complain about voter suppression or voter fraud, that is the basis for bringing into question future election results.
Unit2 has already explained (twice) that this was not his point.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

I thought we were talking about allegations by both parties on why results should be questioned NOW.
That's not what we were talking about. That's what you started talking about.


If you complain about voter suppression or voter fraud, that is the basis for bringing into question future election results.
Unit2 has already explained (twice) that this was not his point.


Sorry, didn't realize he was the final authority on what I should believe where those types of arguments end up. Whatever the point of Unit's post,
complaining about voter fraud or voter suppression is laying the ground work for arguing why the actual winner did not win and why our democracy doesn't work.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

I thought we were talking about allegations by both parties on why results should be questioned NOW.
That's not what we were talking about. That's what you started talking about.


If you complain about voter suppression or voter fraud, that is the basis for bringing into question future election results.
Unit2 has already explained (twice) that this was not his point.


Sorry, didn't realize he was the final authority on what I should believe where those types of arguments end up. Whatever the point of Unit's post,
complaining about voter fraud or voter suppression is laying the ground work for arguing why the actual winner did not win and why our democracy doesn't work.


Our democracy doesn't work. We have an electoral college to defy the will of the people. A Senate that empowers empty land, not people. A judiciary implemented by a minority that has gamed the system and a long history of voter suppression that continues today. Voter roll purges, minimal voting booths in minority areas. Threats of lack of funding for states that make voting easier in a pandemic. We currently have a whole government that operates in defiance of the will of the people. You call that a well functioning democracy? It's broken. And I haven't even started talking about campaign finance reform.
An old white dude
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

I thought we were talking about allegations by both parties on why results should be questioned NOW.
That's not what we were talking about. That's what you started talking about.


If you complain about voter suppression or voter fraud, that is the basis for bringing into question future election results.
Unit2 has already explained (twice) that this was not his point.


Sorry, didn't realize he was the final authority on what I should believe where those types of arguments end up. Whatever the point of Unit's post,
complaining about voter fraud or voter suppression is laying the ground work for arguing why the actual winner did not win and why our democracy doesn't work.


Our democracy doesn't work. We have an electoral college to defy the will of the people. A Senate that empowers empty land, not people. A judiciary implemented by a minority that has gamed the system and a long history of voter suppression that continues today. Voter roll purges, minimal voting booths in minority areas. Threats of lack of funding for states that make voting easier in a pandemic. We currently have a whole government that operates in defiance of the will of the people. You call that a well functioning democracy?


Wasn't our form of democracy also intended to protect everyone sometimes from the tyranny of the majority? Wasn't It a delicate balance between giving people voices but allowing for states to have sufficient comfort that they will not be ignored based on population where smaller states become subjugated to the larger states? It was designed by our founders also as a mechanism for hopefully a large number of more informed members of the electoral college to modify the will of the people when necessary to avoid a greater evil. You could question whether the protection holds. Every ******* has an opinion and thinks they know better. But I believe our form of government is still a shining example even in these dark times. Just like removing protection like filibuster may seem smart, they are often the stupid move.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There is a big difference between protecting minority rights and putting a landholding minority in charge.

And when have these Constitutional bodies meant to protect minorities ever protected actual minorities? The Senate was the last sanctuary of the Dixiecrats. The electoral college? Nothing since they stopped Andrew Jackson. It's all a farce and it requires serious changes if we want to talk about the sanctity of a democratic republic.
An old white dude
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There's no such thing as Biden Derangement Syndrome because Democrats ignore him.

calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

There is a big difference between protecting minority rights and putting a landholding minority in charge.

And when have these Constitutional bodies meant to protect minorities ever protected actual minorities? The Senate was the last sanctuary of the Dixiecrats. The electoral college? Nothing since they stopped Andrew Jackson. It's all a farce and it requires serious changes if we want to talk about the sanctity of a democratic republic.


I disagree. And when was the last time minorities were protected? How about the minorities represented by residents of Iowa who would otherwise be subjected the will of those like you or me by having no meaningful voice in any branches of the government.

Again, every ******* has an opinion. The left was celebrating when the filibuster rule was eliminated for appointment of justices when the left had a majority in the Senate. They didn't want to
compromise. That allowed for Republicans to do the same for the Supreme Court justices when they had the majority, and there was no longer any need to seek moderate nominees. Example of the tyranny of majority.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In no exaggerated sense, this is the best thread I've read in a while
Cave Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

Cal Strong! said:

United States is currently giving too much weak preference towards individual freedoms. In time of crises, countries need to prioritize collective responsibility. America did this strongly in the world wars. The north did so during Civil War. But today Americans too weak and narcissistic to embrace collective responsibility. Americans need to do more squats and care for their neighbors more . . . and read less weak nonsense online.

Look at difference between a few US states with strong individualistic cultures, and two foreign countries -- one right wing and the other left wing -- that embrace collective responsibility:


Individualism:

California - 39 million people, 3,334 covid deaths.

Michigan - 10 million people, 5,017 covid deaths.

Massachusetts - 7 million people, 5,938 covid deaths.

Collective Responsibility:

Australia - 25 million people, 100 covid deaths.

New Zealand - 5 million people, 21 covid deaths.

Australia an NZ are southern hemisphere countries, this might have been the main factor shielding them from the kind of high numbers culturally similar countries like Canada or Ireland have had. That and stronger quarantine policies and tighter control over their borders.


Australian flu cases recent history

The US actually fared significantly better than western Europe, with roughly half as many deaths per capita. I think this has less to do with Trump's heroics or incompetence than the nature of the biological terrain in N. America, pandemics don't like suburban lifestyles or sun-drenched southern cities as much as northern crowded urban metropoles like NYC or Detroit.

There are some strong regional discrepancies within each country, and a lot of that is due to random aspects of the epidemic, as opposed to the alleged virtuous nature or therelack of.of the people and governors of these regions. For example in Italy Napoli, a dense, dirty and corrupt large city skated, while Milan, the cleanest, most disciplined and most advanced region in Italy got pummeled.

Sometimes local administration and policies did matter, for example in France patients from the Marseille region had casualty rates 5 times lower than those in Paris and 8 times lower than in Alsace-Lorraine due to the systematic early onset hydroxychloroquine treatment applied at the main regional hospital in Marseille, but in general one feature of pandemics is that the areas of early regional and national outbreaks tend to get hit the hardest.

Link(s)? I assume there must be some studies or reports that empirically substantiate the assertion that HCQ was the determining factor in these lower death rates since you've assigned it sole attribution here.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

dajo9 said:

There is a big difference between protecting minority rights and putting a landholding minority in charge.

And when have these Constitutional bodies meant to protect minorities ever protected actual minorities? The Senate was the last sanctuary of the Dixiecrats. The electoral college? Nothing since they stopped Andrew Jackson. It's all a farce and it requires serious changes if we want to talk about the sanctity of a democratic republic.


I disagree. And when was the last time minorities were protected? How about the minorities represented by residents of Iowa who would otherwise be subjected the will of those like you or me by having no meaningful voice in any branches of the government.

Again, every ******* has an opinion. The left was celebrating when the filibuster rule was eliminated for appointment of justices when the left had a majority in the Senate. They didn't want to
compromise. That allowed for Republicans to do the same for the Supreme Court justices when they had the majority, and there was no longer any need to seek moderate nominees. Example of the tyranny of majority.


The left was not celebrating when Reid ended the judicial filibuster. The timing was a major strategic blunder and Markos Moulitsas, founder of Dailykos.com wrote extensively about it at the time. It was obvious at the time the Democrats were about to lose the Senate and so the timing was another major strategic blunder by Democratic leaders.

But to the larger point, the filibuster does not enforce the appointment of moderate judges when an extreme partisan like McConnell is in charge. Garland was the moderate.

Things like the filibuster used to work because of people, not the Constitution. The Republican Party has changed and accepts no compromise. The Democratic Party has the support of the American people and needs to respond in kind.
An old white dude
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cave Bear said:

Cal88 said:

Cal Strong! said:

United States is currently giving too much weak preference towards individual freedoms. In time of crises, countries need to prioritize collective responsibility. America did this strongly in the world wars. The north did so during Civil War. But today Americans too weak and narcissistic to embrace collective responsibility. Americans need to do more squats and care for their neighbors more . . . and read less weak nonsense online.

Look at difference between a few US states with strong individualistic cultures, and two foreign countries -- one right wing and the other left wing -- that embrace collective responsibility:


Individualism:

California - 39 million people, 3,334 covid deaths.

Michigan - 10 million people, 5,017 covid deaths.

Massachusetts - 7 million people, 5,938 covid deaths.

Collective Responsibility:

Australia - 25 million people, 100 covid deaths.

New Zealand - 5 million people, 21 covid deaths.

Australia an NZ are southern hemisphere countries, this might have been the main factor shielding them from the kind of high numbers culturally similar countries like Canada or Ireland have had. That and stronger quarantine policies and tighter control over their borders.


Australian flu cases recent history

The US actually fared significantly better than western Europe, with roughly half as many deaths per capita. I think this has less to do with Trump's heroics or incompetence than the nature of the biological terrain in N. America, pandemics don't like suburban lifestyles or sun-drenched southern cities as much as northern crowded urban metropoles like NYC or Detroit.

There are some strong regional discrepancies within each country, and a lot of that is due to random aspects of the epidemic, as opposed to the alleged virtuous nature or therelack of.of the people and governors of these regions. For example in Italy Napoli, a dense, dirty and corrupt large city skated, while Milan, the cleanest, most disciplined and most advanced region in Italy got pummeled.

Sometimes local administration and policies did matter, for example in France patients from the Marseille region had casualty rates 5 times lower than those in Paris and 8 times lower than in Alsace-Lorraine due to the systematic early onset hydroxychloroquine treatment applied at the main regional hospital in Marseille, but in general one feature of pandemics is that the areas of early regional and national outbreaks tend to get hit the hardest.

Link(s)? I assume there must be some studies or reports that empirically substantiate the assertion that HCQ was the determining factor in these lower death rates since you've assigned it sole attribution here.

I think I will start a thread on HCQ later on, for now, the main snapshot from the HCQ+Azithro administered at the IHU institute in Marseille is 18 dead out of 3,308 covid patients treated, so a fatality rate of 0.54%, which IIRC is around 20 times better than the French national average.

https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/covid-19/#link_acc-4-6-d

Countries like Morocco, Senegal and Algeria have gone all in on HCQ back in March, many have done so after communicating with the Marseille team. Morocco, a country of 35 million, has had less than 200 covid deaths to date.


One other key data point:
Quote:

Quote:

The Italian Society for Rheumatology studied 65,000 patients on longterm hydroxychloroquine for RA and Lupus.
Only 20 patients tested positive for COVID-19. No ICU, no deaths.
This is a 90% reduction in infection rate compared to the rest of Italy.https://t.co/Pta97oBA8O
James Todaro, MD (@JamesTodaroMD) April 28, 2020

Note that this pool of patients with RA has higher comorbidities than the average Italian.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

calbear93 said:

dajo9 said:

There is a big difference between protecting minority rights and putting a landholding minority in charge.

And when have these Constitutional bodies meant to protect minorities ever protected actual minorities? The Senate was the last sanctuary of the Dixiecrats. The electoral college? Nothing since they stopped Andrew Jackson. It's all a farce and it requires serious changes if we want to talk about the sanctity of a democratic republic.


I disagree. And when was the last time minorities were protected? How about the minorities represented by residents of Iowa who would otherwise be subjected the will of those like you or me by having no meaningful voice in any branches of the government.

Again, every ******* has an opinion. The left was celebrating when the filibuster rule was eliminated for appointment of justices when the left had a majority in the Senate. They didn't want to
compromise. That allowed for Republicans to do the same for the Supreme Court justices when they had the majority, and there was no longer any need to seek moderate nominees. Example of the tyranny of majority.


The left was not celebrating when Reid ended the judicial filibuster. The timing was a major strategic blunder and Markos Moulitsas, founder of Dailykos.com wrote extensively about it at the time. It was obvious at the time the Democrats were about to lose the Senate and so the timing was another major strategic blunder by Democratic leaders.

But to the larger point, the filibuster does not enforce the appointment of moderate judges when an extreme partisan like McConnell is in charge. Garland was the moderate.

Things like the filibuster used to work because of people, not the Constitution. The Republican Party has changed and accepts no compromise. The Democratic Party has the support of the American people and needs to respond in kind.


First, I believe the fact is that the nuclear option of eliminating the filibuster was supported in 2013 by only Democrats including the current minority leader, Warren and Sanders, and no Republican voted for it. With that, referring to some abstract writer as evidence that the left did not support is confusing. In fact, Warren, as recently as primary debate, pushed for removing filibuster altogether.

Whether a bill or appointment is brought to a debate and vote has always been up to the majority leader and was not a rule change. That is not a counterpoint to be wary of removing long standing protections.

Weak minded fools keep eliminating protections because it is inconvenient for them and then complain when the tables are turned. I am good with the protections and the checks and balances we have. If anything, I think politicians on both sides are foolish for not respecting them enough, including the Republicans in the Senate.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

dajo9 said:

calbear93 said:

dajo9 said:

There is a big difference between protecting minority rights and putting a landholding minority in charge.

And when have these Constitutional bodies meant to protect minorities ever protected actual minorities? The Senate was the last sanctuary of the Dixiecrats. The electoral college? Nothing since they stopped Andrew Jackson. It's all a farce and it requires serious changes if we want to talk about the sanctity of a democratic republic.


I disagree. And when was the last time minorities were protected? How about the minorities represented by residents of Iowa who would otherwise be subjected the will of those like you or me by having no meaningful voice in any branches of the government.

Again, every ******* has an opinion. The left was celebrating when the filibuster rule was eliminated for appointment of justices when the left had a majority in the Senate. They didn't want to
compromise. That allowed for Republicans to do the same for the Supreme Court justices when they had the majority, and there was no longer any need to seek moderate nominees. Example of the tyranny of majority.


The left was not celebrating when Reid ended the judicial filibuster. The timing was a major strategic blunder and Markos Moulitsas, founder of Dailykos.com wrote extensively about it at the time. It was obvious at the time the Democrats were about to lose the Senate and so the timing was another major strategic blunder by Democratic leaders.

But to the larger point, the filibuster does not enforce the appointment of moderate judges when an extreme partisan like McConnell is in charge. Garland was the moderate.

Things like the filibuster used to work because of people, not the Constitution. The Republican Party has changed and accepts no compromise. The Democratic Party has the support of the American people and needs to respond in kind.


First, I believe the fact is that the nuclear option of eliminating the filibuster was supported in 2013 by only Democrats including the current minority leader, Warren and Sanders, and no Republican voted for it. With that, referring to some abstract writer as evidence that the left did not support is confusing. In fact, Warren, as recently as primary debate, pushed for removing filibuster altogether.

Whether a bill or appointment is brought to a debate and vote has always been up to the majority leader and was not a rule change. That is not a counterpoint to be wary of removing long standing protections.

Weak minded fools keep eliminating protections because it is inconvenient for them and then complain when the tables are turned. I am good with the protections and the checks and balances we have. If anything, I think politicians on both sides are foolish for not respecting them enough, including the Republicans in the Senate.


When older, affluent, small government, white, males talk about the "protections" we have, please forgive the rest of us for rolling our eyes.

And don't get me wrong about the filibuster. It's got to go. All it means right now is Democrats can do nothing. But Reid's timing was terrible and many on the left were fully aware of that.
An old white dude
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

calbear93 said:





First, I believe the fact is that the nuclear option of eliminating the filibuster was supported in 2013 by only Democrats including the current minority leader, Warren and Sanders, and no Republican voted for it. With that, referring to some abstract writer as evidence that the left did not support is confusing. In fact, Warren, as recently as primary debate, pushed for removing filibuster altogether.

Whether a bill or appointment is brought to a debate and vote has always been up to the majority leader and was not a rule change. That is not a counterpoint to be wary of removing long standing protections.

Weak minded fools keep eliminating protections because it is inconvenient for them and then complain when the tables are turned. I am good with the protections and the checks and balances we have. If anything, I think politicians on both sides are foolish for not respecting them enough, including the Republicans in the Senate.


When older, affluent, small government, white, males talk about the "protections" we have, please forgive the rest of us for rolling our eyes.
Unveil your your prejudice masking has identity politics here and elaborate on the protections that are lacking for some and not for others on the basis of race or gender
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

calbear93 said:

dajo9 said:

calbear93 said:

dajo9 said:

There is a big difference between protecting minority rights and putting a landholding minority in charge.

And when have these Constitutional bodies meant to protect minorities ever protected actual minorities? The Senate was the last sanctuary of the Dixiecrats. The electoral college? Nothing since they stopped Andrew Jackson. It's all a farce and it requires serious changes if we want to talk about the sanctity of a democratic republic.


I disagree. And when was the last time minorities were protected? How about the minorities represented by residents of Iowa who would otherwise be subjected the will of those like you or me by having no meaningful voice in any branches of the government.

Again, every ******* has an opinion. The left was celebrating when the filibuster rule was eliminated for appointment of justices when the left had a majority in the Senate. They didn't want to
compromise. That allowed for Republicans to do the same for the Supreme Court justices when they had the majority, and there was no longer any need to seek moderate nominees. Example of the tyranny of majority.


The left was not celebrating when Reid ended the judicial filibuster. The timing was a major strategic blunder and Markos Moulitsas, founder of Dailykos.com wrote extensively about it at the time. It was obvious at the time the Democrats were about to lose the Senate and so the timing was another major strategic blunder by Democratic leaders.

But to the larger point, the filibuster does not enforce the appointment of moderate judges when an extreme partisan like McConnell is in charge. Garland was the moderate.

Things like the filibuster used to work because of people, not the Constitution. The Republican Party has changed and accepts no compromise. The Democratic Party has the support of the American people and needs to respond in kind.


First, I believe the fact is that the nuclear option of eliminating the filibuster was supported in 2013 by only Democrats including the current minority leader, Warren and Sanders, and no Republican voted for it. With that, referring to some abstract writer as evidence that the left did not support is confusing. In fact, Warren, as recently as primary debate, pushed for removing filibuster altogether.

Whether a bill or appointment is brought to a debate and vote has always been up to the majority leader and was not a rule change. That is not a counterpoint to be wary of removing long standing protections.

Weak minded fools keep eliminating protections because it is inconvenient for them and then complain when the tables are turned. I am good with the protections and the checks and balances we have. If anything, I think politicians on both sides are foolish for not respecting them enough, including the Republicans in the Senate.


When older, affluent, small government, white, males talk about the "protections" we have, please forgive the rest of us for rolling our eyes.

And don't get me wrong about the filibuster. It's got to go. All it means right now is Democrats can do nothing. But Reid's timing was terrible and many on the left were fully aware of that.


When older, affluent, large government, white, males talk about the "protections" we don't need, please forgive the rest of us for rolling our eyes.

And don't get me wrong about the filibuster. It's should have stayed. All it means right now is Democrats can do nothing. But Reid's timing was terrible and many on the left still are not fully aware of that.
Page 3 of 4
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.