peterlund wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:25 pm

It feels like Kamala is the best shot the dems have to beat the shithead out of office.

Both Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders feels like old tired men that that both looks even more like dead ducks than the shithead does.

To me it seems like only Kamala has the fighting spirit that is required.

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 18, 2020 2:40 pm

Matticus13 wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 18, 2020 2:00 am

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 17, 2020 9:39 pm

I don't know how much you follow these threads but Octavious pretty much always gives a pass to Trump whatever he says or does so questioning his sudden "racism and sexism" outrage when he hasn't cared in the past is absolutely 100% valid.

You have at least recognized that Trump is not the best (apologize for assuming you were the same as Oct)...and I can understand at some level that the process was not ideal. Though again the hyperbole about it is still a bit much especially when you consider the racism and sexism being blasted from the Oval Office.

Echo chambers are not ideal on a forum dedicated to politics. Simply dismissing others who see the world from a different perspective is not something I would recommend.

Not trying to be condescending, simply stating my opinion.

Criticism != censorship

I am absolutely not promoting an echo chamber. If anything I am more against censorship and echo chambers than most of those that claim to be "free speech" campaigners (many of them care only care about speech they agree with). It would be difficult to confirm but I bet I seek out and read/watch more stuff that I personally disagree with than anyone on this board...specifically so I can better understand it. I actively complain on here and other sites when other people's speech gets censored even when I strongly disagree with that speech. I created a place on nextdoor for my neighbourhood to provide a space for the Trump types to be able to vent and for me to interact with them (usually nextdoor censor political topics).

However I will always strongly criticise arguments that are no more than "talking points". I am against people that argue merely to mock others opinions (not so much in this thread but I have seen it in others)...which is one of the worst cancers of the Trump era. Give me a rational basis for an argument and give me some intellectual consistency so I can be confident this is more than just a tribal thing...or an "own the libs, LOL" thing.

And BTW I am not a democrat.

Matticus13 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 17, 2020 8:51 pm

micha wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 17, 2020 4:24 pm

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 17, 2020 4:02 pm

I don't understand this post. Were you really directing it at me...or are you referring to someone else? I am absolutely against purity tests (I hate them with a passion)...and I would absolutely condemn a politician that leverages bigotry against transgender people.

My bad I clicked ‘respond‘ in the wrong post. This was directed to Matticus’ reasoning

"Should Biden pick a man, woman, or should gender matter?"

I suspect you would have a majority of respondents answer *gender shouldn't matter*

This is the perspective we should be using, IMO. That's why I'm not a Democrat anymore. Best of luck in the election. It will be an absolute miracle if Joe doesn't find a way to miss this layup.

Listen Micha, if you don't like my reasoning here that's fine. My OP was never even intended to be critical of the Democratic Party or it's process for vetting VPs. If you can't tell that I'm against discrimination (in all forms) by Page 8 of this thread...

The thread just took on a life of it's own when Octavious put the process on blast (which it arguably deserves). I never said that the VP vetting process is more important than any other issues we face currently in society

What's with all the cheap shots questioning my (and others) standing on other issues? That's what MM took issue with. That's what I take issue with.

Matticus13 wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 18, 2020 2:00 am

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 17, 2020 9:39 pm

I don't know how much you follow these threads but Octavious pretty much always gives a pass to Trump whatever he says or does so questioning his sudden "racism and sexism" outrage when he hasn't cared in the past is absolutely 100% valid.

You have at least recognized that Trump is not the best (apologize for assuming you were the same as Oct)...and I can understand at some level that the process was not ideal. Though again the hyperbole about it is still a bit much especially when you consider the racism and sexism being blasted from the Oval Office.

Echo chambers are not ideal on a forum dedicated to politics. Simply dismissing others who see the world from a different perspective is not something I would recommend.

Not trying to be condescending, simply stating my opinion.

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 17, 2020 9:39 pm

I don't know how much you follow these threads but Octavious pretty much always gives a pass to Trump whatever he says or does so questioning his sudden "racism and sexism" outrage when he hasn't cared in the past is absolutely 100% valid.

You have at least recognized that Trump is not the best (apologize for assuming you were the same as Oct)...and I can understand at some level that the process was not ideal. Though again the hyperbole about it is still a bit much especially when you consider the racism and sexism being blasted from the Oval Office.

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 17, 2020 9:39 pm

I don't know how much you follow these threads but Octavious pretty much always gives a pass to Trump whatever he says or does so questioning his sudden "racism and sexism" outrage when he hasn't cared in the past is absolutely 100% valid.

You have at least recognized that Trump is not the best (apologize for assuming you were the same as Oct)...and I can understand at some level that the process was not ideal. Though again the hyperbole about it is still a bit much especially when you consider the racism and sexism being blasted from the Oval Office.

micha wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 17, 2020 4:24 pm

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 17, 2020 4:02 pm

micha wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 17, 2020 3:40 pm

I believe everyone should be free to vote their conscience and according to their principles.

But when a principle transforms into a purity test then practical politics become impossible. Martin Luther King had deep ideological divisions with Lyndon Johnson - a man of peace negotiating with the man you escalated the Vietnam war. Yet still they negotiated and forged a deal because both men understood power.

I respect your commitment against gender discrimination in all forms. So surely we can expect your full throated condemnation next time an American politician leverages bigotry against transgender People.

I don't understand this post. Were you really directing it at me...or are you referring to someone else? I am absolutely against purity tests (I hate them with a passion)...and I would absolutely condemn a politician that leverages bigotry against transgender people.

My bad I clicked ‘respond‘ in the wrong post. This was directed to Matticus’ reasoning

"Should Biden pick a man, woman, or should gender matter?"

I suspect you would have a majority of respondents answer *gender shouldn't matter*

This is the perspective we should be using, IMO. That's why I'm not a Democrat anymore. Best of luck in the election. It will be an absolute miracle if Joe doesn't find a way to miss this layup.

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 17, 2020 4:02 pm

micha wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 17, 2020 3:40 pm

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 17, 2020 3:27 am

The "not giving a rats" thing was me though. Given he hadn't mentioned the elephant in the room on sexism/racism, I thought perhaps he was messing with me and I wanted him to clarify. If anyone thought I was casting aspersions though, that was not my intention.

I believe everyone should be free to vote their conscience and according to their principles.

But when a principle transforms into a purity test then practical politics become impossible. Martin Luther King had deep ideological divisions with Lyndon Johnson - a man of peace negotiating with the man you escalated the Vietnam war. Yet still they negotiated and forged a deal because both men understood power.

I respect your commitment against gender discrimination in all forms. So surely we can expect your full throated condemnation next time an American politician leverages bigotry against transgender People.

I don't understand this post. Were you really directing it at me...or are you referring to someone else? I am absolutely against purity tests (I hate them with a passion)...and I would absolutely condemn a politician that leverages bigotry against transgender people.

"Should Biden pick a man, woman, or should gender matter?"

I suspect you would have a majority of respondents answer *gender shouldn't matter*

This is the perspective we should be using, IMO. That's why I'm not a Democrat anymore. Best of luck in the election. It will be an absolute miracle if Joe doesn't find a way to miss this layup.

micha wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 17, 2020 3:40 pm

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 17, 2020 3:27 am

MajorMitchell wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 16, 2020 1:41 pm

I did not suggest that you Dipcomrade flash were "getting personal", that suggestion I made regarding a comment from Micha, but the auto scriptcorrecting thingy changed Micha to Michael, so you Dipcomrade flash are absolved of some responsibility for any confusion as to whom I suggested was "getting personal".
The "getting personal" caper is of course fraught with hazards yet can be most rewarding, dependant in part on what form it takes & the whims, stings and flings of fate.

The "not giving a rats" thing was me though. Given he hadn't mentioned the elephant in the room on sexism/racism, I thought perhaps he was messing with me and I wanted him to clarify. If anyone thought I was casting aspersions though, that was not my intention.

I believe everyone should be free to vote their conscience and according to their principles.

But when a principle transforms into a purity test then practical politics become impossible. Martin Luther King had deep ideological divisions with Lyndon Johnson - a man of peace negotiating with the man you escalated the Vietnam war. Yet still they negotiated and forged a deal because both men understood power.

I respect your commitment against gender discrimination in all forms. So surely we can expect your full throated condemnation next time an American politician leverages bigotry against transgender People.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 16, 2020 8:58 am

micha wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 16, 2020 6:55 am

a lot of people were lukewarm in their support of Hillary, including myself. After the election so many women I care about were in a bit of shock with thoughts like “wow I never realized they hated us THAT much”.

You have successfully identified a growing problem with, particularly American, but increasingly politics across the West. The idea that some people equate not voting for Hillary as showing hate for women, and the various other incarnations of similar thinking. It's easy to dismiss people who hold such views as utter morons who aren't worth bothering with, but as it becomes less and less of a niche idea it becomes more important to challenge this kind of clouded thinking head on.

micha wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 16, 2020 6:55 am

I see the younger generation stepping up in ways that are really brave and inspiring, so that gives me hope.

An argument that has been used predominantly by the left since time immemorial, and carries as much weight today as in every decade. The young people seem to like us, so all we have to do is wait and we'll win. It's utter tosh, and little more than an excuse not to change. The Democrats will win an election before too long, that is almost certain. It may well be the next one. But it will not have any more to do with a younger generation uniting around left wing principles than any other election, nor indeed when the Republicans win it back.

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 17, 2020 3:27 am

MajorMitchell wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 16, 2020 1:41 pm

I did not suggest that you Dipcomrade flash were "getting personal", that suggestion I made regarding a comment from Micha, but the auto scriptcorrecting thingy changed Micha to Michael, so you Dipcomrade flash are absolved of some responsibility for any confusion as to whom I suggested was "getting personal".
The "getting personal" caper is of course fraught with hazards yet can be most rewarding, dependant in part on what form it takes & the whims, stings and flings of fate.

The "not giving a rats" thing was me though. Given he hadn't mentioned the elephant in the room on sexism/racism, I thought perhaps he was messing with me and I wanted him to clarify. If anyone thought I was casting aspersions though, that was not my intention.

Matticus13 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 17, 2020 6:10 am

Valid point, but if they phrase read along the lines of:

"Should Biden pick a man, woman, or should gender matter?"

I suspect you would have a majority of respondents answer *gender shouldn't matter*

This is the perspective we should be using, IMO. That's why I'm not a Democrat anymore. Best of luck in the election. It will be an absolute miracle if Joe doesn't find a way to miss this layup.

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 17, 2020 3:12 am

Matticus13 wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 16, 2020 11:41 am

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 15, 2020 12:24 am

Just letting you know that a majority of Americans don't agree with you here and are fine with how Biden made his choice:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bi ... is-harris/

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one, Flash. I would like to point something interesting out from the article you linked earlier, and see if you still think people don't agree with me.

From the article:

"A New York Times/Siena College survey from late June found much lower levels of support (just 25 percent of Democrats said Biden should choose a Black running mate), but that may have more to do on how the question was phrased — respondents weren’t asked if this was important. Instead, they were asked if Biden should choose a white person, choose a Black person, or not factor race into the decision."

Here is the link to the survey:
https://scri.siena.edu/wp-content/uploa ... 378388.pdf

It's Question 27. 71% of Democrats chose *race shouldn't be a factor*. 82% of total responses were *race shouldn't be a factor*.

I saw it. This poll was the outlier in all the other polls quoted by fivethirtyeight. I don't know how much weight to give it vs. the other polls. As fivethirtyeight noted, the wording of the question was markedly different than the other polls. The USA Today/Suffolk University question asked "Joe Biden has promised to pick a woman as his running mate. How important is it to you that he picks a woman of color -would you say...?" which 72% of democrats said was very important or somewhat important.

MajorMitchell wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 16, 2020 1:41 pm

I did not suggest that you Dipcomrade flash were "getting personal", that suggestion I made regarding a comment from Micha, but the auto scriptcorrecting thingy changed Micha to Michael, so you Dipcomrade flash are absolved of some responsibility for any confusion as to whom I suggested was "getting personal".
The "getting personal" caper is of course fraught with hazards yet can be most rewarding, dependant in part on what form it takes & the whims, stings and flings of fate.