Who Will be Our Next President?

Tools    





I don't think I explained myself very well. I wasn't trying to be negative about Trump. I was merely trying to explain why some people were talking about him being racist because you didn't appear to know/understand why. If that's not the case, that's fine. Things can definitely be overthought and, as I said later on, everything is filtered through our own prejudices.
I understand why but the dishonesty about it is unacceptable.

I thought I did say you had the right to be angry? Again, it appears I've not explained myself very well. Your opinion and thoughts are every bit as relevant as everyone else's and I extend that to the 140+ million who voted, regardless of which way they voted and any who spoilt their ballots as a protest. As much as I didn't want Trump to win (never hidden that) I was delighted to hear so many people voted. Regardless of the winner, the more people that vote the better IMO. It might not give the result which I'd want (as happened here with the Brexit vote) but it tells you where you are as a nation and helps reveal the issues a nation has. If people listen, these can then be addressed and, maybe, something can be done about it to make people happier.
100%

Sorry, I'm not really seeing the connection or point here.

But to address what you said. What was the Michelle Obama quote? Clinton made a huge mistake saying that, IMO. It's not a great thing to think, but to say it publically when you're trying to win an election is remarkably stupid. You may think it and your voters might think it, but it doesn't make you look good and there's a good chance your calling someone they like/love deplorable.
"Tens of millions voted for lies, hate, chaos".

Then maybe it's something to take another look at?
Ok I'll look. I've criticized both, yet refrained from labeling either. I've defended both, including from attacks by the other side.

Good or no?

My guess is that anybody who defends Trump on anything, right or wrong, will get criticized when they are surrounded by people who don't like Trump.

I'm definitely bias and, again, maybe I've not really represented well what my intent was. I wasn't holding myself up as a paragon of neutrality. I was seeing you as someone who was recently interested (4 years) in presidential politics and was frustrated/confused as to why things were as they were. Similar to what I saw from you in the White Privilege thread (where I didn't interject and wished I had). I was trying to answer these questions in the hope it'd help. If that's not who you are or how you see it, that's OK. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I learned long ago that while the internet might help someone make up their mind, it'll almost never change it.
I'm just not the biggest fan of lying to begin with, and when that lying extends to race I'm even less of a fan. Judging, labeling, generalizing, including, or excluding somebody based on race is something I've always believed was wrong, yet now it seems acceptable to do so if your agenda is seen as righteous to some.

In the long post you didn't say you knew what she meant, it was a reply to someone else earlier in the thread.
Well, anybody who thinks this wasn't about race didn't watch it-



Of course, she doesn't mention the "racial jungle" quote of his made during the time of the incident she's describing. How charitable of her.



Harris definitely changed her tune on Joe, but this is standard politics. Not saying it's okay (most of the "normal" things about politics aren't), but it's extremely normal for people to savage each other in the primaries and then unify after. Happened with Reagan and Bush I, too.

It's sad that we're down to comparing normal bad things to exceptional ones, but that's the kind of corner America has boxed itself into by always choosing the lesser of two evils.



Harris definitely changed her tune on Joe, but this is standard politics. Not saying it's okay (most of the "normal" things about politics aren't), but it's extremely normal for people to savage each other in the primaries and then unify after. Happened with Reagan and Bush I, too.

It's sad that we're down to comparing normal bad things to exceptional ones, but that's the kind of corner America has boxed itself into by always choosing the lesser of two evils.
Totally agree, and I would never compare this normal bad thing to the exceptional bad lies that have been told about Trump. More than this instance, which I understand why she did it, I'm curious about her previous stance that she believes Biden's accuser. I think I know why she said it, but I would think it should be a story all by itself. Nobody talks about it and that's strange to me.



It was very disappointing when Colbert asked her about this and she just said "it was a debate!" I know what she means, but it was very weird to hear someone just sort of admit it, it's the kind of thing everyone knows but usually maintains some kind of deniability about.

But yes, there's a lot of dissonance here from progressives about allegations of assault in general, and their willingness to believe the accused when there's power hanging in the balance.



You ready? You look ready.
It was very disappointing when Colbert asked her about this and she just said "it was a debate!" I know what she means, but it was very weird to hear someone just sort of admit it, it's the kind of thing everyone knows but usually maintains some kind of deniability about.

But yes, there's a lot of dissonance here from progressives about allegations of assault in general, and their willingness to believe the accused when there's power hanging in the balance.
You left out the worst part of that interview: "it was a debate!" *insert evil maniacal laugh*

So like, not only did she call him out for reprehensible behavior, but then when she has something to gain the behavior becomes a joke for her to laugh at? I've said it before but I'll say it again: prosecutors make awful politicians.
__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza



Yeah, the worst part was definitely after she said it. Not really the laugh itself, but how derisive it was. She was basically saying "are you dumb? This is how it works. It was a debate, duh." I'm always glad to see the veil drop a little, but it's still jarring. Politics has always been theater but now it's literally like theater, where politicians can safely admit they're playing a role and everyone's fine with it.



You ready? You look ready.
Eh, I wasn't surprised. Didn't seem jarring to me at all. Just reinforced that she is not to be trusted and a poor role model. I mean, Vice President isn't a very involved position most of the time but she's definitely not Vice President material.

And I do think the laugh was the worst part. Like...you can deliever that line and get your point across without laughing like she did. It's clear that this whole thing has been a game for her.



I guess what worries me is that I'm not sure it's a her thing, but really just a canary in the coal mine about how much people accept politics as theater, and will going forward. There's a willful disbelief thing that kinda mirrors reality TV, where we simultaneously know it isn't real, but are happy to act like it is, because without the facade of it being real it would be totally unremarkable.



You ready? You look ready.
I guess what worries me is that I'm not sure it's a her thing, but really just a canary in the coal mine about how much people accept politics as theater, and will going forward. There's a willful disbelief thing that kinda mirrors reality TV, where we simultaneously know it isn't real, but are happy to act like it is, because without the facade of it being real it would be totally unremarkable.
It's not a her thing, yes, but she is a poster child for what public service has become, but when one takes her record into consideration it drives home the fact that she is not the type of person who is interested in equitable treatment of citizens. And this concerns me as she is constantly cited as a "role model" by the youth.

Just another reason politicians should not be trusted to fix problems. When they laugh at their own problems that they have created/contributed to I do not believe they are deserving of support. At all.



... Vice President isn't a very involved position most of the time but she's definitely not Vice President material.
LOL. Not like Pence, eh?
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.



You ready? You look ready.
When I see/hear people talking about possible student loan debt forgiveness under Biden/Harris I just and pray those people don’t make the error of thinking that’ll ever pass.



Trouble with a capital "T"
When I see/hear people talking about possible student loan debt forgiveness under Biden/Harris I just and pray those people don’t make the error of thinking that’ll ever pass.
I sure don't want student loan debt forgiveness. Hell I'd like to charge parents to send their kids to school, cause I'm tired of paying for school taxes when I don't have kids and don't have much money.



⬆️ You never know. Maybe Vice President-Elect Harris will surprise you.
I've been following her since well before it was rumored she'd run for President. Putting it nicely, I like her less than anyone else I'm familiar with in politics and it's not close.



You ready? You look ready.
The government is underwriting most of today’s Stafford loans, and they guarantee just about every current existing Stanford loan. The problem is not with the lending side of things but rather the cost of education itself. It’s just too much money for the government to say they don’t want some of it back.

I’m going the long route that is already setup with 10 years of public service. If they forgive my debt there goes my ten year plan and I’ll be mad. It’ll mess everything up. I’m already 3 years along so no time for adjustments.



Trouble with a capital "T"
This is relevant to the current discussion here about 'claims' of alleged voter fraud.

Fox News pulls plug on Trump spokeswoman making baseless claims of fraud

Fox News pulls plug on Trump spokeswoman making baseless claims of fraud

Moments into a Trump campaign press conference on Monday afternoon at which White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany charged that Democrats were “welcoming fraud” and “illegal voting,” Fox News host Neil Cavuto had heard enough.

“Whoa, whoa, whoa, I just think we have to be very clear. She’s charging the other side is welcoming fraud and welcoming illegal voting,” Cavuto said, interrupting the video feed of the briefing, which McEnany said she was conducting in her “personal capacity” rather than in her official White House role. “Unless she has more details to back that up I can’t in good countenance continue showing you this. I want to make sure that maybe they do have something to back that up, but that’s an explosive charge to make — that the other side is effectively rigging and cheating.”



Yup, came in here to post just that. What a mess. Guess we'll let the legal process sort it out.
So from what little I know about this allegation (which admittedly is whatever Philip Defranco has covered of it, so take that how you will), the postal worker is claiming that workers were backdating mail in ballots that arrived after November 6th. Pennsylvania law states that mail in ballots must by postmarked by November 3rd, but as long as they arrive by November 6th they are legal and must be counted. Regardless of whether or not the allegation of backdating is true (and if it is true, then the offenders need to be prosecuted), PA is reporting that they only received approximately 10,000 ballots after 11/3, which even if every single one of them was backdated and therefore invalid, still leaves Biden in the lead by approximately 43,000 votes.