Jump to content

The US Politics/Elections Thread 2.0


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, -W.A.R- said:

What i love about conservative attacks on progressive agenda is that its tone deaf to the point of actually promoting what they are speaking against.

 

What I hate about conservative attacks on progressive agenda is that they are attacking common sense policy. And on top of that they don't come up with a better plan

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 549
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You must have missed the nearly 20 year history I have of rooting for GN'R online through every line up change, every delay, every canceled tour, every riot, every late start and so on and so on. 

This is amazing.      

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Padme said:

What I hate about conservative attacks on progressive agenda is that they are attacking common sense policy. And on top of that they don't come up with a better plan

Is that supposed to be a counter to what i said? Because that is what im saying if my post wasn't clear. I just find the humor in them saying things like "my opponent wants to give you healthcare".

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, -W.A.R- said:

Is that supposed to be a counter to what i said? Because that is what im saying if my post wasn't clear. I just find the humor in them saying things like "my opponent wants to give you healthcare".

I think they are agreeing with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, -W.A.R- said:

Is that supposed to be a counter to what i said? Because that is what im saying if my post wasn't clear. I just find the humor in them saying things like "my opponent wants to give you healthcare".

No, I was just saying that conservatives never bring up a better alternative. It is ok to say that they don't like a given plan.  But at the same they should provide something that would be better. It is not the first they call something bullshit, socialist or just plain radical left. But they never come up anything from their part. Not even evidence showing why that "socialist" plan is so bad

Link to post
Share on other sites

In today's Dallas morning newspaper, they have a section where different people have their opinions about things in current events.

One person stated how in about a decade the US will be at war with China. They said once China makes a move against Taiwan, the battle is on. i figure if this happens it'll just be who presses the button first. I doubt we would send our armed forces to China, unless they are stationed in Taiwan. I bet North Korea will get in a this action too. Oh well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, downzy said:

@Ace Nova - doesn’t seem as though things are improving in the ways you predicted. 

Yes, it's unfortunate but I still feel it's mostly "reactionary".  

If there was a poll asking if Trump won the 2016 election because of Russian collusion, wouldn't the vast majority of Democrats say "yes"?

The reality is that although there is evidence of Russian interference, there is little to no evidence of direct collusion by Trump. So to say that Trump won the election because of "Russian collusion" wouldn't be accurate.  Did he win because of Russian interference?   That's anyone's guess.  But it certainly isn't  "proven".  

Two completely different circumstances but with the same type of "reactionary" results.   And before you go on about how "there was actual evidence of interference in the 2016 election and there was little to no evidence of massive voter fraud in the 2020 election"...I will say that I agree.   

The point is that most Democrats still believe that Trump won the 2016 election because of collusion and/or interference.  Although Democrats can point to evidence, etc...it's far from proven.....but they still believe it.

Edited by Ace Nova
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

Yes, that's unfortunate but I still feel it's mostly "reactionary".  

If there was a poll asking if Trump won the 2016 election because of Russian collusion, wouldn't the vast majority of Democrats say "yes"?

The reality is that although there is evidence of Russian interference, there is little to no evidence of direct collusion by Trump. So to say that Trump won the election because of "Russian collusion" wouldn't be accurate.  Did he win because of Russian interference?   That's anyone's guess.  But it certainly isn't  "proven".  

Two completely different circumstances but with the same type of "reactionary" results.   And before you go on about how "there was actual evidence of interference in the 2016 election and there was little to no evidence of massive voter fraud in the 2020 election"...I will say that I agree.   

The point is that most Democrats still believe that Trump won the 2016 election because of collusion and/or interference.  Although Democrats can point to evidence, etc...it's far from proven.....but they still believe it.

But this is something else. Hillary/Democratas never asked for recounts. She/Democratas never claimed fraud. She never asked the Wisconsin secretary of state to find her 11k votes. She concided two days after the election. She/Democrats never file a lawsuit in batleground states claming fraud.  So despite claming Russian collusion Hillary, Obama,Democrats didn't do anything against Trump. There was a peaceful and normal transition. It took Flyn going to the Russian embassy for Democrats to take action.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Padme said:

But this is something else. Hillary/Democratas never asked for recounts. She/Democratas never claimed fraud. She never asked the Wisconsin secretary of state to find her 11k votes. She concided two days after the election. She/Democrats never file a lawsuit in batleground states claming fraud.  So despite claming Russian collusion Hillary, Obama,Democrats didn't do anything against Trump. There was a peaceful and normal transition. It took Flyn going to the Russian embassy for Democrats to take action.

I don't disagree.  They are two completely different scenarios but the point still stands that most Democrats feel that Trump won the 2016 election because of "Russian collusion and/or interference".  

 

Edited by Ace Nova
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I don't disagree.  They are two completely different scenarios but the point still stands that most Democrats feel that Trump won the 2016 election because of "Russian collusion and/or interference".  It's reactionary.  

 

It doesn't matter how they feel. It matters what they did or didn't do. Neither Hillary nor Obama did anything reactionary. Unless you mean the demostrations. Again neither Hillary nor Democrats ask anyone to go on the streets. And the demostrations didn't last very long. There was no mob taking over Capitol Hill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Padme said:

It doesn't matter how they feel. It matters what they did or didn't do. Neither Hillary nor Obama did anything reactionary. Unless you mean the demostrations. Again neither Hillary nor Democrats ask anyone to go on the streets. And the demostrations didn't last very long. There was no mob taking over Capitol Hill.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.  It's like this:  Republicans will usually believe what their "side" tells them, their media, etc...and Democrats will usually believe what their side tells them, etc.  That's what I mean when I say "reactionary". 

The reason Republicans doubt this election is because they have been fed information (non stop) by the President, politicians and right-leaning media outlets. That's all they've been told for the past two months so of course polls will show that's what they "believe".

 

Edited by Ace Nova
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.  It's like this:  Republicans will usually believe what their "side" tells them, their media, etc...and Democrats will usually believe what their side tells them, etc.  That's what I mean when I say "reactionary". 

The reason Republicans doubt this election is because they have been fed information (non stop) by the President, politicians and right-leaning media outlets. That's all they've been told for the past two months so of course polls will show that's what they "believe".

 

I don't think reactionary is the right word. Maybe gaslight would be better way to put it? But Republicans took gaslight to another level. There was no evidence of fraud nor of votes being stolen. In fact it was Trump who wanted to steal votes in Georgia. With all the lawsuits and recounts Republicans can't claim fraud when there isn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Padme said:

But this is something else. Hillary/Democratas never asked for recounts. She/Democratas never claimed fraud. She never asked the Wisconsin secretary of state to find her 11k votes. She concided two days after the election. She/Democrats never file a lawsuit in batleground states claming fraud.  So despite claming Russian collusion Hillary, Obama,Democrats didn't do anything against Trump. There was a peaceful and normal transition. It took Flyn going to the Russian embassy for Democrats to take action.

They did ask for a recount in Wisconsin and claimed irregularities in Pennsylvania and Michigan. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/hillary-clinton-election-vote-recount-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ace Nova said:

If there was a poll asking if Trump won the 2016 election because of Russian collusion, wouldn't the vast majority of Democrats say "yes"?

But that's a different kind of question since once is kind of true (Russia did help Trump win; there were elements of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian assets, just nothing that was deemed criminal by the powers at be) and the other is completely false (Democrats and Republicans did not rig various state elections).

Moreover, Democrats have been largely accepting of the results of the 2016 relating to the technical vote.  Where their opposition resides is how and why some voters sat at home.  I've always been adamant that you can accept both thoughts in one's head: Russia did swing the election towards Trump, but Trump's presidency was still legitimate since Russia's involvement resided outside of vote counting.

1 hour ago, Ace Nova said:

The reality is that although there is evidence of Russian interference, there is little to no evidence of direct collusion by Trump.

Nope.  Not true.  There was a lot of evidence of collusion, just none that reached the threshold of being a criminal conspiracy.

1 hour ago, Ace Nova said:

Two completely different circumstances but with the same type of "reactionary" results.

Sorry, but this is fucking nonsense.  I don't recall Democrats storming state and federal buildings to swing the outcome.  I don't recall Clinton spreading lies for two months about how the election was stolen from her.  Not the same "reactionary" results at all.

1 hour ago, Ace Nova said:

And before you go on about how "there was actual evidence of interference in the 2016 election and there was little to no evidence of massive voter fraud in the 2020 election"...I will say that I agree.   

So then why make those points?

1 hour ago, Ace Nova said:

The point is that most Democrats still believe that Trump won the 2016 election because of collusion and/or interference.

Yes, but they didn't view Trump's claim to power as illegitimate.  Few were claiming that Clinton should have been given the Presidency as a result.  If a criminal conspiracy could be proven in a court of law, Democrats weren't demanding that Clinton be installed as President.  Pence would simply become President.  

1 hour ago, Ace Nova said:

Although Democrats can point to evidence, etc...it's far from proven.....but they still believe it.

Again, there's the difference between collusion as a concept and a criminal conspiracy as a legal concept.  Once the Mueller Report came out and claimed that the instances of collusion did not amount to a criminal conspiracy, Democrats moved on to taking issue with the Trump administration's numerous instances of obstruction of justice, which the Mueller Report did find grounds for a crime. 

Sorry, but you're conflating these two responses as if they're two sides of the same coin.  They are not in anyway.  Democrats weren't out in the streets demanding the results be overturned.  Clinton conceded the morning after the election.  No call to arms was made by Clinton supporters to overturn the results.  Moreover, the Russia collusion allegations didn't really get going until January 10th after the Steel dossier was reported on by Buzzfeed.  There was nothing comparable to what we're seeing with Trump's supporters refusal to admit defeat.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ace Nova said:

I don't disagree.  They are two completely different scenarios but the point still stands that most Democrats feel that Trump won the 2016 election because of "Russian collusion and/or interference".  It's reactionary.  

But he did win partly because of Russian interference.  Are you saying that Russian involvement didn't help?   That the leak of Podesta emails didn't help change the news cycle within 24 hours after the Access Hollywood tapes were leaked?  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Dazey said:

They did ask for a recount in Wisconsin and claimed irregularities in Pennsylvania and Michigan. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/hillary-clinton-election-vote-recount-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin 

Ok, but it didn't last two month. There were no lawsuit. They never went to the Supreme Court. They never asked the Wisconsin secretary of state to find 11k votes. It was nowhere near what Trump did. Hillary conceded 2 days after the election.

Maybe the closest thing to what Trump did was the 2000 election in Florida. At least Florida was deciding electoral college

Edited by Padme
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Padme said:

Ok, but it didn't last two month. There were no lawsuit. They never went to the Supreme Court. They never asked the Wisconsin secretary of state to find 11k votes. It was nowhere near what Trump did. Hillary conceded 2 days after the election.

Maybe the closest thing to what Trump did was the 2000 election in Florida. At least Florida was deciding electoral college

Oh I'm not trying to suggest for a second that there's parity between 2016 and the lunacy of the past few weeks but I also don't think it serves any of us well to pretend that one side is perfect and the other is the devil incarnate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Oh I'm not trying to suggest for a second that there's parity between 2016 and the lunacy of the past few weeks but I also don't think it serves any of us well to pretend that one side is perfect and the other is the devil incarnate. 

Democrats are far from perfect.  But someone used the word "reactionary" There was no such a thing in 2016

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Padme said:

I don't think reactionary is the right word. Maybe gaslight would be better way to put it? But Republicans took gaslight to another level. There was no evidence of fraud nor of votes being stolen. In fact it was Trump who wanted to steal votes in Georgia. With all the lawsuits and recounts Republicans can't claim fraud when there isn't.

I should have used the phrase "partisan politics" instead.

9 hours ago, downzy said:

But that's a different kind of question since once is kind of true (Russia did help Trump win; there were elements of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian assets, just nothing that was deemed criminal by the powers at be) and the other is completely false (Democrats and Republicans did not rig various state elections).

Moreover, Democrats have been largely accepting of the results of the 2016 relating to the technical vote.  Where their opposition resides is how and why some voters sat at home.  I've always been adamant that you can accept both thoughts in one's head: Russia did swing the election towards Trump, but Trump's presidency was still legitimate since Russia's involvement resided outside of vote counting.

Nope.  Not true.  There was a lot of evidence of collusion, just none that reached the threshold of being a criminal conspiracy.

Sorry, but this is fucking nonsense.  I don't recall Democrats storming state and federal buildings to swing the outcome.  I don't recall Clinton spreading lies for two months about how the election was stolen from her.  Not the same "reactionary" results at all.

So then why make those points?

Yes, but they didn't view Trump's claim to power as illegitimate.  Few were claiming that Clinton should have been given the Presidency as a result.  If a criminal conspiracy could be proven in a court of law, Democrats weren't demanding that Clinton be installed as President.  Pence would simply become President.  

Again, there's the difference between collusion as a concept and a criminal conspiracy as a legal concept.  Once the Mueller Report came out and claimed that the instances of collusion did not amount to a criminal conspiracy, Democrats moved on to taking issue with the Trump administration's numerous instances of obstruction of justice, which the Mueller Report did find grounds for a crime. 

Sorry, but you're conflating these two responses as if they're two sides of the same coin.  They are not in anyway.  Democrats weren't out in the streets demanding the results be overturned.  Clinton conceded the morning after the election.  No call to arms was made by Clinton supporters to overturn the results.  Moreover, the Russia collusion allegations didn't really get going until January 10th after the Steel dossier was reported on by Buzzfeed.  There was nothing comparable to what we're seeing with Trump's supporters refusal to admit defeat.   

To be clear, there is no comparison with the way Clinton (and her campaign) handled her loss vs the way Trump (and his campaign) has handled his.  

That said, I should have used a better term  than "reactionary".  My point has never been to draw any sort of equivalencies between the issues of the two elections.  My point is that the reason Republicans doubt the outcome of the election is because of partisan politics and the fact that their party has been feeding them this information for 2 months.  So logic would dictate that polls will reflect what the Republican party has been telling its people.   

Had Trump and his campaign not contested the election to this day, the polls would have likely shown better support for the legitimacy of Biden's presidency.  The mere fact that we need to have polls asking the question is absurd, imo.  It should have never gotten to this point, imo. 

9 hours ago, downzy said:

But he did win partly because of Russian interference.  Are you saying that Russian involvement didn't help?   That the leak of Podesta emails didn't help change the news cycle within 24 hours after the Access Hollywood tapes were leaked?  

I would think it helped.  How much?  Who knows.  

Edited by Ace Nova
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dazey said:

Oh I'm not trying to suggest for a second that there's parity between 2016 and the lunacy of the past few weeks but I also don't think it serves any of us well to pretend that one side is perfect and the other is the devil incarnate. 

Right.

And I was mostly referring to the psychological aspect as to "why" people would think something when there is no substantial evidence to support it.   If all they've been told for the past two months by their elected leaders and the news media they follow that there was massive voter fraud....when someone calls them and asks them if they think Biden's presidency is legitimate, what do you expect them to say?   

When it comes to partisan politics, most people will not research a topic hoping to prove themselves wrong...so they will tote the party line and believe the information that their party has been giving them.  

This can eventually get turned around but the majority of Republican officials in office will need to publicly state that they believe that there is no evidence showing massive voter fraud, especially on the scale needed for it to have made a difference in the outcome of the election.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Padme said:

Ok, but it didn't last two month. There were no lawsuit. They never went to the Supreme Court. They never asked the Wisconsin secretary of state to find 11k votes. It was nowhere near what Trump did. Hillary conceded 2 days after the election.

Maybe the closest thing to what Trump did was the 2000 election in Florida. At least Florida was deciding electoral college

The report of possible Russian collusion wasn't released until January, as Downzy mentioned.  So although Clinton and her campaign were "shocked" by the loss, at the time, there wasn't much to contest.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

The report of possible Russian collusion wasn't released until January, as Downzy mentioned.  So although Clinton and her campaign were "shocked" by the loss, at the time, there wasn't much to contest.  

 

And there wasn't much to contest for Trump this time around either. Once he asked for a recount in 2 or 3 States and it confirmed he lost. Trump should've conceded.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2021 at 2:00 PM, downzy said:

Do you have an example of a social media platform censoring someone because they advocate for less immigration?

And who gets to decide what is and what isn't censorship?  Is it a panel or tribunal?  Is it one bureaucrat?  Is this person or tribunal politically appointed?  Do owners and corporations lose their 14th amendment rights solely because they reach some arbitrary metric? 

Do you see why this is a problematic proposition at best? 

At worst, it would create a system by which the party in power gets to decide what is and what isn't censorship. 

I get the response is, "well, should that power be provided to one tech guy."  Fair enough.

On the first point, a guy that immediately came to mind was Stefan Molyneux. I still have no idea why he was banned from Twitter and YouTube. I legit miss his "the truth about" YouTube clips whenever he would take a popular media story of the day and try to explain what was going on. 

You predicted my response. I was going to say, I would rather have political people determining what can and can't be said than a private tech CEO. At least with the politician, I can try and vote them out if they advocate censorship (and I'd imagine that wouldn't be a popular position for a politician to advocate straight censorship, so they'd be afraid to do it).

 

Quote

But there's no constitutional guarantee that what you have to say is protected on social media platforms.  Freedom of speech does not come with an entitlement to whatever platform they choose.  The New York Times is the biggest newspaper and print platform in the US.  Is David Duke entitled to speak his vile filth in the NYT because they are the dominant publisher in print?  Duke is free to say whatever he wants to whoever wants to listen.  But he's not entitled to speak it in the NYT solely because it's the dominant player in print. 

I would argue that Twitter, or even social media in general, is actually more important than the NYT or publications like that, at this point. So I wouldn't even bother with something like the NYT, and would rather argue where the action is, social media. So yes, I have no problem with David Duke being allowed a social media account, provided he doesn't violate whatever bureaucratic terms are set aside (such as direct threats of violence, child porn, etc.). If people don't like his points, they can put him on block or argue against his points with their own.

Edited by Basic_GnR_Fan
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

My point is that the reason Republicans doubt the outcome of the election is because of partisan politics and the fact that their party has been feeding them this information for 2 months.

And my response would be that there isn't the same dynamic with Democrats.  No senior leader of the Democratic Party after Clinton's loss was on the proverbial airhorn blasting away nonsense trying to sow doubt and undermine centuries old political norms and traditions.  Republicans doubt the outcome of the election in large part because the leader of their party tells them to doubt it.  The sycophants below Trump also play along because the cult of personality is so strong they're forced to play the game if they want to keep their jobs.  Again, this dynamic is not in anyway comparable to what is and what was the Democratic Party now and back in 2016.

You were right a month or two ago that the losing side tends to immediately doubt the outcome of the election.  But those doubts generally tapper off after a few weeks.  We're not seeing that happen this time around.  Republicans and Trump supporters have remained in lock step to the delusions of their sad leader.  It's not something we've seen in American politics for quite some time.  In fact, we'd probably have to go back to the 1870s to find something comparable.

My point is that all of this is novel.  It's not politics as usual.  Democrats fought like hell against the Trump administration once he was sworn in, but they did it within the confines of what has been traditionally acceptable avenues of opposition.  We're not seeing that with Republicans and we're not likely to see any change in their behaviour going forward.  

23 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

Had Trump and his campaign not contested the election to this day, the polls would have likely shown better support for the legitimacy of Biden's presidency. 

Well, yes and no.  I do agree that had Trump accepted the loss and conceded to Biden a few days after the election we would likely see far fewer demonstrations or insanity amongst his supporters.  But part of me feels that Trump created the monster and the monster is now bigger than him.  The genie isn't going back in the bottle.  The forces Trump unleashed will be a problem for America for a good long while.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...