The Next President is...

[filthy_liar]

What I took from the debate, beyond the antics, was that Trump was generally optimistic about the country and Biden was pessimistic.  Biden's tone to me was: America is jacked up and therefore needs more big government to intervene into everything."  At least that's my impression.  I'm sure Harris will echo the exact sentiment that Biden did: America is racist, America's economy is in the toilet, America's health care system is the worst on the planet, etc.  And she'll need to reign back in the green new deal people that Biden stepped on. 

I was on the fence about whether or not I would even vote this time around.  I'm definitely showing up to the polls after watching that.

And I will certainly admit that Trump behaved like a child.  For some reason that doesn't bother me anymore - a lot of politicians behave horribly and say horrible things and encourage horrible behavior.

[mcbush]

1 hour ago, filthy_liar said:

What I took from the debate, beyond the antics, was that Trump was generally optimistic about the country and Biden was pessimistic. 

I think some of that stems from a legitimate difference in philosophy and perspective, but mostly boils down to the fact that incumbents are always going to tell you that everything has been awesome on their watch, and challengers have to sell the notion that everything is terrible.

[drewpey]

On 9/29/2020 at 1:50 PM, Sim said:

"Muh russian collusion"

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4911544/user-clip-sen-whitehouse-ratclife-letter

Edited October 1, 2020 by drewpey

[Sim]

42 minutes ago, drewpey said:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4911544/user-clip-sen-whitehouse-ratclife-letter

All of those "established" facts are fake DNC talking points. All refuted by actual proper journalists. 

 

Example - DNC was not hacked by Russians. 

https://newspunch.com/report-dnc-not-hacked-russians/

 

Edited October 1, 2020 by Sim

[Sim]

On 9/30/2020 at 10:40 AM, jrizzell said:

The fact he wouldn’t just condemn white supremacy

Fake news much? 

 

[Sim]

On 9/30/2020 at 6:09 AM, slackline said:

He didn’t tell the Proud Boys to “stand by”

Why should he? Proud Boys is a boogieman of the left. - they blame them for everything. 

Interview of fake news doesn't go that well 

 

 

Actual history behind that group. 

 

[slackline]

Tapatalk is being weird. Can't get it to post normal.

I laugh so hard when people wanting to be taken seriously say fake news.

[Kiloalpha]

1 hour ago, slackline said:

Tapatalk is being weird. Can't get it to post normal.

I laugh so hard when people wanting to be taken seriously say fake news.

To an extent I get what you’re saying. I don’t think all negative/refuting coverage is “fake news.”

But mainstream news has completely fucked away some pretty serious stories. So much so that I have to now spend an hour or so digging through sources to double check them before making a conclusion. The number of times I’ve found BS is very troubling.

Best I can determine, people are simply judging the number of outlets saying the same thing and thinking “if all of them are saying it, must be true.” If it’s on the NYT, Washington Post and CNN... then it’s basically fact.

We desperately need to get comfortable saying “I don’t know, I’ll get back to you on that.” Or “I heard this, but I can’t verify it.”

Instead I’m stuck trying to explain that Trump didn’t say “fine people on both sides” with regard to the white supremacists, while also simultaneously telling another person that Trump did in fact lie about the Portland sheriff endorsement.

Edited October 2, 2020 by Kiloalpha

[drewpey]

4 hours ago, Sim said:

All of those "established" facts are fake DNC talking points. All refuted by actual proper journalists. 

 

Example - DNC was not hacked by Russians. 

https://newspunch.com/report-dnc-not-hacked-russians/

 

And who are these actual proper journalists I should be following?  Who are these amazing journalists who have better investigative resources than the entire US government at the behest of the Senate that resulted in an intelligence report with said "fake news findings" written by republican senators?  Please I must know!

[Sua Sponte]

Trump and FLOTUS test positive for COVID-19.

[DosXX]

1 hour ago, drewpey said:

And who are these actual proper journalists I should be following?  Who are these amazing journalists who have better investigative resources than the entire US government at the behest of the Senate that resulted in an intelligence report with said "fake news findings" written by republican senators?  Please I must know!

Alex Jones, clearly

[Mark1]

19 hours ago, filthy_liar said:

What I took from the debate, beyond the antics, was that Trump was generally optimistic about the country and Biden was pessimistic.  Biden's tone to me was: America is jacked up and therefore needs more big government to intervene into everything."  At least that's my impression.  I'm sure Harris will echo the exact sentiment that Biden did: America is racist, America's economy is in the toilet, America's health care system is the worst on the planet, etc.  And she'll need to reign back in the green new deal people that Biden stepped on. 

I was on the fence about whether or not I would even vote this time around.  I'm definitely showing up to the polls after watching that.

And I will certainly admit that Trump behaved like a child.  For some reason that doesn't bother me anymore - a lot of politicians behave horribly and say horrible things and encourage horrible behavior.

Jesus Christ, we're fucking doomed.  We really do deserve 2 candidates of the caliber we have in front of us if this is the kind of logic that's being used by the average voter to decide where their vote should go.

I mean, in any election this would be a absurd statement.  It's plainly obvious why the incumbent would take a rosy view and the challenger a pessimistic one.  But in this specific case, this logic deserves a facepalm of epic proportions.  The current incumbent was a challenger 4 years ago and his god damned mantra was "Make America Great Again", implying that America was no longer great.  Maybe the hat that he wore with the mantra emblazoned on it burned your retinas to the point where you couldn't see it?

Every 4 years there's two more manufactured candidates just putting on a theater show during the campaign.  The script is written by a team of sociologists and PR people and they all just hope that their horse can rattle of bullshit platitudes for the 9 month campaign without stepping on any run-ending landmines.  Landmines in this case being a metaphor for making some social faux pas that has no bearing whatsoever on somebody's ability to run a country.  And the worst part is that the voters know they're watching contrived theater, and yet, instead of demanding reality they just get wrapped up in the details of the storyline and cast votes as if the show they're watching was reality.

Can we just start voting based on who seems more human before this country goes the way of Rome?  I'd ask for decision making at a more sophisticated level than that, but...baby steps.

And before anybody tries to decide who's more human between Trump and Biden, I'm talking about through the whole process.  Neither of these idiots would have ever been on a primary stage if it required a Turing test to qualify.

[slackline]

Is it #fakenews that P/FLOTUS have tested positive? Sheesh!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dangerzone]

3 hours ago, Mark1 said:

Jesus Christ, we're ing doomed.  We really do deserve 2 candidates of the caliber we have in front of us if this is the kind of logic that's being used by the average voter to decide where their vote should go.

I mean, in any election this would be a absurd statement.  It's plainly obvious why the incumbent would take a rosy view and the challenger a pessimistic one.  But in this specific case, this logic deserves a facepalm of epic proportions.  The current incumbent was a challenger 4 years ago and his god damned mantra was "Make America Great Again", implying that America was no longer great.  Maybe the hat that he wore with the mantra emblazoned on it burned your retinas to the point where you couldn't see it?

Every 4 years there's two more manufactured candidates just putting on a theater show during the campaign.  The script is written by a team of sociologists and PR people and they all just hope that their horse can rattle of bullshit platitudes for the 9 month campaign without stepping on any run-ending landmines.  Landmines in this case being a metaphor for making some social faux pas that has no bearing whatsoever on somebody's ability to run a country.  And the worst part is that the voters know they're watching contrived theater, and yet, instead of demanding reality they just get wrapped up in the details of the storyline and cast votes as if the show they're watching was reality.

Can we just start voting based on who seems more human before this country goes the way of Rome?  I'd ask for decision making at a more sophisticated level than that, but...baby steps.

And before anybody tries to decide who's more human between Trump and Biden, I'm talking about through the whole process.  Neither of these idiots would have ever been on a primary stage if it required a Turing test to qualify.

Since when does “being more human” whatever that means make you a good candidate to run the most successful and empathetic country in modern history. Mother Theresa and Ghandi were ideal humans, don’t think I’d want them making the important decisions tho.  
I hear this so often I can barely handle it—Trump is evil the other side states. He wasn’t that evil 4 yrs ago when you were inviting him onto your TV shows and staying in his resorts and hotels.
As soon as he started playing the politics game and putting his foot down on things he became “evil”, and the mob media has gone to extreme lengths to portray him in that way. 
While yes I will consent Trump is a major asshole, needs to seriously learn how to play in the middle, be a little more decent and have some tact, but I don’t vote for someone based on if they’re nice people or if I like them, I vote based on the policies they’re wanting to implement and if I agree with them. 

[pawnman]

3 hours ago, Dangerzone said:

Since when does “being more human” whatever that means make you a good candidate to run the most successful and empathetic country in modern history. Mother Theresa and Ghandi were ideal humans, don’t think I’d want them making the important decisions tho.  
I hear this so often I can barely handle it—Trump is evil the other side states. He wasn’t that evil 4 yrs ago when you were inviting him onto your TV shows and staying in his resorts and hotels.
As soon as he started playing the politics game and putting his foot down on things he became “evil”, and the mob media has gone to extreme lengths to portray him in that way. 
While yes I will consent Trump is a major asshole, needs to seriously learn how to play in the middle, be a little more decent and have some tact, but I don’t vote for someone based on if they’re nice people or if I like them, I vote based on the policies they’re wanting to implement and if I agree with them. 

I'd argue that Ghandi was a damned effective leader who faced some real significant challenges.  Clearly he had some kind of leadership ability.

[Mark1]

3 hours ago, Dangerzone said:

Since when does “being more human” whatever that means make you a good candidate to run the most successful and empathetic country in modern history. Mother Theresa and Ghandi were ideal humans, don’t think I’d want them making the important decisions tho.

It doesn't.  I thought I was clear that it's not an all-encompassing metric.  However, at the moment we're lofting 2 incompetant idiots that are also human cesspools to the top of the two-party system with nearly perfect accuracy.  Wouldn't it be a good start if we just went with 2 incompetant idiots that were mildly respectable human beings instead?

As a side note, you should substitute somebody else for Mother Theresa in future rhetorical questions.  She left a lot to be desired when it comes to morality.

[FLEA]

11 minutes ago, Mark1 said:

It doesn't.  I thought I was clear that it's not an all-encompassing metric.  However, at the moment we're lofting 2 incompetant idiots that are also human cesspools to the top of the two-party system with nearly perfect accuracy.  Wouldn't it be a good start if we just went with 2 incompetant idiots that were mildly respectable human beings instead?

As a side note, you should substitute somebody else for Mother Theresa in future rhetorical questions.  She left a lot to be desired when it comes to morality.

So did Ghandi, like all those preteen girls he was probably raping people love to not talk about. 

[FLEA]

27 minutes ago, pawnman said:

I'd argue that Ghandi was a damned effective leader who faced some real significant challenges.  Clearly he had some kind of leadership ability.

See my above comment. 

[17D_guy]

45 minutes ago, FLEA said:

See my above comment. 

You wanna go with source?  Only think I found on a "Gandhi rape" search was from a Vice article by someone claiming to be the grandson of a guy that was in jail with Gandhi.  It doesn't mention rape, that he just slept naked next to young girls (ew).

Same for "Mahatma Gandhi rape."

Admittedly, I didn't click on page 2.

[Dangerzone]

50 minutes ago, Mark1 said:

It doesn't.  I thought I was clear that it's not an all-encompassing metric.  However, at the moment we're lofting 2 incompetant idiots that are also human cesspools to the top of the two-party system with nearly perfect accuracy.  Wouldn't it be a good start if we just went with 2 incompetant idiots that were mildly respectable human beings instead?

Reagan was the last charismatic leader America has had and that was a long time ago. I am in agreeance with you, I think it's an absolute disgrace that with all the great minds/people in this country, these are the two nutjobs we decided should represent American. I believe we're going to have our equivalent of the French Revolution in a not so future time. Wealth gap keeps widening, socialistic ideas becoming increasingly popular, racial tension... There is so much anarchy and unrest and Americans have become completely us vs them in the two party system. 

[FLEA]

29 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

You wanna go with source?  Only think I found on a "Gandhi rape" search was from a Vice article by someone claiming to be the grandson of a guy that was in jail with Gandhi.  It doesn't mention rape, that he just slept naked next to young girls (ew).

Same for "Mahatma Gandhi rape."

Admittedly, I didn't click on page 2.

I used the world probably for a reason. Noone is really certsin. Here are the facts: Ghandi admitted that he routinely slept naked with young girls in what he called Chasity or virtue checks. One of the girls included his niece who talked about it in an interview years later. Whether he had sex with them or not, nothing about this behavior is moral or ok. 

Gilded Heroes comes to mind. Martin Luther King Jr is another charismatic leader who had serious (depending on your outlook) character flaws. 

[slackline]

Again, let me say, this debate was ridiculous and both performed horribly, or probably failed to move the needle for anyone. Even Bernie Sanders, on Jimmy Kimmel, said it wasn’t a good night for America.

I am too lazy to go back and find it, but one of the Trump fans said they liked his answers on climate change. I let it go at the time because I wanted more people to answer, but I would like to hear some reasons now for that specific callout. What about “we have to do whatever it takes to have ‘immaculate air and water” makes any sense or squares with any actions/policies coming out of this administration? That’s basically what he said, I summarized. Not only do the actions of his administration scream the exact opposite, but those words don’t lay out anything in terms of policy/future actions.

So, are you just saying you’re happy with his answers because you feel climate change (something the DoD continues to list as one of the biggest threats to National Security) isn’t real, or did I miss something more specific when the two old guys were yelling at each other. Maybe Chris Wallace or Joe Biden spoke over him...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HU&W]

1 hour ago, Mark1 said:

It doesn't.  I thought I was clear that it's not an all-encompassing metric.  However, at the moment we're lofting 2 incompetant idiots that are also human cesspools to the top of the two-party system with nearly perfect accuracy.  Wouldn't it be a good start if we just went with 2 incompetant idiots that were mildly respectable human beings instead?

Last time we tried that was 2012.  He lost to hostile media propagandists, a false narrative,  and due to an accurate remark that was taken out of context. 

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, slackline said:

Again, let me say, this debate was ridiculous and both performed horribly, or probably failed to move the needle for anyone. Even Bernie Sanders, on Jimmy Kimmel, said it wasn’t a good night for America.

I am too lazy to go back and find it, but one of the Trump fans said they liked his answers on climate change. I let it go at the time because I wanted more people to answer, but I would like to hear some reasons now for that specific callout. What about “we have to do whatever it takes to have ‘immaculate air and water” makes any sense or squares with any actions/policies coming out of this administration? That’s basically what he said, I summarized. Not only do the actions of his administration scream the exact opposite, but those words don’t lay out anything in terms of policy/future actions.

So, are you just saying you’re happy with his answers because you feel climate change (something the DoD continues to list as one of the biggest threats to National Security) isn’t real, or did I miss something more specific when the two old guys were yelling at each other. Maybe Chris Wallace or Joe Biden spoke over him...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm not sure what point your referring to specifically, but regarding just air and water the US already has nearly the cleanest air and water on earth. Like, ridiculously clean. We are consistently top 10 on both and the difference between us and #1 is almost always negligible. 

Most educated conservatives don't deny climate change. You really need to grasp that if you want to have an effective argument on the subject. Its an observable/measurable phenomenon. If you don't understand the detail of their platform you wont effectively persuade them to see your side. 

Edited October 2, 2020 by FLEA

[DosXX]