Skip to content

The Politics Thread

1523524526528529694

Comments

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited June 2020
    Ok well, these boys are ABSOLUTELY white supremacist infiltrators. For one thing, they are using the hand gesture that was appropriated for the movement in online message boards as a trolling tactic. The guy in the bottom left without the shirt has a 3% tattoo. He was arrested yesterday for setting fire to a courthouse. So if the question is if there is a coordinated effort among alt-right internet trolls to get out there and make this worse, this picture seems to answer that question. I HIGHLY doubt it's just these guys. Notice how they even seem to have taken great care to LOOK like what you'd imagine Antifa would look like:



    I'm not wading deep enough into their 4chan or 8chan swamps to look, but my guess would be the moment this shit hit a cadre of these guys were on the move ready to basically pull a Charles Manson (if you'll remember, Manson's intent with the Sharon Tate murder was to blame it on black people and start a race war). My sense is the most radical among them have been planning for something like this to hit for a LONG time. And I'm guessing they left tracks.

    And here's Senator Tom Cotton (who scares me more than Trump if he ever gets into Presidential power) advocating for unleashing the 101st Airborne on American citizens:


    As for what @Balrog99 mentioned about the sickening incident in Atlanta with the tasers, the Atlanta Mayor and Police Chief fired their asses yesterday after reviewing the tape. But, once again, I'm not sure losing your job is appropriate punishment for such a brutal act. Criminal charges are. That's the point.
    Grond0ThacoBell
  • DerpCityDerpCity Member, Moderator Posts: 303
    Our thoughts and prayers are with all affected. We're closing this thread for a few days.
    JuliusBorisovsemiticgoddess
  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 22,714
    The thread is now re-open. Please, each time you post here, re-read the rules.
    Balrog99BallpointMansemiticgoddess
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited June 2020
    Honestly too much of a backlog to go into everything that has gone down in the hiatus, but to do a Cliff's Notes version:

    1.) Donald Trump and William Barr had a group of peaceful protesters assaulted and tear-gassed so he could strut over to a nearby church (where it needs to be stated clergy were also forcibly removed from the property) where he held up a bible upside-down and declared himself the "law and order" President. There were also "police" (and I use the quotes for a reason) on the streets of DC who had no identification and would give none to anyone who asked. We later learned they were acting on the orders of the DoJ, who has no policing unit or authority, and that many of them were plucked from the Bureau of Prisons. Essentially, Bill Barr was handing Trump his own praetorian guard. This was, as you can imagine, a terrifying development. All indications are this was done because he was pissed about reports of him being in the bunker the weekend before being leaked to the press.

    2.) The good news is in the short-term it didn't work. This fascistic stunt repulsed most Americans based on recent polling, to the point where Trump's numbers started to absolutely crater. The remake of Nixon's 1968 campaign is going over about as well as the Ghostbusters remake from a few years ago did in theaters. The public is on the side of the protesters (in shockingly high numbers) and even the NFL and NASCAR (yes, NASCAR) know how to read the polls. Trump only knows one song, so it's all he can play. Long way to November, but if the election were tomorrow, Trump would get demolished in a historical landslide. If he does lose, June 1 was the final nail in the coffin, and he hammered it himself.

    3.) Huge ruling out of the Supreme Court today, with John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch siding with the liberals and granting for once and all worker protections to LGBT citizens in a 6-3 decision. This is, perhaps, even more important than marriage equality was. Roberts, in recent years, has clearly been making decisions based on the fact that he, as Chief Justice, doesn't want his court to be viewed as nothing by a reactionary rubber stamp. Gorsuch simply said the language in the statute was too plain and broad for him to rule any other way.

    4.) And we need to swing back around to the police. If there were dozens of videos of cops assaulting citizens on the street from the last two weeks, it would be one thing, but there aren't dozens, there are HUNDREDS of examples. Though the messaging of "defund the police" needs to be rethought, the substance of the message doesn't. American policing has to be rebuilt from the ground up in a systematic way. Banning choke holds is great, getting rid of qualified immunity (which no other profession has) is essential. But the culture has to be torn down and built from scratch. Some cities have done it in the past. We'll see which ones have the courage to follow in their footsteps.

    5.) COVID-19 is still out there, and at least twenty states are seeing massive spikes in numbers that (based on the incubation time) can be tied to the initial re-opening around Memorial Day. Expect to see even more about 10 days from now due to the civil unrest. Some states are even activating emergency procedures for hospitals. It's not gone just because it hasn't been on TV.
    Grond0ThacoBell
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    I am going to go more in depth about Trump waltzing to the church. I wrote this right after the thread was locked so it is dated.

    Trump's stroll to the Church
    What a pathetic display in Washington on Tuesday night that shows Trump and Co have zero clue on how to handle this.

    On Monday night, I watched a local DC news channel's live coverage of the protests happening there.(https://www.wusa9.com/ to be exact) and it was interesting to watch how the different reporters covered the event. I watched because of what happened the night prior as allegedly the full force of the police were brought down as soon as curfew struck at 11. It was a different story Monday night though. There was one reporter that was right up to where the protests were happening at the Whitehouse and he marvelled that this was the first time he had ever seen it dark. The in studio hosts asked him to 'check on' the church that was at the corner because there was reports that it was set on fire. He got close, like really close, and showed that the church wasn't on fire but what he called a maintenance shed attached to the property some how. He basically waved it off, but the in studio hosts still persisted him to get closer. As he was getting closer to the church, it was completely black and you could see there was no fire happening in it, the police rushed forward to secure the area having him and his cameraman scurry away as quickly as he could from the advancing police before he could get any really good shots however.

    The reporters on the ground even said the protests were civil up until about 10:30 when a different crowd ascended. A younger crowd. There was still people protesting, but you could tell there were people out on the street just looking to cause trouble. One reporter actually saw a guy inside of a bank that had it's windows smashed open and was like "I am going to go get that guy and interview him." Which of course, the young guy refused and waving the reporter off and the in studio hosts laughing saying "I think that was a good idea on that guys part, he was just illegally in a bank, I don't think he wants to talk to anyone."

    But a minute later, the same reporter saw a bunch of people breaking into a restaurant got it all on camera as young people swarmed inside and started taking cans of something (I donno beer or soda) and there was the guy that was in the bank casually walking into the restaurant and casually walking out towards the camera sipping on the drink (he was still wearing a handkerchief so you couldn't see his face) but it just shows he was not there to protest.

    Another scene had cops firing tear gas towards a reporter where it fell at the camera guys shoes, and you just see some other person pick it up and lob it away from the scene. Another reporter pretty much got jumped on air as a couple of guys wrestled his microphone away from him and started a profanity laced speech into the camera. Allegedly another guy attempted to steal his press credentials. When they cut back to him he said they were just able to steal a microphone but that's it.

    But overall, for someone turning in to see some mayhem, there was none. A couple of fires, another store broken into where the cops were arresting the people inside. It looked like it quickly died down at 11:30 as people respected the curfew. When 11 o'clock hit, the police by the Whitehouse didn't do anything, but just let the protestors continue chanting, because they were there to protest and it showed.

    ~

    Fast forward to Tuesday and everyone is talking about Trump hiding in his bunker. Curfew gets pushed to 7 p.m. (remember, both the media and the police have been saying it has been peaceful up until roughly 10 pm. Why a curfew 3 hours early than that is weird IMO, let the people protest) and right before at 7 pm (or an hour before) the police around the Whitehouse fire tear gas and rubber bullets at the protesters.

    Why? Because Trump wanted a photo op at 7:15 at the church that allegedly was set on fire.

    Barr personally ordered the cops to fire on the peaceful protesters.
    "On Tuesday, city officials said the White House had pushed to take control of the D.C. police force to quell protests, an effort that Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) said she rejected. Still, by Tuesday evening, National Guard Humvees were streaming through downtown as officers from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Park Police were positioned throughout the capital."

    Like seriously. These guys do not know, or do not care, about the difference between a peaceful protest and looters. To them, they are one and the same and Trump had to show that he will do whatever it takes to stay in control. Remember that come November. Remember come November, win or lose, he is still in charge of all these organizations till 2021. And now the military is being deployed in DC? Why? Because a couple of punk kids stole cans of soda from a restaurant?

    Here is LegalDEagle's take on it:
    for a lawyer who usually just makes fun of movies, you can tell he was personally offended by what had happened.

    It truly is boggling. Oh and this from Park Police spokesman:

    "Park Police spokesman Eduardo Delgado disputed that officers were not at risk. He said that officers were provoked by protesters throwing frozen water bottles and that there were other indicators of more serious potential harm the crowd could do. “We had intel that there were glass bottles they had stashed at the church to throw at us,” Delgado said. “They had caches of supplies, bricks.”

    Bullshit. You secured the area. If there was a pile of hidden bricks at the church that was burnt down, as it is a crime scene from the night before remember, you'd have evidence of such, like a picture. Stop saying BS like this to cover your asses. No one believes you anymore without physical proof. It's this type of BS that is making people go into the street and protest in the first place and you idiots either refuse to learn, or don't care and I am leaning more towards not caring.

    ~

    This alone is BS and shows the police tactics used, and the protesters that were there peacefully before Trump's march to the church where he gets to hold 'a bible' upside down.


    another angle of the same assualt:

    and more here: https://pressfreedomtracker.us/

    This is frickin unacceptable. Like there was a saving grace during the second clip. It looked like a supervisor stepped in realizing they were press and had a brief conversation with them after the guy was gutted by the shield and pulled the other officer back. But then another officer came forward and whapped the reporter with his baton pushing ahead of the cop that was attempting to hold back the officers from hitting the reporters. Unacceptable. And do you see anything on any of the police that can distinguish them from one another like a name badge or a number? Nope. You don't know which officers were involved in this assault so punishing them might be futile. If they had bodycams they wouldn't be acting like this. Like learn.

    ~
    Finally, I want to give kudos to Esper for not being a yes man and that is basically it. I do think that people in Trump's orbit have a line and deploying military to confront protesters is one that Esper wasn't going to cross. I also think the generals that report to Esper were probably saying 'we're not going to follow an order that breaks the constitution.' With this story explaining some of the backlash the military is deploying against Trump's orders https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11786262/third-general-blasts-trump-threat-deploy-military-protesters/

    I think if the president does fire Esper over this and puts in another yes man, the generals are just going to ignore the order over constitutional grounds. We'll see. I can see Trump backing off this so he doesn't lose the 'order' in his 'law and order' debacle. Which, a week later he has backed down.

    I also want to give him credit for saying walking with Trump to the church was wrong and if he knew that's all that Trump was going to do, he wouldn't have tagged along. He actually thought Trump was going to inspect the damage of the area, which in my opinion, would still be a photo op, but at least a better one. The general who also accompanied Trump in military swag also apologized for accompanying Trump saying that the military shouldn't be politized like that and everyone, including the top generals of the country should be criticized and called out when they do. He owned the mistake much like Esper. So kudos to both.

    ~
    Buffalo police incident with the senior protester
    This is getting ridiculous.

    In Buffalo, two cops are shown pushing down an elderly old man who hit his head and began to bleed out.

    Naturally with police violence and excessive force being the forefront of all these protests across the world, the city acted fast and suspended the two police officers shown pushing the man. Just suspended. Not fired. Although there is an investigation underway regarding the incident.

    Well, the police are fighting back. All 57 Police assigned to the emergency response team resigned from that position in a show of solidarity.

    “Fifty-seven resigned in disgust because of the treatment of two of their members, who were simply executing orders,” John Evans, president of the Buffalo Police Benevolent Association, told a local NBC affiliate.

    Benevolent my ass. That's almost in the same line as North Korea calling itself Democratic People's Republic. The police were even caught in a lie about the incident saying the man 'tripped and fell.'

    This takes away the 'a couple of bad apples' argument. With this action, all of these officers are saying the actions of pushing an old man who was walking slowly towards them is justified.

    I'd say let them all resign. Put them all in the shittiest police job possible where they do not deal with the public and make sure not a single one of them gets another promotion in their time on the force.

    And do not let this cowardly action of them resigning stop the investigation and any pending charges towards these two officers. Also fire the bloke who said the man 'tripped' he has lost the trust the community.

    Slight update, the two officers are now charged with second-degree assault. Still not fired however.

    G.W.B. weighs in
    George W. Bush spoke about the Floyd protests saying:
    "Laura and I are anguished by the brutal suffocation of George Floyd and disturbed by the injustice and fear that suffocate our country. Yet we have resisted the urge to speak out, because this is not the time for us to lecture. It is time for us to listen. It is time for America to examine our tragic failures – and as we do, we will also see some of our redeeming strengths."

    That there alone is why I like GWB. Don't get me wrong, his administration f'ed the country hard, but I do believe it was the people pulling his strings that led to it. But he always had compassion for the American people. And that one line - It's time for us to listen - gets to the very heart of these protests. The cynic in me always says its pandering, but he isn't in the position to make a difference.

    Later he get a nice jab in on Trump:
    "The only way to see ourselves in a true light is to listen to the voices of so many who are hurting and grieving. Those who set out to silence those voices do not understand the meaning of America — or how it becomes a better place." As this was released after Trump's little walk across the street.

    Dems police reform bill
    Before the lockdown I mentioned that I thought Biden should make police brutality a campaign issue but it looks like [url=" https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/06/us/politics/democrats-police-misconduct-racial-bias.html"]the Democrats beat him to it.[/url]

    "As currently proposed, it would significantly change federal law and require states and localities to make modifications of their own, such as instituting mandatory bias training, to receive federal funds. It would create a national registry to track police misconduct and require that law enforcement agencies report data on the use of force, as well as ban certain chokeholds and other practices that were used in confrontations with the police that left black Americans dead."

    My only concern with it is that they are tying race to it. It shouldn't be a racial thing, because everyone suffers from police brutality, even 70 year old white men. He should be able to force compensation with this bill as much as anyone else. That's what equality is, however, this line from the article, "In addition, Democrats are proposing to change the federal standard for the use of force by officers "from 'reasonableness' to only when it is 'necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury.'" is promising in that regard.

    Something like this will pass the house quickly I bet, but Republicans will def hold it up in the senate. If that happens expect this to become an election issue not just for the presidential race, but also any senate races that are happening in November. Expect to hear the phrase "Blue Lives Matter" and all the propaganda that goes with it to defeat this bill.

    Defunding the police
    Defunding the police is stupid. I understand restructuring. I understand not giving them military surplus in lieu of funding. But flat out defunding shouldn't be an option. Police do still serve an important function in our communities, they, the police, just need a better understanding of who they are serving and protecting. That comes through a cultural shift. It comes through training and holding officers accountable when they do cross the line. It doesn't come through removing finances that help pay for those services.

    That said, there is a case study in the US about starting a police force over from scratch can look like as Camden, NJ did it in 2012.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    The video the elderly Catholic activist being pushed to the ground really put a bow on this for alot of people. The George Floyd video was bad enough, but then we get this brutal documentation of a seventy-year old man being shoved to the ground and he immediately starts BLEEDING FROM THE EAR (which indicates, at the very least, severe head trauma, and likely a life-threatening one if not addressed) and an entire platoon of cops just walk right by him while he's unconscious on the ground. A couple of them make an initial move to help, but are peer-pressured out of doing so by the goons among them.

    Of course, the kicker was the massive crowd of cops who resigned from their unit in protest because they thought the cops responsible for this macabre display were totally in the right. And then cheered them after they were arraigned. Nothing speaks to the systemic rot in the system like the REACTION to the Buffalo incident does. It was one of the most grotesque things I've ever seen in my life. Of course, Trump, days later, went nuclear with the "theory" that this senior citizen was an antifa agent who staged his own head trauma on purpose. And shit like that is why his poll numbers have tanked. Sure, his cult bought in, but everyone else is looking at him making claims like this and they are concluding once and for all he's way beyond the bounds of reasonable discourse. The idea that anyone could defend what happened in that video and the reaction by the rank and file is an indictment of our entire culture.
    ThacoBell
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,305
    edited June 2020
    deltago wrote: »
    Defunding the police is stupid. I understand restructuring. I understand not giving them military surplus in lieu of funding. But flat out defunding shouldn't be an option. Police do still serve an important function in our communities, they, the police, just need a better understanding of who they are serving and protecting. That comes through a cultural shift. It comes through training and holding officers accountable when they do cross the line. It doesn't come through removing finances that help pay for those services.

    The discussion I've seen suggests that the intention is not really about taking money away per se, but instead realigning responsibilities. For instance, at the moment US police are often acting as gatekeepers for some services that fit particularly poorly with the traditional model of enforcement - like access to housing or mental health services.

    One option under discussion is to make the police as a whole far more community focused. An alternative though would be to retain a cleaned up version of the existing model, but with a greatly slimmed down police force. The saved resources could then be put into different services which are less focused on criminalizing behavior.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited June 2020
    Grond0 wrote: »
    deltago wrote: »
    Defunding the police is stupid. I understand restructuring. I understand not giving them military surplus in lieu of funding. But flat out defunding shouldn't be an option. Police do still serve an important function in our communities, they, the police, just need a better understanding of who they are serving and protecting. That comes through a cultural shift. It comes through training and holding officers accountable when they do cross the line. It doesn't come through removing finances that help pay for those services.

    The discussion I've seen suggests that the intention is not really about taking money away per se, but instead realigning responsibilities. For instance, at the moment US police are often acting as gatekeepers for some services that fit particularly poorly with the traditional model of enforcement - like access to housing or mental health services.

    One option under discussion is to make the police as a whole far more community focused. An alternative though would be to retain a cleaned up version of the existing model, but with a greatly slimmed down police force. The saved resources could then be put into different services which are less focused on criminalizing behavior.

    "Defunding the police" is also employing the tactic of taking the most extreme position from the start, so when the inevitable compromises come, they are far closer to what you actually wanted. The American left is constantly (as long as I remember) starting their negotiations from a position of already compromising, then they add MORE compromise on top (see the Obamacare struggle) to seal the deal. This time, the starting point is extreme, and the eventual legislation or action, even if pretty radical, will seem prudent in contrast.
    Grond0ThacoBell
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited June 2020
    There is gonna be a religious exemption case sooner than later that relates to this before the same people. In that case, Gorsuch will likely flip. Roberts may still be a toss-up. What this came down to was the definition of the word "sex" and despite him having absolutely no right actually be on the court, Gorsuch actually explained why LGBT identification applies in this case, even if you view sex only as a definition between male and female. His example was "say a company has two employees, both are attracted to men. The only difference is, one is a woman, and the other is a man". In such a case, you can't fire the man for liking men, and not the woman, and claim "sex" (as in gender role) had nothing to do with it. It is actually a really smart way of looking at it, and gave him alot of wiggle room from a legal perspective to make this ruling. But, as I said, I highly suspect he would change his mind if a "Christian" business is one of the parties before the court the next time.

    But I'm reminded today of Anakin Skywalker telling his mom how he doesn't want things to change and she replies "you can't stop the change, any more than you can stop the sun from setting". Even with their judges packed on the courts, the religious right is losing their battle against gay and transgender rights, and eventually, they will be defeated entirely on this issue. At this point they are like that last Japanese soldier from WWII who finally surrendered in the mid-70s.
    semiticgoddessGrond0ThacoBell
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,305
    Mary Trump is promoting a book called "Too Much And Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man". As part of that she's confirmed she was a source for the NYT article on Donald's finances a while ago.
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,651
    There are too many incidents of needless death or violence to name. For a problem that seems to be getting better by the numbers, this is just lunacy at this point. Burning down the police department where the police brutality happened, with no one getting hurt to my knowledge, had some poetic justice to it, but so much of what has happened afterword has been just plain wrong.

    And where was Trump in all this? Offering absolutely nothing, and impotently tweeting Law and Order! day after day. I have never seen such a cratering of support for the guy by such a large segment of conservatives before. It seems like absolutely nobody is defending him on this. It's pathetic.

    The court didn't turn out to be a reactionary rubber stamp, which shouldn't surprise anyone.
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,651
    It really looks possible that Biden will take it and I sincerely hope he does so that this god forsaken carnival can be over with
    smeagolheart
  • lroumenlroumen Member Posts: 2,508
    edited June 2020
    I cannot understand why the current us president candidates are so old. Wouldn't you be concerned that they fall over during their presidency?
    Most candidates around here are 30s and early 40s. I guess the conservatives are older, early 50s.
    Post edited by lroumen on
    dunbarBalrog99ThacoBellÆmrys
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited June 2020
    It really looks possible that Biden will take it and I sincerely hope he does so that this god forsaken carnival can be over with

    I saw polls this morning that showed Biden up 10 in Florida and 13 in Michigan. Even if we assume that it's only HALF of that, it's still 5 and 6 1/2. When you say "god forsaken carnival", you are getting to the root of the issue. Biden's "campaign" such as it is is working brilliantly because of the circumstances. Because of COVID-19, he has every excuse to be out of public view and not holding events that can actually cause any scrutiny. And by doing so, he is giving everyone a taste of what they crave most at this point, which is (and I can't relate to this because it's such a hobby of mine) to not have to think about politics every day of their lives, which Trump basically forces them to do.

    8 out of 10 people think the country is "out of control". That's fine if you're the outsider in 2016 and you're running against someone who already had 30 years of negative campaigning thrown at her. But Trump is no longer the outsider, he's the incumbent. And all Biden has to do given the current climate is stay out of public view and continue to not be Hillary Clinton.

    I think people are looking at Joe Biden and saying "here is someone I can completely ignore for days or even weeks at a time. Sounds refreshing."
    ThacoBellBalrog99Grond0
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    It really looks possible that Biden will take it and I sincerely hope he does so that this god forsaken carnival can be over with

    I saw polls this morning that showed Biden up 10 in Florida and 13 in Michigan. Even if we assume that it's only HALF of that, it's still 5 and 6 1/2. When you say "god forsaken carnival", you are getting to the root of the issue. Biden's "campaign" such as it is is working brilliantly because of the circumstances. Because of COVID-19, he has every excuse to be out of public view and not holding events that can actually cause any scrutiny. And by doing so, he is giving everyone a taste of what they crave most at this point, which is (and I can't relate to this because it's such a hobby of mine) to not have to think about politics every day of their lives, which Trump basically forces them to do.

    8 out of 10 people think the country is "out of control". That's fine if you're the outsider in 2016 and you're running against someone who already had 30 years of negative campaigning thrown at her. But Trump is no longer the outsider, he's the incumbent. And all Biden has to do given the current climate is stay out of public view and continue to not be Hillary Clinton.

    I think people are looking at Joe Biden and saying "here is someone I can completely ignore for days or even weeks at a time. Sounds refreshing."

    Yeah, Biden's like my granddad who either stayed in the basement making wine, or was in the garage putzing around with old clocks, lawn mowers, can openers and whatever else needed 'fixed' with duct tape and Elmers glue. Harmless, but occasionally useful...
    BallpointMan
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,567
    edited June 2020
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    It really looks possible that Biden will take it and I sincerely hope he does so that this god forsaken carnival can be over with

    I saw polls this morning that showed Biden up 10 in Florida and 13 in Michigan. Even if we assume that it's only HALF of that, it's still 5 and 6 1/2. When you say "god forsaken carnival", you are getting to the root of the issue. Biden's "campaign" such as it is is working brilliantly because of the circumstances. Because of COVID-19, he has every excuse to be out of public view and not holding events that can actually cause any scrutiny. And by doing so, he is giving everyone a taste of what they crave most at this point, which is (and I can't relate to this because it's such a hobby of mine) to not have to think about politics every day of their lives, which Trump basically forces them to do.

    8 out of 10 people think the country is "out of control". That's fine if you're the outsider in 2016 and you're running against someone who already had 30 years of negative campaigning thrown at her. But Trump is no longer the outsider, he's the incumbent. And all Biden has to do given the current climate is stay out of public view and continue to not be Hillary Clinton.

    I think people are looking at Joe Biden and saying "here is someone I can completely ignore for days or even weeks at a time. Sounds refreshing."

    It's important to point out that no challenger to an incumbent has polled this well in the history of scientific polling. Again, we're still not even past the conventions, so a lot could change, but, at least on COVID, that seems unlikely.

    I think some credit actually has to go to Biden. Obviously the main explanation for the current polling disparity is both the current president's obvious incompetence and the hailstorm of crises he's now enduring. However, Biden has done a pretty good job of selling himself as a general election candidate. For as much shit as he got during the primary for all sorts of moderate, centrist, or even backwards positions he's had or currently has, all those things are now assets.
    BallpointMan
  • QuickbladeQuickblade Member Posts: 957
    DinoDin wrote: »
    Obviously the main explanation for the current polling disparity is both the current president's obvious incompetence and the hailstorm of crises he's now enduring.

    And yet, who saw this coming 4 years ago? Raise your hand.

    *raises hand*

    Oh on specifics, no. Not even in my worst fears would I have thought about the ordering of THOUSANDS of kids locked up in cages separated from their family for months, or a near totally unchecked global pandemic, or a total breakdown of civil order.

    But "obvious incompetence" in the face of (inter)national crises? Hell yes. What else would you expect when you elect a person with LITERALLY ZERO RELEVANT EXPERIENCE?

    And that was his SELLING POINT.
    ThacoBell
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    5.) COVID-19 is still out there, and at least twenty states are seeing massive spikes in numbers that (based on the incubation time) can be tied to the initial re-opening around Memorial Day. Expect to see even more about 10 days from now due to the civil unrest. Some states are even activating emergency procedures for hospitals. It's not gone just because it hasn't been on TV.

    Pence wrote an op-ed in the wsj praising himself and Trump for recovery (meaning it's over) and saying there's no second wave. He has been photographed without a mask or social distancing in a restaurant and another time with re-election staffers.

    Dr. faucci said he hadn't been able to talk to Trump in more than two weeks.
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,567
    Yeah, in many ways the US got lucky in the first three years of Trump. Trump inherited a stable and growing economy, and a relatively stable international situation. The situation today (as well as the disastrous state of the US in 2008) definitely casts an interesting light on some conservative pro-Trump arguments made back in 2016.

    I think especially the "Flight 93 Election" argument that allowed many educated conservatives to justify voting for an obviously corrupt individual merits enormous scrutiny today. One has to wonder, what exactly was the problem in 2016 that justified voting for such a risky candidate? Does 2016 now seem like an America in jeopardy moment it was sold as? And as I said, not just important to contrast that election year to this one, but to 2008 as well.
    smeagolheartThacoBell
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    You mean the people that were saying "we survived 8 years of Obama, you can survive 8 years of trrruump."

    Yeah, look around. This was wrong.
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    @semiticgod, any insight to the current India China clash happening? There was talk of de-escalation and now it has escalated with at least 20 Indian soldiers dead from a hand to hand clash that happened along the border. What's the chances of this blowing up (literally) the world.
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    @deltago: I've not been following the issue, but my instinct is to say that it's low. There's plenty of mutual distrust between India and China, and they've gone to war in the past over their borders, but I don't think we're close to the point of war. It's notable that both sides claimed that no shots were fired, so either there was a brawl that even the soldiers on the ground didn't intend to be lethal (very plausible), or both countries have secretly decided to lie about it in order to decrease domestic pressure for war (which requires two unlikely things to happen simultaneously).

    Xi Jinping has dictatorial aspirations to say the least, but it's not clear to me that expanded into India (or "defending China's borders" in a way that in practice means expanding into India) is on the Party's agenda. I've gotten the impression that they view the South China Sea as a greater territorial issue and their main security threat is internal stability, controlling their own people and crushing resentment in Xinjiang. China has a motive for posturing and threatening and increasing forces around the border, but it's not obvious to me that they view India as a serious threat, at least not compared to the United States' presence on Taiwan and in the South China Sea, ethnic unrest in Xinjiang, or domestic opposition to the Party.

    China did win a chunk of territory from India once before. But that was back during the Mao era, and Nehru didn't really place much importance on defending that area from the Chinese. It was a situation where China was governed by an explicitly pro-violence government and India was offering little resistance at that location. Today, China is governed by folks who have bigger fears than India, and snatching up more Indian land would be costly and largely meaningless.

    @Rik_Kirtaniya, what do you think things look like from India? I don't know what Modi has said about China in the past.
    ThacoBell
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,305
    Thus far Modi seems to be trying to avoid any escalation, so I agree it doesn't look as though there will be a growing conflict there. Here's a report on this situation.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited June 2020
    Not that Bolton deserves any credit at all because he could have testified to all this during impeachment, but his book excerpts leaked to the NYT. And Trump apparently was willing to give China his blessing on their concentration camps if Xi would take steps to get him re-elected.
    Post edited by jjstraka34 on
    BallpointMansmeagolheartThacoBell
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,659
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Not that Bolton deserves any credit at all because he could have testified to all this during impeachment, but his book excerpts leaked to the NYT. And Trump apparently was willing to give China his blessing on their concentration camps if Xi would take steps to get him re-elected.

    This really shouldnt shock anyone. I'm sure plenty of people will ride in deciding that Bolton can no longer be trusted because of a conflict of interest, but it's just another piece of evidence that Trump will do just about anything to avoid losing.

    I reallllllly hope 2020 isnt close. If it's close, it's scary to think what might happen.
    smeagolheartThacoBell
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Not that Bolton deserves any credit at all because he could have testified to all this during impeachment, but his book excerpts leaked to the NYT. And Trump apparently was willing to give China his blessing on their concentration camps if Xi would take steps to get him re-elected.

    This really shouldnt shock anyone. I'm sure plenty of people will ride in deciding that Bolton can no longer be trusted because of a conflict of interest, but it's just another piece of evidence that Trump will do just about anything to avoid losing.

    I reallllllly hope 2020 isnt close. If it's close, it's scary to think what might happen.

    Reading MAGA tweets about Bolton are absolutely amazing, Of course, Bolton is now just viewed as another "swamp" figure. But people are rightly pointing out that Trump has, at this point, hired at least a DOZEN people who have left the Administration and told stories like this. So even assuming ALL of them are lying in coordination, wouldn't that still, at a bare minimum, make Trump the worst judge of character in hiring practices imaginable??

    Their response?? "Absolutely not, he knew what he was getting into, and he hired them all so he could prove they weren't to be trusted". No joke. There is no penetrating this force field.
    semiticgoddessThacoBell
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    Bolton was a never trumper, despite working for him.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited June 2020
    Trump Administration has lost the DACA case at the Supreme Court 5-4. It's worth noting that much like with the census case, they basically lost because they were too lazy to do the necessary legal work to implement their desired policies. John Roberts doesn't even necessarily agree that Trump doesn't have the right to rescind DACA. He simply does't have any time for the bad faith legal arguments they are using when bringing these cases before the court. Conservatives who ARE against DACA should be aware that a competent Administration could have won this case before this court quite easily. It's just that this one can't because it's a clown show.

    Also, a MAJOR part of Trump's base is glued to him because of judges. They've now lost two high profile cases on gay rights and immigration in five days. Not the kind of water you need to be taking on when your boat is sinking.
    Post edited by jjstraka34 on
    ThacoBell
Sign In or Register to comment.