US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)

[TedEH]

All the "what ifs" don't amount to anything without offering up actual details. What if who? What if which changes exactly? I can say all day long "what if we just got along!" but it doesn't mean anything without putting forth a plan on how to get there. Why can't we pick a reasonable middle ground person? Well, who is that middle ground person? Do they exist? Can you point at any given politician who has never lied and who somehow represents the interests of the left and right at the same time? That person doesn't exist.

Yes, in an ideal world, we pick only the purest most altruistic leaders who work in the best interest of ideal compromises that benefit everyone. We don't live in that ideal world.

 

[Briz]

All the "what ifs" don't amount to anything without offering up actual details. What if who? What if which changes exactly? I can say all day long "what if we just got along!" but it doesn't mean anything without putting forth a plan on how to get there. Why can't we pick a reasonable middle ground person? Well, who is that middle ground person? Do they exist? Can you point at any given politician who has never lied and who somehow represents the interests of the left and right at the same time? That person doesn't exist.

Yes, in an ideal world, we pick only the purest most altruistic leaders who work in the best interest of ideal compromises that benefit everyone. We don't live in that ideal world.

Look man, you're narrow minded. We can pick a middle ground. Who? I don't know. But you're a self proclaimed communist, so there's probably not a middle ground for you. As a person of faith, I don't expect a theocracy. I'm saying that in an ideal world, in a democratic republic, we would give third party candidates a chance to express their views in an open forum so we could decide on something other than red or blue.

Biden, or the DNC, shut down any chance at a primary. In a democratic republic, those third party candidates wouldn't be denied secret service protection and would be given an opportunity to appeal to the public by stating their position.

If communism is your choice, I understand why you think it's blasphemy to challenge the system as it currently stands.

 

[Randy]

Yes, in an ideal world, we pick only the purest most altruistic leaders who work in the best interest of ideal compromises that benefit everyone. We don't live in that ideal world.

I know is mostly directed at the other guy but I'd like to reiterate that "any choices at all" is a good start, and then we can debate who's better etc.

I doubt in a country of 300 million, the "purest" candidate is the one handpicked by the party blocking out any competition. Moving on from that would be a step in the right direction.

 

[Briz]

I know is mostly directed at the other guy but I'd like to reiterate that "any choices at all" is a good start, and then we can debate who's better etc.

I doubt in a country of 300 million, the "purest" candidate is the one handpicked by the party blocking out any competition. Moving on from that would be a step in the right direction.

I think I agree with you. But to clarify, are you saying we should be afforded an opportunity to choose a candidate outside of the two party system? Meaning, we have a legitimate contender(s) that doesn't quite fit on the left or right? If that's the case, that's what I'm arguing for. Give third party candidates an equal opportunity to appeal to the public.

 

[Randy]

I think I agree with you. But to clarify, are you saying we should be afforded an opportunity to choose a candidate outside of the two party system? Meaning, we have a legitimate contender(s) that don't quite fit on the left or right? If that's the case, that's what I'm arguing for. Give third party candidates an equal opportunity to appeal to the public.

Third parties already exist, though. We can debate how they're treated by the media but they are allowed on the ballot, they can buy commercials and lawn signs etc. I think it would be healthy if they were more common but still, I look at countries where they have robust third (and fourth, and fifth, etc) parties and they're no more functional than us. Mostly.

I think the American people can't necessarily handle more than two-ish options at the polls and even if there were more, they'd still exist with some level of duality (the three right wing parties versus the three left wing parties).

I'm mostly talking about primaries. Getting more involved with the pick at the individual level before we get into picking our team versus the other team(s). Should be 20 people on that stage every year.

 

[Briz]

Third parties already exist, though. We can debate how they're treated by the media but they are allowed on the ballot, they can buy commercials and lawn signs etc. I think it would be healthy if they were more common but still, I look at countries where they have robust third (and fourth, and fifth, etc) parties and they're no more functional than us. Mostly.

I think the American people can't necessarily handle more than two-ish options at the polls and even if there were more, they'd still exist with some level of duality (the three right wing parties versus the three left wing parties).

I'm mostly talking about primaries. Getting more involved with the pick at the individual level before we get into picking our team versus the other team(s). Should be 20 people on that stage every year.

I agree. However, would you agree that we're profoundly dumb, as a country, to accept two defacto candidates that refused to debate? And moreover, they probably won't even debate each other in the presidential election. I know it's not our current reality, but I believe that we've allowed dark money and special interests to control our two options on the menu. I'm not a fan of Williamson, or Phillips, RFK makes sense sometimes but crazy other times, West is insane in my opinion, but every single one of them should have had an opportunity to debate Biden. Trump ducked the debates entirely. That leaves us with two hand picked candidates. We would have benefitted from open discourse, televised on all stations. At least we'd be able to hear them out instead of relying on spoon-fed media narratives.

Maybe you, as a presidential candidate, have a better plan to unite the country and move it forward. I'd listen to your argument and weigh my options. It shouldn't be about who the GOP or DNC picks, or how much money is in the campaign war chest. That's the problem.

 

[CTID]

I would think it's obvious, but honest, good people don't generally seek political power over 400M other people.

It's the same reason that you see so much shit about police violence: on some level, the job just attracts people who want power to exert over others.

I'm not saying there's no exceptions to the rule, but you're talking an absurdly small fraction of people who are willing to take on that kind of responsibility purely to serve a cause bigger than themselves.

 

[Randy]

I would think it's obvious, but honest, good people don't generally seek political power over 400M other people.

Depends.

I have friends and family that've held political office (and Ive flirted with the idea myself ) and the thought process as I've observed is usually "I can do a better job than that person currently holding office" as opposed to "I'm smarter than the other 400m people that could run for office".

I think there's some room for altruism there or at least "less corrupt-ism"

 

[Randy]

I agree. However, would you agree that we're profoundly dumb, as a country, to accept two defacto candidates that refused to debate? And moreover, they probably won't even debate each other in the presidential election. I know it's not our current reality, but I believe that we've allowed dark money and special interests to control our two options on the menu. I'm not a fan of Williamson, or Phillips, RFK makes sense sometimes but crazy other times, West is insane in my opinion, but every single one of them should have had an opportunity to debate Biden. Trump ducked the debates entirely. That leaves us with two hand picked candidates. We would have benefitted from open discourse, televised on all stations. At least we'd be able to hear them out instead of relying on spoon-fed media narratives.

Maybe you, as a presidential candidate, have a better plan to unite the country and move it forward. I'd listen to your argument and weigh my options. It shouldn't be about who the GOP or DNC picks, or how much money is in the campaign war chest. That's the problem.

We're in agreement here mostly on how shitty it is, maybe not totally united on how to make it not shitty. But it's a start.

I think the fact the alternatives are all some degree of crazy is a good indication of the only "competition" allowed to bubble up to the surface. The Democrats are bad, very bad but Trump not even showing up to the debates (without currently holding office) and blowing out the competition is an embarrassment of democracy.

 

[CTID]

Depends.

I have friends and family that've held political office (and Ive flirted with the idea myself ) and the thought process as I've observed is usually "I can do a better job than that person currently holding office" as opposed to "I'm smarter than the other 400m people that could run for office".

I think there's some room for altruism there or at least "less corrupt-ism"

I don't disagree with your overall point, but at what level though? I definitely agree that you can find people in local, city etc governments that are there for (semi-)altruistic reasons in that they can make change in their community. I just feel like the further up you go, the greater the separation between "you" and "your constituents" is.

 

[bostjan]

Unfortunately, you're right about third party. But, what if? What if we could agree on a third party candidate that didn't run on "my way or the highway, toe the party line," but acknowledged our differences and united us around the numerous issues we share in common? Maybe it's a pipe dream, but it certainly doesn't have to be. It's a choice we willingly make every time we cast a local, state, or federal vote. If I can have atheist friends that I cherish, our nation can certainly find a middle ground. The problem is the facade and sleight of hand - look over here, hate that person, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. I could be wrong, but I believe the divisiveness we're seeing is by design to establish and maintain power and money. When I hear truth and honesty that's not designed by a speech writer to tickle my ears, I love it. That's why MSM is dying. People know they're being lied to and they're tired of it, on the left, middle, and right.

That's why I don't understand why, in a civilized world, we give blatant liars a pass because they're "our guy" or "our girl." Enough. Every hour you work pays their salary. Maybe there's a movement to abstain from voting until something changes. Again, it's a big "what if," but not impossible.

I'd love that to happen.

Maybe I've grown too cynical from old age, but I just think it's a necessary prerequisite to be a liar and a swindler in order to become president. Like, if you want to climb to the top, you have to step on everyone else.

 

[Randy]

I don't disagree with your overall point, but at what level though? I definitely agree that you can find people in local, city etc governments that are there for (semi-)altruistic reasons in that they can make change in their community. I just feel like the further up you go, the greater the separation between "you" and "your constituents" is.

I agree with this, but I think that's a side effect of the pain that's applied to an "outsider" candidate the further you climb up the chain, which is the whole thing I'm asking to remove from the equation.

I know even in local elections in larger municipalities, party endorsements play a big role in getting the job. The party will not just endorse you, they'll go door to door for you, they'll put up signs for you etc but also, if you're not the preferred candidate of the party, they'll go out of their way to trash you. Get worse the higher you go up the ladder too.

Was just talking to someone about this today. Local election, my friend ran for mayor and he's a true blue lifelong Democrat. Ran against a corrupt DINO who had the party endorsement. Another friend of mine is plugged in with the party, he told me outright there were private meetings by local business establishing and agreement NOT to endorse or contribute to my friends campaign (because he was an outsider). Couldn't get any traction in the primary, so he had to run as an independent along with an endorsement from the Republican JUST because he wasn't the Democratic handpicked candidate. And in this city, it's impossible to win as a Republican so it was the kiss of death for his campaign.

Get the party fingers off the scale. I remember debating that on here before and being told "the party has no responsibility to remain impartial". These are the attitudes that install candidates rather than electing them.

 

[USMarine75]

Florida Approves Law Banning Social Media for Children under 14

learningenglish.voanews.com

Now let’s make it a federal law.

Yet… Brought to you by the party of personal responsibility and laissez-faire government?

 

[TedEH]

I was prepared for some commentary on how the article stuck the definition of "consent" at the bottom of the page, before I realized that's an English learning site.

 

[USMarine75]

Try having a social life. It's not healthy to just go home and be a shut in.

Just have fun with it.

 

[USMarine75]

I have multiple members of my family that were buried with full military honors and did difficult stuff for this country so you can have the freedoms you have. Can you say the same?

 

[USMarine75]

I'll preface with the fact that all politicians are liars - and massively so.

But you only argued against one of the Biden lies - and it is easily the most forgivable, especially since I just said yesterday or so that it was in Boston lol

Let's also not forget that he constantly claims his deceased son died IN Iraq - when he did not. And there isn't a concrete connection between the burn pits and the cancer anyhow.

And I'll link non-right articles to help the case:

Biden again suggests son Beau died from Iraq War during call with family of solider killed in Jordan drone strike

President Biden once again suggested that his late son Beau died as a result of his service in Iraq while consoling a grieving Georgia family who lost their daughter from a drone strike in Jordan o…

nypost.com

Biden, 80, raises eyebrows after claiming late son Beau died in Iraq

President Joe Biden, 80, once again falsely claimed that his son Beau Biden was killed while serving in Iraq yet again while visiting with United States troops stationed in Japan Monday.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Yet you linked two right leaning tabloids as evidence?

Biden’s quote was that “we lost him in Iraq”. While I can’t read his mind he’s just as likely saying his belief that the burn pits in Iraq killed him.

I mean, cmon Jack, are you really really going after a father about the death of his child? The same guy that lost his daughter and first wife previously? And you want me to believe he tells lies about the death of his son - a public figure in which many are aware of the story? That square peg doesn’t fit into the round hole.

Sorry, but these aren’t the arguments of a centrist nor someone that reads and thinks critically.

Regarding burn pits and related conditions, the VA and Congress have determined there are enough cases with high incidence rate for these to be presumptive conditions related to burn pit exposure. We know (linked, not presumptive) that the chemicals and byproducts of the burn are toxic and carcinogenic, so it’s certainly not a stretch that being exposed to burn pits for up to 14 months had deleterious effects.

VA.gov | Veterans Affairs

Apply for and manage the VA benefits and services you’ve earned as a Veteran, Servicemember, or family member—like health care, disability, education, and more.

www.publichealth.va.gov

 

[MetalDestroyer]

Centrist and not political are code for conservative for people who know people treat conservatives like the heartless POS's they are and don't want to have to live with the social consequences of their beliefs. Cowardly conservatism you could say.

 

[USMarine75]

Go back to my post approx 20 pages ago when I said we need to stop treating primary opposition as harmful to the party (or democracy) at large.

Interesting conversation about how the Founding Fathers never intended for us to have a two party system, and lamented should we ever find ourselves in that predicament.

 

[USMarine75]

All the "what ifs" don't amount to anything without offering up actual details. What if who? What if which changes exactly? I can say all day long "what if we just got along!" but it doesn't mean anything without putting forth a plan on how to get there. Why can't we pick a reasonable middle ground person? Well, who is that middle ground person? Do they exist? Can you point at any given politician who has never lied and who somehow represents the interests of the left and right at the same time? That person doesn't exist.

Yes, in an ideal world, we pick only the purest most altruistic leaders who work in the best interest of ideal compromises that benefit everyone. We don't live in that ideal world.

The real problem IMO is conflation and false equivalencies.

An easy example is Biden and Trump being found illegally holding on to classified documents when they left office. It’s easy to say they both committed the same crime, are both equally culpable, and both equally flawed. “They did the same thing! They’re both bad!” But it’s just empirically untrue. Trump lied to NARA and the DOJ. First he said he didn’t have the docs. Then he said “they’re mine you can’t have them”. Then he conspired to move the docs to hide them from investigators. He actively hid them from law enforcement during the execution of a search warrant. He made specious and unlawful claims regarding fictitious presidential authorities and abilities. We also have recordings of him knowingly and willfully discussing and disclosingTS/SCI info. He admitted that he doesn’t have the ability to declassify these while claiming he can declassify with his mind (he can’t, there is no such authority).

Meanwhile, Biden’s lawyer (IIRC) discovered classified docs at one of his residences and contacted NARA to turn them in. Biden cooperated and gave permission to search all of his properties. Bottom line, he was forthcoming and cooperative.

And a part of the consideration for criminality and adverse action regarding classified Spillage is the likelihood that the info was compromised. Trump had the majority of his in an unlocked bathroom at a private resort visited by IIRC 10,000 people in the last 4 years, and by his own admission unlawfully disclosed classified information. Biden kept his in a locked garage at a private residence.

These two things are similar but not equal.