Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Edge-]

If he says he thinks Trump can handle office better than that is what he believes at the moment. No I don't agree with it, but that doesn't make what I wrote about him a lie.

No, but it speaks volumes to his ignorance and stupidity and is a shining example of why he's nothing more than an idiot with a talk show rather than some kind of political luminary.

You can't claim to be a liberal your whole life and then look at Trump and go, "You know what? He's alright and I like him more." compared to literally any of the Democratic primary candidates, Biden, Sanders, Gabbard, Williamson...anyone. Well, I mean you can, Joe Rogan just did, and we'll rightfully mock such a nonsense position held by a popular idiot.

[beanman12345]

Need to reply in a language they understand. A youtuber commenting on a podcaster commenting on something else.



Atleast its not a straight Qanon video

Nah, finally just put him on ignore. No more losing brain cells reading his crap. He never listens. no amount of evidence is enough. waste of time.

[postman1782]

If the polls are accurate and stay the same as they are now, like I said, you will not be disappointed.

The audio recordings and videos, deal with his stupid statements mainly. No argument from me on that. But I am not voting for his personality or failure to respond correctly verbally. After all, Bill Clinton was popular. In spite of him taking advantage of one of the WH workers with his position of power, to get sexual benefits.

He has done NOTHING to help this country, including you. Everything he has done, hurts everyone but the 1%. He is literally pissing on you, and telling you it is rain, and you believe him.

[Zython]

Two time Obama voters voted for Trump. So it can obviously be done.

People keep saying this, but don't provide any ballots proving this.

[Benggaul]

I love when someone says back to work before spending the next 30+ minutes constantly checking and responding to posts.

To bring back an older joke: Gotta earn those turnips.

[Milchshake]

To bring back an older joke: Gotta earn those turnips.

Good thing that Grandma's Basement is a union shop.

But ya, unless I see photos with a driver's licence, im assuming its bullshit.


But seriously, it could be Gary Cohn posting here as a secret liberal

[jonnysensible]

why do some many people get thier discourse from youtube morons. fuck me. its obvious to anyone who is aware of thier talking points.

[postman1782]

Uh huh...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...bernie-sanders

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/jo...den-2020-04-05

Please, lie to me some more.

Yeah, if he was a Sanders supporter, and would rather vote Trump after Sanders dropped out, someone who is on the opposite end of the spectrum from Sanders, then he was never a Sanders supporter. It doesn't make any sense for ANY Sanders supporter to pretty much give up everything, go full racist, full science denial, and full, for lack of a better term, "retard" and support Trump.

[Zython]

Yeah, if he was a Sanders supporter, and would rather vote Trump after Sanders dropped out, someone who is on the opposite end of the spectrum from Sanders, then he was never a Sanders supporter. It doesn't make any sense for ANY Sanders supporter to pretty much give up everything, go full racist, full science denial, and full, for lack of a better term, "retard" and support Trump.

I mean, did anyone actually expect Joe Rogan to vote for a Jew?

[Edge-]

Yeah, if he was a Sanders supporter, and would rather vote Trump after Sanders dropped out, someone who is on the opposite end of the spectrum from Sanders, then he was never a Sanders supporter.

This always gets me. The only thing Sanders and Trump have in common is that they're "outsiders". And that they're old white dudes. After that the similarities end. Their policy positions are almost all polar opposite. Their views for the future are completely polar opposite. Their rhetoric isn't remotely similar. There's literally nothing about them that the two camps could rally around beyond, "They're not establishment!" which...I mean I guess is true but it also pretty fuckin meaningless because so was Yang, and Williamson, and plenty of others.

Like, how could someone support one of the most progressive politicians around and then turn around to support one of the most regressive politicians around? Because they like repeating the same handful of slogans endlessly? I just don't fuckin get it.

[Machismo]

He has only ever voted liberal by his own admission. As I said, believe whatever you want.

You want to believe what he said in the moment about how he felt or if you want to believe about how he has voted in the past. The two are not mutually exclusive. Anyone who has ever had long conversation has said things in the moment that if pressed would probably not agree. That of course requires nuance and is something people willingly ignore.

He said he supports Trump, so why wouldn't I believe him?

So, you are either saying he's a liar, and cannot be trusted (which makes your entire push to have him host a debate utterly fucking moronic), or you are being inconsistent in order to be deceptive.

There really is no other answer.

So, which is it... you made a terrible argument, or you are lying? Pick one.

[Zython]

Why wouldn't he ?

Same reason most gentiles wouldn’t.

[PACOX]

Looks like we got at two who are wiling to do a 4 hour Debate with Joe Rogan, and from what was I heard before each campaign reached out to go on his podcast after Bernie had his interview.

I don't think Biden will take them up on it.

If I didn't know Trump wasn't only suggesting it because he'd probably be making money off it...and opinion of Rogan (some reason liberals swear progressives just like Rogan), I would be down for it.

A sit down between the two candidates on a podcast outside of the crap that comes with debates hosted by the MSM? Let's go.

No candidate would ever agree to it. Some legal issues would be need to be addressed to with how big the podcast industry has come.

The idea of a debate/townhall on a podcast is interesting though. Not like politicians don't already campaign on podcasts.

[beanman12345]

This always gets me. The only thing Sanders and Trump have in common is that they're "outsiders". And that they're old white dudes. After that the similarities end. Their policy positions are almost all polar opposite. Their views for the future are completely polar opposite. Their rhetoric isn't remotely similar. There's literally nothing about them that the two camps could rally around beyond, "They're not establishment!" which...I mean I guess is true but it also pretty fuckin meaningless because so was Yang, and Williamson, and plenty of others.

Like, how could someone support one of the most progressive politicians around and then turn around to support one of the most regressive politicians around? Because they like repeating the same handful of slogans endlessly? I just don't fuckin get it.

IDK, we have a guy who claims he voted ralph nader twice, than obama, and now is one of Trump's biggest supporters on this forum. A lot of people are just full of shit. I mean I get some people change political views over time, but it's pretty extreme, so no.

[PACOX]

pretty much. all he's got is everyone here is dishonest blah blah he's a victim blah blah blah, can't be right about literally anything, it's getting boring, i'm probably one of the most guilty of it, but done let him derail the thread with his pure bullshit on the daily.

This election isn't about policy or ideology as been parroted many times so not sure it's surprising that someone might not give a damn about either when they cast their vote.

[Edge-]

If I didn't know Trump wasn't only suggesting it because he'd probably be making money off it...and opinion of Rogan (some reason liberals swear progressives just like Rogan), I would be down for it.

A sit down between the two candidates on a podcast outside of the crap that comes with debates hosted by the MSM? Let's go.

No candidate would ever agree to it. Some legal issues would be need to be addressed to with how big the podcast industry has come.

The idea of a debate/townhall on a podcast is interesting though. Not like politicians don't already campaign on podcasts.

Agreed, but very rarely do they go on podcast with someone who might press them on a policy or position, and certainly not with the person they are running against. I think it would be a better format as well, even if it wasn't Joe Rogan.

What's "better/different" about the format? Is it just that it would be a more freeform discussion with far fewer rules or something? That outside influences wouldn't come into play like they do with MSM?

[beanman12345]

This election isn't about policy or ideology as been parroted many times so not sure it's surprising that someone might not give a damn about either when they cast their vote.

This election is 100% ideology. This election is 100% a referendum on Trump. I argue people who don't give a damn about either when they cast their vote, don't give a damn period.

[Edge-]

Namely the later, perhaps if Debates were still held or controlled by the League of Women voters.

Fucking hell I'd be down for this. The League does a ton of awesome, non-partisan work.

Hell any independent group not so easily influenced by who is going to be running commercials during the debate would be an improvement.

That's a high bar to meet. A lot of these podcasts are involved in larger networks with corporate sponsorship/ownership, plus you'll have huge demand for influence during the debates from political organizations and companies as well. Even with non-partisan groups like LoWV would face pressure, and they already do at times, so going podcast with it wouldn't be a real "fix" for that problem as it's going to be there in any format.

And the no-advertising angle ain't gonna happen without serious campaign finance reform. No podcast or network is going to turn down the extremely lucrative debate ads when there's money to be made.

[PACOX]

Namely the later, perhaps if Debates were still held or controlled by the League of Women voters. Hell any independent group not so easily influenced by who is going to be running commercials during the debate would be an improvement.

Ie the host asking a loaded question about M4A then cutting to commercials about health insurance.

- - - Updated - - -

This election is 100% ideology. This election is 100% a referendum on Trump. I argue people who don't give a damn about either when they cast their vote, don't give a damn period.

Wrong. Voters statically do not vote their ideology nor does the supposed 'referendum' on Trump reflects that. Not mutually exclusive but far from one in the same. One can say their ideology prevents them from voting for Trump or be 'blue no matter what' without really caring much about ideology, policies, beliefs. A large church of Dems fall into the latter, some do it while claiming they are in the former. Words prove otherwise.

[beanman12345]

Ie the host asking a loaded question about M4A then cutting to commercials about health insurance.

- - - Updated - - -



Wrong. Voters statically do not vote their ideology nor does the supposed 'referendum' o. Trump reflect that. Not mutually exclusive but far from one in the same.

Nah, a normal election, might be right, this one, I 100% disagree with you.