Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[postman1782]

This is what I'm rolling my eyes at so aggressively. It's all so absurd and tiresome. Have a good night.

Thanks for confirming that you want to do anything you can to defend the GOP, and whine about Cheney. Again, the only fucking reason that they are whining now, is because she grew some semblance of a fucking spine and stood up to Trump and his shitty followers.

[Kellhound]

In the context of presidential elections, it's bloody not a significant difference. Everyone here except you seems to understand this.

In 1992, only 43% of the voters wanted Clinton to be President. 57% of the voters did not agree with his platform. That is significant.

- - - Updated - - -

That horse has been beaten to death, with mountains of evidence provided in the past.

We've covered it... many times.

"I can't prove it so I will bluff and hope no one calls me on it."

[Blur4stuff]

Not sure why the vote % thing is still going, but one thing we know for certain is that the majority of voters left the GOP a long time ago. And not just for president. Dems consistently get more support for house and senate seats too.

The only reason republicans have had any power over the past few decades is because the game is rigged in their favor. If representation was actually fair republicans would have been losing just about everything. They'd actually be forced to provide some kind of platform instead of just running on hatred of liberals.

[Cthulhu 2020]

In 1992, only 43% of the voters wanted Clinton to be President. 57% of the voters did not agree with his platform. That is significant.

Again, why does this matter? As someone pointed out with sources, a strong third party turn out did not draw votes away from any candidate in particular, it drew equal votes from both sides, along with people who almost never vote.

In 2000, Bush lost the popular vote. Obama won the popular vote in both 2008 and 2012. Hillary won the popular vote in 2016. All Democrats getting over 50% of the vote except for in 2004 when Bush Jr was still riding the wave of his popularity in response to 9/11.

So again, what is your point in all of this? Are you saying all of your arguments defending the GOP in the past were pointless because Republicans can't win a majority?

[Kellhound]

Again, why does this matter? As someone pointed out with sources, a strong third party turn out did not draw votes away from any candidate in particular, it drew equal votes from both sides, along with people who almost never vote.

In 2000, Bush lost the popular vote. Obama won the popular vote in both 2008 and 2012. Hillary won the popular vote in 2016. All Democrats getting over 50% of the vote except for in 2004 when Bush Jr was still riding the wave of his popularity in response to 9/11.

So again, what is your point in all of this? Are you saying all of your arguments defending the GOP in the past were pointless because Republicans can't win a majority?

Neither candidate in 2016 captured the majority of votes. But then again, 2016 should have been a mulligan.

I argue for the rule of law, not for either party.

[Machismo]

In 1992, only 43% of the voters wanted Clinton to be President. 57% of the voters did not agree with his platform. That is significant.

- - - Updated - - -



"I can't prove it so I will bluff and hope no one calls me on it."

Not at all, this goes right along the time you spent pages and pages defending racism.

It has already been proven.

[Belize]

Since when does the Republican party move to the median? All they do is go further and further right, the 'next man up' would probably be some flat-earth Q-anon slavery apologist child molester.

Oh, they're betting on Trump again?

[Draco-Onis]

Oh, they're betting on Trump again?

Unless something happens he is going to be the party nominee in 2024 fealty to the dear leader is absolute.

[Bodakane]

Neither candidate in 2016 captured the majority of votes.

Wait.........what?

You know that the definition of majority is not "51% and up"....right?

[tehdang]

Neither candidate in 2016 captured the majority of votes. But then again, 2016 should have been a mulligan.

I argue for the rule of law, not for either party.

It should be cause to consider how many voters didn't like either major party candidate and went third party. Voters did that in the largest margin since Ross Perot was a thing.

[Machismo]

It should be cause to consider how many voters didn't like either major party candidate and went third party. Voters did that in the largest margin since Ross Perot was a thing.

This guy would like to have a chat with you...

Nah it was Trump or Clinton. It was really the best of two bad choices for me.

The open hatred of Trump voters is basically a reminder that we still have work to do.

[tehdang]

This guy would like to have a chat with you...

A little off topic, but that was in the context of my voting decisions. I don't put that on other voters that express their displeasure by going third party. I can appreciate their choices and why they made them without demanding they also align with my choices on the matter.

[Machismo]

A little off topic, but that was in the context of my voting decisions. I don't put that on other voters that express their displeasure by going third party. I can appreciate their choices and why they made them without demanding they also align with my choices on the matter.

Once again, you were the one who sought to make it a binary choice, which is in direct contrast to the comment you just made.

But, it makes you clear you definitely liked Trump and the GOP enough to vote for them. Personally, I'm not sure why people are such fans of a wretched human being, but you do you.

[Felya]

A little off topic, but that was in the context of my voting decisions. I don't put that on other voters that express their displeasure by going third party. I can appreciate their choices and why they made them without demanding they also align with my choices on the matter.

Do you see the problem with saying you don’t put it on third party voters, then asserting their vote is due to displeasure? Maybe they simply liked Ross Perot more?

Edit:

The Economy and ‘Read My Lips,’ Not Ross Perot, Cost President Bush His 1992 Reelection
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-po...on-ross-perot/

Here’s the truth. Exit polls showed that Perot drew votes almost evenly from Clinton and Bush. In the states where Perot did the best—Texas and Florida—Bush still won and took all the Electoral College votes. The truth has hardly mattered to what has become known in political circles as the Perot Myth. During the 2016 election, the political website Five Thirty Eight produced a video trying to dispel the Perot Myth.

The idea that Perot cost Bush the 1992 election is one of the most enduring myths of American politics, and I feel a little guilty popping the bubble; after all, as a newspaper editor said in the movie The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance: “This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”

[tehdang]

Once again, you were the one who sought to make it a binary choice, which is in direct contrast to the comment you just made.

But, it makes you clear you definitely liked Trump and the GOP enough to vote for them. Personally, I'm not sure why people are such fans of a wretched human being, but you do you.

You saw the context, and chose to ignore it. Like somebody that made a tough choice between a red and white car, suddenly broadsided by a loon that says he can never know what it means for someone to pick a black car. You ignore context at the cost of your own ignorance. But bring it back to topic if you want continued interaction.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you see the problem with saying you don’t put it on third party voters, then asserting their vote is due to displeasure? Maybe they simply liked Ross Perot more?

Edit:

The Economy and ‘Read My Lips,’ Not Ross Perot, Cost President Bush His 1992 Reelection
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-po...on-ross-perot/

The quoted part is my personal voting considerations. I don't force others to adopt the same considerations. It really is quite an easy point to understand. People can vote Biden, never thinking otherwise, and still come to terms to why someone voted Trump. They do it every other post in this forum.

[Machismo]

You saw the context, and chose to ignore it. Like somebody that made a tough choice between a red and white car, suddenly broadsided by a loon that says he can never know what it means for someone to pick a black car. You ignore context at the cost of your own ignorance. But bring it back to topic if you want continued interaction.

- - - Updated - - -


The quoted part is my personal voting considerations. I don't force others to adopt the same considerations. It really is quite an easy point to understand. People can vote Biden, never thinking otherwise, and still come to terms to why someone voted Trump. They do it every other post in this forum.

Nah, it wasn't a tough choice for you, that's simply an attempt to shed responsibility. I've watched Trumpsters bend over backwards for years, to justify their choices and actions.

Meanwhile, when they turn around and try and complain, the detest that it co tinues to get poi Ted out to them.

I guess you weren't displeased.

[Felya]

The quoted part is my personal voting considerations. I don't force others to adopt the same considerations. It really is quite an easy point to understand. People can vote Biden, never thinking otherwise, and still come to terms to why someone voted Trump. They do it every other post in this forum.

The bold part that I responded to, was not an assertion of your personal voting considerations... it’s defining Perot voters as showing displeasure. You didn’t just say you don’t put the onus on third party voters, you defined them while saying it.

[Lynarii]

I mean, there's nothing really hypocritical about saying "There are people who don't like either major party, and voted for a third party that they liked significantly more. And while I personally also don't like either major party, I recognize that one of the two will win, so even though I'd RATHER the third party be in charge I'll hold my nose and vote for the major party I hate less."

In countries with more than 2 legitimate options, such strategic voting is quite common, to the point that many countries have revamped their voting systems so that people can safely vote their primary pick AND still gain the benefit of strategic voting in scenarios where their primary pick simply won't win.

Edit: Pretty much if Perot or ANY third party candidate actually filled the role of a 'spoiler' that changed who won the election, it's because FPTP is the absolutely worst way to run a modern election possible. It's designed, explicitly, to preserve political dynasties and freeze out as much potential competition as possible.

[Milchshake]

Query: Biden 2020/21 understands the mood of the national electorate better than other candidates and the beltway press?

Proof:
Q: "What did you get?"

President Biden: "Tacos and some enchiladas."

Q: "Do you have any comments on the efforts to oust Liz Cheney from the House Republican leadership post?"

Biden: "I don't understand the Republicans."



It's Taco night in America!

[Felya]

It's Taco night in America!

It’s cinco de Mayo everywhere...