Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Themius]

Why though? That would mean the actions start and end on their platforms and you don't have all the "oooohhhhh collusion!" nonsense. I'm not connecting the dots here.

I don't think there exists an industry that doesn't involve collusion between large players for their own interests.

If enough large companies though had a similar modus operandi as FB it would be very easy to fall into a tailored world with them deciding what we see...

Alternatively, this would hopefully be unpopular and you'd see the rise of competitors which would make this a non-issue.

[Fugus]

I lost a lot of respect for Sanders when he left the Democrats after his first failed Presidential run. It became pretty clear to me at that point that he's just in it for the cult of Bernie Sanders, not to effect meaningful change. He wants to be seen saying the right things, more than he wants to get his hands dirty trying to make real change. As opposed to, say, AOC, who's in the mix and fighting that fight.

This is really just par for the course. I've had a lot of question of how deeply he feels any of this crap, and these kinds of comments seem to indicate it's all pretty shallow.

Still will have to disagree with you here. I don’t blame Sanders for leaving the party and I would have done the same thing in his situation and it would have nothing to do with a cult following and everything to do with them trying to trade on his name while fighting him and his policies which gave him that following to begin with.

He effects more meaningful change as the outsider pushing for what they want and the supporters going for it and encouraging others to run than he would as a Democrat that they trod out for donations but try and ignore him come policy time as much as possible.

Without Sanders, there is a good chance there would be no AOC. Warren didn’t get that level of public exposure compared to him even before the elections because of her willingness to “play politics” with the issues and sit back even when the public asked to move forward, something she put onto full display in the primaries which she tried to get wishwashy on healthcare.

Now, complaining about recent stuff, yeah, free game on that. But I can not in good conscience fault him for something I would have done the same in with completely valid reasons.

[Katchii]

So social media isn't important, then? The bigger issue seems to be less a presence on social media and more ignorance on who people actually voted for. How do you not know the Reps. you vote for? I can buy like, the county trash commissioner or the comptroller general, but Reps. and Senators should be known to people who are voting for them.

As someone who only recently started really caring about this stuff so can comment a bit, the results of the elections are not something you would ever be exposed to unless you were actively looking for them. Tuning into the local news channel to see them, looking it up online to see them, looking for it in the newspaper (if you still read that stuff), etc... Up until that point, all you've seen are the signs around your local stores with everyone's name, but you don't necessarily know who won unless you go look for it.

And with many families (mine included) going completely without TV, and only using streaming services, etc... the only option is to literally actively search for this information online, and if you don't care enough about it to be involved in it, that's just not something you'll ever remember or think about doing, it's simply a task that never pops into your brain.

[SirBeef]

Still will have to disagree with you here. I don’t blame Sanders for leaving the party and I would have done the same thing in his situation and it would have nothing to do with a cult following and everything to do with them trying to trade on his name while fighting him and his policies which gave him that following to begin with.

He effects more meaningful change as the outsider pushing for what they want and the supporters going for it and encouraging others to run than he would as a Democrat that they trod out for donations but try and ignore him come policy time as much as possible.

Without Sanders, there is a good chance there would be no AOC. Warren didn’t get that level of public exposure compared to him even before the elections because of her willingness to “play politics” with the issues and sit back even when the public asked to move forward, something she put onto full display in the primaries which she tried to get wishwashy on healthcare.

Now, complaining about recent stuff, yeah, free game on that. But I can not in good conscience fault him for something I would have done the same in with completely valid reasons.

But you should criticize him for joining for the sole purpose of mooching off the system. And Endus is right about Sanders. I've been paying attention to him for nearly 15 years, he hasn't done anything really meaningful or as much as he probably should for being in the Senate for as long as he has.

[Fugus]

But you should criticize him for joining for the sole purpose of mooching off the system. And Endus is right about Sanders. I've been paying attention to him for nearly 15 years, he hasn't done anything really meaningful or as much as he probably should for being in the Senate for as long as he has.

And I should blame you for having a job because it mooches off capitalism right?

Don't blame him for working in the system we have. Blame the system for being setup so that you logically stand zero chance without running within the two parties.

Seriously, why you would come out with such a played out, cop out, worthless excuse for a question that has been explained in detail both times he ran when you had actual things you could rightly get onto him for, like the twitter stuff, is beyond illogical.

If you were to try and run and you didn't agree with either party, you are still stuck running as one of them unless you want to be a spoiler vote and everyone here with 2 brain cells to rub together has explained repeatedly to others. You are just demonstrated Orlong and Machismo levels of "Doesn't get the obvious".

Even people who disliked him had to admit that logic of him running within the party unless he wanted to hand the election to the worst option.

[Benggaul]

*checks thread title* *shrugs*

66,538 new cases, about 3k more than last Wednesday.

Top 5:

New York: 7,500 new cases; 154 deaths
Michigan: 5,172 new cases; 17 deaths
Fuck Florida.
Pennsylvania: 4,668 new cases; 57 deaths
New Jersey: 4,096 new cases; 50 deaths
Just for funsies let's make it 6:
Texas: 3,634 new cases; 174 deaths (still lying by omission)

Cases in Michigan continue to climb, this being the highest they've been since mid-December. Now, Whitmer eased restrictions a couple days ago there but in her defense she's had her life threatened multiple times just for asking people to wear a fucking mask, so I'm not sure I can criticize her overmuch for capitulating to the ignorant Trumper mob who made reasonably extensive plans to kidnap her. It is, however, indicative of what we can expect in several other states given that the more contagious variants of COVID-19 have been found throughout the country. How bad things get depends on how many people we can vaccinate in the next month or two and how lax people get with their precautions in that time. Cases still appear to be heading up again.

1,405 deaths is slightly more than last Wednesday and brings the total to 558,422. Wednesdays have kinda turned into the correction day for deaths so take it with a grain of salt. There's still a good chance we could slide back under 1k in the next couple days and the overall trend is still down. With new cases leveling out (and increasing) however, deaths are likely going to be plateauing soon as well.

Related news:

Florida's Spring Break Hot Spots Reporting Slight Increases in COVID-19 Cases--File this under DUUUUUUUUHHH. Also if anywhere in Florida is reporting "slight increases", rest assured the increases are much more than "slight". Fuck Florida.

Tim Kaine on Bout With Long COVID: ‘It’s Personal and It’s Policy--If you'd care to read an interview about the long-term effects of COVID-19 with a policymaker who's inclined to be honest about it, this is a good read. The long-term effects of COVID-19 still haven't been properly sussed out and there's still a lot of work being done and to be done figuring out how best to diagnose and treat it.

Stay safe, folks.

[Daelak]

Feel free to consider my argument to apply to Sanders' entire political career as a whole.

What significant institutional change has Sanders authored?

To provide a comparison, I'll offer up Tommy Douglas, here in Canada. Elected in Saskatchewan as Premier as a democratic socialist (yes, not a social democrat, actual socialist, unlike Bernie). Crafted universal healthcare for Saskatchewan during his time in office (~17 years total), a model that was then used by the federal government in crafting Canada's healthcare system. Left office to become the first leader of the then-new NDP party, who've been a mainstay of Canadian politics ever since (if a minority voice). He's widely considered to be one of the most important and beloved Canadians to have ever lived.

Actually accomplished meaningful change in his own lifetime. Unlike Bernie Sanders, who at best gets given credit for a slight shift leftwards among Democrats, and even that's not directly attributable, it's just kind of . . . assumed to be true. The man gets way too much credit for a career of what's basically been grousing at the status quo and presenting no real alternatives that garner any meaningful support.

And there's plenty of moments, like this one, which demonstrate that his views are pretty shallow and kind of shitty to begin with.

That has more to do with the structural advantages conservatives have in the senate rather than the Sanders' pressing for change.

[Endus]

That has more to do with the structural advantages conservatives have in the senate rather than the Sanders' pressing for change.

I suppose I should say my comments here have mostly been about breaking apart the Cult of Bernie Sanders, SocDem Saint. I think that's all a crock of shit.

I don't think he's a bad person. I think he's tried to do good in his career. I just have a lot of issue with people who think he's the Second Coming or something. He's been a loud voice in the back of the room, and not much more than that.

Would I have been any better, in his shoes? I wouldn't even say I would have been. You're right; the deck's been pretty stacked against him. But that's the point, really; he just hasn't achieved a whole lot, for various reasons, so I'm fine if people kind of like him and support him, but his importance and influence has been exaggerated pretty badly the last 8 years or so. Sure, he ran for President a couple times. So did Ross Perot. Whoopee.

[Ivanstone]

AOC spent record amounts on Facebook, yet her overall vote share drops by 6.6% from the previous cycle.

AOC gained 52K votes in 2020. Total turnout in 2018 was 128k. It was 213k in 2020.

The GOP didn't put up a serious opponent in 2018. Her 2020 opponent got 58k votes.

Crowley got mostly the same percentage and vote total in 2016. I wouldn't put much stock in a dropping percentage. The district seems to always have poor turnouts for mid-terms and the GOP gets hammered either way.

[jonnysensible]

I suppose I should say my comments here have mostly been about breaking apart the Cult of Bernie Sanders, SocDem Saint. I think that's all a crock of shit.

I don't think he's a bad person. I think he's tried to do good in his career. I just have a lot of issue with people who think he's the Second Coming or something. He's been a loud voice in the back of the room, and not much more than that.

Would I have been any better, in his shoes? I wouldn't even say I would have been. You're right; the deck's been pretty stacked against him. But that's the point, really; he just hasn't achieved a whole lot, for various reasons, so I'm fine if people kind of like him and support him, but his importance and influence has been exaggerated pretty badly the last 8 years or so. Sure, he ran for President a couple times. So did Ross Perot. Whoopee.

the problem with your example is that you expect us to believe Canada is a country. Which it isn't.

[SirBeef]

And I should blame you for having a job because it mooches off capitalism right?

Don't blame him for working in the system we have. Blame the system for being setup so that you logically stand zero chance without running within the two parties.

Seriously, why you would come out with such a played out, cop out, worthless excuse for a question that has been explained in detail both times he ran when you had actual things you could rightly get onto him for, like the twitter stuff, is beyond illogical.

If you were to try and run and you didn't agree with either party, you are still stuck running as one of them unless you want to be a spoiler vote and everyone here with 2 brain cells to rub together has explained repeatedly to others. You are just demonstrated Orlong and Machismo levels of "Doesn't get the obvious".

Even people who disliked him had to admit that logic of him running within the party unless he wanted to hand the election to the worst option.

Terrible analogy. Working earns your pay. I also didn't say blame him, I said criticize him. You could also say he did hand over the election to the worse option by staying in the primary for many months after it was evident he had o shot at the nomination allowing rumors of a contested election. Keeping HRC fighting two battles instead of getting in line and supporting her like he did with Biden.

It isn't tired or played out. Bernie does what he usually does best, which is doing what's best for him while getting the attention. He has a long history of saying the right things but a much smaller history of getting anything substantial from it.

[Fugus]

Terrible analogy. Working earns your pay. I also didn't say blame him, I said criticize him. You could also say he did hand over the election to the worse option by staying in the primary for many months after it was evident he had o shot at the nomination allowing rumors of a contested election. Keeping HRC fighting two battles instead of getting in line and supporting her like he did with Biden.

It isn't tired or played out. Bernie does what he usually does best, which is doing what's best for him while getting the attention. He has a long history of saying the right things but a much smaller history of getting anything substantial from it.

No, you working within the system to accomplish what you can the way it is setup. Makes that analogy pretty spot on as I implied it.

And he stayed in no longer than Clinton did against Obama.

And funny how him doing “what’s best for him” has actually gotten people like AOC to run.

He bowed out and endorsed Clinton.

Why you keep beating this dead horse from the side anyone paying attention to would have known better than is just stupid on your part.

And using your word, criticizing him for using the system to run for president as he did is not more mooching off it to attempt to accomplish his goals of trying to run for president than you are mooching off the system by holding a job instead of just volunteering for everything and just hoping to get paid when the system isn’t set up to do that.

And again, the fact that you would choose that played out lie to attack him instead of the recent stuff he ACTUALLY deserves criticism for makes it sound like one of those people who think “Bernie Bro” is actually an insult to the people who supported him during then.


Edit:

Alright,going to drop this after this because I don't want to derail on it but.

Sanders ran as a Democrat because the system required he run as one of the 2 big parties to even stand a chance. Nothing to criticize on Sanders for running as a Democrat otherwise he stood zero chance and would have actually destroyed the chance of any Democrat running as he would have been a spoiler. The same reason why he would run as a Democrat in his states primaries even if he was going to run their elections as an independent, to prevent splitting the vote.

There is nothing to criticize there at any point on him or him running within the party. And just leaves plenty to criticize with a system setup in such a way that it requires it to stand a chance or that spoilers are even possible.

As for him running after he was defeated, he did no worse than Clinton when she was against Obama. Not thing to go over again how they messed around to sideline him at the start till he was already behind but the fact is, he still bowed out and started endorsing her.

And blaming Sanders for Clinton's loss also involves you ignoring her own hand in her loss with her actions and how she felt she was owed the position. She lost her spot with her actions and poor campaign FAR worse than anything Sanders did. And none of that even includes what Russia during it.


But, if you want to go on Sanders, go on him for the Twitter stuff that is justified, going after him for running his primary and election bid as he should have, is you looking for something in nothing to get onto him for.

[SirBeef]

No, you working within the system to accomplish what you can the way it is setup. Makes that analogy pretty spot on as I implied it.

And he stayed in no longer than Clinton did against Obama.

And funny how him doing “what’s best for him” has actually gotten people like AOC to run.

He bowed out and endorsed Clinton.

Why you keep beating this dead horse from the side anyone paying attention to would have known better than is just stupid on your part.

And using your word, criticizing him for using the system to run for president as he did is not more mooching off it to attempt to accomplish his goals of trying to run for president than you are mooching off the system by holding a job instead of just volunteering for everything and just hoping to get paid when the system isn’t set up to do that.

And again, the fact that you would choose that played out lie to attack him instead of the recent stuff he ACTUALLY deserves criticism for makes it sound like one of those people who think “Bernie Bro” is actually an insult to the people who supported him during then.


Edit:

Alright,going to drop this after this because I don't want to derail on it but.

Sanders ran as a Democrat because the system required he run as one of the 2 big parties to even stand a chance. Nothing to criticize on Sanders for running as a Democrat otherwise he stood zero chance and would have actually destroyed the chance of any Democrat running as he would have been a spoiler. The same reason why he would run as a Democrat in his states primaries even if he was going to run their elections as an independent, to prevent splitting the vote.

There is nothing to criticize there at any point on him or him running within the party. And just leaves plenty to criticize with a system setup in such a way that it requires it to stand a chance or that spoilers are even possible.

As for him running after he was defeated, he did no worse than Clinton when she was against Obama. Not thing to go over again how they messed around to sideline him at the start till he was already behind but the fact is, he still bowed out and started endorsing her.

And blaming Sanders for Clinton's loss also involves you ignoring her own hand in her loss with her actions and how she felt she was owed the position. She lost her spot with her actions and poor campaign FAR worse than anything Sanders did. And none of that even includes what Russia during it.


But, if you want to go on Sanders, go on him for the Twitter stuff that is justified, going after him for running his primary and election bid as he should have, is you looking for something in nothing to get onto him for.

There was no talk of a contested convention in 2008. There were rumors circulating until the votes were counted without a peep from him. Huge difference.

As for her loss, everything added up. If he withdrew when it was obvious and backed her like he did with Biden, things might have been different. If FB didn't accept targeted ads from Russia, things might have been different. If the media didn't give Trump an estimated $1b in free advertising talking about him things might have been different.

As firbher campaign, her campaign was good, shebhad good policies you guys over look it constantly and want to point to deplorables, which didn't even hurt her in the polls. Her message was clear, her policies were tight. Her campaign was solid. It was 20+ years of misogynistic bull ahit aimed at her, a celebrity, a too long and drawn out primary, and russian disinformation.

[Fugus]

There was no talk of a contested convention in 2008. There were rumors circulating until the votes were counted without a peep from him. Huge difference.

As for her loss, everything added up. If he withdrew when it was obvious and backed her like he did with Biden, things might have been different. If FB didn't accept targeted ads from Russia, things might have been different. If the media didn't give Trump an estimated $1b in free advertising talking about him things might have been different.

As firbher campaign, her campaign was good, shebhad good policies you guys over look it constantly and want to point to deplorables, which didn't even hurt her in the polls. Her message was clear, her policies were tight. Her campaign was solid. It was 20+ years of misogynistic bull ahit aimed at her, a celebrity, a too long and drawn out primary, and russian disinformation.

Wasn't talking about the Deplorables part. The people who got offended by that weren't going to vote for her anyways.

I was talking about how she acted like the deserved the presidency. When asked if she would offer anything to the Bernie voters to get their support and her response was "Why? I'm winning" and more importantly, when Debbie Shultz was forced to step down in disgrace over her actions in that primary, now you can pretend it was fair and impartial which is another topic entirely but you still can't lie about the the perception of it among the voter base. When Debbie stepped down, Clinton immediately snatched her up and put her directly into her campaign in the same day. THAT cost her the election more than anything they claim Sanders did because those 2 actions basically slapped her own voting base in the face.

And Clinton still held on till the last moment in the election she lost. And at least you didn't have Sanders trying to leak photo's to paint her as a Muslim like Clinton did to Obama.

And her campaign wasn't good, it was crap where she ran on status-quo and only adopted Sanders policies when she had to which many already expected her to "Compromise" away the moment she no longer had to pretend to like them.

Sorry dude, but Clinton snatched defeat from the jaws of victory on that one largely due to her own actions and attitude. Russia tipped the scales yes. The primaries showing her pro-corporate attitude tipped the scales again yes. And without them she would have had an electoral victory most likely, albeit a slim one, but her attitude cost her more votes in those areas than anything Russia did and you still neglect that more Sanders voters voted for Clinton than Clinton voters went for Obama.

Now, if you got something legit to bash Sanders on, have at it, but if all you got is this manufactured crap trying to blame him for Clinton's loss like he caused more damage than she cause herself or laying into him for running as a Democrat like there was another viable option, you have nothing of value to contribute on this topic.


Edit: And before you try and go, "But you admit they did tip the scales some", that is about like having someone pushing a car 2 miles up hill to get it home and into the driveway and you give credit (Blame in this case) to the guy who pushed it 2 feet while the other person rested.


Edit again: Alright, for real, no more from me on this, even if you continue. Will not contribute to derailing this any longer, this thread is about Trump, not about blaming Sanders for Clinton's screw ups.

[Edge-]

This is real y'all. Cruz is literally positioning himself as in between McConnell and Trump. Maybe the bottom side of some kind of "Devil's Triangle" or something.

There's just so much to say about this I don't even know where to begin.

[Benggaul]

This is real y'all. Cruz is literally positioning himself as in between McConnell and Trump. Maybe the bottom side of some kind of "Devil's Triangle" or something.

There's just so much to say about this I don't even know where to begin.

I think that's just acknowledging he was fucked by Trump. "MAGA in the back" and all.

[Captain N]

I think that's just acknowledging he was fucked by Trump. "MAGA in the back" and all.

I was just about to say the same thing. Thankfully the last election has shown that the US as a whole has gotten tired of taking MAGA in the back for four years.

[Poopymonster]

This is real y'all. Cruz is literally positioning himself as in between McConnell and Trump. Maybe the bottom side of some kind of "Devil's Triangle" or something.

There's just so much to say about this I don't even know where to begin.

The term you're looking for is Lucky Pierre.

[Breccia]

There's just so much to say about this I don't even know where to begin.

I do. Trump's going to sue him for using MAGA without permission.

[Hadriker]

This is real y'all. Cruz is literally positioning himself as in between McConnell and Trump. Maybe the bottom side of some kind of "Devil's Triangle" or something.

There's just so much to say about this I don't even know where to begin.

This is hilarious. I don't think The Onion could do any better.