Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[VMSmith]

Haha, I think I've found the MMOC cultists spirit animal

https://twitter.com/ShannonFreshour/...26533805805568

[TACOshake]

"Online Activists" have to strawman their imaginary version of Biden. Because is basically lapping them and they cant even see where he is...

Every president invites Henry Kissinger to the White House — except Biden



Ex-gamers-turned-activists have next to zero Revolutionary Potential. They're about to turn forty, and they want a contentious Dem 2024 primary to save them from their boredom and impending mid-life crisis.

An incumbent Joe Biden will rob them of that.

[Xyonai]

Heads up, new Hunter Biden 'scandal' just dropped. 4Chan, the true Top Minds of the internet, has released allegedly leaked screenshots of Hunter's hacked Ipad where it shows Joe Biden listed as 'PedoPeter'.

Waiting for anyone with any actual integrity to pick up on this latest instance of the right wing crying 'wolf' to see what the facts are, but giving ya'll some forewarning when/if the next bot shows up to start hurling this weird shit around.

[Kaleredar]

Heads up, new Hunter Biden 'scandal' just dropped. 4Chan, the true Top Minds of the internet, has released allegedly leaked screenshots of Hunter's hacked Ipad where it shows Joe Biden listed as 'PedoPeter'.

Waiting for anyone with any actual integrity to pick up on this latest instance of the right wing crying 'wolf' to see what the facts are, but giving ya'll some forewarning when/if the next bot shows up to start hurling this weird shit around.

I guess they figure the 10,000th attempt at making Hunter Biden’s laptop a thing is the charm.

[VMSmith]

She's right. You can, and absolutely should, be voting.

If there's a satisfactory third-party candidate or a ballot initiative that matters to me, maybe I will. But that's my business and not yours.

Read that thread, she has absolutely failed to reach anyone because telling people they are "toddlers who need to grow up, wanting everything now now now" rather than actually representing their interests is a terrible method of getting people to vote for you. But we're all aware that the pack of Democrats on this forum is thoroughly unable to recognize this reality and will continue to insist that ... "No, it's the voters who are wrong".

Cute you used the word "cultists," though.

Cute that your little group calls people cultists all the time in this forum and yet fails to see the same behavior within yourselves.

[Ripster42]

No "libel".

Yes libel. Defamation in print. Lying about the dude to disparage him.

Me not thinking Biden is God's gift to left-wing values is not "hypocrisy", however much you might want to think otherwise.

You saying he's the same as harper and bullshitting about his tariff efforts are libel. Because you don't like him.

Nor did I equate Biden with Trump or Republicans on any platform other than the economic. If we're talking social progress, no contest, and more than enough reason to vote Biden over the fascist bigotry Republicans are apparently all-in on.

They're not the same in economics either. Again, this is your skewed BS because you're so far outside the mainstream you can't see the differences in mainstream discourse.

Like I said; you're attacking a straw man and stapling my face to it.

Not a strawman. You can go back and read the past few pages again if you need a review to figure it out.

[Endus]

Yes libel. Defamation in print. Lying about the dude to disparage him.
You saying he's the same as harper and bullshitting about his tariff efforts are libel. Because you don't like him.

You don't agree with my take. That's fine.

It's still not "libel", and nothing you've said convinces me I've gotten anything meaningfully "wrong". You're just flatly not making your case, and you keep resorting to personal accusations rather than attacking the argument itself, which is just boring as hell. You're acting exactly like the Trump supporters do, dude.

[Ripster42]

You don't agree with my take. That's fine.

It's still not "libel", and nothing you've said convinces me I've gotten anything meaningfully "wrong". You're just flatly not making your case, and you keep resorting to personal accusations rather than attacking the argument itself, which is just boring as hell. You're acting exactly like the Trump supporters do, dude.

Yes yes, I'm not flatly making my case when I talked about the differences between the GOP/trump and biden or harper and biden. Maybe instead of just handwaving BS, you can actually come up with things where they are similar, w/out going into "capitalism bad" mode because, again, market socialism doesn't exist in mainstream discourse. Which one of us was making pronouncements without any backing points? I'm pretty sure I talked about broad policy differences in both of those cases

in this post

and all you did was cry that you got called out on your BS. Talk about a strawman, although in your case, it comes with some added obliviousness. Really funny when you talk about personal accusations then, in the very next sentence, make personal accusations. Your rhetoric here has been garbage all around.

Edit: The only thing close to a personal accusation I've made is the claim of libel, which was true, or the claim that market socialism isn't inside mainstream discourse, which isn't even a personal accusation.

[Snuke]

Yes yes, I'm not flatly making my case when I talked about the differences between the GOP/trump and biden or harper and biden. Maybe instead of just handwaving BS, you can actually come up with things where they are similar, w/out going into "capitalism bad" mode because, again, market socialism doesn't exist in mainstream discourse. Which one of us was making pronouncements without any backing points? I'm pretty sure I talked about broad policy differences in both of those cases

and all you did was cry that you got called out on your BS. Talk about a strawman, although in your case, it comes with some added obliviousness. Really funny when you talk about personal accusations then, in the very next sentence, make personal accusations. Your rhetoric here has been garbage all around.

Edit: The only thing close to a personal accusation I've made is the claim of libel, which was true, or the claim that market socialism isn't inside mainstream discourse, which isn't even a personal accusation.

You need to learn what libel is, because Endus didn’t commit it. Don’t get mad I’m calling you out on this.

[Endus]

Yes yes, I'm not flatly making my case when I talked about the differences between the GOP/trump and biden or harper and biden. Maybe instead of just handwaving BS, you can actually come up with things where they are similar, w/out going into "capitalism bad" mode because, again, market socialism doesn't exist in mainstream discourse.

You get that specific differences don't disprove broad similarities, right? If I point at two trees and say "those are both conifers", saying "hey, one's a Spruce and the other's a Fir" doesn't actually disprove anything.

Also, you're literally the one who brought up my socialist views, not me. For no real reason, I might add.

Edit: The only thing close to a personal accusation I've made is the claim of libel, which was true, or the claim that market socialism isn't inside mainstream discourse, which isn't even a personal accusation.

1> "Libel" is illegal. You're accusing me of literally breaking the law in some meaningful sense, where I could face legal consequences for my posts, here. No, you've never had a basis for that claim.

2> Let's check post history, shall we? I'll trim for space but leave some relevant context, bolding the direct personal accusation/insult;

Oh please. You don't like biden. You'd blame him no matter what.

Despite me regularly, in the past, giving him due credit. Which you didn't care about, in your rush to imply I was making stuff up solely out of personal animus.

Weird then, that I had links actually talking about what he's doing wrt tariffs, and all you had was was crying about him not removing tariffs (which he's been addressing) and assigning motives that explain some nonsense that doesn't reflect reality. I have no belief that you'd praise him if you think he actually did something laudable, especially when I see you living in your own reality where he hasn't been addressing trump's tariffs.

Both accusing me of "crying" and claiming I'm mentally ill.

Biden is so middle of the road, and you're so far outside even canada's left, that your framing is preposterous. It's weird seeing the dichotomy of your rhetoric on this forum.

Claims that I'm some kind of extremist.

It's weird you think you're knowledgeable about this stuff.

Should be obvious why I consider that an insult.

I've seen your past comments where you complain that no one in canada's gov't shares your views so you have to vote strategically. How there's no market-socialist candidates with a chance. Revisionist BS isn't a great look.

Given that I've always supported strategic voting, vehemently, claiming there was any "revisionist BS" was false. And I'd already explained how you were wrong on this by that point.

Oh man! It's almost like I can still see your past comments to see the hypocrisy:

Calling me a hypocrite is an insult.

You're smearing the person the strategic vote is currently centered around based on something made up. Talk all you want about voting strategically, when you're talking out the other side of your mouth like this it doesn't mean a damn thing.

That's an accusation of dishonesty.

Again, this is your skewed BS because you're so far outside the mainstream you can't see the differences in mainstream discourse.

Again, insulting.

I'll keep that all in its own quotebox so it's nicely encapsulated and doesn't otherwise get re-quoted unnecessarily. But the idea that the only way you've been directly insulting to me was the accusation of law-breaking libellous statements is just, obviously, false on its face.

The reality is I have an opinion, and you don't like my opinion. And? I wasn't that unclear and you've consistently misrepresented me throughout.

[Ripster42]

You need to learn what libel is, because Endus didn’t commit it. Don’t get mad I’m calling you out on this.

Really? Written defamation conveyed to a 3rd party? Pretty sure that's what it is. There might not be a tort because there no economic harm, but it's absolutely libel. Don't get mad I'm saying you're full of shit.

You get that specific differences don't disprove broad similarities, right? If I point at two trees and say "those are both conifers", saying "hey, one's a Spruce and the other's a Fir" doesn't actually disprove anything.

Also, you're literally the one who brought up my socialist views, not me. For no real reason, I might add.

If you don't understand why your perspective is important when talking about not being able to see the differences in political stances, then the point probably wasn't for you anyway.

1> "Libel" is illegal. You're accusing me of literally breaking the law in some meaningful sense, where I could face legal consequences for my posts, here. No, you've never had a basis for that claim.

No, it's not. Even when you sue someone for libel, it's not because you broke the law, it's because you harmed them with your lies. You can't be incarcerated for libel in the US. I have no idea about canada, but I'd be surprised if you could there either.

2> Let's check post history, shall we? I'll trim for space but leave some relevant context, bolding the direct personal accusation/insult;

I'll just say the boxes are labelled 1-N and go from there, but I'll start with this: an accurate description isn't an insult.

1 You set up a situation where he's a nationalist and a neolib, where no matter what action he takes, in the realm we're talking about, is going to fall into one of those two categories in some way. Nationalists are, in the economic sphere, protectionist, neolibs, in the economic sphere, are free trade oriented. It's one or the other there (remember, in that labeling, we're talking about tariffs), and you're going to blame him either way. So: an accurate description isn't an insult.

2 Subjective and objective realities, and the acknowledgement of the difference between people's subjective realities isn't an insistence that you're mentally ill. In this case, your subjective reality equates trump/the GOP/harper and biden. I'll quote that later. Crying is directed at the weakness of your arguments, which so far have just been pronouncements with no backing (please believe, I'm talking about your biden insults, this digression into my 'insults' towards you, you've at least cited something).

3 Market socialism is outside even canada's left. I'm getting that from earlier statements you've made in other threads where you talked about strategic voting, not my own personal knowledge. An accurate description isn't an insult.

4 Not obvious. You compared two people with disparate positions on economics and then claimed they were the same. Calling you out on your insistence in the face of the stances provided so far in this thread isn't an insult, it's a goad to get you to actually back up your rhetoric with substance.

5 The revisionist BS is this:

My own views aren't really outside of Canada's left wing.

when I can remember your old posts claiming the opposite being the reason you're such a proponent of strategic voting.

6 Accurately describing a situation isn't an insult. When I point out hypocritical statements, and call those statements hypocrisy, that's not an insult.

7 It's not an accusation of dishonesty. It's saying that your position on strategic voting doesn't mesh with your insults towards the candidate the strategic vote is currently centered around.

8 Acknowledging that market socialism is outside even canada's left, and drawing the line between your position there, and your fallacious comparisons to biden isn't insulting. Accurate descriptions aren't insults.

I'll keep that all in its own quotebox so it's nicely encapsulated and doesn't otherwise get re-quoted unnecessarily. But the idea that the only way you've been directly insulting to me was the accusation of law-breaking libellous statements is just, obviously, false on its face.

The reality is I have an opinion, and you don't like my opinion. And? I wasn't that unclear and you've consistently misrepresented me throughout.

I've certainly been misrepresenting you less than you've been misrepresenting either biden or me. I've been highlighting the problems with your rhetoric, what little of it there's been. In this thread you've insisted biden is like harper and the GOP and cited zero policy similarities between the two and compared me to trump supporters for trying to get you to actually focus on the topic. Why can't you focus on the topic, instead dragging this thread here? Where's the support for your claim that biden is like harper or the republicans

My point was that Biden's not actually that distant on economic factors from where Trump and Republicans stand.
Biden's center-right, and I wouldn't frame him as "middle of the road". He'd be considered akin to Stephen Harper, up here, who was by no means a moderate.

the bit that's actually on topic that I asked for? Again, without dropping into "capitalism bad" mode, because that's still outside either of our nations' mainstream discourse. Since you're a supporter of strategic voting, I'm just going to assume you don't have a problem with that. Especially in a thread centered on US politics, specifically about the person you're denigrating.

Also, keeping it in a quote box like that just makes it a pain in the ass to respond to, nested quotes are already elided on this forum.

[Endus]

No, it's not. Even when you sue someone for libel, it's not because you broke the law, it's because you harmed them with your lies. You can't be incarcerated for libel in the US. I have no idea about canada, but I'd be surprised if you could there either.

You can't sue for defamation just because there was harm; it's because it specifically violates the law that allows that harm to be pursued under the court system. There's all kinds of objectively harmful statements that aren't defamatory and don't break the law.

You're also confusing criminal and civil law-breaking. Breaking the terms of a contract is against the law, but it's not a crime. It's grounds for a lawsuit, to have the terms enforced by the courts or penalties assigned for the action.

Regardless, you've also brought up that libel fundamentally requires harm, and frankly, if you think my comments harmed Biden, you're assigning way more credence to my apparently awesome power than I would. So, by your own implicit admission, it couldn't fall under libel, because my comments can't harm Biden.

Again, this all boils down to you disagreeing with an opinion I hold, and choosing to make repeated direct and indirect insults towards me as a result of that. I'm not falling for the bait any more, and your attempts to derail the thread into some kind of symposium about the iniquities of Endus, MMO-C Poster and apparent Boogeyman of Biden. I won't be responding to this derail any further.

[Ripster42]

Again, this all boils down to you disagreeing with an opinion I hold, and choosing to make repeated direct and indirect insults towards me as a result of that. I'm not falling for the bait any more, and your attempts to derail the thread into some kind of symposium about the iniquities of Endus, MMO-C Poster and apparent Boogeyman of Biden. I won't be responding to this derail any further.

Way to not back up your opinion with any actual evidence of similarities between biden and harper/GOP/trump. You could have just not responded instead of responding to say you're not going to respond anymore. This is the same thing you did last time you couldn't sustain your position with facts, although at least that time you didn't try to play the victim.

BTW, it's criminal law breaking and civil tort. Different things. Civil tort isn't illegal, it's tortious. If you're going to be that pedantic, get it right.

[Snuke]

@Ripster42 his posts don’t rise to that level, nor would they meet the necessary level required in a court of law. I get you really need this win, but you’re wrong.

[Ripster42]

@Ripster42 his posts don’t rise to that level, nor would they meet the necessary level required in a court of law. I get you really need this win, but you’re wrong.

As I said, there's no tort because it didn't cause damages. That's not required for it to be libel. A tort is only required to win damages at trial, not for something to be defamatory.

[Rozz]

Stay civil and don't get personal. It's unnecessary and distracting from the otherwise fine discussion.

Additionally, cease bickering about your personal voting preferences. You can create a thread about the importance of voting or argue about why you wouldn't/would support someone, but this obsessive derail in this forum needs to stop. It has never been posted in the appropriate thread and it is always framed in a way to re-ignite years-old arguments between feuding posters. You can continue conversations with someone without involving everyone else via PMs.

The second half of this warning has been added to the OP.

[Beefhammer]

Oh, please, inform me on what my "little group" actually is, I'm really curious now.

Rational, intelligent, critically thinking people.

[fwc577]

This shit is just crazy and I wanted to share:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/one-small...114112181.html

This is a town in New Hampshire called Croydon. It's a small town with a population under 800 people.

In March, their was a budgetary meeting and someone proposed an amendment to the town budget to cut the education budget from 1.6 million down to $800k.

This meant that the neighboring schools that children went to, people would get, essentially, $10k per child so they could attend school. The problem is, the public schools in the area require people not in the town, $18,000 to attend.

So if parents of the 80 children in Croydon wanted their children to attend public school, they were going to need to come up with an extra $8000 in order for their children to attend.

The budgetary amendment passed with a 20-14 margin in a town of 800 people.

Parents have scrambled to figure out how to undo this and their only recourse was to hold a special session that would require half the towns population to show up and cast ballots to overturn the amendment.

They were able to successfully overturn it with a 379-2 ballot vote.

Where did the other 12 people go who supported the amendment?

Well, you see, in order for it to be repealed, half the towns population had to show up and vote. So while all those parents were out there convincing people to show up and vote, all of the people in favor of the amendment were convincing people to just not show up.

Democracy doesn't die in the darkness, like WAPO claims. Democracy dies when people are indifferent to democracy.

There is a quote from this article that really stuck with me that I feel like could be a caption on hundreds of photos from the last 12 years.

"The moment revealed a democracy mired in indifference."

[Shadowferal]

This shit is just crazy and I wanted to share:

Free staters...libertarians. They just found out that part of their ideology is idiocy when they actually practice it.

[fwc577]

Free staters...libertarians. They just found out that part of their ideology is idiocy when they actually practice it.

Yeah, in general though, this idea of "I don't care until it affects me" is so fucking blatant throughout all of American politics right now. The situation we're currently in is because we didn't have the turnout in 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016. Then in 2018 we finally decided that, oh shit, this stuff matters, and we've been working to correct it ever since but I am for sure, afraid of a backslide in 2022 who think that ousting Trump was enough.

I'm sorry to say, the Republicans made huge gains in 4 election cycles. Democrats are just beginning by winning 2 election cycles. We cannot continue this trade off of letting Republicans win 4+ election cycles and then Democrats winning a couple of election cycles and expect us not to slide backwards as a Democracy.

All the gerrymandering has put Republicans into a spot where if we had 100% turnout for all elections in 2022, I'm certain Democrats would end up with nearly 300 Democratic House seats and 6, maybe even more, gained Senate seats. Republicans rely on indifference and poor turnout.

What NEEDS to happen for Democrats, is voter turnout that exceeds 50% in these midterms. I would prefer that the anger of overturning some of our rights by the Supreme Court results in 60% turnout, but that's wishful thinking in my opinion.