Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[SirBeef]

people still pretending the polarization is symmetrical

No, just the same fool.

- - - Updated - - -

Is it that you seriously cannot grasp what people are actually saying, or are you being this dishonest on purpose?

There is no "rejection of bipartisanship", period. It's an understanding that attempting bipartisan efforts with a party that is opposed to any such thing is a waste of time.

If you're saying that Democrats should seek compromise with Republicans no matter what Republicans want, then I'm going to point out that your position is just appeasement in a new coat. The appropriate response to the Nazi Party saying "kill all Jews" when your party doesn't have a problem with Jews is not to say "how about we just kill SOME Jews? Is that acceptable to you, Mr. Nazis, sirs?"

Fuck. That. That's the abandonment of all principle.



"Semantics" is also known as "what words/language actually mean". Yes; words mean things, and what people said means something, and you don't get to just ignore those semantics to insert whatever horseshit you wish they'd meant instead.

- - - Updated - - -



Historians have a word for people who supported the Nazi Party in their rise to power not because of any deep anti-semitism, but because of economic anxiety. Or fear of social disruption. Or desire for stronger policing. Or increasing Germany's political influence internationally. There's a word that fully describes those people.

That word is "Nazi". It doesn't matter why they supported the Nazis, only that they supported the Nazis.

Same applies here. If you're going to vote for Trump for stupid, indefensible reasons, that makes you as much a Trumpster as the mouth-frothing racist ranting about the oncoming "race war" and "blood for soil". You're trying to claim there's a significant difference, and I do not agree that there is any meaningful difference whatsoever. If you're willing to support horrible policymakers for some tepid goal, you still share in the responsibility for the actions of those you voted for, who are acting in your name.

Pretty sure we know he is a dishonest actor already.

[Fugus]

Pretty sure we know he is a dishonest actor already.

Well, if he continues, take it to the thread I made for it.

Either it can continue there with no more derailing this or he refuses to and hopefully people either stop or Rozz comes in and puts down the hammer.

[Themius]

The majority didn't want Clinton elected either time he won as well.

Majority of land isn’t the same as people

[Milchshake]

Yup, it turned into a Machismo side show. Right now, I just skip pages at a time, hoping for something worth reading.

- - - Updated - - -

The first 100 days of Biden were also the first 100 without Trump – that’s telling

I guess, in short, Trump was such a monumental fuck up and awful human being that anything Biden does is much more accepted by default. Helps that what Biden is doing is actually good for the country/people.

Could the two points be related?

Has four years of combating Trump/Putin shitposters simply broken other shitposters? With no Trump outrages ... all other posts become a chance to tell someone you simply disagree with them (x20)?

Anyways I had my luaghs, coffee break is over.

#EveryoneISInACultbutME
#EveryoneCRiesWuLFbutME

[Kaleredar]

Could the two points be related?

Has four years of combating Trump/Putin shitposters simply broken other shitposters? With no Trump outrages ... all other posts become a chance to tell someone you simply disagree with them (x20)?

Anyways I had my luaghs, coffee break is over.

#EveryoneISInACultbutME
#EveryoneCRiesWuLFbutME

Come to think of it, beyond that one burner account calling Biden a “senile old man making the US the laughing stock of the world” or some such nonsense, the usual trumpsters haven’t had a single consequential thing to say about Biden. Unless they’ve been ranting and raving about him in the gun thread, because that’s the only place they seem to show their faces anymore and I don’t touch that cesspit of a thread.

[Milchshake]

Come to think of it, beyond that one burner account calling Biden a “senile old man making the US the laughing stock of the world” or some such nonsense, the usual trumpsters haven’t had a single consequential thing to say about Biden. Unless they’ve been ranting and raving about him in the gun thread, because that’s the only place they seem to show their faces anymore and I don’t touch that cesspit of a thread.

Thats a good point.

Since our Trump/Putin bots are absent. People cultivating their post counts have to fixate on other targets?

Some smart person tagged a group of those Trump bots as the "Three Woke Stooges". What would be a good tag for this new bunch?
/s

Anyways, back to this triweekly 'production meeting'. Which is the paid version of 12 people dogpiling me for being incorrect.

[SirBeef]

The majority didn't want Clinton elected either time he won as well.

3.5M more voted for Clinton, so you are wrong as usual.

[CostinR]

3.5M more voted for Clinton, so you are wrong as usual.

That's something called a plurality not a majority. Clinton was unable to win a majority of the vote in either of his elections. He came close in 1996 though.

[Edge-]

That's something called a plurality not a majority. Clinton was unable to win a majority of the vote in either of his elections. He came close in 1996 though.

Except it's an irrelevant point arguing over a minority of the vote. The US allows the victor to win with a plurality, not just a majority, so when there were "stronger" third parties/third party options you may end up with the president getting a plurality, rather than a majority of votes. But it doesn't matter to the argument in the slightest.

It's semantical nonsense, nothing more. There's no actual point to be made there outside of quibbling over majority/plurality in a topic where the difference is largely immaterial.

[Zan15]

The majority didn't want Clinton elected either time he won as well.

wait what?

maybe majority has a different meaning here?

[Edge-]

wait what?

maybe majority has a different meaning here?

He's talking about the elections in the 90's - Clinton had 43% in 92 and 49% in 96. Ross Perot took 18/8% of the vote respectively.

Semantic nonsense, mostly.

- - - Updated - - -

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bide...ry?id=77461970

Eyyyyy, an administration that's actually working to reunite kids with their families after the Trump administration and ICE gestapo fuckin kidnapped them. It's only a few, and it's slow work (as we've seen with the difficulties the ACLU and other organizations originally spearheading these efforts) but it's an improvement.

[Orange Joe]

The majority didn't want Clinton elected either time he won as well.

Odd. When I look at the results he had the majority of the votes.

[Edge-]

Odd. When I look at the results he had the majority of the votes.

Plurality*

Majority is anything over 50%, Clinton was in the 40% range both times due to there being a third party candidate pulling votes from both him and Bush Sr. and Bob Dole.

[SirBeef]

That's something called a plurality not a majority. Clinton was unable to win a majority of the vote in either of his elections. He came close in 1996 though.

You know this is irrelevant and yet still posted.

- - - Updated - - -

Plurality*

Majority is anything over 50%, Clinton was in the 40% range both times due to there being a third party candidate pulling votes from both him and Bush Sr. and Bob Dole.

It was studies and shiw that Perot didn't pull votes from Bush nor Clinton, or it was an equal amount. Basically Perot got people to show up that weren't going to vote. He really was a non factor, despite getting, what was it 11%. Those voters were either not voting or would have been evenly split.

[Edge-]

It was studies and shiw that Perot didn't pull votes from Bush nor Clinton, or it was an equal amount. Basically Perot got people to show up that weren't going to vote. He really was a non factor, despite getting, what was it 11%. Those voters were either not voting or would have been evenly split.

Which would have still put Clinton as the winner in either situation and given him a majority of the total votes. Which is why this whole semantics game is so god-damned pointless.

[Milchshake]

Just sayin, but a year ago...

• There was a major primary candidate that that purposely blurred the definitions of what a plurality is.
• They pushed the nonsense that having a plurality of the votes before Super Tuesday entitled them to the nomination.
• Denying their plurality of 3% of primary voters was a "sign of a rigging".

Did this source of bad information have a lasting effect on people?

[Edge-]

Did this source of bad information have a lasting effect on people?

Dude we get it, you don't like Sanders.

[Milchshake]

Dude we get it, you don't like Sanders.

I didn't mention the name Sanders.

But I get it, you're obsessed with me.

Though if you assumed it was about Sanders without naming him. You proved my point.


Oh well, had a few laughs. Lunch is over.

[Edge-]

I didn't mention the name Sanders.

But I get it, you're obsessed with me.

Though if you assumed it was about Sanders without naming him. You proved my point.


Oh well, had a few laughs. Lunch is over.

Considering you're been endlessly whining about him, it's fitting. Did you mean someone else? Don't play coy, just say who you mean.

This ain't about you really. Well, it sorta is, mostly just how you love to pointlessly slam Sanders at random times for no reason other than I guess it's a nice endorphin rush or something.

[Orange Joe]

Plurality*

Majority is anything over 50%, Clinton was in the 40% range both times due to there being a third party candidate pulling votes from both him and Bush Sr. and Bob Dole.

ma·jor·i·ty



1.

the greater number.
"in the majority of cases all will go smoothly"

Clinton had more votes than anyone else. He had the majority.

I'm not saying your wrong, but that is the definition I am using.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't mention the name Sanders.

But I get it, you're obsessed with me.

Though if you assumed it was about Sanders without naming him. You proved my point.


Oh well, had a few laughs. Lunch is over.

You take every opportunity to show your BDS, now you want to try and play innocent? lmfao.