Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

But keep ignoring the way the public votes.

Biden won, yo.

[Kaleredar]

No, the L will be in November, then again in 2024.

But keep ignoring the way the public votes.

Well, I mean... "the public" never once voted trump into power, so...

[Shadowferal]

No, the L will be in November, then again in 2024. But keep ignoring the way the public votes.

Didn't you ignore the way the public voted in 2020?

[Somewhatconcerned]

Biden won, yo.

Yes, and why do you think that was. An immensely unpopular president who mismanaged the only crisis he was faced with.

Now do Biden, with roughly similar approval ratings but a bunch of economic misery under his watch, regardless of whether it's his fault or not, that's how the average voter will respond.

But I'm sure you'll be wailing "how could this have happened" for the next few election cycles...

[beanman12345]

Oh this trump supporting concerned guy is back, to tell us Trump and co will win. Change your gimmick yo.

[tehdang]

Yes, and why do you think that was. An immensely unpopular president who mismanaged the only crisis he was faced with.

Now do Biden, with roughly similar approval ratings but a bunch of economic misery under his watch, regardless of whether it's his fault or not, that's how the average voter will respond.

But I'm sure you'll be wailing "how could this have happened" for the next few election cycles...

I think post-2016 and, to some extent, 2020, turned the excuse from "how could this have happened" to "voters are bad people, stupid people, and we should feel good about speaking the truth about them." I don't think people will ask themselves "how could this have happened?"

2022 feels like a wave just because of Afghanistan, inflation, mask mandates, school closures, and an atrocious stalled legislative agenda. Yes, even if 90% of this forum feel quite deeply that Biden did his best and it's was the mean Republican's fault.

2024 feels more uncertain due to Trump's ability to play spoiler if he's not the nominee, and he loses head-to-head with most likely candidates if he is nominated. But maybe you have thoughts on the most obvious counterargument to predicting 2024.

[postman1782]

No, the L will be in November, then again in 2024.

But keep ignoring the way the public votes.

If they run Trump again in 2024, anyone who runs against him will win. I can guarantee it.

And it was basically a foregone conclusion that Republicans are going to win in 2022, but they are trying their fucking hardest to fucking lose with all these bullshit bills they are passing that are blatantly unconstitutional.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, and why do you think that was. An immensely unpopular president who mismanaged the only crisis he was faced with.

Now do Biden, with roughly similar approval ratings but a bunch of economic misery under his watch, regardless of whether it's his fault or not, that's how the average voter will respond.

But I'm sure you'll be wailing "how could this have happened" for the next few election cycles...

We know the average voter is just as ignorant as you are. Blaming Biden for shit out of his control. What you want is a dictator, but want it named something else.

- - - Updated - - -

I think post-2016 and, to some extent, 2020, turned the excuse from "how could this have happened" to "voters are bad people, stupid people, and we should feel good about speaking the truth about them." I don't think people will ask themselves "how could this have happened?"

2022 feels like a wave just because of Afghanistan, inflation, mask mandates, school closures, and an atrocious stalled legislative agenda. Yes, even if 90% of this forum feel quite deeply that Biden did his best and it's was the mean Republican's fault.

2024 feels more uncertain due to Trump's ability to play spoiler if he's not the nominee, and he loses head-to-head with most likely candidates if he is nominated. But maybe you have thoughts on the most obvious counterargument to predicting 2024.

Afghanistan is 100% on Trump, inflation is world wide, also not controlled by the president, there aren't any mask mandates, school closures happened under Trump, not under Biden, and the stalled legislative agenda is because of Republicans. There isn't a single thing that would make me want to vote a Republican EVER.

[Endus]

I think post-2016 and, to some extent, 2020, turned the excuse from "how could this have happened" to "voters are bad people, stupid people, and we should feel good about speaking the truth about them." I don't think people will ask themselves "how could this have happened?"

Why shouldn't we feel good about speaking the plain truth about people's motives? Because it hurts the feelings of fascists and bigots whose entire ideological goal is to create and foster human suffering, for its own sake? Sure seems like that's a win.

2022 feels like a wave just because of Afghanistan, inflation, mask mandates, school closures, and an atrocious stalled legislative agenda.

Afghanistan was a shitshow set in motion by Trump. Not Biden. Biden did fine with what he was handed.

Inflation is the result of capitalist economics run amok, abusing a crisis to maximize returns to the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. Sure, Biden's hardly helped rein that in, but the Republicans think it's a good thing.

Mask mandates were absolutely necessary and if Biden's administration deserves any criticism on that front, it's in not being strict enough. Anyone disagreeing is a plague rat seeking to foster the spread of a deadly disease.

School closures? Which schools? Do you mean closing them for the pandemic? Yeah, that was necessary. Back to plague-rat ideas, I guess.

And an "atrocious legislative agenda"? There's no way Biden's agenda can even compete with the intentional cruelty-for-cruelty's-sake legislative agendas of Republican States over the last few years, between minority-suppressing voter laws and the current run of just outright punitive bigotry with no other motivation other than fostering human suffering at its core.

Sure, 2022's mid-terms and 2024 aren't fait accomplis, but that's because of how many Americans support the exploitative, abusive ideological stances of Republicans. Not for some other reason, for sake of the abusive exploitation and the directed harm against vulnerable minority groups, itself. That's a condemnation of those people, and I'm fully proud to make it; if someone voted for a "Don't Say Gay" type bill, they're a homophobic and transphobic bigot and a deeply amoral and evil person. Period. 100% of those people. There may be a lot of them, but that doesn't make them less evil.

[Dontrike]

Soaking the tax payer to feed the rich is dummy politics.

You keep acting like this would only help the rich and even by your own source is not true. It's kind of amazing really that you show how that's not true and you keep saying it. Holy shit.

- - - Updated - - -

I think post-2016 and, to some extent, 2020, turned the excuse from "how could this have happened" to "voters are bad people, stupid people, and we should feel good about speaking the truth about them." I don't think people will ask themselves "how could this have happened?"

2022 feels like a wave just because of Afghanistan, inflation, mask mandates, school closures, and an atrocious stalled legislative agenda. Yes, even if 90% of this forum feel quite deeply that Biden did his best and it's was the mean Republican's fault.

2024 feels more uncertain due to Trump's ability to play spoiler if he's not the nominee, and he loses head-to-head with most likely candidates if he is nominated. But maybe you have thoughts on the most obvious counterargument to predicting 2024.

Do you have one point of view that isn't either wrong or completely devoid of context and reasoning?

[fwc577]

First, because the government does not have money, it takes money from the tax payer. You're making people that became truck drivers after high school pay for the yuppie that can expect $75,000 salary to pay back the cost of the degree. Even cutoffs below the 100k level favor the richest. Draw the income range, and you're increasing inequality by giving more to the top than the bottom. So, I keep hearing all the rhetoric on the plight of the poor, when student debt forgiveness does nothing for the cost of college and privileges the richest segment. I will echo back to you what you said: "what in the fuck sort of dumb stupid fucking ignorant take."

100k isn't rich anymore. So explain how the rich benefit from forgiveness if the cutoff is 100k or 75k

[Captain N]

100k has been middle class for years. So weird when kids think it’s somehow doing well.

Well a majority of the shit gibbons against any type of tax payer funded assistance aren't anywhere near 100K/year. So much like a $15/hour minimum wage they think 100K is something for highly skilled labor, or whatever other nonsense they're making up now.

[tehdang]

If they run Trump again in 2024, anyone who runs against him will win. I can guarantee it.

Well, we can agree on that. I appreciate these rare times.

Afghanistan is 100% on Trump, inflation is world wide, also not controlled by the president, there aren't any mask mandates, school closures happened under Trump, not under Biden, and the stalled legislative agenda is because of Republicans. There isn't a single thing that would make me want to vote a Republican EVER.

Just give others the strength of their convictions too.

You keep acting like this would only help the rich and even by your own source is not true. It's kind of amazing really that you show how that's not true and you keep saying it. Holy shit.

The disproportionality has always been my point. I'm opposed to foolish tax and spend programs.

Do you have one point of view that isn't either wrong or completely devoid of context and reasoning?

The two sides on most topics these days are so far apart that bridging that gap is almost impossible. Any earnest discussion is likely to get passionate, and those passions will turn to mutual accusations of bad faith, ignorance, or malevolence.

[Dontrike]

The disproportionality has always been my point. I'm opposed to foolish tax and spend programs.

Disproportionate? Your own source shows it would not affect the rich more and if there's a cut off then it would affect even less than that.

[Endus]

The two sides on most topics these days are so far apart that bridging that gap is almost impossible. Any earnest discussion is likely to get passionate, and those passions will turn to mutual accusations of bad faith, ignorance, or malevolence.

And yet, whenever we ask the "other side" to explain themselves without resorting to ignorant, bad faith malevolence, they get upset with us and act as if the question is somehow unfair or dishonest.

That's why I can so confidently state that the cruelty behind things like the "Don't Say Gay" laws is the entire point and intent of the laws. Because there isn't another explanation. Just deflections to the dogwhistles that don't hold water on even a basic level of scrutiny.

[Kaleredar]

100k has been middle class for years. So weird when kids think it’s somehow doing well.

These are the people that think rent is only a few hundred dollars a month because they haven't had to pay rent since 1995.

[Breccia]

Forgiveness aff--

Still sticking with "lol highar numbar" I see. Considering twelve other people in addition to your own source have already pointed out the objective mistake you're making and you still can't see it, I'm going to suggest you take out a student loan and just declare myself the winner.

[fwc577]

These are the people that think rent is only a few hundred dollars a month because they haven't had to pay rent since 1995.

https://www.investopedia.com/financi...s-are-you.aspx

Middle Income is squarely in the $75k-$85k (that number is from 2016) during a period of time when there has been SEVERE wage stagnation and post-recession.

https://money.usnews.com/money/perso...c-class-system

Middle Class in this for a family of 3 is defined as $53-$106k

Instead of trying to make a bad faith argument and look this incredibly ignorant, let's get back to the original statement:

How is $75k - $100k "rich" because the argument here is that student loan forgiveness with a cap of $75-$100k is going to "favor the richest"

[Themius]

Why the fuck are you playing defense for ethnic genocide?

They're intentionally killing civilians.

They're destroying cultural monuments.

They're trying to destroy the very sense of "being Ukrainian".

All of that is "genocide".

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

Russian rhetoric also underscores that the elimination of Ukrainian identity is their goal, which makes it crystal clear that their intent is genocide.

It'd be one thing if you just weren't sure it had quite reached that level, but that's not what you're doing. You're in full-on pro-Russian defense of genocide mode. WTF?

If that's the hill you want to see all of the Ukrainian people die on, that's up to you.

Talk about hyperbolic. Two countries are at war, and one of the countries is targeting civilians likely using terror for their benefit. It is a war crime, it is terrorism, it is an atrocity.

I think it is horrible, but I also do not think it is at the level of genocide. There is not a consensus on this yet from all sorts of people who study this very thing they all agree it is terrible though and whether you think it is a genocide or not does not take away from how fucked up the events are.

It is utter foolishness to think because someone says: "Well there are certainly horrible war crimes and targeting happening, but it may not amount to genocide since there are key points missing, though there are hints that it could become a genocide depending on rhetoric". It is a question of law, but regardless of law we can all agree the actions are abhorrent.

Also you said I am in full russia defence mode? What the fuck were you basing that bullshit on? The fuck is there to defend about Russia? Just because I did not say a longer statement about how it can become one, or how there are things missing... you know what else was missing? Me saying things in support of Russia and their actions.

If I say the Burmese are not actively doing x type of act against the Rohingya people, that does not suddenly mean I wholesale buy into the rhetoric of the Myanmar government.

- - - Updated - - -

gen·o·cide
/ˈjenəˌsīd/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group


It literally is though

Notice how your original post did not define genocide but then you added a subsequent point which added aim of destroying that nation or group note how I said in essence, that indiscriminate killing in a war is not genocide, because it very well may not be, unless you add the extra caveat where the goal is not simply to win the war, even if through terror but is also to eradicate or destroy a group.

So my reply to your original post, was entirely correct, what you originally said was not genocide, your subsequent post this post, defines genocide better. The issue with Russia is the rhetoric seems genocidal so it can become that. The issue is: what is the actual motive of the war right now, land and resources? Or destruction of Ukrainians as a group, or a mix of the two? There is debate but none of that takes away from the issue.

If you think one can only care about something once it gets labeled as "genocide" that is not true. I can care about any atrocity based on the actions happening itself.

- - - Updated - - -

And I mean, as a Canadian, we're well fuckin' aware that what happened in the Residential Schools, as well as other circumstances, was absolutely a genocide. It's always been genocide. Killing the idea of a people, the identity it represents, that's just as much "genocide" as a mass-murder campaign would be.

And this isn't a particularly new concept. This kind of equivocation is the same kind of bullshit used to deny the Armenian Genocide, for example. So no; I simply don't accept that the idea of cultural genocide is "too new"; we've been talking about this shit longer than most of us posting here have been alive, right back to the WWII era. It's just genocide-denialism, providing cover for human rights atrocities and abuses.

I do not think many actions America has taken in the Middle East are genocide, even though they are mass killings of civilians, since the goal of those mass killings and targets often has to deal with maintaining power and influence in the region, they just do it with reckless abandon of the populace.

You know or you should know, just how fucking much I am against American military actions and how shit I find their foreign policy, do you think because I do not think of these actions as genocide by the American government, that therefore I am providing cover and defending their actions? The USA has also facilitated genocides, but I am uncertain if that would count as the USA committing genocide itself, or if the genocide falls entirely to the country committing it and not also the country selling them weapons. Yet even though I am uncertain whether I would count that as direct genocide being carried out by the USA or not, I am entirely against it, I do not need to define the overarching kind of atrocity before I feel condemnation.

I do not understand how you think it provides cover for human rights abuses. Blowing up a park with children, whether the aim was to wipe out the racial group, or to kill a guy you thought was a terrorist... the defining of genocide or war crime does not matter, because no matter what the act itself is fucking terrible and that will never change because one says warcrime and another says genocide.

[Elegiac]

I think it is horrible, but I also do not think it is at the level of genocide.

And you're still wrong because the Kremlin has been abundantly clear that one of its long term goals is the elimination of an independent Ukrainian identity which it views as a post-Soviet aberration. Try again.

[Themius]

And you're still wrong because the Kremlin has been abundantly clear that one of its long term goals is the elimination of an independent Ukrainian identity which it views as a post-Soviet aberration. Try again.

I can be wrong sure, that doesn't mean I suddenly find the actions in the Ukraine any more or less worse.