2020 Democratic Nominee

[henrygandorf 29189]

i think it's more the narrative you're creating that the media is the primary reason for this behavior.  it's one of many factors, but you're overestimating it (in my and others' opinions).

we don't need the media narrative to tell us joe is "comfortable" or "safe".  we don't need it to tell us how the gop will attack bernie.  we already know "socialism" is a buzzword that has made bernie polarizing (polls have shown us this).

since beating trump is the focus, it's not surprising to see everyone flock to the "safe" choice.  it's just really shitty timing for a candidate like bernie.  the media didn't create that.  anyone on the far left (or right) will always be seen as riskier in a general election in a country whose citizens (or at least voters) see themselves as fairly moderate.

trump is polarizing.  this we know.  the only chance he has is to run against somebody who's also polarizing.  that's why he's been pushing so hard for bernie.

 

[bad_teammate 13191]

Obviously media narrative isn't the only factor in these things, but it's a very major factor that many are pretending either isn't real or isn't that big of a deal. It is. There are many other important factors involved.

Maybe a fairer media landscape wouldn't have made a fundamental difference in the race. Maybe it would have. Impossible to know or control. However, we need to be critical consumers of media and not just assume that it doesn't matter.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Maybe a fairer media landscape wouldn't have made a fundamental difference in the race. Maybe it would have. Impossible to know or control. However, we need to be critical consumers of media and not just assume that it doesn't matter.

We are bombarded with media. I like to be informed, but it is exhausting at times, especially your point about critical consumers. Fact checking eats up time and the standards have slipped to low levels. I understand why that is, but I don't have to like it.

Oh, and I want that man out of the WH, he has stunk up the Rose Garden and needs to be removed.

[Hank Kingsley 20906]

 

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Obviously media narrative isn't the only factor in these things, but it's a very major factor that many are pretending either isn't real or isn't that big of a deal. It is. There are many other important factors involved.

Halle-fucking-lujah. 

 

[henrygandorf 29189]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Obviously media narrative isn't the only factor in these things, but it's a very major factor that many are pretending either isn't real or isn't that big of a deal. It is. There are many other important factors involved.

Maybe a fairer media landscape wouldn't have made a fundamental difference in the race. Maybe it would have. Impossible to know or control. However, we need to be critical consumers of media and not just assume that it doesn't matter.

i wouldn't say it "doesn't matter" but it depends on the consumer.  if fox news didn't do what they do, then msnbc (and cnn to a lesser extent) wouldn't be pulling so hard in the opposite direction creating a landscape that has very few "honest brokers".  mostly people tune in to what gets them information they feel they need and doesn't upset them too much.  call it confirmation bias if you will, but that doesn't make it propaganda.

often times people hear what they want to hear, and some are hunting for outrage.  everyone has their own perspective.  i remember arguing with hugo in the fall after he complained that warren was getting constantly trashed on all these mainstream media outlets.  when i pressed him on it, he scaled it back to a couple of times specific people had said negative things.  you often note that pete was a media darling for months and months.  but the truth is that he had a nice honeymoon period (10 weeks or so), then the coverage was neutral at best, at least from what i saw.

i've always liked bernie, and i typically have cnn on all day while working from home.  i never saw much of anything i would consider anti-bernie, yet i saw plenty of tweets pointing out all sorts of "slights".  you can find pretty much anything i guess if you look hard enough.

[Hank Kingsley 20906]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Maybe a fairer media landscape wouldn't have made a fundamental difference in the race. Maybe it would have. Impossible to know or control. However, we need to be critical consumers of media and not just assume that it doesn't matter.

We need a fairer and sincere media landscape absolutely.  But the Left's answer to shitty, biased media coverage is provide their own shitty, biased media coverage.  Justice Dems, The Intercept, Jacobin, Current Affairs, etc. basically act as Bernie propagandists. No thanks. 

 

. 

 

[bad_teammate 13191]

10 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

you often note that pete was a media darling for months and months.  but the truth is that he had a nice honeymoon period (10 weeks or so), then the coverage was neutral at best, at least from what i saw.

i've always liked bernie, and i typically have cnn on all day while working from home.  i never saw much of anything i would consider anti-bernie, yet i saw plenty of tweets pointing out all sorts of "slights".  you can find pretty much anything i guess if you look hard enough.

You cannot find anything at all like the CNN debate after the anonymous source about the Bernie/Warren women-running-for-president conversation. That was a straight-up hit job on Sanders and was universally acknowledged as such. Any other candidates' success was never compared to Nazi invasions. Nothing like that was ever thrown at a non-Sanders no matter what a candidate did.

Something that's especially fucking annoying about this is that many of the same people who will pretend like there isn't a massive pro-corporate media bias also say that we have a corrupt relationship between corporate power and representative power that needs to be reformed. There is zero structural critique or understanding going on.

They didn't go after Sanders because he's Bernie Sanders, they went after him because he was a legitimate threat to the institutional power of the billionaire class that pays the millionaires on TV (and in many other industries).

If someone is just a straight-up cheerleader for oligarchy then I guess that person should keep lying about media narratives, but if someone actually realizes we need Big, Structural Change then downplaying the complicity of the media is idiotic.

6 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

We need a fairer and sincere media landscape absolutely.  But the Left's answer to shitty, biased media coverage is provide their own shitty, biased media coverage.  Justice Dems, The Intercept, Jacobin, Current Affairs, etc. basically act as Bernie propagandists. No thanks.

You're so desperate to #BothSides this that you listed a PAC to try and flesh out the list. lol

Jacobin and Current Affairs are op-ed magazines. Their analogues aren't CNN and MSNBC, but The New Republic and Mother Jones. There is no leftist equivalent to CNN and MSNBC.

The Intercept is investigative journalism (and wonderful, important work there) and some op-ed pages.

CNN gets more eyeballs in a night than those op-ed outlets do in a year. A laughable #BothSides attempt.

[David Dennison 18849]

29 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

We need a fairer and sincere media landscape absolutely.  But the Left's answer to shitty, biased media coverage is provide their own shitty, biased media coverage.  Justice Dems, The Intercept, Jacobin, Current Affairs, etc. basically act as Bernie propagandists. No thanks. 

We need a literate public capable of critical thinking way more than we need a fairer and more sincere media landscape.

[Pasken 1309]

WOW.

 

For the first time, Biden leads Trump in Florida and he leads it by 6 points according to UNF. That is a monumental shift.

[Hank Kingsley 20906]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

You're so desperate to #BothSides this that you listed a PAC to try and flesh out the list. lol

 

That PAC (Justice Dems) had a spokeswoman that was a pro-Bernie talking head on CNN a lot over the last couple of months, along with Abdul-Sayed. 

Not that it's a bad thing. I was pleasantly surprised CNN added Bernie progressives to their political panels. 

 

[Hank Kingsley 20906]

54 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

We need a literate public capable of critical thinking way more than we need a fairer and more sincere media landscape.

The latter is much more realistic than the former. 

 

[Biff Tannen 45665]

5 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The latter is much more realistic than the former. 

 

Sadly true.

[bad_teammate 13191]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

We need a literate public capable of critical thinking way more than we need a fairer and more sincere media landscape.

People can only eat what they are fed.

[Hank Kingsley 20906]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

You're so desperate to #BothSides this that you listed a PAC to try and flesh out the list. lol

Jacobin and Current Affairs are op-ed magazines. Their analogues aren't CNN and MSNBC, but The New Republic and Mother Jones. There is no leftist equivalent to CNN and MSNBC.

The Intercept is investigative journalism (and wonderful, important work there) and some op-ed pages.

CNN gets more eyeballs in a night than those op-ed outlets do in a year. A laughable #BothSides attempt.

Obviously the leftist media outlets are tiny compared to the CNNs of the world, though they have been growing quickly over the last few years. I forgot to mention The Young Turks which is probably the most watched/listened to, and they are fucking horrible. 

The Intercept is great when doing investigative journalism. But they basically have acted as political operatives when covering the primary. 

 

Regarding politics, I think the overall media has been an absolute fucking disaster. A complete failure, especially over the last 4-5 years. They have no idea how to cover Trump, fall into the same traps, and exhibit zero discipline. 

[bad_teammate 13191]

Biden went on TV to tell people to wash their hands and go out today.

Sanders is making no effort to get his voters out.

#Leadership

[David Dennison 18849]

17 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

People can only eat what they are fed.

False. They can find their own food.

[F250 28764]

Trump's blundering of the pandemic has opened him up to so many attacks but I don't really see Biden harnessing that outrage other than a "Listen Jack, you did a bad job." Pete would have knives out and carve Trump up. Klobs would be free to release her rage. Bernie would rail on Trump with outrage and cadence but Biden, I don't see him being up to the task.

[Mdhorn 5947]

Whoever wins and loses to Trump in the fall doesn't need to hear a collective well, we should have nominated Bernie or somebody else. There's a lot going against them that has nothing to do with voting.  

Edited April 7, 2020 by Mdhorn

[Mdhorn 5947]

11 minutes ago, F250 said:

Trump's blundering of the pandemic has opened him up to so many attacks but I don't really see Biden harnessing that outrage other than a "Listen Jack, you did a bad job." Pete would have knives out and carve Trump up. Klobs would be free to release her rage. Bernie would rail on Trump with outrage and cadence but Biden, I don't see him being up to the task.

but Biden does have the moderate vote.  The others don't have because Pete is gay, Klobs is a woman, etc.  I'd prefer either because both are bright people.  Biden, not so much, but I won't hesitate to vote for him in the fall.  Biden is also the type, should he win the election in an attempt to bring the country together, drop all investigations of wrong doing by the Republican Trump crime syndicate.  

Edited April 7, 2020 by Mdhorn

[Dbeasy 15042]

Biden went on TV to tell people to wash their hands and go out today.

Sanders is making no effort to get his voters out.

#Leadership

Unbelievably outrageous behavior by Sanders, to complain about people’s safety when he could immediately solve the safety issue by conceding. Pathetic.

[Anastasis 23462]

35 minutes ago, F250 said:

Trump's blundering of the pandemic has opened him up to so many attacks but I don't really see Biden harnessing that outrage other than a "Listen Jack, you did a bad job." Pete would have knives out and carve Trump up. Klobs would be free to release her rage. Bernie would rail on Trump with outrage and cadence but Biden, I don't see him being up to the task.

Warren would run train with the subject imo. 

[henrygandorf 29189]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Sanders is making no effort to get his voters out.

 

right, but that's kinda been the strategy since the beginning of his campaign.

#bold

[bad_teammate 13191]

[bad_teammate 13191]

 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5111]

On 4/4/2020 at 1:36 PM, Hank Kingsley said:

This fucking dumbass

 

Fair point.  But guess what, I'd much rather rely on a Biden cabinet than Trump and his cabinet.  Anyone who disagrees is a moron that has shown they shouldn't be trusted unattended with scissors, much less shouting their opinions through a megaphone.

[henrygandorf 29189]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

 

exactly.

after the democratic governor put his foot down, the republicans on the courts reversed his decision.

this is exactly the type of political corruption and voter suppression that's happening at all levels - from trump and mcconnell on down into the states, cities, and counties, in the statehouses and in the courts.  if you're not actively opposed to trump and mcconnell, then you're enabling them to do even more damage.

this is why people say "vote blue no matter who".  enough is enough.

[bad_teammate 13191]

7 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

after the democratic governor put his foot down, the republicans on the courts reversed his decision.

...

this is why people say "vote blue no matter who".  enough is enough.

How did Republicans gain so much power in the states over the last decade?

[Pancho 44710]

Seems like Obama's tweet yesterday was a hint to Biden that he thinks Warren should be in the VP slot. 

Well timed and strategic tweet. 

[bad_teammate 13191]

Given how she kept from hitting him at all during the debates, I think he owes her something. He owes a LOT of people something.

[henrygandorf 29189]

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How did Republicans gain so much power in the states over the last decade?

depends on the state, although there will always be more red states than blue states, which is why the senate will always be such an issue.

are you saying it had nothing to do with political corruption and voter suppression?

[G650 14242]

[F250 28764]

26 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How did Republicans gain so much power in the states over the last decade?

Making local and state elections a priority. They definitely went after school boards.

[David Dennison 18849]

37 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How did Republicans gain so much power in the states over the last decade?

Young people don't vote.

It's that simple.

[bad_teammate 13191]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

are you saying it had nothing to do with political corruption and voter suppression?

How did you read that into my question? You're so trollishly passive-aggressive it's embarrassing.

"Political corruption" is extremely vague. Voter suppression is an excellent observation, but that requires governmental power to make which leads right back to the question... 

How did Republicans gain so much power in the states over the last decade?

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Young people don't vote.

It's that simple.

If it were that simple then Democrats never would have had power to lose.

Why did the Democrats lose over 1000 seats nationwide under Obama?

[Bama Chick 28596]

Seems like Obama's tweet yesterday was a hint to Biden that he thinks Warren should be in the VP slot. 
Well timed and strategic tweet. 

Did they lose each other’s cell numbers when they had to give up their government phones?

“Old POTUS? Who dis?”

Obama isn’t gonna tweet a hint for the world to see - he’ll call Joe up and tell him.

Obama doesn’t do shit like that with party politics. Never has.

And Obama knows better than anyone, especially during a flipping pandemic, two white septuagenarians from the Northeast is a bad ticket, even if one has a vagina.

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How did you read that into my question? You're so trollishly passive-aggressive it's embarrassing.

🙂

[henrygandorf 29189]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How did you read that into my question? You're so trollishly passive-aggressive it's embarrassing.

dude, get over yourself.  

everyone knows you're never "just asking questions" yet you deleted the entire middle part of my post which was about how this type of shit goes all the way to the top.  some of us care about defeating trump and mcconnell, and others have hurt feelings about not getting their way.  just last week, trump was on a phone interview talking about the suppression going on in georgia, basically admitting that if things were fair, republicans would have a hard time ever getting elected.

you posted a tweet without commentary.  what was the point of that?  be honest.

[bad_teammate 13191]

5 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

some of us care about defeating trump and mcconnell, and others have hurt feelings about not getting their way.

I'm guessing this second clause is a reference to me, right?

If so, a question I would like for you to answer honestly (which you almost never do, but I'll ask anyway): Is it only after Bernie functionally lost the primary that I've issued a systemic critique of the Democratic Party and their complete failure to maintain power in the last decade?

Of course it isn't. It's an idiotic characterization from a troll.

You care about winning in the moment, it's true, but do you care about anything that happened before or what will happen after? Are you at all worried about falling right back into the exact same cycle that led to this, continuing a downward spiral towards insane fascism?

Over the last decade, the Democratic Party has failed astonishingly to gain or even maintain power. Even when it does, it has failed astonishingly at accomplishing its goals. (Or, honestly, even having an observable set of goals beyond, "THOSE GUYS ARE WORSE!")

We lost power because we gave voters nothing to be excited about or to care about. The Party establishment said, "You like Obama, don't you? He's great!" and then it all died underneath him. So we manufacture enough consent to get Biden's rotting corpse in ahead of Sanders and Warren (and even Pete and Kamala and the like) and... what's that going to actually look like?

"BETTER THAN TRUMP!"

Sure, but I want you to try your little heart out to think about what a Joe Biden presidency actually looks like. Think about what the party looks like under Joe Biden.

We will transition from critique of Candidate Biden being met with  "YOU LOVE TRUMP DON'T YOU!?" to critique of President Biden being met with "YOU WANT TRUMP BACK, DON'T YOU!?"

When establishment incumbents are primaried from the left the response will be, "OH SO YOU WANT MCCONNELL BACK, HUH!?!?!"

And on and on endlessly in the march towards fascism. Because it's never about actual beliefs and values and policies transcending teams and personalities, it is only ever about teams and personalities. At least, that is, to the upwardly mobile white 6-figure post-grad class.

To people who are content with the deadly status quo, there is never a good time to critique the party in a meaningful way. So when those same voices say, "Vote blue no matter who and I promise we'll listen to you later" they are lying. They will never listen.

Quote

you posted a tweet without commentary.  what was the point of that?  be honest.

To highlight the failure of the Democratic Party in winning and maintaining power.

I know the Republicans are bad. That is uninteresting to me. I would rather worry about the plank in my own eye than the splinter in my neighbor's eye.

[bad_teammate 13191]

"They're holding! He grabbed the back of my jersey!"

- "I know, but we have to figure out how to win this game anyway."

"BUT THEY'RE HOLDING! THEY WERE HOLDING ME!"

- "All right, I know, so here's an idea for how to make sure that doesn't --"

"WHY DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT THE HOLDING!?"

[Biff Tannen 45665]

[Hookah Horns 3083]

I can't believe the Dems are actually going to nominate someone who's barely mentally competent and risk losing what should be a shoo-in election. It's pretty much the only possible way to lose. As an independent who can't stand the thought of another 4 years of this clown show, it's really starting to piss me off that I am going to have to vote for someone who has declining mental faculties.

This after making me vote for the turd sandwich Hillary last time. 

I hate the fucking two party system. 

[mdmost 42999]

Who exactly would you have preferred in place of Joe Biden? The better candidates were all defeated. So yes, you're stuck with Joe. Suck it up and push the button, pull the lever, bubble in the oval, whatever. 

[henrygandorf 29189]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm guessing this second clause is a reference to me, right?

If so, a question I would like for you to answer honestly (which you almost never do, but I'll ask anyway): Is it only after Bernie functionally lost the primary that I've issued a systemic critique of the Democratic Party and their complete failure to maintain power in the last decade?

nope.  you and bernie have had longstanding issues with the democratic party/democratic party establishment/whatever you want to call it.

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Of course it isn't. It's an idiotic characterization from a troll.

when did i characterize you as anything other?

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You care about winning in the moment

i do.  it's a very important moment we're in.  it's a tipping point.  anyone who doesn't care about winning in the moment can go get fucked.

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

but do you care about anything that happened before or what will happen after? Are you at all worried about falling right back into the exact same cycle that led to this, continuing a downward spiral towards insane fascism?

Over the last decade, the Democratic Party has failed astonishingly to gain or even maintain power. Even when it does, it has failed astonishingly at accomplishing its goals. (Or, honestly, even having an observable set of goals beyond, "THOSE GUYS ARE WORSE!")

yes, i care about all sorts of stuff on different threads.  but this is the 2020 democratic nominee thread.  and right now all i care about is beating trump.  and i'm very very not alone in that.  i don't talk about better call saul, the astros, or craps in this thread either.

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

We lost power because we gave voters nothing to be excited about or to care about. The Party establishment said, "You like Obama, don't you? He's great!" and then it all died underneath him. So we manufacture enough consent to get Biden's rotting corpse in ahead of Sanders and Warren (and even Pete and Kamala and the like) and... what's that going to actually look like?

"BETTER THAN TRUMP!"

who is the "we" in "we manufacture enough consent"?  if bernie had wider appeal and gave a shit about courting the traditional democratic base, then we'd be rallying behind him right now.  but he didn't.  and we're not. (and the same goes for warren, pete, kamala, etc, not trying to hurt your feelings by singling out bernie) so we're rallying behind an inferior candidate who should still wipe the floor with trump in november.  is it ideal?  no.  but get on board or get out of the way.  this is what we're stuck with.  it doesn't have to inspire, it just has to win.

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Sure, but I want you to try your little heart out to think about what a Joe Biden presidency actually looks like. Think about what the party looks like under Joe Biden.

We will transition from critique of Candidate Biden being met with  "YOU LOVE TRUMP DON'T YOU!?" to critique of President Biden being met with "YOU WANT TRUMP BACK, DON'T YOU!?"

When establishment incumbents are primaried from the left the response will be, "OH SO YOU WANT MCCONNELL BACK, HUH!?!?!"

a month ago i never would've muttered anything in your direction about you or your ilk liking trump or mcconnell.  lately, i'm not so sure, but it's a waste of time either way.  step one is getting trump out.  step two comes after, and there is no step two if step one fails.  i need you to look at the small picture.  i know it can be counter-intuitive.

19 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

To people who are content with the deadly status quo, there is never a good time to critique the party in a meaningful way. So when those same voices say, "Vote blue no matter who and I promise we'll listen to you later" they are lying. They will never listen.

there are good times and bad times to critique in a meaningful way.  this is a horrible time.  this is why a superior, revolutionary candidate is getting smoked by a guy who can barely complete a sentence after he's had an hour to rehearse.  it sucks, i know, but bad timing is a thing in politics.  i could give a shit about "we'll listen to you later".  if biden is president, then trump isn't, which is a good thing for this country.  

21 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I know the Republicans are bad. That is uninteresting to me. I would rather worry about the plank in my own eye than the splinter in my neighbor's eye.

i'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying...in principle.  i know there are some on the progressive left who would prefer trump to win in hopes that things get so bad that we are forced to (literally?) burn it all down in a few years.  you don't strike me as one of those, so i won't treat you as one of those.  there are things happening in government today that are not "republican or democrat" or even "left or right" or "right or wrong".  the country is splintered all the fuck over the place because of what's going on in the oval office.  

when a guy who's overweight and cheats on his wife and drinks too much and spits when he talks and roots for the sooners has cancer, you remove the cancer, and deal with everything else afterwards.  trump is a cancer.  and he needs to be removed. 

[David Dennison 18849]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

If it were that simple then Democrats never would have had power to lose.

Why did the Democrats lose over 1000 seats nationwide under Obama?

Because young people don't vote.

[David Dennison 18849]

13 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

I can't believe the Dems are actually going to nominate someone who's barely mentally competent and risk losing what should be a shoo-in election. It's pretty much the only possible way to lose. As an independent who can't stand the thought of another 4 years of this clown show, it's really starting to piss me off that I am going to have to vote for someone who has declining mental faculties.

This after making me vote for the turd sandwich Hillary last time. 

I hate the fucking two party system. 

The Dems are nominating someone who is leagues ahead of the current occupant of the White House in terms of mental competence an acuity. It's not even all that close. 

[Pancho 44710]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

Did they lose each other’s cell numbers when they had to give up their government phones?

“Old POTUS? Who dis?”

Obama isn’t gonna tweet a hint for the world to see - he’ll call Joe up and tell him.

Obama doesn’t do shit like that with party politics. Never has.

And Obama knows better than anyone, especially during a flipping pandemic, two white septuagenarians from the Northeast is a bad ticket, even if one has a vagina.

I disagree to an extent but we can disagree and be cool.

[henrygandorf 29189]

52 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

"They're holding! He grabbed the back of my jersey!"

- "I know, but we have to figure out how to win this game anyway."

"BUT THEY'RE HOLDING! THEY WERE HOLDING ME!"

- "All right, I know, so here's an idea for how to make sure that doesn't --"

"WHY DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT THE HOLDING!?"

see, i'm trying to win the first game of the season, but you're complaining that the outdated playoff structure will make it unlikely that we win the championship.

you play to win the game.

[bad_teammate 13191]

15 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

a month ago i never would've muttered anything in your direction about you or your ilk liking trump or mcconnell.  lately, i'm not so sure

Is that because me and my ilk have changed or because you have?

We aren't saying anything new or different. We are levying the exact same critiques and ideas we always have.

Quote

step one is getting trump out.  step two comes after, and there is no step two if step one fails.

Horseshit. If getting Trump out was your primary concern and you cared about literally nothing else right now you would not be thinking about this shit right now. You wouldn't have such an overwhelming need to troll the left and posters online. You have values that are motivating you right now and you're pretending they aren't there.

Also, you're dead wrong about there being no future if Trump wins again. And it's funny that me even saying that triggers in your mind the idea that I want Trump to win simply because I can envision a future with that happening and not just curling up into a ball and dying.

Quote

when a guy who's overweight and cheats on his wife and drinks too much and spits when he talks and roots for the sooners has cancer, you remove the cancer, and deal with everything else afterwards.  trump is a cancer.  and he needs to be removed. 

Sure, but that's not the situation here.

You guys are pissed off about anyone who even talks about the drinking, cheating, and Sooner fandom. Let's get the guy to commit to necessary life changes while preparing for the surgery. You guys act like doing that automatically cancels the surgery.

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Because young people don't vote.

So how did Obama win the presidency?

[henrygandorf 29189]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Is that because me and my ilk have changed or because you have?

i don't think either has changed.  i'm basing it on things you've specifically said on this message board since biden has become the presumptive nominee.  you typically don't post in the main political "trump-centric" threads, but you have more lately.

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Horseshit. If getting Trump out was your primary concern and you cared about literally nothing else right now you would not be thinking about this shit right now. You wouldn't have such an overwhelming need to troll the left and posters online. You have values that are motivating you right now and you're pretending they aren't there.

yeah, you're wrong. 

stop trying to speak for others, you have no idea what our motivation is, and you're constantly wrong when you guess.  you've repeatedly had it in your head that people aren't simply motivated by the desire to beat trump, that people definitely care specifically who the candidate is if they're posting here months ahead of the general, and so forth.  you've been wrong every time, so maybe stop talking and pay attention for a minute.  there are a large number of people whose primary concern is getting trump out.  we post on other threads too.

you say i have "an overwhelming need to troll the left and posters online" yet i very rarely do that, if at all.  i fuck with you because that's what we do.  i don't involve politics in any other part of my "online" life including other places on this board.  i don't troll the left, i don't talk shit about bernie or any other progressive politicians.  maybe you're getting us all confused, but outside of fucking with you for sport, i'm not that guy. 

sticking up for pete isn't "trolling the left", btw.  just to get out in front of that argument.

16 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Also, you're dead wrong about there being no future if Trump wins again.

i didn't say there was "no future" but if trump wins again, things will be fucked up for decades to come.  this is the only chance to stop (some of) the bleeding.

18 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

And it's funny that me even saying that triggers in your mind the idea that I want Trump to win

um, not sure where you get that, especially since i actually wrote this in the same post:

56 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i know there are some on the progressive left who would prefer trump to win in hopes that things get so bad that we are forced to (literally?) burn it all down in a few years.  you don't strike me as one of those, so i won't treat you as one of those.

 

19 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Sure, but that's not the situation here.

You guys are pissed off about anyone who even talks about the drinking, cheating, and Sooner fandom. Let's get the guy to commit to necessary life changes while preparing for the surgery. You guys act like doing that automatically cancels the surgery.

see, this isn't the point.  it's your point, but it's not the point.  and that's fine.  nobody is "pissed off" about you talking about the other stuff.  but when you try to "both-sides" your argument, then you're losing focus.  which is fine, for you.  it's just not for us.

[Hookah Horns 3083]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

The Dems are nominating someone who is leagues ahead of the current occupant of the White House in terms of mental competence an acuity. It's not even all that close. 

I think I agree, at least as far as the acuity to accomplish anything of value for the country as president goes. I'm also kind of talking out of my ass about Biden, I've only seen a few gaffes clips and part of one debate. But it'll be interesting watching him debate the orange goblin, to say the least.