USA elections 2020 - 2021

[PointOfViewGun]

Yet he has nothing but amateur spaghetti cooks to choose from. Tell me, definitively, as in give me a name because I know how much you hate actually being nailed down to an argument, give me the name you'd want.
I intend to use this to humiliate your arguments later. Give me your VP candidate. I'm going to make extra special note of it.

I have no pick. I'm not as commanding of all the candidates to pick one. VP position is inherently hard to pick as you're going for someone important or capable to create buzz but you don't want it to compete or overshadow the president. Ultimately, I would want someone young.

[Prodromos]

What a relief

Kansas Senate primary results: Roger Marshall wins nomination - CNNPolitics

Rep. Roger Marshall won the Senate GOP primary in Kansas on Tuesday, CNN projects, delivering the party establishment a victory that could help keep the seat in its control this November.

Marshall prevailed comfortably in a crowded primary field with the backing of major farm, business and anti-abortion groups but without a pre-election endorsement from President Donald Trump.

Marshall fought back a fierce challenge from former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, whose crusades against illegal immigration and voting fraud have made him a divisive figure.

Democrats haven't won a Senate seat in the state since 1932, the longest losing streak for the party in the country. But the Republican establishment was terrified that spell might have been broken if the state picked Kobach as its nominee.

...

Kobach's Republican critics warned that only he could put the seat at risk, pointing to the outcome of the 2018 gubernatorial race. Trump endorsed Kobach a day before that Republican primary, which Kobach won by only 343 votes. He then lost to Democrat Laura Kelly by 5 points, even though Trump won Kansas by 20 points in 2016.

...

A Democratic-aligned organization called the Sunflower State has spent over $4.6 million on ads boosting Kobach, calling him "too conservative" and Marshall "soft on Trump." Meanwhile the Republican-affiliated group Plains PAC has spent over $3.3 million bashing Kobach for his alleged "ties to white nationalists," a charge his campaign strongly denied. And Senate Leadership Fund, which is aligned with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, has also spent over $1.8 million supporting Marshall, a OB-GYN doctor.

[B. W.]

Well ... thanks.

I mean, the Democrats have said that women have been oppressed for decades. That part is clear to me. I’m just not sure what you're referring to in terms of the shift away from that already established stance. Is it the George Floyd and Black Lives Matter protests or something? II think the current working theory among more progressive circles is that people can be victims of one kind of discrimination but still privileged in regards to another kind. You know, basic intersectionality stuff.



I’m not very familiar with Gloria Steinem. She seems to have been a much more high-profile figure back in the day, but that was before my time. Also, I think that your reasons why people dislike Ellen now is a bit incomplete. It’s been happening for years: the whole non-union home studio production team, allegedly toxic work environment and typical show biz hypocrisy, sexual assault allegations towards producers, and her complaints about quarantining in her mansion. I think those were factors that also contributed to the tipping point. If you disagree, that’s whatever, I don’t really want to argue about Ellen DeGeneres in a thread about the election anyway.

Moving on.

As for your point on Black Lives Matter, I do agree that violent protests are wrong, my username is not “pacifism” for nothing. I think the Democratic Party has been too permissive on that front. But I think it’s important to keep in mind what is at stake. If a random person starts throwing bricks, starting fires, or beating people up, that’s a form of violence that can be easily stopped and charges pressed. It’s also something that can be started by any single person. If only a few police officers are quick to use force and brutality, that’s still a far more difficult form of violence to stop. The police are able to dig in their heels, willing to defend bad apples, and double down on their behavior with a large segment of the public having their back. It’s a lot harder to stop law enforcement from being needlessly violent than it is to stop non-law enforcement from being needlessly violent.

Despite all these people protesting, not a whole lot has really changed. Police are nowhere near in danger of being defunded, so I can see why some people are willing to overlook incidences of violence during protests: they see it as an eyes-on-the-prize, focus-on-fighting-the-bigger-problem sort of thing.

But what is happening is that the protests are enjoying an unusual amount of support. Compared to the original civil rights protests back in the 1950s and ‘60s, George Floyd protests have more widespread support. Polls back then showed many people expressing support for the idea civil rights, but disagreeing with taking any direct action against racism up to around 1970, but by then people only really cared about Vietnam.

Speaking of which, I would also point out that the 1968 presidential election was a realignment in ways that 2020 simply is not. The New Deal coalition was officially over: southerners started abandoning ship once LBG promoted the Civil Rights Act, a strongly anti-war faction emerged, and labor unions were shrinking as we started to shift towards a more serviced-based economy (and they were split between Humphrey and Wallace). Vietnam was the hot issue, and even though there was no incumbent president, Humphrey had a hard time distancing himself from the existing administration that he was VP of. He really only needed California, Illinois, and Ohio to win, which were all somewhat close.

My point is that presidential elections are not really won or lost by any one factor. George Bush won in 2000 due to West Virginia and New Hampshire as well as Florida. I think that the big issues of 2020 just don’t really line up with the ones in 1968, except for civil rights protests and riots. Incumbent presidential candidates usually win, but Trump was not a very strong incumbent from the start. The response on worsening COVID and the increasingly popular BLM protests have only made it harder for him to get a broader appeal. It's a lot harder to pull off the anti-establishment pitch when you're the sitting president.



Since Joe Manchin and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are in the same party, I'd argue that the Democratic party covers a wider ideological spectrum than the Republicans do right now, but the point is that I think there are still radicals and moderates in both parties.

Congrats, you admitted that the Dems have been telling women they are oppressed for decades! We're making progress here. There's no intersectionality here, there are women who believe deeply that they are oppressed. When they are told they have been oppressing minorities and that they are part of a privileged class it wreaks havoc with their brain.

As far as Ellen, there have been rumors for years about what goes on in the background, but they've always been tamped down. If you look at the situation closely it started going downhill dramatically after she was photographed with Bush. She went over the line This is what has Dems worried because no one is sure where that line is anymore because it is constantly changing. That's what happens when mobs make choices. The city council members in Minneapolis who voiced support for the protests and offered concessions like defunding the police now have protests sitting on their lawns and they're inside their homes terrified.

In regard to support for the protests, MSN, CNN, etc. have been running reports claiming that the majority of Americans support the protests. Don't be foolish enough to believe them. The majority of Americans support the right to peacefully protest, but they oppose violent protests by over 80%...a wide majority. The Dems are on record of supporting the violence and destruction. It won't play well in November no matter how much you wish to be so.

[pacifism]

Oof, first the Chris Wallace interview and now Jonathan Swan? I'm not surprised that Trump flubbed the second one just like the first. I'm surprised that he agreed to be in a second one. I can't help but wonder if such a simple change in approach by reporters and interviewers is all it really takes to show his ... buffoonery.

What a relief

Kansas Senate primary results: Roger Marshall wins nomination - CNNPolitics

Well, that's something. As far as I know, Marshall is a predictably conservative Republican without that weird anti-foreigner bent Kobach had for no reason (I mean, how many illegal immigrants are choosing to live in Kansas?). I have voted for Republican candidates in the primaries -- especially when the Democratic candidate is basically unopposed -- because I want to the best GOP nominees too.

It still surprises me how quickly people jump-ship when they perceive someone as a "loser" candidate. It kind of reminds me of the Alabama Senate race, where the GOP nominated a ball coach over the 20-year Senator who had that seat for up to about half of this past term. I guess people don't take kindly to that little fall from grace after he recused himself, which seems like forever ago. Roy Moore was even in that primary, and he didn't even crack double digits, thank God!

When they are told they have been oppressing minorities and that they are part of a privileged class it wreaks havoc with their brain.

Which Democrats told them that?

The Dems are on record of supporting the violence and destruction. It won't play well in November no matter how much you wish to be so.

Which Democrats said that?

[Cyclops]

Interview covers the election and mail in voting from 22:22.

And otherwise is a masterclass in making a journalist want to kill himself.

This is why I find US politics hard to grasp. Trump has embarrassed himself so badly so often. If an Australian politicians stuffed up like this they'd be gone in days. Somehow he has a satisfied electorate.

It seems like it has taken the COVID debacle and the BLM movement to impact Trump's relationship with his party and frankly he's not responsible for the plague (he may have made it a little worse but he doesn't have to power to do that much anyway) or insitutional racism (although he dog whistles the racists like a frat boy on a bender).

I guess he's about to be straw dogged like Bush II, only as a one-termer.

[B. W.]

Which Democrats told them that?



Which Democrats said that?

Seriously? Come on man, this is everyday news stuff. I know the media likes to filter the news to cover for the Dems when they say and do things that might not be well received across the hinterland, but it is astonishing how many Democrats don't know what their own party is up to. Every one of the women on Biden's short list for VP has come out in support of the protests AFTER they had destroyed property and injured law enforcement.

And the Dems just shot down a resolution in the Senate that would have condemned the violence:

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/...lent-protests/

[Pontifex Maximus]

I have no pick. I'm not as commanding of all the candidates to pick one. VP position is inherently hard to pick as you're going for someone important or capable to create buzz but you don't want it to compete or overshadow the president. Ultimately, I would want someone young.

So your only standard is "young." Well compared to Biden, he could nominate practically anyone in the nation to fir that criteria. You're ignoring the other promises he's made regarding his VP because you realize the standards are all losers, and you're not willing to defend any of the potential nominees until you're forced to because orange man bad REEE. Your reaction is so predictable. Whenever I start to seriously doubt how in the hell the mainstream DNC is able to delude voters with obvious misdirection, virtue signalling, and empty promises, I read one of your posts and it becomes immediately clear to me.

[pacifism]

So your only standard is "young." Well compared to Biden, he could nominate practically anyone in the nation to fir that criteria. You're ignoring the other promises he's made regarding his VP because you realize the standards are all losers, and you're not willing to defend any of the potential nominees until you're forced to because orange man bad REEE. Your reaction is so predictable. Whenever I start to seriously doubt how in the hell the mainstream DNC is able to delude voters with obvious misdirection, virtue signalling, and empty promises, I read one of your posts and it becomes immediately clear to me.

Ooh, may I please try a rebuttal?

I think it's a bit of a long shot, but I'm hoping for Senator Duckworth. Midwestern state, not divisively progressive, and a veteran. Republicans love veterans, do they not?

How'd I do?

Seriously? Come on man, this is everyday news stuff. I know the media likes to filter the news to cover for the Dems when they say and do things that might not be well received across the hinterland, but it is astonishing how many Democrats don't know what their own party is up to. Every one of the women on Biden's short list for VP has come out in support of the protests AFTER they had destroyed property and injured law enforcement.

And the Dems just shot down a resolution in the Senate that would have condemned the violence:

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/...lent-protests/

Well, you didn't address the women thing at all.

As far as op-eds go, this one wasn't obviously terrible, but I don't think it supports your argument. This article says that Senator Lee (R) complained that Senator Mendez (D) "wanted to add a line into the language [of his resolution] which barred any elected official from supporting or inciting mob violence" to include the elected official in the Oval Office. The resolution was considered dead right after that -- not that it anything more than posturing to begin with -- and it never came to a vote.

It's not like the Democrats all stood up and said "no, we are pro-riot". Lee wanted unanimous support for this resolution on not promoting violence, and a Liberal Democrat^TM said "let's also hold the president to this standard". That's an amendment, but Lee took it as a rejection and seems to have withdrawn and with an angry letter all ready to boot. I suppose Mendez took the bait, in a way, but this is feeble.

The GOP controls the Senate, why not show party support against the violence and bring it to a vote? I think it's because this resolution isn't very important, and everyone already got what they wanted anyway. A Democrat got to complain that the Republicans apply a dangerous double standard on the President and his ethical whoopsie-daisies, and a Republican got to rant about how liberals and protestors are destroying America or whatever. Both Senators can smile to their respective media camera and add a tally to their point chart.

So far, you have one Senator saying that he wants to say that the President shouldn't support violence before agreeing to say that he doesn't support violence either. Even if that makes him "pro-riot", that is still a Democrat, not the Democrats. If what the Democrats are saying is everyday news, I suppose it should be easy to humor me and show some more of their statements that are pro-riot and call white women oppressors.

I know it's a conservative talking point and all, but not even Biden, Sanders, or Warren support defunding the police.

[Gaidin]

VP isn't as destructive a pick as people think. After all, Republicans let Reagan have alzheimer's. And the focus was still on him. Not his VP.


No matter what people wish to think. The race is for President. Not VP.

[antaeus]

It's not like the Democrats all stood up and said "no, we are pro-riot". Lee wanted unanimous support for this resolution on not promoting violence, and a Liberal Democrat^TM said "let's also hold the president to this standard". That's an amendment, but Lee took it as a rejection and seems to have withdrawn and with an angry letter all ready to boot. I suppose Mendez took the bait, in a way, but this is feeble.

Either way... I'm fairly certain people can express nuance in their opinions. For example: someone could support the idea that black lives mater as much as any others, and support the right to protest against problems within government institutions, and still oppose violent riots. The lack of ability to see nuanced opinions and phrase everything in binary is logically flawed, and tends to be the type of posture made by people who are incapable of a fully mature sense of empathy, or who stand to gain from division (the two overlap).

[wanderwegger]

Republicans refuse to condemn racism all the time. Only an idiot would be unwilling to admit that the Dems are fine with the protests being violent and the GOP is fine with racism, lynchings, homophobia, child poverty, withholding healthcare from other humans. I don’t have time to post the whole list.

Seriously? Come on man, this is everyday news stuff. I know the media likes to filter the news to cover for the Dems when they say and do things that might not be well received across the hinterland, but it is astonishing how many Democrats don't know what their own party is up to. Every one of the women on Biden's short list for VP has come out in support of the protests AFTER they had destroyed property and injured law enforcement.

And the Dems just shot down a resolution in the Senate that would have condemned the violence:

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/...lent-protests/

[pacifism]

Either way... I'm fairly certain people can express nuance in their opinions. For example: someone could support the idea that black lives mater as much as any others, and support the right to protest against problems within government institutions, and still oppose violent riots. The lack of ability to see nuanced opinions and phrase everything in binary is logically flawed, and tends to be the type of posture made by people who are incapable of a fully mature sense of empathy, or who stand to gain from division (the two overlap).

Fo' sho'. That's why the George Floyd protests enjoy 64% approval in mid-June but only about 30% of people agreed with the statement "defund the police". That's a serious chunk of people who support this movement but disagree with some of the slogans people are shouting, much less the violence! Nuance isn't just possible, it's expected.

I wouldn't say that about other people's empathy, though. You make it sound like people can't change.

VP isn't as destructive a pick as people think. After all, Republicans let Reagan have alzheimer's. And the focus was still on him. Not his VP.


No matter what people wish to think. The race is for President. Not VP.

I agree. Veeps can change how we perceive the ticket (Palin, anyone?), but not always (basically everyone else). Statistically, they only offer an addition couple of percentage points in their home state.

Impotent status quooming.

I don't know what that means, and I'd rather not share the search results I got for it. At least I'm willing to defend potential nominees. That counts for something, right?

A more likely VP pick is Senator Kamala Harris. I'm not a huge fan, but her name has been floating around since her primary bid. She is in a safely Democratic home state, which means her seat will stay Democrat. She is already a high profile figure in the party. She's a noticeably stronger progressive than Biden, true, but I think she could be seen as a compromise between who want Warren and people who don't. However, she was considered a tough-on-crime DA before being a Senator, enough that the firm left are pretty critical of her, so she can't be that much of a bleeding-heart commie, right? Republicans love being tough on crime, don't they?

I will admit I'm not very familiar with some of the lower-profiles ones potential candidates.

[wanderwegger]

Kamala is a fine pick. Mildly progressive but a shapeshifter. Racist old white guys won’t be able to resist dismissing her entire career because she slept with Willie Brown decades ago and that will push more women away from Trump. Choices are limited. Systemic racism and general chauvinism found most everywhere means not a lot of qualified black women to choose from. And the Democrats aren’t ready to put a reality show host on the ticket.

[Prodromos]

The Democrats Biden Doesn’t Want - WSJ

Joe Biden would be the most pro-abortion president in history. Although he was once a moderate, the Catholic former vice president now describes abortion as “essential health care,” caved in to the abortion industry on taxpayer funding, and has been proudly endorsed by Naral Pro-Choice America, an organization that advocates for the repeal of all regulations on abortion.

Democrats weren’t always like this. President Clinton gave the party a platform promising to make abortion “safe, legal and rare.” President Obama allowed our organization to testify before the party’s platform committee and supported our plan to reduce abortions with the Pregnant Women Support Act, which became law as part of the Affordable Care Act.

According to Gallup, roughly 1 in 3 Democrats consider themselves pro-life, but Mr. Biden has made no outreach to us. In fact, top Democrats have gone out of their way to make it clear that we are no longer welcome in the party. The leading calendar for events at the coming Democratic convention refused to advertise our group’s event and, unlike in 2016, the DNC has ignored our request to testify to the platform committee.

When we asked Pete Buttigieg in January whether he supported the inclusion of pro-life Democrats in the party, he was evasive. Vice President Mike Pence, shortly thereafter, explicitly appealed to pro-life Democrats: “You have a home in today’s Republican Party.”

A sizable share of pro-life Democrats are people of faith. The Biden campaign has focused little of its energy on wooing such voters. The much-hyped group Believers for Biden is a bona fide flop: It had only 26 followers on Facebook a week after being created. Its launch event on Zoom was poorly attended and featured a prayer touching on “reproductive justice.” These efforts are in contrast with those of the Obama campaign, which many religious leaders praised for its earnest attempts at outreach and dialogue, especially to pro-life voters of faith.

As pro-life Democrats and enthusiastic supporters of Black Lives Matter, we won’t vote for Donald Trump. His appalling record on racial justice, the environment and workers’ rights goes against everything we stand for. We are liberals and feminists, not Republicans in sheep’s clothing. We don’t want Mr. Trump to win. We want to save the party we consider our home.

But we are caught between Mr. Trump’s destructive economic and social agenda and the inconsistency of the modern Democratic Party, which fights for the lives of children at the border, but not the lives of children at risk of dismemberment in the womb. The Democrats of 2020 will barely give a thought to policies that make it easier for women to choose life, such as government-funded hospital care for women giving birth, or palliative care for infants with prenatal diagnoses. Such policies, previously central to Democratic values, violate the core tenet that “abortion is normal.”

America’s 21 million pro-life Democrats face a choice between staying home, risking four more years of Donald Trump’s destructive agenda, and voting for Joe Biden, a candidate who snubs us and our values. We would love to vote for Mr. Biden, but if he wants our vote, he will have to earn it. And if he can’t earn it, he should at least ask for it.

[Cyclops]

I do have faith Trump won't start a war to get reelected, he's generally been too lazy to get off his arse to go to the war room and actually conduct a campaign so far, its all been lies about troop surges and the odd assassination. We can be thankful for that I guess. I would put my chips on maybe another assassination in Iran.

Biden's hypocrisy should alienate many religious voters but the Pentecostals have supported Trump so I guess they're not immune to hypocrisy either. I mean do we have video of Biden at one of Epstein's parties?

[wanderwegger]

Too afraid to sign bold executive stimulus orders too. Shuffling 25% of the unemployment bump onto states which are already out of resources because he thinks under $400 isn't enough (his own team were arguing for $250 extra so would have been easy to use that number). Plus a tax deferral in an environment where businesses have heard from both parties that a payroll tax cut is never happening. Silly man.

[Gaidin]

Plus a tax deferral in an environment where businesses have heard from both parties that a payroll tax cut is never happening. Silly man.

Everybody's tax return is going to be very interesting next year.

[Lifthrasir]

Gents, some previous posts have been border line about personal references. Please remember the rule: attack the post, not the poster.

[PointOfViewGun]

So your only standard is "young." Well compared to Biden, he could nominate practically anyone in the nation to fir that criteria. You're ignoring the other promises he's made regarding his VP because you realize the standards are all losers, and you're not willing to defend any of the potential nominees until you're forced to because orange man bad REEE. Your reaction is so predictable. Whenever I start to seriously doubt how in the hell the mainstream DNC is able to delude voters with obvious misdirection, virtue signalling, and empty promises, I read one of your posts and it becomes immediately clear to me.

Sigh... What an intellectually dishonest response. Pretty much all garbage with no intelligent thought in it.

[wanderwegger]

Virtue signaling is alt right terminology.