President Biden and US politics catchall

[Fonz]

Fonz is so balanced. Lucky to have his viewpoints here

No one is totally balanced but I think I'm reasonable. I just don't dedicate every waking moment to telling a bunch of people who think Trump is retarded that he's retarded. Apparently this makes me a crypto Trump supporter. Sign of the times I guess.

I don't like where either party is right now. I liked Bernie but wasn't passionate about him, certainly not this go around, though I almost certainly would have voted for him had he won the nomination. I've spoken about my background plenty of times. My views are not surprising if you consider those things.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I see Trump is now admitting that he is deliberately with-holding funding from the USPS in order to sabotage mail-in voting in the Presidential election.

Surely this is fraud on a huge scale and Trump is setting himself up for a huge fail ?

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-a ... ?r=US&IR=T

Trump can cite the USPS is making huge losses, and thus he's seeking to address that rather than anything else. However there are reasons USPS is struggling financially, some of the commitments expected of them don't apply to many agencies, or businesses, and they've struggled since Bush Jr. loaded them with a shit load of additional spend on future pension and health costs.

Now maybe those pension and health costs they're expected to set aside for are themselves reasonable, but almost nobody else has to fund programmes as does the USPS, and if you strip out the changes Bush made they would be making money, and that would undermine the stated concerns of Trump about them losing money.

There is also a debate about does it matter they're losing money? The post is a public service, if you just want to say services should be closed when they cost money how does Trump explain sinking vastly more into the amend forces? The loss on the postal service is small change next to the military spend

Yeah, the USPS were set up to fail by the W Bush administration by making them responsible for funding pensions and healthcare in advance.
https://theweek.com/articles/767184/how ... ost-office

This is just classic Republican politics, they undermine a public institution by making demands on it that are unreasonable and unnecessary and would never be applied in the private sector. Then when that institution inevitably starts to fail, or at least is in a perilous financial position they refuse to provide relief with the knock on benefit that it suppresses voting.

The voting benefit would be a far more recent benefit, and I'd like to think lots of Republicans would be against people being denied their vote. There has to have been an intent to allow further privatisation, which may or mayn't be a good idea, but even so appointing someone to run the show with massive financial conflict of interests to the service seems rather inappropriate

[EnergiseR]

Fonz is so balanced. Lucky to have his viewpoints here

No one is totally balanced but I think I'm reasonable. I just don't dedicate every waking moment to telling a bunch of people who think Trump is retarded that he's retarded. Apparently this makes me a crypto Trump supporter. Sign of the times I guess.

I don't like where either party is right now. I liked Bernie but wasn't passionate about him, certainly not this go around, though I almost certainly would have voted for him had he won the nomination. I've spoken about my background plenty of times. My views are not surprising if you consider those things.

He is retarded though. That's the key point. You can't talk around that by giving it the 'yeah but the democrats...' schtick

[fishfoodie]

No comment required.

[CrazyIslander]

Been watching a lot of ads and the Republican anti-Trump ads are better than the Democrats' ads.

[Camroc2]

Michael Cohen, Trump's former fixer/consigliere is, from his prison cell, having a book published. And boy, does it sound good.

https://disloyalthebook.com/download-th ... ael-cohen/

[fishfoodie]

Michael Cohen, Trump's former fixer/consigliere is, from his prison cell, having a book published. And boy, does it sound good.

https://disloyalthebook.com/download-th ... ael-cohen/

I think he got sprung; because the appeal court found that sending him back to gaol, for exercising his 1st amendment rights was a crock of shit

[JM2K6]

It said he was losing the popular vote, it didn't say GOP voters who'd hold their nose and vote for Trump or some Dem supporters interested by his nonsense rhetoric on restoring the past were moving away from him. Though I'm not willing to believe he'll be out until he's out, so if others don't want to get their hopes up I get that.

I'm really conscious of how much "free airtime" with a captive audience can impact things. Look at Farage and the impact he's had thanks to endless appearances on TV.

The President is going to drive coverage, and Trump more than most. But that's largely the point of the data saying with people actually having the time to pay attention to what he says and does they're shocked at his ineptitude, and most people aren't following anything like people following a politics thread on a rugby board in normal times, so it's not going well for Trump. And every time Trump complains it's going badly for Trump he's only hurting himself more.

This might be part of the desperation to move the debate on from Covid, but unless Trump accepts it's not Covid or the economy he gets to address it's both he's not going to get any popular coverage. Though that only speaks to the desperation to suppress the vote, and there he might have some opportunities

"Popular coverage" doesn't matter if he's getting hours every day to spout his own brand of electioneering bullshit under the guise of covid updates, that's the point! He's drowning everything else out and the media can't help but assist him.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I'm really conscious of how much "free airtime" with a captive audience can impact things. Look at Farage and the impact he's had thanks to endless appearances on TV.

The President is going to drive coverage, and Trump more than most. But that's largely the point of the data saying with people actually having the time to pay attention to what he says and does they're shocked at his ineptitude, and most people aren't following anything like people following a politics thread on a rugby board in normal times, so it's not going well for Trump. And every time Trump complains it's going badly for Trump he's only hurting himself more.

This might be part of the desperation to move the debate on from Covid, but unless Trump accepts it's not Covid or the economy he gets to address it's both he's not going to get any popular coverage. Though that only speaks to the desperation to suppress the vote, and there he might have some opportunities

"Popular coverage" doesn't matter if he's getting hours every day to spout his own brand of electioneering bullshit under the guise of covid updates, that's the point! He's drowning everything else out and the media can't help but assist him.

He demands attention and Biden has to work through that, that's not a reason to feel sorry for Biden as he wanted the nomination and if he can't overcome the extra attention Trump garners then Biden deserves nowt but scorn and derision, though luckily for Joe we find Trump isn't simply drowning everything else as despite his shower only emitting a dribble he's mostly drowning himself, Trump as ever being out of his depth in a puddle

[dob]

He demands attention and Biden has to work through that, that's not a reason to feel sorry for Biden as he wanted the nomination and if he can't overcome the extra attention Trump garners then Biden deserves nowt but scorn and derision, though luckily for Joe we find Trump isn't simply drowning everything else as despite his shower only emitting a dribble he's mostly drowning himself, Trump as ever being out of his depth in a puddle

So far, Biden's campaign strategy seems to be to allow the President to garner all the attention he wants, and occasionally pop up to point at Trump, and say "See?"

In any sane country in the world, that really ought to be enough to win in a landslide.

[Ted.]

He demands attention and Biden has to work through that, that's not a reason to feel sorry for Biden as he wanted the nomination and if he can't overcome the extra attention Trump garners then Biden deserves nowt but scorn and derision, though luckily for Joe we find Trump isn't simply drowning everything else as despite his shower only emitting a dribble he's mostly drowning himself, Trump as ever being out of his depth in a puddle

So far, Biden's campaign strategy seems to be to allow the President to garner all the attention he wants, and occasionally pop up to point at Trump, and say "See?"

In any sane country in the world, that really ought to be enough to win in a landslide.

That's very true in relation to Mr Trump.

[Fonz]

Fonz is so balanced. Lucky to have his viewpoints here

No one is totally balanced but I think I'm reasonable. I just don't dedicate every waking moment to telling a bunch of people who think Trump is retarded that he's retarded. Apparently this makes me a crypto Trump supporter. Sign of the times I guess.

I don't like where either party is right now. I liked Bernie but wasn't passionate about him, certainly not this go around, though I almost certainly would have voted for him had he won the nomination. I've spoken about my background plenty of times. My views are not surprising if you consider those things.

He is retarded though. That's the key point. You can't talk around that by giving it the 'yeah but the democrats...' schtick

Anyone who cares to see it understands his retardation, but unless people are saying it just to say it, then presumably the point of that key point is that he should be replaced. In which case it's entirely reasonable to ask questions about literally the only other group of people who could possibly replace him and his party.

Criticism of the Democrats does not imply support of Trump or the Republicans. I'm not criticising Democrats to "talk around" Trump's issues, I'm criticising Democrats because of where they are and what they're becoming.

[Olddantucker]

Golden showers now trending on Twatter.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Trump can cite the USPS is making huge losses, and thus he's seeking to address that rather than anything else. However there are reasons USPS is struggling financially, some of the commitments expected of them don't apply to many agencies, or businesses, and they've struggled since Bush Jr. loaded them with a shit load of additional spend on future pension and health costs.

Now maybe those pension and health costs they're expected to set aside for are themselves reasonable, but almost nobody else has to fund programmes as does the USPS, and if you strip out the changes Bush made they would be making money, and that would undermine the stated concerns of Trump about them losing money.

There is also a debate about does it matter they're losing money? The post is a public service, if you just want to say services should be closed when they cost money how does Trump explain sinking vastly more into the amend forces? The loss on the postal service is small change next to the military spend

Yeah, the USPS were set up to fail by the W Bush administration by making them responsible for funding pensions and healthcare in advance.
https://theweek.com/articles/767184/how ... ost-office

This is just classic Republican politics, they undermine a public institution by making demands on it that are unreasonable and unnecessary and would never be applied in the private sector. Then when that institution inevitably starts to fail, or at least is in a perilous financial position they refuse to provide relief with the knock on benefit that it suppresses voting.

And the chap given the job of running USPS looks set to be under investigation for buying Amazon stock options after taking up his role, options which would entitle him to buy below the current price and might given the history of Trump being happy to attack Amazon, or at least Bezos, give an uncomfortable look

Just how little common sense and culture of running things past officials if they have even the slightest doubt is there around Trump appointees? This situation like so many others simply never needed to happen, and yet they continue to flood the swamp with gay abandon

[CrazyIslander]

Trump can cite the USPS is making huge losses, and thus he's seeking to address that rather than anything else. However there are reasons USPS is struggling financially, some of the commitments expected of them don't apply to many agencies, or businesses, and they've struggled since Bush Jr. loaded them with a shit load of additional spend on future pension and health costs.

Now maybe those pension and health costs they're expected to set aside for are themselves reasonable, but almost nobody else has to fund programmes as does the USPS, and if you strip out the changes Bush made they would be making money, and that would undermine the stated concerns of Trump about them losing money.

There is also a debate about does it matter they're losing money? The post is a public service, if you just want to say services should be closed when they cost money how does Trump explain sinking vastly more into the amend forces? The loss on the postal service is small change next to the military spend

Yeah, the USPS were set up to fail by the W Bush administration by making them responsible for funding pensions and healthcare in advance.
https://theweek.com/articles/767184/how ... ost-office

This is just classic Republican politics, they undermine a public institution by making demands on it that are unreasonable and unnecessary and would never be applied in the private sector. Then when that institution inevitably starts to fail, or at least is in a perilous financial position they refuse to provide relief with the knock on benefit that it suppresses voting.

And the chap given the job of running USPS looks set to be under investigation for buying Amazon stock options after taking up his role, options which would entitle him to buy below the current price and might given the history of Trump being happy to attack Amazon, or at least Bezos, give an uncomfortable look

Just how little common sense and culture of running things past officials if they have even the slightest doubt is there around Trump appointees? This situation like so many others simply never needed to happen, and yet they continue to flood the swamp with gay abandon

Never ending.

[CrazyIslander]

Trump's tactic seems to be to make corruption so widespread and involving as many important people as possible that he will have an army of defenders equally motivated in hiding the truth and obstructing any investigation/court cases.

[Chareth Cutestory]

I see Birtherism is back in fashion

[La soule]

He is back on the birther tactic now.

Please, pretty vote him out.

[fishfoodie]

I honestly don't understand how any person of colour can vote for him; or the GOP that excuses his blatant racism.

Party of Lincoln my hole !

[Rinkals]

No one is totally balanced but I think I'm reasonable. I just don't dedicate every waking moment to telling a bunch of people who think Trump is retarded that he's retarded. Apparently this makes me a crypto Trump supporter. Sign of the times I guess.

I don't like where either party is right now. I liked Bernie but wasn't passionate about him, certainly not this go around, though I almost certainly would have voted for him had he won the nomination. I've spoken about my background plenty of times. My views are not surprising if you consider those things.

He is retarded though. That's the key point. You can't talk around that by giving it the 'yeah but the democrats...' schtick

Anyone who cares to see it understands his retardation, but unless people are saying it just to say it, then presumably the point of that key point is that he should be replaced. In which case it's entirely reasonable to ask questions about literally the only other group of people who could possibly replace him and his party.

Criticism of the Democrats does not imply support of Trump or the Republicans. I'm not criticising Democrats to "talk around" Trump's issues, I'm criticising Democrats because of where they are and what they're becoming.

I don't think it's "criticism of the Democrats" that implies support for Trump, but when you focus on Biden's imperfections, you imply that Trump is the better choice between the two.

I'd agree that Biden has his weaknesses in terms of being an ideal candidate, but of the 22-odd nomination hopefuls, he was probably the most electable.

Frankly, the fact that you disparage the "group of people" who could replace Trump gives a clear indication that you feel that Trump should not be replaced which makes you a Trump supporter, like it or not.

[ticketlessinseattle]

I know the Democrat play book is ; when they go low, we go high etc but I would love for Kamala Harris to say something like "Oompa Lumpa Land ? not sure thats part of the US, I'm hearing a lot of experts say maybe its not, I think someone should look into that, could be very interesting"

[CrazyIslander]

I honestly don't understand how any person of colour can vote for him; or the GOP that excuses his blatant racism.

Party of Lincoln my hole !

I have family members and many PIs in the US who support Trump. I used to think it's because they're ill informed but that can't be the case anymore as I've stated the facts to them many times.
I think its a lack of conscience and education tbh. For example, they like it when Trump is racist towards the Chinese or any other minority so long as it's not PIs. They also like Trump's bullying people so long as its not them. They don't care that he rips people off in business, they claim the fact he didn't go to jail means he was right.
They also don't mind his corruption as president because he won the election. They seem to follow him as a cult.

[notfatcat]

He is retarded though. That's the key point. You can't talk around that by giving it the 'yeah but the democrats...' schtick

Anyone who cares to see it understands his retardation, but unless people are saying it just to say it, then presumably the point of that key point is that he should be replaced. In which case it's entirely reasonable to ask questions about literally the only other group of people who could possibly replace him and his party.

Criticism of the Democrats does not imply support of Trump or the Republicans. I'm not criticising Democrats to "talk around" Trump's issues, I'm criticising Democrats because of where they are and what they're becoming.

I don't think it's "criticism of the Democrats" that implies support for Trump, but when you focus on Biden's imperfections, you imply that Trump is the better choice between the two.

I'd agree that Biden has his weaknesses in terms of being an ideal candidate, but of the 22-odd nomination hopefuls, he was probably the most electable.

Frankly, the fact that you disparage the "group of people" who could replace Trump gives a clear indication that you feel that Trump should not be replaced which makes you a Trump supporter, like it or not.

Outstanding logic!

[Rinkals]

Outstanding logic!

If you say that there is nobody who is a good enough candidate to replace Trump, then the implication is clear that Trump should not be replaced.

I don't see how you can subsequently claim not to support Trump.

If you feel the logic in that is flawed, by all means, explain why.

[notfatcat]

Hey Rinkals I have to go out in a few minutes, plus there's no use explaining this to you. I expect Fonz will later on, although I don't expect you to understand what he says.

[ScarfaceClaw]

I see Birtherism is back in fashion

I saw that. Time for another round of deranged and barely concealed racism from the big orange conman.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I see Birtherism is back in fashion

I saw that. Time for another round of deranged and barely concealed racism from the big orange conman.

I don't know I'd want to accuse him of barely concealed racism, it's not even a little bit concealed

[ticketlessinseattle]

I honestly don't understand how any person of colour can vote for him; or the GOP that excuses his blatant racism.

Party of Lincoln my hole !

I'd include white in that list of colours

[Rinkals]

Hey Rinkals I have to go out in a few minutes, plus there's no use explaining this to you. I expect Fonz will later on, although I don't expect you to understand what he says.

Fonz and I have had reasonable discussions in the past.

Of course, I do expect him to deny supporting Trump, but I also expect him to see my argument that, by not supporting Trump's replacement, he is effectively condoning him which amounts to supporting him.

I am fully aware that a lot of your compatriots think I'm a moron, so I'm neither surprised nor concerned that you feel my comprehension is unequal to the task.

[JM2K6]

Nah, I don't buy that. The problem is that with a genuine two-party system like the USA, there's a single party that is supposedly the choice for a huge range of politics from what we would easily consider quite right wing all the way over to socialists, with a big chunk of center/center-right vs vaguely left progressives having to fight each other.

Yes, it's important to the 'left' that Trump be gone, although in America I think it's important to democracy, the rule of law, anti-corruption, and the lives of ordinary people that Trump be gone, but that doesn't mean that anyone who'd vote Democrat should not be critical about the choices on offer, as long as it's in good faith.

[Fangle]

Hey Rinkals I have to go out in a few minutes, plus there's no use explaining this to you. I expect Fonz will later on, although I don't expect you to understand what he says.

Let me put it in easier terms. Fonz prefers the current Democratic team to Trump, but he can still point out their imperfections. There are people who Fonz would prefer to the current Democratic team, and it isn’t Trump.

And it’s completely reasonable for him to say what he doesn’t like about them.

Is that clear yet?

[Rinkals]

Nah, I don't buy that. The problem is that with a genuine two-party system like the USA, there's a single party that is supposedly the choice for a huge range of politics from what we would easily consider quite right wing all the way over to socialists, with a big chunk of center/center-right vs vaguely left progressives having to fight each other.

Yes, it's important to the 'left' that Trump be gone, although in America I think it's important to democracy, the rule of law, anti-corruption, and the lives of ordinary people that Trump be gone, but that doesn't mean that anyone who'd vote Democrat should not be critical about the choices on offer, as long as it's in good faith.

That's not my issue.

I've acknowledged that Biden is an imperfect contender, although I believe that he was probably the most electable of the 20plus candidates put forward.

The question is whether, by refusing to support the contender, you are supporting the incumbent.

Practically, of course, you are, even if it's only to withhold your vote.

[EnergiseR]

The time for criticism of the democrats is not now and it's not tomorrow either. Maybe 2022/23 or something like that

[Hugo]

The question is whether, by refusing to support the contender, you are supporting the incumbent.

Practically, of course, you are, even if it's only to withhold your vote.

This doesn't make any sense. Not voting at all doesn't confer any advantage on the incumbent because all candidates in the election are starting from 0 votes, the incumbent does not have a head start because he or she is already in office.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

The question is whether, by refusing to support the contender, you are supporting the incumbent.

Practically, of course, you are, even if it's only to withhold your vote.

This doesn't make any sense. Not voting at all doesn't confer any advantage on the incumbent because all candidates in the election are starting from 0 votes, the incumbent does not have a head start because he or she is already in office.

That probably does help Trump because a lower turnout almost certainly helps Trump more than Biden.

[Rinkals]

The question is whether, by refusing to support the contender, you are supporting the incumbent.

Practically, of course, you are, even if it's only to withhold your vote.

This doesn't make any sense. Not voting at all doesn't confer any advantage on the incumbent because all candidates in the election are starting from 0 votes, the incumbent does not have a head start because he or she is already in office.

Trump is trying to block postal voting and he's doing it for a reason.

He's doing it because he knows that a low turnout will benefit him.

So, even if you don't explicitly support Trump, if you refuse to vote, you are complicit in his re-election.

I'm not sure what I can say to make this clearer.

[dob]

Hey Rinkals I have to go out in a few minutes, plus there's no use explaining this to you. I expect Fonz will later on, although I don't expect you to understand what he says.

Let me put it in easier terms. Fonz prefers the current Democratic team to Trump, but he can still point out their imperfections. There are people who Fonz would prefer to the current Democratic team, and it isn’t Trump.

And it’s completely reasonable for him to say what he doesn’t like about them.

Is that clear yet?

I think there's a bit of natural grouchiness about Biden, because plenty of people feel, not unreasonably, that there were better candidates in the Democratic field, and, also not unreasonably, that there really ought to be better options running for the job right now. But for better or worse, Biden and Harris are the ticket that the Dems have got, so arguing over their flaws now, less than 3 months from the election, is at this stage counter productive.

[Hugo]

The question is whether, by refusing to support the contender, you are supporting the incumbent.

Practically, of course, you are, even if it's only to withhold your vote.

This doesn't make any sense. Not voting at all doesn't confer any advantage on the incumbent because all candidates in the election are starting from 0 votes, the incumbent does not have a head start because he or she is already in office.

Trump is trying to block postal voting and he's doing it for a reason.

He's doing it because he knows that a low turnout will benefit him.

So, even if you don't explicitly support Trump, if you refuse to vote, you are complicit in his re-election.

I'm not sure what I can say to make this clearer.

No, you are conflating two separate issues. Suppressing voter turnout en masse is not the same as individual people abstaining. One is preventing people from being able to vote at all, taking away their franchise, the other is someone choosing not exercise their right to vote.

Abstaining from voting is a political act in itself if it is done thoughtfully rather than just due to laziness or apathy and it is a rejection of the choices offered or the political process. Even then you could make the argument that people who don't vote due to apathy are only apathetic because they feel that voting is pointless so voting one way or the other won't profoundly affect their lives.

[dob]

The question is whether, by refusing to support the contender, you are supporting the incumbent.

Practically, of course, you are, even if it's only to withhold your vote.

This doesn't make any sense. Not voting at all doesn't confer any advantage on the incumbent because all candidates in the election are starting from 0 votes, the incumbent does not have a head start because he or she is already in office.

Every election, the old "Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil" meme comes up. But not voting for the lesser evil is effectively a +1 for the greater evil.

I've voted Green in the past, I vote 3rd party pretty regularly, because I think the 2-party system is stupid. And I'm aware that Biden is flawed as a candidate. But that doesn't blind me to the fact that Trump is an awful human being, and a worse president, and we all need to vote for whoever can beat him.

[dob]

Abstaining from voting is a political act in itself if it is done thoughtfully rather than just due to laziness or apathy and it is a rejection of the choices offered or the political process. Even then you could make the argument that people who don't vote due to apathy are only apathetic because they feel that voting is pointless so voting one way or the other won't profoundly affect their lives.

I don't see how one can thoughtfully abstain from voting in this election. If you are capable of rational thought, there really ought to only be one option. The incumbent is actively harming the country every day he remains in office; to not vote for his opponent is to acquiesce to that harm and allow him proceed unchecked.