Are We Going To Keep Ignoring Biden Being Insane?

[BigPapaKain]

(06-30-2021, 07:51 PM)Stewy Wrote: People didn't really vote for Biden, they voted against Trump. 

That's not exactly an earth-shattering take (sorry if that comes off dickish; I just couldn't think of a more gentle way of putting it). Most people who voted for Biden will openly say that. Shit I spent the majority of the campaign trail talking about how much I hated Biden and Harris. But I hated the constant gag reel America had become even more. Hell the only thing I can say I like about Biden thus far is the evening news isn't a nightmare to listen to (aside from the usual nightmares that get reported on).

[BmorePat87]

(06-30-2021, 07:51 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Please don't use such a broad brush to paint such a large group of people.

I know a number of people who are rather conservative that don't care about any number of these things, save maybe transgender equality depending on what your definition of that is.  (Ex: One of my best friends from school almost always votes Republican and his wife is black, his children are mixed.)

I know it may shock some people, but there's plenty of people who vote Republican, or who are "conservative", who could give two shits about things like gay marriage. Same goes for issues like abortion. And some of these other things lsited (women's lib, multi-cultural neighborhoods, interractial marriage, etc.), it sounds like you're describing the whole lot of conservatives from 1960.

Also, the mention of "immigration"reads very similar to the CRT is equal to teaching history that I took exception to earlier.  It's seems to be a dumb-downed description of a positon, made only to make an opposing side look ignorant or their stance flawed.  Most conservatives are against "illegal immigration", and that's a very important distinction that needs to made. 

Hopefully I'm misreading this post and there's sarcasm I missed (I don't see any absurdity in examples for the left though), because reading stuff like this is so depressing.  It shows how divided everyone is.  It reads no different than someone on the right who accuses liberals (as a whole) of being for things like no police, no gasoline cars, drag shows in preshool, waiting to have a super late-term abortion for fun, and having zero sense of humor.  Neither are accurate descriptions, and neither do anything to actual understand the positions some people actually hold.

Like I said, hopefully I read this wrong, you'll clarify and I'll feel stupid for wasting my time and getting bent out of shape about the descriptions you used.

The problem is that ending gay marriage, fighting against trans rights, believing porn is a public health issue, fighting against even legal immigration, and ending abortions were part the Republican platform in 2020 whereas your examples were not in the Democratic platform. 

The Republican Party's platform is firmly rooted in the past and is the reason why they can't produce any meaningful policy outside of those social issues, like healthcare. 

[Vas Deferens]

Brad. Honest question.

What did you think of trump mocking that disabled reporter?

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-30-2021, 03:38 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Biden won because he stayed as hidden as possible and didn't let people see his mental decline.

A lot of the snowflake public also was offended by Trump because he would say things like the "Chinese virus" when, in fact, it did come from China.  

I too ignore the rise in hate crimes on Asians because our previous failure of a president acted like the total immature asshole baby that he is and did what he does best, promote hate and division.

[Vas Deferens]

(06-30-2021, 11:42 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I too ignore the rise in hate crimes on Asians because our previous failure of a president acted like the total immature asshole baby that he is and did what he does best, promote hate and division.

What would daddy say to an Asian person in a wheelchair?

[Stewy]

(06-30-2021, 08:53 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: That's not exactly an earth-shattering take (sorry if that comes off dickish; I just couldn't think of a more gentle way of putting it). Most people who voted for Biden will openly say that. Shit I spent the majority of the campaign trail talking about how much I hated Biden and Harris. But I hated the constant gag reel America had become even more. Hell the only thing I can say I like about Biden thus far is the evening news isn't a nightmare to listen to (aside from the usual nightmares that get reported on).

Wasn't trying to be Earth shattering.  Was just sharing my heart felt beliefs.

[*Nately120*]

(06-30-2021, 07:51 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Please don't use such a broad brush to paint such a large group of people.

I know a number of people who are rather conservative that don't care about any number of these things, save maybe transgender equality depending on what your definition of that is.  (Ex: One of my best friends from school almost always votes Republican and his wife is black, his children are mixed.)

I know it may shock some people, but there's plenty of people who vote Republican, or who are "conservative", who could give two shits about things like gay marriage. Same goes for issues like abortion. And some of these other things lsited (women's lib, multi-cultural neighborhoods, interractial marriage, etc.), it sounds like you're describing the whole lot of conservatives from 1960.

Also, the mention of "immigration"reads very similar to the CRT is equal to teaching history that I took exception to earlier.  It's seems to be a dumb-downed description of a positon, made only to make an opposing side look ignorant or their stance flawed.  Most conservatives are against "illegal immigration", and that's a very important distinction that needs to made. 

Hopefully I'm misreading this post and there's sarcasm I missed (I don't see any absurdity in examples for the left though), because reading stuff like this is so depressing.  It shows how divided everyone is.  It reads no different than someone on the right who accuses liberals (as a whole) of being for things like no police, no gasoline cars, drag shows in preshool, waiting to have a super late-term abortion for fun, and having zero sense of humor.  Neither are accurate descriptions, and neither do anything to actual understand the positions some people actually hold.

Like I said, hopefully I read this wrong, you'll clarify and I'll feel stupid for wasting my time and getting bent out of shape about the descriptions you used.

Im mostly emphasizing how the same "for your own good" mantra has been used over the years by people obsessed with "tradition"  I don't think most conservatives think about peoole being left handed or segregation these days. 

The strategy hasn't changed much, there is just a new scary fotm of progression around every corner.  And I'm piling on extreme conservatives because im I'm a back and forth with one.  So i guess yes there is some sarcasm in my using a broad brush on a broad brush user.  That guy ain't you or your reasonable conservative pals. 

Plus threads the OP starts inspire me to either take the role of an ultra lib to fight his fire with fire or completely agree and see if I can even act more into Trump than him.  I don't bring my A game to these threads because it just doesn't usually pay. 

[CJD]

(06-30-2021, 07:51 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Please don't use such a broad brush to paint such a large group of people.

I know a number of people who are rather conservative that don't care about any number of these things, save maybe transgender equality depending on what your definition of that is.  (Ex: One of my best friends from school almost always votes Republican and his wife is black, his children are mixed.)

I know it may shock some people, but there's plenty of people who vote Republican, or who are "conservative", who could give two shits about things like gay marriage. Same goes for issues like abortion. And some of these other things lsited (women's lib, multi-cultural neighborhoods, interractial marriage, etc.), it sounds like you're describing the whole lot of conservatives from 1960.

Also, the mention of "immigration"reads very similar to the CRT is equal to teaching history that I took exception to earlier.  It's seems to be a dumb-downed description of a positon, made only to make an opposing side look ignorant or their stance flawed.  Most conservatives are against "illegal immigration", and that's a very important distinction that needs to made. 

Hopefully I'm misreading this post and there's sarcasm I missed (I don't see any absurdity in examples for the left though), because reading stuff like this is so depressing.  It shows how divided everyone is.  It reads no different than someone on the right who accuses liberals (as a whole) of being for things like no police, no gasoline cars, drag shows in preshool, waiting to have a super late-term abortion for fun, and having zero sense of humor.  Neither are accurate descriptions, and neither do anything to actual understand the positions some people actually hold.

Like I said, hopefully I read this wrong, you'll clarify and I'll feel stupid for wasting my time and getting bent out of shape about the descriptions you used.

I think he was speaking both historically and in regards to modern views held with that comment.

(Social) Conservatives have been on the losing side of basically every cultural battle since this country was created.

They were on the losing side of slavery, the losing side of Jim Crow, the losing side of the civil rights acts, the losing side of redlining, the losing side of abortion, the losing side of women's suffrage, the losing side of gay marriage, the losing side of interracial marriage.

And, at the moment, they're fighting on the side that will almost certainly lose in regards to Transgender rights and Gerrymandering/voter suppression.

Time is always marching forward and conservatives take L after L but, somehow, in modern culture there's a group of people who still think that, maybe, just this one time, conservatives might be right.

It's silly.

Now, fiscal conservatives, like Rand Paul and the like, are different. They aren't necessarily fighting on the losing side of their battle. I generally agree with them that we spend way too much money federally. I just think they're approaching their battle incorrectly. They often want to cut a bunch of social programs and other aid to this country's citizens, but will strive to keep our bloated military budget intact. We'll see how all that works out.

[BmorePat87]

(07-01-2021, 09:29 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Now, fiscal conservatives, like Rand Paul and the like, are different. They aren't necessarily fighting on the losing side of their battle. 

Though Rand Paul was on the losing side of the ass whooping his neighbor gave him. 

[*Nately120*]

(07-01-2021, 10:05 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Though Rand Paul was on the losing side of the ass whooping his neighbor gave him. 

Guess he shoulda been armed. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(07-01-2021, 10:23 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Guess he shoulda been armed. 

Guess he shouldn't have been such an ass. 

[Dill]

(06-30-2021, 07:51 PM)Stewy Wrote: I'm not offended by a lot because I don't read a lot of political rhetoric.  I only occasionally, become involved in a thread here, and usually it's a mistake when I do because politics and religion are two areas where you'll not change 95% of the peoples minds.

Brad is right about one thing though.  People didn't really vote for Biden, they voted against Trump.  It's the same reason why Trump "won" (lost the popular vote) in 2016.....they voted against Hillary.  On a side note, I voted for neither of them in 2016, I wrote in Montgomery Brewster.

The country does not want Trump.  He's lost the popular vote twice, the Electoral in 2020.  He's a lying, pig'ish, dishonest, misogynistic, bigoted, hypocritical, narcissistic, egocentric, sexual deviant who has mother load of charisma.  And none of this is speculation....all you had to do was read his twitter.  His 4 years were an embarrassment to the country, and he will go down as the worst president in history.

He did not make America Great again.  He made us a laughing stock.  And yes Biden only got elected because people voted AGAINST Trump.  America does not want Trump.  Period.  And the Republican Party's refusal to separate themselves from Trump, for fear of political reprisal from him is a cowardly, ballless, disgrace.

I agree with your assessment of Trump's character and place in history. 

But I would not say "the country" does not want Trump. 

About 38% of it DOES want him; they believe that the election was stolen from him, and that his myriad abuses of power are "fake news"--either made up or, if undeniable, then "both sides do it," anyway.  They believe he was making American great again, and that is why the "globalists" had to stop him.

That 38% has become a "superminority," able to control legislation and the courts. They can win with the electoral college and control re-districting in enough swing states to keep outsize power. And they are aided by hesitant or "fake" independents who, even if they don't directly support Trump, can't see much threat to democracy there, or are indifferent to it.

However "bad" a candidate Hillary supposedly was, she was much more knowledgeable and competent than Trump. She did win the popular vote, but it is disturbing that the election was close enough for Trump to take the electoral college. 

I think a, or perhaps the, root cause of the current damaging division though arises from a division in our news media. Absorbing different--and differently vetted--streams of information and commentary, people now live in different "realities," with different good and bad actors, a different understanding of social cause/effect, and so they see different solutions to social/political problems and even disagree on which are really problems.  That's the main reason why enough people thought it was a toss up between competent and incompetent candidates in 2016 to let someone like Trump be elected. 

It is a mistake to think the candidates were the problem (not that you were saying that; just a point I am adding).

[Dill]

(06-30-2021, 03:40 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The strategy of Trump and the current GOP is to simply convince people that democrats are completely invalid, unreasonable, and untenable as candidates and a political party.  Trump set it up that Biden was the weakest candidate ever, was demented, hiding in his basement, and had absolutely no shot to beat him in 2020. 

If you buy into Trump's rhetoric about Biden you expected a landslide of the 1972 or 1984 variety which is why Trump was able to convince these same people that the election simply HAD to be rigged.  If you accept that Biden can't win, then when he wins you will accept that the contest must have been rigged.

I think you make two valid points here.

In EVERY election, one side will strive to make the other's candidates appear less competent and trustworthy, and pushing the wrong policy solutions. 

What looked different in 2016 was that, from the get go,

1. one party characterized the other, and its candidate, as fundamentally CRIMINAL, operating outside the rule of law, self-aggrandizing,

2. while remaining impervious to evidence against their own candidate--much of it provided by the candidate himself. 

In terms of incriminating/disqualifying evidence, I saw something like this play out AFTER the '72 election. What is so crazy now is how the evidence came in before the elections--e.g., in 2016 Hillary's email, server, Trump's Access Hollywood tape and numerous accusations of sexual assault, not to mention bankruptcies, Trump University, etc. And the candidate who proclaimed the election was 'rigged' won. 

Something similar played out in 2020, with Trump's double impeachment and personal intervention in state elections, abuse of the Post Office and DOJ, etc. Dems were, from the get go, accusing the Republican candidate of operating outside the rule-of-law and of self-aggrandizing abuse of power, but unlike Nixon protected by his party. So "both sides" did it this time around, though only one seemed to supply the kind of evidence that courts could actually address.*

I think you are right, too, that so many Trump supporters expected a landslide, in part because of what they were hearing in their news media. 
MSM sources made it clear that mail in ballots would be counted later, and so Trump was expected to get early leads in some states which would evaporate later in the vote count. RWM showed Trump alerting followers to a "rigged" election.  MSM polls showing Biden's lead were "fake news"--just like when Hillary had leads almost to the end. The goal was not only to convince people that the Democrats were "invalid," but also that the polling was as well.

*That's why I'm not including "Biden crime family" corruption here.  Like the liberal media, I am ignoring the "millions" paid to Hunter Biden by Moscow and Beijing, which the FBI seems unable to track, and he was in any case never running for president.

[*jason*]

I read my letter from the White House detailing my child tax credit payments in Joe Biden s voice. I added a few whispers for emphasis... Thanks you old crazy b*****d.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-01-2021, 09:29 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think he was speaking both historically and in regards to modern views held with that comment.

(Social) Conservatives have been on the losing side of basically every cultural battle since this country was created.

They were on the losing side of slavery, the losing side of Jim Crow, the losing side of the civil rights acts, the losing side of redlining, the losing side of abortion, the losing side of women's suffrage, the losing side of gay marriage, the losing side of interracial marriage.

And, at the moment, they're fighting on the side that will almost certainly lose in regards to Transgender rights and Gerrymandering/voter suppression.

Time is always marching forward and conservatives take L after L but, somehow, in modern culture there's a group of people who still think that, maybe, just this one time, conservatives might be right.

It's silly.

Now, fiscal conservatives, like Rand Paul and the like, are different. They aren't necessarily fighting on the losing side of their battle. I generally agree with them that we spend way too much money federally. I just think they're approaching their battle incorrectly. They often want to cut a bunch of social programs and other aid to this country's citizens, but will strive to keep our bloated military budget intact. We'll see how all that works out.

Losing side doesn’t necessarily mean wrong side. I don’t think anti-abortion is wrong, and lots of social conservatives were against slavery. Hell a large chunk of black people are socially conservative. A lot if not most of people who championed women’s suffrage would have been anti-gay marriage so we’re they social conservatives? A lot if not most of anti-slavery people would have been anti-abortion. What were they?

[CJD]

(07-07-2021, 09:06 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Losing side doesn’t necessarily mean wrong side. I don’t think anti-abortion is wrong, and lots of social conservatives were against slavery. Hell a large chunk of black people are socially conservative. A lot if not most of people who championed women’s suffrage would have been anti-gay marriage so we’re they social conservatives?  A lot if not most of anti-slavery people would have been anti-abortion.  What were they?

You can be progressive in one position and conservative in another. For a long time, the black community was progressive when it came to racial equality but conservative when it came to LGBTQ+, which caused many gay black men to be "on the down low."

 I'm speaking less about the individual people and more about the movements as a whole. And all of those movements towards equality were unequivocally progressive movements. By definition. 

Plus, you can't really compare historical figures to modern standards.  Abraham Lincoln was extremely progressive for his Era but comparing his beliefs to even conservatives nowadays would make him seem like a racist nut job. 

I'm not sure what you mean when you say some social conservatives were against slavery. I'd have to understand who you're referring to with that. Conservatism is, after all, the political ideology that wants to keep things, especially social hierarchies, in place or, in some cases, go back to previous social hierarchies. 

[*Nately120*]

(07-07-2021, 02:38 PM)jason Wrote: I read my letter from the White House detailing my child tax credit payments in Joe Biden s voice. I added a few whispers for emphasis... Thanks you old crazy b*****d.

(In loud whisper)

Kids still aren't worth it. 

[*michaelsean*]

(07-07-2021, 09:35 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: You can be progressive in one position and conservative in another. For a long time, the black community was progressive when it came to racial equality but conservative when it came to LGBTQ+, which caused many gay black men to be "on the down low."

 I'm speaking less about the individual people and more about the movements as a whole. And all of those movements towards equality were unequivocally progressive movements. By definition. 

Plus, you can't really compare historical figures to modern standards.  Abraham Lincoln was extremely progressive for his Era but comparing his beliefs to even conservatives nowadays would make him seem like a racist nut job. 

I'm not sure what you mean when you say some social conservatives were against slavery. I'd have to understand who you're referring to with that. Conservatism is, after all, the political ideology that wants to keep things, especially social hierarchies, in place or, in some cases, go back to previous social hierarchies. 

I’m responding to you saying social conservatives are on the losing side of everything when there are very few examples of pure social conservatives. You could pick about any one of your examples and find people that championed that cause but not the others. Including anti-slavery people who would have also opposed civil rights.

I’m for a lot of things you listed although I wasn’t always for some of them. Nobody ever called me a progressive although technically that’s what I was. I am pro-life, and although I realize that is no longer a sustainable stance, I still think sometime in the future, and it may be a long time, future generations will be stunned that we were ok with it.

Edit: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama all opposed gay marriage. We’re they social conservative losers?

[*jason*]

(07-07-2021, 09:40 PM)Nately120 Wrote: (In loud whisper)

Kids still aren't worth it. 

If you don't have kids, you ain't black!!!

[CJD]

(07-07-2021, 09:58 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I’m responding to you saying social conservatives are on the losing side of everything when there are very few examples of pure social conservatives. You could pick about any one of your examples and find people that championed that cause but not the others. Including anti-slavery people who would have also opposed civil rights.

I’m for a lot of things you listed although I wasn’t always for some of them. Nobody ever called me a progressive although technically that’s what I was. I am pro-life, and although I realize that is no longer a sustainable stance, I still think sometime in the future, and it may be a long time, future generations will be stunned that we were ok with it.

Well no one is going to call you a progressive for being anti-slavery today because that progressive movement has been so ingrained in society that it is expected from everyone. Being pro-slavery was a conservative stance on the 1800s. Now it's just a crazy person's stance. 

The same thing occurred with the conservative stance of anti-women's suffrage and most of the other movements I mentioned. The progressive stances on this are expected so they are no longer progressive, just common sense.

I admit that abortion is the one that is "settled" but still contested so it is not in the same place as the other historical movements I mentioned.

We'll see how it evolves over time. 

And I agree there are very few pure social conservatives just like there are very few pure progressives. No group is monolithic. There are some progressives in regards to women's rights and racial minorities rights who have not yet joined the progressive side of trans rights. 

But history shows us that, eventually, society moves in the progressive direction. 

There has never been a less progressive generation than the previous generation (within its own society or culture). At least not in recorded history.