The Debates of 2020

57Brave said:
that's funny, I recognized a number of people in Trump's Last night behavior .
Some family, some teachers,some co workers. Bosses - too many to mention.
Not specific to men either

Matter of fact interacted with one today.
Claims Coronavirus will disappear Nov 4
Hmm
Click to expand...

My brother claims the same thing. Calls it the "election infection." Also believes Trump was sent by god, no one should ever vote for a woman but that's not sexist (literally said that), and that the tribulation is right around the corner.
 
sturg33 said:
In my experience girls are much less likely to gamble
Click to expand...

I'm a professional gambler, and I can tell you that there is only one reason that appears to be the case...the majority of men who are disgusting toward them. So, most successful gamblers I know who are also women spend most of their time doing it online or in private. There are many of them.
 
Dalyn said:
Yeah. It was pretty blatant. But his base doesn't care about stuff like this. The dude legitimately seems to be a garbage human, not just a garbage politician. I didn't even think that about Bush.
Click to expand...

The earplugs aren't to communicate with his people, they're to play elevator music to drown out Trump's babbling.
 
Sam Stein
@samstein
·
12h
As Pence’s team mocks Harris for wanting a plexiglass barrier on the debate stage,

worth noting that the CDC’s own guidelines call for work spaces to

“install physical barriers, such as clear plastic sneeze guards” if applicable.

Pence runs the COVID task force.
///////////////

Bear in mind, should DJT, shall we say step aside, this is the choice.
It is very worth while to discover why in Indiana Pence was polling in the 30s
before being tapped #2
 
Last edited:
from last week:

Ben Rhodes
@brhodes
·
Sep 30
Trump on that stage was the logical endpoint of where

the Republican Party has been going for a long time -

grievance politics, anti-science, conspiracy theorizing, authoritarianism,

and indulgence of white supremacy.

That's the harder truth than Trump being a blowhard.
 
OO may have already tested positive for Covid at the debate. That might be why they won't say when he had his last negative test and it could also be why they think he's already through the worst of it.
 
nsacpi said:
My position on abortion is not one that people would describe as pro-life or pro-choice. Given two quality candidates I would vote for the pro-life one over the pro-choice one most of the time. That's part of the reason I've been a Republican most of my life. But the party went nuts in 2016 and now I've moved to a new political home. Politics is about coalitions. We form coalitions with people we disagree with on some issues to make progress on other issues. It requires a certain amount of trust. Some people have made a calculation that the judges very poorly chosen one has given them is worth everything else. We'll see how that plays out. I think they are underestimating one thing. Which is that many of us who in the past have been comfortable forming a coalition with them have come to certain conclusions that will make us very reluctant to form a coalition of any sort with them in the future.

In a sense the past 4 years have radicalized me. I've come to conclude that anyone who thinks well of the current administration has a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally incompatible with my values and sensibilities. It is going to be a long time before I make common ground with them on anything.

But I do wish those who will be picking up the pieces in the GOP after the elections well. Our system works better with two semi-functional parties.
Click to expand...

My impression is that the nsacpi of five years ago wouldn't recognize the nsacpi of today. Everyone experiences some ideological change over time, but the amount that you seem to have gone through over the past few years seems well outside the norm. Do you wonder just how firm your convictions were, if one person has been able to turn them on their head?

Has there been a specific piece of legislation or policy that has done you or your family personal harm? Detesting the man or his behavior is understandable. Allowing that to twist your entire ideological identity is representative of an emotional immaturity that I don't think fits you.
 
Jaw said:
My impression is that the nsacpi of five years ago wouldn't recognize the nsacpi of today. Everyone experiences some ideological change over time, but the amount that you seem to have gone through over the past few years seems well outside the norm. Do you wonder just how firm your convictions were, if one person has been able to turn them on their head?

Has there been a specific piece of legislation or policy that has done you or your family personal harm? Detesting the man or his behavior is understandable. Allowing that to twist your entire ideological identity is representative of an emotional immaturity that I don't think fits you.
Click to expand...

Yep. My mother in law detests Medicare for all (the whole family is doctors) and has voted for R every year until 2016. She says would vote for Bernie if means getting rid of Trump.

I asked a similar question as you, in that should one person be able to completely enable you to abandon your principles?

That convo didn't go too well...
 
Jaw said:
My impression is that the nsacpi of five years ago wouldn't recognize the nsacpi of today. Everyone experiences some ideological change over time, but the amount that you seem to have gone through over the past few years seems well outside the norm. Do you wonder just how firm your convictions were, if one person has been able to turn them on their head?

Has there been a specific piece of legislation or policy that has done you or your family personal harm? Detesting the man or his behavior is understandable. Allowing that to twist your entire ideological identity is representative of an emotional immaturity that I don't think fits you.
Click to expand...

I'm a centrist by nature. And react against the craziness around me. I went to a college where all the students were very liberal. And was happy to carry the conservative banner in that environment. I worked on Wall Street for 15 years and was repelled by the greed and selfishness. But I'm not sure I changed from the kid who liked to argue with my liberal college classmates. Then I lived in Berkeley for a while and thought everyone there was nuts. Did I become more conservative during this period. It kind of felt like it, but I think mostly I stayed true to my beliefs in a very left-wing environment.

With respect to very poorly chosen one, I could care less about his ideology. My opposition to him would be the same if he came from the left. Having someone so corrupt, incompetent, criminal, delusional, dishonest, unstable, childish, and dumb in high office is a very dangerous thing for any society. And having a cultish group of followers for that kind of person is even more disturbing. I have developed quite a bit of distrust (understatement) for his core supporters who now appear to make up the majority of the GOP. This makes me think I'm unlikely to consider being part of a coalition with them anytime soon.

Specifically with respect to abortion, my position there has changed very little over the past 30 years. If anything I'm a bit more inclined to favor legislation that restricts abortions at earlier points of pregnancy. My position has never been one that could be described as pro choice or pro life.

Oh one more thing. When I changed my registration in 2016, it was from Republican to independent. I changed it to Democrat in 2019 because in our system to have a full voice as a voter you have to choose. And I wanted to use my vote to support Amy Klobuchar in the primary (with credibly accused creepy joe being my second choice). I'm very happy with how things have played out on the Democratic side. I probably would have voted for Sanders or Warren against very poorly chosen one, but it would not have been a happy vote.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I've been misreading you then. I had thought you were hoping for a blue wave that would sweep away Pub control of the Senate and likely allow the Dems to gerrymander the federal government to a point that we have one party rule for a generation. Given your response here, specifically your aversion to craziness, that must not be the case.
 
Jaw said:
Maybe I've been misreading you then. I had thought you were hoping for a blue wave that would sweep away Pub control of the Senate and likely allow the Dems to gerrymander the federal government to a point that we have one party rule for a generation. Given your response here, specifically your aversion to craziness, that must not be the case.
Click to expand...

I absolutely want a blue wave because I'm very old testament in certain respects. Those who have been complicit the past 4 years need to be punished at the ballot box. The stronger the repudiation the more healthy it will be for our political system, short-term changes to policy notwithstanding.

Regardless of my wishes, it increasingly looks like the Dems will get their opportunity. It is up to them what they do with it. But if there is a big long-term realignment toward the left, it seems to me evident one of the biggest causes of it can be traced to the choice the GOP made in 2016. It was a very consequential choice. It caused the ocean currents to shift course. And I'm just a little piece of driftwood bobbing on the surface.
 
Last edited:
I look forward to your similar radicalization when the dems dismantle the "norms" you've been so concerned about.
 
Short term changes to policy? You're well enough informed to know that isn't the plan. A packed court, a gerrymandered Senate, and an uncapped House are the plan.

If you're for that, then I'm not sure why you ever hoped for anyone but Bernie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top