Merged 2024 Election Thread

[W.D.Clinger]

The statement below is a generality, not addressed to any particular members of this forum.

If you consider yourself to be progressive, and you're having a hard time deciding whether to vote for Biden or for Trump or for someone else or not at all, you are really, really stupid.

 

[stanfr]

If it took the form of actually doing something to benefit the people, or even seriously trying to, it wouldn't be a lie, but, even if all he did was talk like he's going to do something, that might still work better than being himself. The main reason why it might not at this point is how late it is in this term of office and how little time is left before the election. (He did, after all, tell a few lies about stuff he was going to do once elected the first time around.)

Complete nonsense. And you are aware of some of the legislation he has accomplished in his term so far, or shall I highlight them for you?

In politics, the predominant source of "charisma" is agreement with your audience on the issues.

Campaign Bill and Campaign Obama didn't have quite the same main audience as 2016 Campaign Trump, but there was some overlap under the umbrella of "seeing problems with the country and wanting them fixed". The "change candidate" won over the "status quo candidate" all three times.

Wrong again. Politics is what happens after an election. Voters choices are less about politics and more about personalities. Reread my comment and Stacyhs' You seem to be unaware that 90% of the electorate don't even pay attention to campaigns until sometime in September, which is one reason early polls are worthless. That is not to say that MAGA types will become Democrats if they think the Dem is cute or something, but your claim that Obama and Clinton won based on presenting themselves as progressives is absurd.

Attempts to distort & mischaracterize what one's interlocutor has said are common for people who are also trying to distort & mischaracterize the subject being talked about.

More word salad deflection. You said "The fact that they were lying about their progressiveness" which is most definitely a confession that they were not true progressives, and that is what I asked for! So stop lying about your responses, they speak for themselves despite your attempt to spin them with word salad.

 

[stanfr]

That is simply not true.

Clinton campaigned as a Southern Democrat; a New Democrat; a Conservative Democrat; a neo-liberal. He was not progressive, and was not embraced by progressives at the time.

His promises included get tough on crime; end welfare as we know it; balance the budget; improve defense readiness. His healthcare reform was not what progressives wanted then or now. It wasn't single payer, universal or government run.

Obama was embraced by progressives, but his policy specifics were more left centrist than Democratic. He was to the left of Hillary and to the right of Bernie.

That's pretty much how I saw it. I remember (as a progressive!) all the debate about single payer. Not sure where he is getting the idea they ran as progressives. They won by being great likable speakers who got the party behind them.

 

[theprestige]

Complete nonsense. And you are aware of some of the legislation he has accomplished in his term so far, or shall I highlight them for you?

Presidents don't accomplish legislation. It's literally not their job.

 

[Delvo]

I'm dropping this, at least in this thread. Dealing with this Creationist-level nonsense & dishonesty & distractionism with interlocutors who will do anything to flee from dismal reality gets pointlessly annoying, and it isn't even relevant here. Anybody who wants to keep rehashing old history like this can dig up one of the threads we had back then, and maybe I'll join in over there once my fallacy & falsehood tolerance level is recharged.

I will leave one small note, though, that I don't recall having already pointed out multiple times before so I'm not tired of pointing this one out yet: Back when I said maybe this would be a good time for the pro-corporatist, pro-Republiclone, keep-doing-what-keeps-failing, anti-progressive side to finally after all these years give any support at all for their own thinking for a change, there was not a single tiny speck of an attempt to do so. There never has been. It's always just more of the same old "La-la I'm not listening" attackery from that side. It might be worth your while to ponder what it might mean when one side of any given subject keeps stating their case on the subject and the other side never does.

 

[shemp]

The statement below is a generality, not addressed to any particular members of this forum.

If you consider yourself to be progressive, and you're having a hard time deciding whether to vote for Biden or for Trump or for someone else or not at all, you are really, really stupid.

This reminds me of something I heard a few days ago on an NPR show (I don't remember which one). The host read an email from a 20 year old woman who said that the most important issue for her is access to abortion, and reproductive and birth control rights. She said it was important to her to vote for a candidate who would protect those rights. Then she said that she didn't know whether Biden or Trump would be better to protect her rights.



It took me awhile to get over the feeling that she is a ******* idiot, and move on to something else.

So the answer to "Are there people out there who are really that stupid?" is "yes."

 

[Stacyhs]

The GOP's dishonest pushing of their "Biden is senile" lie with yet another false claim he 'froze' at a fundraising event on Saturday with Barack Obama and several celebrities. The New York Post stated

"Biden appears to freeze up, has to be led off stage by Obama at mega-bucks LA fundraiser"

As the men stood for applause, Biden’s gaze seemed to become fixed on the crowd for a full 10 seconds until former President Barack Obama took his wrist and led him offstage.

The incident follows a spate of caught-on-camera moments where Biden appeared dazed or confused about where he was, including when he appeared to wander off at the G7 summit in Apulia, Italy, during parachute exhibition.

In that instance, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni stepped in to gently take Biden’s hand and lead him back in time for a group photo with other world leaders.

None of these 'interpretations' is accurate.

TheWrap’s reporter in attendance at the L.A. event noted that it did not appear to the crowd as if Biden froze up. Obama put his hand on Biden’s wrist, at which point he turned toward Obama. As the two walked off stage, Obama put his arm around Biden’s back. He did not appear to be leading Biden away.

Video from a livestream of the fundraiser, shared by journalist Olga Nesterova of the ONEST Network, showed more angles of what Biden was doing on stage during the event’s conclusion.

Olga Nesterova
@onestpress
I recorded the ending of the fundraiser.. watch it below and ALWAYS FACTCHECK BEFORE SHARING NONSENSE

I'm surprised the NY Post didn't claim, "Biden had to be guided offstage after apparently suffering a transient ischemic attack (ITA)and freezing."

At the G7 summit in Italy, the NY Post had this misleading headline on June 14:

"Meander in Chief
Biden embarrasses US with confused wanderings at world conference

It then cropped the picture and video to make it look like Biden was just wandering off. In reality, Biden had walked over to give the thumbs up to parachutists. You can see the edited NYP version and the unedited version here.

 

[Stacyhs]

Presidents don't accomplish legislation. It's literally not their job.

And yet, in reality, it is part of what they do as they have great influence over what legislation is introduced and passed.

Presidents indicate what issues should garner most attention and action; they help set the policy agenda. They lobby Congress to pass their programs, often by campaign-like swings around the country. Their position as head of their political party enables them to keep or gain allies (and win reelection). Inside the executive branch, presidents make policies by well-publicized appointments and executive orders. They use their ceremonial position as head of state to get into the news and gain public approval, making it easier to persuade others to follow their lead.

https://open.lib.umn.edu/americangovernment/chapter/13-2-how-presidents-get-things-done/

 

[grunion]

I’m not sure to what “logical fallacies” you’re referring...

It is the genetic fallacy (fallacy of origin), a false irrelevance fallacy, which Sherkeu (in my opinion correctly) accuses you of. If you are accusing the original poster of having doctored or misrepresented Biden’s behavior in the video then please present your evidence. Whether or not they are a right-wing asshat shouldn’t matter.

 

[stanfr]

Presidents don't accomplish legislation. It's literally not their job.

Cute, you know what I meant. Signing a bill is completing it, it becomes accomplished.
ETA: And Stacyhs correctly pointed out that the President has vast influence on legislation.

 

[johnny karate]

Sherkeu has a technical point that the fact should matter independent of the source, but if I ask for a cite that 2+2=4 and someone links me to www.nazihomeschoolers.com I'm gonna sideye

Minor quibble: The cite in question wasn’t a statement of fact. It was very much opinion.

everyone should use credible sources

Especially if you’re going to claim to be a “normal independent voter”.

If you express an opinion and then point to someone else sharing that opinion, and that other person is an anti-vax conspiracy theorist, it is perfectly fair to question your agenda.

 

[johnny karate]

It is the genetic fallacy (fallacy of origin), a false irrelevance fallacy, which Sherkeu (in my opinion correctly) accuses you of. If you are accusing the original poster of having doctored or misrepresented Biden’s behavior in the video then please present your evidence. Whether or not they are a right-wing asshat shouldn’t matter.

I’m not accusing anyone of doctoring anything. I’m accusing someone of credulously regurgitating right wing propaganda. Hope that clears it up for you.

 

[Brainster]

With Trump up nationally 50-49 but Biden up in swing states 50-49 as of a few days ago, we could have a Republican win the national vote and a Democrat win the election because of the Electoral College. At least then some more red states would probably join the Compact!

And promptly a bunch of blue states would realize that if they'd had their way, Trump would be president next year instead of Biden. I can't imagine that resulting in them changing their minds about the electoral college; after all, they are simply standing up for principle, not politics.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

And promptly a bunch of blue states would realize that if they'd had their way, Trump would be president next year instead of Biden. I can't imagine that resulting in them changing their minds about the electoral college; after all, they are simply standing up for principle, not politics.

Red States can still join in the pact.
Until they do, it's not active.

But yeah, it would help if the EC was cut out of the loop.

 

[Donal]

I wish you were right, and I believe you will be in about 10-20 yrs...but can anyone name a true progressive who has won on the national stage??

To be fair, "progressive" as we use it today is fairly new as a political entity. Candidates lioke Mondale(perhaps) could have been described as having progressive ideas, but they weren't in some organized movement of faction.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus was founded in 1991, but they had very few members and seemed more about being pissed at the Democrats running to the right than having real progressive ideas. Although, they did put out an actual plan to fight Gingrich and the Republicans in Congress.

Even to this day, some of the folks in the CPC would probably fit better in the Problem Solvers, but I digress.

Progressivism as an organized movement started taking off towards the end of the Bush adminsitration. After Obama was perceived to come up short in some important areas, Bernie Sanders was able to put progressivism in the spotlight and make it a real force in the Democratic Party. It was so effective, that after Progressives started winning and unseating establishment Democrats at every level, establishment Dems felt the need to shank them and coopt their language to try and win.

So, if the Progressives can take their wins in stride, avoid the type of infighting that can take down up coming movements, and the establishment Dems stop preferring to lose to right-wingers, we may see more progressive senators and governors over the next 10 years.

Not holding my breath over the White House, though.

 

[Donal]

Red States can still join in the pact.
Until they do, it's not active.

But yeah, it would help if the EC was cut out of the loop.

Or they banned winner-take-all.

But neither of those wil lhappen. At least, Congress can change apportionment.

 

[Aridas]

To be fair, "progressive" as we use it today is fairly new as a political entity.

Some of the specifics, at least. Progressivism is hardly something new to the scene, though, overall, and the overall theme hasn't really changed much or quickly.

When it comes to the US, specifically...

In the United States, progressivism began as an intellectual rebellion against the political philosophy of Constitutionalism[25] as expressed by John Locke and the founders of the American Republic, whereby the authority of government depends on observing limitations on its just powers.[26] What began as a social movement in the 1890s grew into a popular political movement referred to as the Progressive era; in the 1912 United States presidential election, all three U.S. presidential candidates claimed to be progressives. While the term progressivism represents a range of diverse political pressure groups, not always united, progressives rejected social Darwinism, believing that the problems society faced, such as class warfare, greed, poverty, racism and violence, could best be addressed by providing good education, a safe environment, and an efficient workplace.

Really, not that much has changed in the last century and a quarter beyond some of the specifics. You're correct that there's been a more recent resurgence, though, as part of the backlash against the rise in unfairness that the right wing has championed.

 

[Delvo]

Biden has an ad out now emphasizing Trump's convictions and the life of casual routine self-centered crime that led to them. It's a good start, but I suspect it might be more effective to run primarily against Project 2025 than against Trump himself. Biden needs the people scared, and Trump just isn't nearly as scary without Project 2025. (Also, descriptions of Project 2025 would need to be specific details and where you can find & read them yourself, even if time doesn't allow many of them in an ad; if described in vague generalities & summaries like "the end of democracy" and "make the President a king/emperor/dictator" and "no more elections", then it just sounds like stuff we've all heard politicians saying about each other for at least my whole life and nobody's really listening to anymore.)

 

[grunion]

To be fair, "progressive" as we use it today is fairly new as a political entity. Candidates lioke Mondale(perhaps) could have been described as having progressive ideas, but they weren't in some organized movement of faction.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus was founded in 1991, but they had very few members and seemed more about being pissed at the Democrats running to the right than having real progressive ideas. Although, they did put out an actual plan to fight Gingrich and the Republicans in Congress.

Even to this day, some of the folks in the CPC would probably fit better in the Problem Solvers, but I digress.

Progressivism as an organized movement started taking off towards the end of the Bush adminsitration. After Obama was perceived to come up short in some important areas, Bernie Sanders was able to put progressivism in the spotlight and make it a real force in the Democratic Party. It was so effective, that after Progressives started winning and unseating establishment Democrats at every level, establishment Dems felt the need to shank them and coopt their language to try and win.

So, if the Progressives can take their wins in stride, avoid the type of infighting that can take down up coming movements, and the establishment Dems stop preferring to lose to right-wingers, we may see more progressive senators and governors over the next 10 years.

Not holding my breath over the White House, though.

Henry Wallace ran as a Progressive candidate for President in 1948 and got 1.1 million votes. The platform was what Progressives today would recognize as progressive. There were earlier Progressive Parties in American History as well, but the real roots of the Sanders wing were in Wallace’s campaign.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

I hope all the people where who will not vote for Biden because he is not far enough to the left are happy with Trump 2.0.
It's a bit too much like Germany in 1933, where many on the hard left refused to vote for Anti Hitler Candidates because they were not far enough to the left, The KPD..German Communist Party was the worst offender.

Who was this mythical "anti-Hitler" candidate? The "moderate" right gifted him absolute power on a silver platter, thinking they could control him. And the viable alternatives on the left were being disappeared even before he got in.

Don't push your fantasy nonsense about how everything was the fault of the left in 1930's Germany. Hitler was the darling of the establishment whether "moderate" or extreme, and they protected him, supported him and funded him right up until he blew his brains out.