Joe Biden Debates Donald Trump September 29

[PhillipBlunt]

13 hours ago, Warhippy said:

If they're all folding to support Biden it means three things.

 

They were promised plum positions after the election

 

Bernie doesn't stand a chance because the DNC doesn't want him to winjo matter what the people want.

 

4 more years of tangerine Mussolini

That seems to be the case. Maybe one day, the American people can pull their heads out of their collective asses and abandon both of these equally corrupt political parties that exist only to prop up and feed the establishment.

 

Clearly devaluing and defunding the educations system has worked in the favor of the 1%, as it's allowed them to maintain control over the poorly educated, fast food loving, jingoistic, god-fearing mass of humanity.

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

 Maybe one day, the American people can pull their heads out of their collective asses and abandon both of these equally corrupt political parties that exist only to prop up and feed the establishment.

[PhillipBlunt]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

You know it'll happen, Jimmy.................................….once the zombie apocalypse happens.

[JM_]

1 minute ago, PhillipBlunt said:

You know it'll happen, Jimmy.................................….once the zombie apocalypse happens.

it happened already. Its called social media. 

[PhillipBlunt]

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

it happened already. Its called social media. 

[Kragar]

1 hour ago, RUPERTKBD said:

This is the first time I've heard the narrative that Trump is employing his racists policies out of altruistic intent for the betterment of black Americans. Interesting take....

 

I do have to wonder though, how black Americans would view your characterization that poor illegals are taking the low paid, service industry jobs away from them specifically, and not say, Alabama trailer trash, or California Latinos....

I never said anything about motives of the GOP, that I recall.   I did say that GOP has been doing (or trying to do) more good for black people than Dems.  Too many people, including black people themselves, think the Dems are helping them out.  The record doesn't seem to support that, and the faster they can see this, perhaps they better of they, and their cities, will become.

 

Sorry you are confused over the last part.  Given some people's (including yours, IIRC) position that any policy that adversely affects poor people is racist because black people make up a disproportionate amount of said poor people, I figured you would be able to see the truth here.  Of course it impacts those other people you mention.  If you see my later reply on the topic, I do mention illegal immigration and amnesty being harmful for poor Americans.

 

It should be clear to anyone who has a basic understanding of supply and demand that if the supply of poor, low-skilled people increases that demand for the jobs they can fill and/or the housing they can afford also increases, taking away opportunities for both of those for existing poor folks.  Now look at the various positions Dems have (immigration, voting ID, school choice, minimum wage, etc., etc., etc.) and their impacts, and think about which party is doing more harm to people of color.

[RUPERTKBD]

14 minutes ago, Kragar said:

I never said anything about motives of the GOP, that I recall.   I did say that GOP has been doing (or trying to do) more good for black people than Dems.  Too many people, including black people themselves, think the Dems are helping them out.  The record doesn't seem to support that, and the faster they can see this, perhaps they better of they, and their cities, will become.

 

Sorry you are confused over the last part.  Given some people's (including yours, IIRC) position that any policy that adversely affects poor people is racist because black people make up a disproportionate amount of said poor people, I figured you would be able to see the truth here.  Of course it impacts those other people you mention.  If you see my later reply on the topic, I do mention illegal immigration and amnesty being harmful for poor Americans.

 

It should be clear to anyone who has a basic understanding of supply and demand that if the supply of poor, low-skilled people increases that demand for the jobs they can fill and/or the housing they can afford also increases, taking away opportunities for both of those for existing poor folks.  Now look at the various positions Dems have (immigration, voting ID, school choice, minimum wage, etc., etc., etc.) and their impacts, and think about which party is doing more harm to people of color.

I don't really disagree with this (with an exception that I'll explain below), yet you said that the GOP's increased emphasis on border security is to the benefit of "blacks".

 

You honestly don't see how a black voter might find that insulting?

 

As far as the GOP trying to do more for blacks, I think you're giving them more credit than they deserve. I don't believe for a second that the rhetoric aimed at Central American immigrants is anything other than a dog whistle, designed to appeal to the disenfranchised white element of American society.

 

I will grant you this: The may be inadvertently helping poor black Americans.....

[Boudrias]

25 minutes ago, Kragar said:

I never said anything about motives of the GOP, that I recall.   I did say that GOP has been doing (or trying to do) more good for black people than Dems.  Too many people, including black people themselves, think the Dems are helping them out.  The record doesn't seem to support that, and the faster they can see this, perhaps they better of they, and their cities, will become.

 

Sorry you are confused over the last part.  Given some people's (including yours, IIRC) position that any policy that adversely affects poor people is racist because black people make up a disproportionate amount of said poor people, I figured you would be able to see the truth here.  Of course it impacts those other people you mention.  If you see my later reply on the topic, I do mention illegal immigration and amnesty being harmful for poor Americans.

 

It should be clear to anyone who has a basic understanding of supply and demand that if the supply of poor, low-skilled people increases that demand for the jobs they can fill and/or the housing they can afford also increases, taking away opportunities for both of those for existing poor folks.  Now look at the various positions Dems have (immigration, voting ID, school choice, minimum wage, etc., etc., etc.) and their impacts, and think about which party is doing more harm to people of color.

Whether Trump has benefited blacks or not will be proven in November. 2 blacks being interviewed on CNN said Trump is polling at 

12% in that community and said if he keeps those numbers he will win re-election. Trump camp claims they will hit 20%. 

 

Democratic claim on the minority vote is taking hits because their record in constituencies they have ran for decades is brutal. I don’t see the appeal between Bernie and Trump being that different at street level. Both promise improvements but  through different means. Trumps policies have 3 years of experience behind him. Is that enough? Probably.

[taxi]

2 hours ago, Kragar said:

I'm not saying anything about greasy favors, but that might ultimately be what it takes to succeed in politics.

 

He behaves very independently.  I have read he is difficult to work with, because he is a fairly strict ideologue.  If he struggles to get along with the party at the best of times, has difficulty making laws with his peers in the party, how much should the party really care?  Sure, he typically votes with them, but that's about it.  That makes him slightly more appealing than whatsherface RINO from Maine.

 

If he doesn't represent the party, he should not be a candidate for the party.

That's not the way it works. The USA has a bipartisan system. Anyone can choose to run for either party. The party infrastructure is not supposed to interfere with the nomination process. You don't have to work with anybody, as long as the party members vote for you. This isn't Canada, where your only hope is to slowly climb the ladder (or be the son of someone who did that) and the leaders are chosen just by the party insiders. 

 

The DNC needs to immediately stop interfering. They are partially responsible for getting Trump elected, after all that Hillary/Sanders blundering that occurred last time. 

 

The Democratic party absolutely needs to be challenged right now. They are not abiding by the principles they profess to represent. 

[Kragar]

1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I don't really disagree with this (with an exception that I'll explain below), yet you said that the GOP's increased emphasis on border security is to the benefit of "blacks".

 

You honestly don't see how a black voter might find that insulting?

 

As far as the GOP trying to do more for blacks, I think you're giving them more credit than they deserve. I don't believe for a second that the rhetoric aimed at Central American immigrants is anything other than a dog whistle, designed to appeal to the disenfranchised white element of American society.

 

I will grant you this: The may be inadvertently helping poor black Americans.....

Context is your friend.  The discussion started regarding ties between the Dems and the KKK. As I understood Lockout's post that I quoted, black people weren't being supported by the GOP (party of Lincoln).  Given what Lincoln did re the Civil War, I don't think i was mistaken in my understanding of his post.

 

Maybe I should have said "black people"?  Perhaps, but given how often the term "blacks" and "whites" are commonly used, I didn't think anything of it.

 

When I said "trying", I was referring to policies they try to push, as in not everything they try becomes law, but I can see how that can be misconstrued to suggest that helping black people was the primary goal of the GOP.  In regards to the border, I do not mean that to be the case.  However, i will stand by the statement that GOP policies/positions, like the ones I listed, do tend to do more good for poor Americans than the countering Dem position, poor black people included.

 

When it comes down to it, whether inadvertent or not, does it matter?  Whether Dem policy is inadvertently or deliberately hurting (disproportionately) poor people, some day, these poor people are going to realize the source of their troubles which are based on government policy.  Whenever that happens, I wonder if that will change your mind.

[RUPERTKBD]

8 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Context is your friend.  The discussion started regarding ties between the Dems and the KKK. As I understood Lockout's post that I quoted, black people weren't being supported by the GOP (party of Lincoln).  Given what Lincoln did re the Civil War, I don't think i was mistaken in my understanding of his post.

 

Maybe I should have said "black people"?  Perhaps, but given how often the term "blacks" and "whites" are commonly used, I didn't think anything of it.

 

When I said "trying", I was referring to policies they try to push, as in not everything they try becomes law, but I can see how that can be misconstrued to suggest that helping black people was the primary goal of the GOP.  In regards to the border, I do not mean that to be the case.  However, i will stand by the statement that GOP policies/positions, like the ones I listed, do tend to do more good for poor Americans than the countering Dem position, poor black people included.

 

When it comes down to it, whether inadvertent or not, does it matter?  Whether Dem policy is inadvertently or deliberately hurting (disproportionately) poor people, some day, these poor people are going to realize the source of their troubles which are based on government policy.  Whenever that happens, I wonder if that will change your mind.

Well, first of all I don't believe that immigration is "the source of their troubles" and secondly, I think intent does matter. When your intent is to convince people that immigrants are drug dealers, criminals and rapists, I don't think it's anything to applaud if a few poor Americans get berry picking jobs because of it.

 

That being said, I doubt that either of us is going to convince the other that their chosen party is better for poor Americans, so I suppose we'll have to add this to the many things on which we disagree....

[Kragar]

3 minutes ago, taxi said:

They are not abiding by the principles they profess to represent. 

No surprise there.

 

3 minutes ago, taxi said:

That's not the way it works. The USA has a bipartisan system. Anyone can choose to run for either party. The party infrastructure is not supposed to interfere with the nomination process. You don't have to work with anybody, as long as the party members vote for you. This isn't Canada, where your only hope is to slowly climb the ladder (or be the son of someone who did that) and the leaders are chosen just by the party insiders. 

 

The DNC needs to immediately stop interfering. They are partially responsible for getting Trump elected, after all that Hillary/Sanders blundering that occurred last time. 

 

The Democratic party absolutely needs to be challenged right now. They are not abiding by the principles they profess to represent. 

The party wants to win.  The whole reason for having the party structure is to win.  I've heard multiple sources of speculation that should Bernie be leading the ticket that the Dems will get absolutely hammered in the House and Senate, and that seems reasonable.

 

Given how Bernie supporters voted (or chose not to vote) in 2016, that could easily have given Trump the election as you suggest.  Given how rich Dems (taxes, investments), union workers (pensions/investments, health benefits), and the middle class (pensions/investments) would get screwed over by Bernie's policies, how many moderates are going to similarly abandon Bernie when it comes time to go to the polls in 2020?

 

Just in case there is confusion on the matter, "working with people" refers to his time in the Senate, not when it comes to running for President.  He is not well liked by his peers because he is rather strict in his beliefs, and is not one to compromise (btw, how attractive a trait is that for a potential leader of a divided country???).  If you actively don't get along with the people you work with, how much are they going to help you out when you need it?  Maybe the party should treat him better, but you could say the same thing in reverse.  

[Lancaster]

If anything, any Democrat with any potential of ever becoming the POTUS should step back. 

The way things are heading, the DNC will be slaughtered this fall and it's best not to be associated to it whatsoever.  

 

Unfortunately, it appears the DNC hasn't learned anything from 2016.  Instead of accepting they were wrong (and by extension, admit that Trump won fairly), they're doubling down.  It's like the Democrats can't admit that maybe their message is not the right message, almost like when you try to discuss with a religious zealot.  If the Democrats are inherently righteous, then that means others are wrong... thus you cannot back down as it will ruin your whole facade of being morally superior.  

 

Maybe a real outsider and radical (but not those old commie radicals) like Andrew Yang may do better in 2024.  

[Kragar]

1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Well, first of all I don't believe that immigration is "the source of their troubles" and secondly, I think intent does matter. When your intent is to convince people that immigrants are drug dealers, criminals and rapists, I don't think it's anything to applaud if a few poor Americans get berry picking jobs because of it.

 

That being said, I doubt that either of us is going to convince the other that their chosen party is better for poor Americans, so I suppose we'll have to add this to the many things on which we disagree....

Not the source, but definitely a source.  If you recall, I listed a number of policies, and with a little effort I could add many more that make things worse for poor people  And this goes far beyond picking berries.  Carpenters, electricians, landscapers, movers, maids, dishwashers, and a slew of other jobs are impacted.  And what about illegals with moderate skills?  Those jobs have their wages depressed as well.  Supply and demand.  There are MILLIONS of people involved.  A "few"... really???

 

Some illegals are drug dealers, criminals, and rapists.  Don't you think that trying to keep those immigrants out by being selective on who gets in is a better process?

 

And as far as intent goes, I'm sorry, I think you are very wrong.  If the anyone is actively doing things that hurt my livelihood, I don't give a crap if they meant to be helpful to me or not.  If they refuse to listen to my concerns and/or aren't willing to change their actions, then they do not deserve my support.  Arguably, that also makes their efforts deliberate.  

[nuckin_futz]

19 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

If anything, any Democrat with any potential of ever becoming the POTUS should step back. 

The way things are heading, the DNC will be slaughtered this fall and it's best not to be associated to it whatsoever.  

 

Unfortunately, it appears the DNC hasn't learned anything from 2016.  Instead of accepting they were wrong (and by extension, admit that Trump won fairly), they're doubling down.  It's like the Democrats can't admit that maybe their message is not the right message, almost like when you try to discuss with a religious zealot.  If the Democrats are inherently righteous, then that means others are wrong... thus you cannot back down as it will ruin your whole facade of being morally superior.  

 

Maybe a real outsider and radical (but not those old commie radicals) like Andrew Yang may do better in 2024.  

Same thing was said before Congressional elections in 2018. Then the House flipped by a pretty big margin.

 

Dems' issue then was healthcare and household issues. Republican message was a caravan of illegals carrying diseases was coming to get everyone. Never did hear much about that caravan after Nov 2018.

[RUPERTKBD]

11 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Not the source, but definitely a source.  If you recall, I listed a number of policies, and with a little effort I could add many more that make things worse for poor people  And this goes far beyond picking berries.  Carpenters, electricians, landscapers, movers, maids, dishwashers, and a slew of other jobs are impacted.  And what about illegals with moderate skills?  Those jobs have their wages depressed as well.  Supply and demand.  There are MILLIONS of people involved.  A "few"... really???

 

Some illegals are drug dealers, criminals, and rapists.  Don't you think that trying to keep those immigrants out by being selective on who gets in is a better process?

 

And as far as intent goes, I'm sorry, I think you are very wrong.  If the anyone is actively doing things that hurt my livelihood, I don't give a crap if they meant to be helpful to me or not.  If they refuse to listen to my concerns and/or aren't willing to change their actions, then they do not deserve my support.  Arguably, that also makes their efforts deliberate.  

And as I already said. I believe that you are wrong. Not much point continuing, is there?

[Boudrias]

10 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Not the source, but definitely a source.  If you recall, I listed a number of policies, and with a little effort I could add many more that make things worse for poor people  And this goes far beyond picking berries.  Carpenters, electricians, landscapers, movers, maids, dishwashers, and a slew of other jobs are impacted.  And what about illegals with moderate skills?  Those jobs have their wages depressed as well.  Supply and demand.  There are MILLIONS of people involved.  A "few"... really???

 

Some illegals are drug dealers, criminals, and rapists.  Don't you think that trying to keep those immigrants out by being selective on who gets in is a better process?

 

And as far as intent goes, I'm sorry, I think you are very wrong.  If the anyone is actively doing things that hurt my livelihood, I don't give a crap if they meant to be helpful to me or not.  If they refuse to listen to my concerns and/or aren't willing to change their actions, then they do not deserve my support.  Arguably, that also makes their efforts deliberate.  

Many people now think it is a human right to have access to the USA and Canada. Our fearless leader J.T. seems to think so. 

 

What is amusing is is the hate focus on TRUMP. It is my take that there hasn’t been  GOP candidate since Barry Goldwater who was ‘fit’ to be POTUS. How you establish a middle ground is beyond me. 

[Lancaster]

3 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

Same thing was said before Congressional elections in 2018. Then the House flipped by a pretty big margin.

 

Dems' issue then was healthcare and household issues. Republican message was a caravan of illegals carrying diseases was coming to get everyone. Never did hear much about that caravan after Nov 2018.

To be fair, Congressional elections frequently flip opposite to whoever is in charge. 

I wouldn't read to much into it.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election

 

[nuckin_futz]

13 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

To be fair, Congressional elections frequently flip opposite to whoever is in charge. 

I wouldn't read to much into it. 

 

I would.

 

Trump is polling about -15 points with women. That's not with African American women, or Latino women. It's with all women across the board. How do you win when you're -15 with half the electorate? You get what you got in 2018. Where you had a huge turnout of women. Leading to a huge election of women.

 

The signs are there for those who care to heed them.

Edited March 3, 2020 by nuckin_futz

[Kragar]

43 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Whether Trump has benefited blacks or not will be proven in November. 2 blacks being interviewed on CNN said Trump is polling at 

12% in that community and said if he keeps those numbers he will win re-election. Trump camp claims they will hit 20%. 

 

Democratic claim on the minority vote is taking hits because their record in constituencies they have ran for decades is brutal. I don’t see the appeal between Bernie and Trump being that different at street level. Both promise improvements but  through different means. Trumps policies have 3 years of experience behind him. Is that enough? Probably.

Absolutely.  If black voter support comes down from the mid 90's to the mid 80s or lower, you would think that means they feel Trump and the GOP are increasing their popularity in that sector., and apparently helping them more.  If that happens, it would be interesting to see what happens in 2024.

 

In the meantime, instead of changing their ways, Dems will continue to pull the race card on the GOP and call black Republicans Uncle Toms.