Politics Turning GA, NC, NV, and/or PA into victory (Biden vs Trump, 2020 election!)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
TorturedBlazerFan said:
Cause we have two rival gangs with incompetent leadership. I'm aware of that. That's why I think people shouldn't just vote for who the GOP and DNC gives them every four years. Cause we keep getting bad presidents.
My point at the beginning of this was that Biden really sucks too, and since this has entirely moved on to just Trump sucks! I guess we're just conceding the point now.
Click to expand...

We all have opinions, but Obama was a very capable president that actually showed leadership and compassion. Biden is also capable of putting forth an administration and will listen to his experts rather that argue with them and fire them if they disagree. How you can defend this clown is beyond me, but hey, it's your right.
 
Lmao!!

Trump should tell all states to lock down!!!

Trump has no right to tell states to end protests!!!

Trump is responsible for the virus spread!!!!

But Pelosi touring Chinatown telling people to come out and support local businesses is not irresponsible!!!!
.
.
.
.
.

Some of you are clearly unable to debate rationally and sensibly.....
 
Last edited:
CupWizier said:
I'll bite as this is a very simple answer that you should be able to understand.

It is the responsibility of the president to ensure Americans are safe. He should have formulated a coordinated effort to make sure ALL states had adequate supplies rather than lying about that he was left with an empty cupboard and no guidelines. Both turned out to be blatant lies. It would have been next to impossible for the Obama administration to have a supply of test kits for covid 19 as it didn't exist at the time. Also, he continued to downplay the severity of the virus thus falsely giving people a false sense of security. Also, most states that opened early never met the task force guidelines and zoomed past stage one and into stage 2 with some even going into stage 3 without ever meeting stage one. We should have also had a universal strategy when it came to testing along with contact tracing to be able to combat the virus, but trump was more worried about the economy than the safety of people.

That should be enough for you to chew on for a bit.
Click to expand...

Im sure that is the answer to some question someone asked somewhere, but it did not answer mine. Please step to the back of the line, reread and try again.

until then this is simply deflection.
 
CupWizier said:
We all have opinions, but Obama was a very capable president that actually showed leadership and compassion. Biden is also capable of putting forth an administration and will listen to his experts rather that argue with them and fire them if they disagree. How you can defend this clown is beyond me, but hey, it's your right.
Click to expand...
I didn't defend him. That's the problem with all this though. It's so polarized if you don't toe the party line's, you're the 'otherside' and you're defending him! It's just frankly not true. These two political parties and this type of logic is the killing off of free-thought and anything that doesn't fit the narrative the parties say you must have. The left is so obsessed with Trump they seem to think the entire government is Trump and that every bad thing that happens is all his fault. The right is so obsessed with Trump they do everything that he says. Anyone who is in between both of these gangs are accused of being on the other gang because you aren't bowing down to partisan politics.
 
Last edited:
CupWizier said:
We all have opinions, but Obama was a very capable president that actually showed leadership and compassion. Biden is also capable of putting forth an administration and will listen to his experts rather that argue with them and fire them if they disagree. How you can defend this clown is beyond me, but hey, it's your right.
Click to expand...
Obama sure is a good talker! Big Pharma and the insurance companies think he was compassionate to their pocket books. I bet the syrians he bombed the heck out of thought of him as very compassionate as well...
The thing is not all of that was Obama’s fault even though he was president every bit of blame for it doesnt all go on him. Just like Trump. They both had to work with a bunch of other politicians with different agenda’s.
 
andalusian said:
I believe that the reason the 2 (or limited number of parties) works is because it tries to strike this kind of balance - Instead of having the users face 20+ options (like places like Italy, Israel do) - you have the options curated by the parties - where people can choose to participate earlier to curate these options (via campaigning and later primaries) - until there are a manageable number of options for the general population - if this number is around 2 (the US, UK) or 5 (Germany) is another question - but my point is that the idea that there is no choice because we curate the number of significant options down to 2 (or 3 as sort of happened when Perot ran) for the general election is wrong. There are a lot more options - they just go through a thinner funnel with a longer neck for the general election instead of a wide one with a short neck.
Click to expand...

I think that's a great point and a great way to look at it. As you allude to, people look just at the final "two choices" (major party choices) as if that's all there ever was. It's akin to saying only 64 players enter basketball each year, since only 64 are drafted into the NBA. The draft is the culmination of a ton of winnowing processes at a number of levels. I don't think our system is ideal, but it's not really due to "number of choices." I think two large categories (liberal and conservative) with a bunch of options within each category works fine. As you said, 2 may not be the perfect amount but it's not clear to me that 2 is terrible.

If you feel the two major party candidates are terrible, it's because not enough people agreed with your concept of what''s good. If a majority of Americans, or even Democrats, thought Bernie Sanders was great, he'd be a candidate right now.
 
Minstrel said:
I think that's a great point and a great way to look at it. As you allude to, people look just at the final "two choices" (major party choices) as if that's all there ever was. It's akin to saying only 64 players enter basketball each year, since only 64 are drafted into the NBA. The draft is the culmination of a ton of winnowing processes at a number of levels. I don't think our system is ideal, but it's not really due to "number of choices." I think two large categories (liberal and conservative) with a bunch of options within each category works fine. As you said, 2 may not be the perfect amount but it's not clear to me that 2 is terrible.

If you feel the two major party candidates are terrible, it's because not enough people agreed with your concept of what''s good. If a majority of Americans, or even Democrats, thought Bernie Sanders was great, he'd be a candidate right now.
Click to expand...
If the system was clean and not corrupt yes. I don't personally believe that to be the case though. I believe the system is corrupt that Republicans and Democrats cheat with primaries and elections all the time. Biden was losing. Then all the competition dropped out the weekend before super tuesday and endorsed Biden, because a lot of Democrats think Bernie is too far 'left', their own paid for media, CNN, ABC, etc were saying that. Sure part of politics is making, 'promises' and back-room deals but Bernie probably wins if not for that. Then in 2016, there was some shenanigans with Bernie and Hillary too.
That said I just think the two political parties have much more control than people think, they manipulate who the candidates are, they manipulate through the media who the candidates are. Heck if the Media wasn't so in love with talking about and giving Trump a free 1 year-long news cycle he wouldn't have won the primaries in 2016. I think the media actually did that on purpose because they thought Hillary would beat him easily. That's why they were all so shocked when the electoral votes started coming in.
Like I said though, it's not that there is 2 parties that I don't like the system, it's what these two specific parties have turned into that I don't like. You will have issues with 1 party or a plethora of parties, big or small there will be issues.
 
Minstrel said:
Not to geek it up, but as a UX designer, this actually tends to be an interesting design call. You're right that most people tend to be overwhelmed by a lot of opening options, but they also tend to be overwhelmed by, say, a few menu choices that go a mile deep. Which was what some UX designers tried for a while...limiting the options in a menu, but making each drop-down really long.

So ultimately, you end up having to strike a balance--and how many top-level options versus how much depth is good tends to depend on what your site or app is doing and what types of people use it. Sometimes you need actual UI testing with users to figure out the right balance and sometimes the right decision is to use multiple affordances--some menus with a manageable number of choices in each and maybe another type of mechanic, like swipes or hotkeys. Obviously, you can overdo affordances too, but multiple ways to generate options can sometimes be easier for users if each one is manageable.
Click to expand...

Wondered what you did for a living! (Work in tech recruiting).

Coke and Pepsi are not enough choices. Especially when both are bad for your health.
 
HailBlazers said:
Coke and Pepsi are not enough choices. Especially when both are bad for your health.
Click to expand...

TorturedBlazerFan said:
If the system was clean and not corrupt yes. I don't personally believe that to be the case though. I believe the system is corrupt that Republicans and Democrats cheat with primaries and elections all the time.
Click to expand...

I think the system is broken, too. But, as I said, it's not due to an (effective) two party system. I think the impact of money is far too great on the system, I think there are far too many ways to game the system (as in, for example, gerrymandering), we have fairly undemocratic systems like the Senate (two Senators per state regardless of population) and the Electoral College (essentially the same reason as the Senate, though not quite as rigidly undemocratic). But the main problem is the money in politics--corruption always follows money. There are a lot of fixes that are needed, but the first, biggest step IMO is closing off the super PAC loophole when it comes to campaign finance.
 
Minstrel said:
I think the system is broken, too. But, as I said, it's not due to an (effective) two party system. I think the impact of money is far too great on the system, I think there are far too many ways to game the system (as in, for example, gerrymandering), we have fairly undemocratic systems like the Senate (two Senators per state regardless of population) and the Electoral College (essentially the same reason as the Senate, though not quite as rigidly undemocratic). But the main problem is the money in politics--corruption always follows money. There are a lot of fixes that are needed, but the first, biggest step IMO is closing off the super PAC loophole when it comes to campaign finance.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more on that. However find a candidate to lead with Campaign Finance Reform and you will find a DOA candidate.
 
Minstrel said:
I think the system is broken, too. But, as I said, it's not due to an (effective) two party system. I think the impact of money is far too great on the system, I think there are far too many ways to game the system (as in, for example, gerrymandering), we have fairly undemocratic systems like the Senate (two Senators per state regardless of population) and the Electoral College (essentially the same reason as the Senate, though not quite as rigidly undemocratic). But the main problem is the money in politics--corruption always follows money. There are a lot of fixes that are needed, but the first, biggest step IMO is closing off the super PAC loophole when it comes to campaign finance.
Click to expand...
I guess and I know that this isnt popular here, my thought is the only fix at this point is a viable third party to rise. I know it spells doom for a few years but I legitimately wished that Bernie, AOC, some of the other ‘Democrats’ that seem to also hate democrats, would brand themselves as a third party. Maybe there is just ‘too much’ money and they would quickly get consumed by corruption too, but I think a third party would make the two existing parties restructure a lot. I think it could give more opportunities for more voices to be heard. Again though its not the fact there are two parties that I dislike what the two party system has become, its what those two parties have become and that there seems to be almost no reason for them to change it.
Im sure there are other solutions, but from my POV those two parties are fairly rotten at this point, and I honestly have heard very little at this point to make me think yeah I should be excited about either candidate.
Can the change come without moving to a third party, or expanding parties? Maybe but right now I just dont really see any reason to believe it will.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
I guess and I know that this isnt popular here, my thought is the only fix at this point is a viable third party to rise. I know it spells doom for a few years but I legitimately wished that Bernie, AOC, some of the other ‘Democrats’ that seem to also hate democrats, would brand themselves as a third party. Maybe there is just ‘too much’ money and they would quickly get consumed by corruption too, but I think a third party would make the two existing parties restructure a lot. I think it could give more opportunities for more voices to be heard. Again though its not the fact there are two parties that I dislike what the two party system has become, its what those two parties have become and that there seems to be almost no reason for them to change it.
Im sure there are other solutions, but from my POV those two parties are fairly rotten at this point, and I honestly have heard very little at this point to make me think yeah I should be excited about either candidate.
Can the change come without moving to a third party, or expanding parties? Maybe but right now I just dont really see any reason to believe it will.
Click to expand...

Corporate American and wealthy donors will give just as much money to a popular 3rd party candidate if they think it will get their needs and desires addressed. And 3rd party candidates will accept that money because of the expense it takes to breakthrough the two party system.

This 3rd party answer you keep talking about is overly simplistic and rather naive.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Corporate American and wealthy donors will give just as much money to a popular 3rd party candidate if they think it will get their needs and desires addressed. And 3rd party candidates will accept that money because of the expense it takes to breakthrough the two party system.

This 3rd party answer you keep talking about is overly simplistic and rather naive.
Click to expand...
Yeah creating a third viable party is simplistic except for the giant obstacle course created in front of it by the two political groups that have essentially made it a bi-opoly. Yes a third party has a chance for corruption to. Never said otherwise.
A third viable party that can challenge the R’s and D’s potentially does a lot to change our political atmosphere though.

I never said or implied a third party is the answer that fixes it all, in fact I said you’ll have issues with 1 or 20 or any between.

My answer is not though keep voting for the same two crappy, corrupt political parties and wonder why the country got to where it’s currently at. Which seems to be the only solution most are providing. You guys act like before Trump every thing was just peachy, we didnt have racism, we didnt have corruption in the government. Republicans and Democrats alike werent war mongering for oil, or that the class gap wasnt already getting bigger and bigger. Weve had 100+ years of these same two rival gangs who continuously, especially over the last 40-50 years find ways to divide and conquer the people of the US, and to exploit people, and to sale our stuff to countries that arent our friends. So we want to go back to the Obama / Biden days because weve somehow told ourselves that was the golden age of Bombing the middle east and were comfortable with that.

once we get back there we’ll fix the problems of our corrupt political parties, by watching them screw us over, and vote for the same people in 4 years.
 
Last edited:
TorturedBlazerFan said:
Yeah creating a third viable party is simplistic except for the giant obstacle course created in front of it by the two political groups that have essentially made it a bi-opoly. Yes a third party has a chance for corruption to. Never said otherwise.
A third viable party that can challenge the R’s and D’s potentially does a lot to change our political atmosphere though.

I never said or implied a third party is the answer that fixes it all, in fact I said you’ll have issues with 1 or 20 or any between.

My answer is not though keep voting for the same two crappy, corrupt political parties and wonder why the country got to where it’s currently at. Which seems to be the only solution most are providing. You guys act like before Trump every thing was just peachy, we didnt have racism, we didnt have corruption in the government. Republicans and Democrats alike werent war mongering for oil, or that the class gap wasnt already getting bigger and bigger. Weve had 100+ years of these same two rival gangs who continuously, especially over the last 40-50 years find ways to divide and conquer the people of the US, and to exploit people, and to sale our stuff to countries that arent our friends. So we want to go back to the Obama / Biden days because weve somehow told ourselves that was the golden age of Bombing the middle east and were comfortable with that.

once we get back there we’ll fix the problems of our corrupt political parties, by watching them screw us over, and vote for the same people in 4 years.
Click to expand...

Sitting on the sidelines and waiting for a magic fairy to come make everything wonderful and perfect is always an option.

barfo
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
Hahahaha, Biden's not a racist, lol. He just keeps saying racist things, and what he actually did in Government has been worse for minorities than just about anything Trump has done.
Click to expand...
Please explain why Biden is a close friend of the Obamas.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
I guess and I know that this isnt popular here, my thought is the only fix at this point is a viable third party to rise. I know it spells doom for a few years but I legitimately wished that Bernie, AOC, some of the other ‘Democrats’ that seem to also hate democrats, would brand themselves as a third party. Maybe there is just ‘too much’ money and they would quickly get consumed by corruption too, but I think a third party would make the two existing parties restructure a lot. I think it could give more opportunities for more voices to be heard. Again though its not the fact there are two parties that I dislike what the two party system has become, its what those two parties have become and that there seems to be almost no reason for them to change it.
Im sure there are other solutions, but from my POV those two parties are fairly rotten at this point, and I honestly have heard very little at this point to make me think yeah I should be excited about either candidate.
Can the change come without moving to a third party, or expanding parties? Maybe but right now I just dont really see any reason to believe it will.
Click to expand...

How does a 3rd, 4th or 5th party change anything. You are under the belief that all politicians are corrupt so wouldn't these people switching to run under some new party be corrupt as well or do they all of a sudden become non corrupt because they run under the new party that you support? I will say that I am a bit shocked how hard you are going in on defending trump though.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
If the system was clean and not corrupt yes. I don't personally believe that to be the case though. I believe the system is corrupt that Republicans and Democrats cheat with primaries and elections all the time. Biden was losing. Then all the competition dropped out the weekend before super tuesday and endorsed Biden, because a lot of Democrats think Bernie is too far 'left', their own paid for media, CNN, ABC, etc were saying that. Sure part of politics is making, 'promises' and back-room deals but Bernie probably wins if not for that. Then in 2016, there was some shenanigans with Bernie and Hillary too.
Click to expand...

So, what you oppose to are a bunch of people coming together and working together in a compromise because they did not believe in Bernie's vision - and you mask it as 'back room dealing' - that's actually democracy in action. I am sorry, but if a bunch of candidates believe that they would lose individually, but can cause change to work closer to their beliefs and congregate around a single candidate working together - that's what the system is supposed to do - find a compromise that most people can work with.

That said I just think the two political parties have much more control than people think, they manipulate who the candidates are, they manipulate through the media who the candidates are. Heck if the Media wasn't so in love with talking about and giving Trump a free 1 year-long news cycle he wouldn't have won the primaries in 2016. I think the media actually did that on purpose because they thought Hillary would beat him easily. That's why they were all so shocked when the electoral votes started coming in.
Click to expand...

This is a fantasy world you want to create - people will talk about the candidates, always have and always will - because it is important to them - which is why the media exists and why it will continue to be consumed and why it will continue to be influenced. The correct answer is to adjust to system to work fairly by limiting campaign finance and creating a completely separate authority to oversee that - as long as the free for all exists - people will bend the rules as much as they can to gain an advantage. That's all living creatures trait - and this is an election for living beings.

Like I said though, it's not that there is 2 parties that I don't like the system, it's what these two specific parties have turned into that I don't like. You will have issues with 1 party or a plethora of parties, big or small there will be issues.
Click to expand...

Every two parties will morph into something of that nature - it's not these 2 specific parties, it is the rules and human nature. People just want to be, and power always wants to retain it's power. So, the correct answers are term limits, better campaign finance rules and independent overseeing authority. Changing the 2 parties to 3, or 2 different parties will eventually end with the same kind of influence, only it will be among x number of parties instead of y, and the people at these parties will try to concentrate their power like the current parties.

There also have to have some kind of rules about being lobbyists after the term limits are reached - maybe you can only work as a government employee for a term before you can become a lobbyist or something smarter - but like all systems, you want to retain as much institutional knowledge while allow new forces to come through the system to invigorate it - so that's not going to be an obvious solution and it will have to be some kind of a compromise (like everything else in life).

I believe that you are upset at the symptoms, instead of looking for a solution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Featured content

Back
Top