American Politics Thread: The Hunt for Blue November

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Lol, 2stonedbirds has got you guys hooked.

We've had some pretty good trolling going on recently on the board, but I don't take 2Stonedbirds to be a troll. He always comes across as believing what he's saying and at least here so far is not just getting a rise out of messing with people.

I disagree with his views, but his posts in the last page aren't what we should be calling out for trolling.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Lol, 2stonedbirds has got you guys hooked.

I never thought I'd say this, but someone needs to bump a gun thread so he has something to do.

Overall I admit I find it fascinating how certain right wingers on here rely heavily on false equivalence. It's very indicative of the problem in the US right now for some republican supports, where the facade of morality has been stripped away, so they desperately need to point out things that feel the same to them "on the other side" which, of course, aren't remotely close. A disturbing lack of critical thinking.

It'd be one thing if it were "hey, there is also this questionable thing happening on your side," but it's never that. It's always "have you seen this thing which is the SAME! wow, I guess everyone is a hypocrite!" I guess it's the only way to cope, but it's sad.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Speaking of media literacy, here is a perfect example of why you can't trust Fox News and should not use them as a credible source of information.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ele...hnologies-hack

The company in question, Tyler Technologies, provides a plethora of products and services to public service agencies around the United States and Canada. Their portfolio is primarily focused on systems like products related to ERP, maintenance, taxation, records management, court and public safety products, education, and data management. Their involvement in elections is strictly data management and not involved in the voting process. The vast majority of Tyler systems are locally hosted on government managed systems or cloud-based in the AWS Gov cloud.

But reading Fox's article you would think the integrity of the voting system had been compromised. The reality is as far from the truth as you can get. Tyler got hit with a ransomware attack through their VoIP system that has affected a number of their internal computers. The attack was isolated and did not affect any of their data systems. Again, Fox did not present the facts, and instead took this as an opportunity to yet again cast a cloud over the reliability of the election system. This is yellow journalism at its finest.

First rule of Fight Club? Don't trust a word that comes from Fox News.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

We've had some pretty good trolling going on recently on the board, but I don't take 2Stonedbirds to be a troll. He always comes across as believing what he's saying and at least here so far is not just getting a rise out of messing with people.

I disagree with his views, but his posts in the last page aren't what we should be calling out for trolling.

I like 2Stonedbirds, but he does like to get a rise out of the libs. It's his schtick. Critical thinking is not high on his list, and he doesn't look past what ends up in his social media feed (don't trust social media!). We have great conversations on guns and ammo, and he entertains with some of his hot takes, but he is a true believer and does like to come by to rattle cages when he thinks there is something salacious there, even when there nothing there. Troll? No, not like our current champion BoLevi, but he does enjoy sticking it to the libs.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Not one that you will care for anyways, nypost and a few others are reporting it. Come up in the Senate report from wednesday, possible ties as he was sending money to people with ties to human trafficking, prostitution and the adult industry.

That's the thing......Ron Johnson shouldn't be taken seriously, neither should the NY Post. So the word 'possible' comes up but that's good enough for some on the right to run with it. It's too bad we don't hold certain politicians and media to a higher standard than that.

I do appreciate the response though.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

We've had some pretty good trolling going on recently on the board, but I don't take 2Stonedbirds to be a troll. He always comes across as believing what he's saying and at least here so far is not just getting a rise out of messing with people.

I disagree with his views, but his posts in the last page aren't what we should be calling out for trolling.

Maybe you should look at his past posting history. He is BoLevi's grumpy uncle.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Commentary in this clip around the reckoning Americans now face as a result of many things, but focuses in on Americans in 2016 who decided that Hillary and Trump are cut from the same cloth and decided to either vote for Trump, abstain from voting altogether (because poor Bernie) or write someone in, handing power to Trump.

Yawn, this narrative again. How about instead of blaming the voters, blame the DNC for running a terrible campaign? The "Bernie Bros" were far more loyal to the party than the disaffected Hillary voters were in 2008.

https://www.businessinsider.com/hill...st-2016-2020-1

That year, a YouGov survey showed 24% of respondents who identified as Clinton primary supporters ended up voting for Republican nominee John McCain that November. In 2016, the highest estimates showed 12% of Sanders primary supporters voting for Trump.

It also wasn't the Bernie Bros who decided not to bother targeting the rust belt States.

Biden has lost ground with Latinos and young black voters during this campaign (compared to 2016). Is that somehow the fault of the Bernie Bros, too?

God forbid the Democrats ever look in the mirror and just do an ounce of self-reflection. Much easier to blame Russia and Bernie and just keep trucking along the same path.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by rubecube

How about instead of blaming the voters, blame the DNC for running a terrible campaign?

Why not both?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Why not both?

Because it's like a company blaming the consumer because they can't sell their product. Even if your product is better than the competitor's, the onus is on you as the company to convince the consumer as to why.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Because it's like a company blaming the consumer because they can't sell their product. Even if your product is better than the competitor's, the onus is on you as the company to convince the consumer as to why.

I don't love the analogy but I'll work with it. In this scenario, doesn't the consumer have at least some responsibility to do a little research? Also, you're asking for the DNC to be door-to-door salespeople. I mean, Clinton's platform and Trump's platform were clearly on display for months. Did she really need to knock on doors in Wisconsin to share her message? I guess the answer is yes, but if that's what it took then those people are, frankly, childish idiots worthy of scorn and blame.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Overall I admit I find it fascinating how certain right wingers on here rely heavily on false equivalence.

This is a fair point, but there are a couple of caveats. First, a lot of the left wingers on here try to paint any criticism of anything the Democrats do as false equivalence, by simply immediately saying "both sides, many sides" to just about anything that anyone posts that's even mildly critical. It's possible to say, "the Democrats are also doing the following shady things" without implicitly arguing that those shady things are anywhere near as bad as what the GOP is doing.

Second, it would help if there weren't so many own goals and ammo provided for spin that allows for the "Democrats are just as bad" arguments to be made to people who are motivated to believe that to begin with. Case in point:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncn...yRa7fuQ5D76X2k
Do I think that's the equivalent of Trump's statement about not committing to a peaceful transfer of power? No, because context. But it's still a really dumb thing to put out there. Like I said about that Kap tweet, it's like some of these people are actively trying to hurt Biden's chances.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

I don't love the analogy but I'll work with it. In this scenario, doesn't the consumer have at least some responsibility to do a little research?

I mean you'd hope, but some people just don't care enough/aren't educated enough to do their own research. How many people do you know in your life that buy things just based on brand-recognition?

Also, you're asking for the DNC to be door-to-door salespeople. I mean, Clinton's platform and Trump's platform were clearly on display for months. Did she really need to knock on doors in Wisconsin to share her message? I guess the answer is yes, but if that's what it took then those people are, frankly, childish idiots.

I'm not sure I get your point. They shouldn't be expected to perform one of the most fundamental aspects of campaigning during a campaign?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Because it's like a company blaming the consumer because they can't sell their product. Even if your product is better than the competitor's, the onus is on you as the company to convince the consumer as to why.

Of course its hard to sell your 'product' when half of the company is actually agreeing and aiding the competition and actively telling the consumer 'I work for the company and its product is rubbish, we had a better product but the company didn't choose it and so now I want the company to go bankrupt because I dont have the brains to work out this isnt a childish game'

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Do I think that's the equivalent of Trump's statement about not committing to a peaceful transfer of power? No, because context. But it's still a really dumb thing to put out there. Like I said about that Kap tweet, it's like some of these people are actively trying to hurt Biden's chances.

Another example would be Harris and other Democrats saying they wouldn't take a COVID vaccine if it was released under a Trump administration, which is just an amazingly stupid and irresponsible thing to say.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Of course its hard to sell your 'product' when half of the company is actually agreeing and aiding the competition and actively telling the consumer 'I work for the company and its product is rubbish, we had a better product but the company didn't choose it and so now I want the company to go bankrupt because I dont have the brains to work out this isnt a childish game'

Again, the vast majority of Bernie supporters voted for Hillary, so not sure where this "half" nonsense comes from.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Another example would be Harris and other Democrats saying they wouldn't take a COVID vaccine if it was released under a Trump administration, which is just an amazingly stupid and irresponsible thing to say.

Lol come on Rube, are you saying you'd take Trump's word for it too?

This is what Harris actually says and I'm sure many here would agree:

"I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he's talking about," she continued in the clip from an exclusive interview airing Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union" at 9 a.m. ET. "I will not take his word for it."

'I will not take his word for it': Kamala Harris says she would not trust Trump alone on a coronavirus vaccine


No different than the hydrocloroquinqiuqinq or whatever mess.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Another example would be Harris and other Democrats saying they wouldn't take a COVID vaccine if it was released under a Trump administration, which is just an amazingly stupid and irresponsible thing to say.

It would be if they said that, what they actually said was they wouldnt take a vaccine based only on Trump's word it was safe, and neither would any body with half a brain

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Looch City

Lol come on Rube, are you saying you'd take Trump's word for it too?



This is what Harris actually says and I'm sure many here would agree:





'I will not take his word for it': Kamala Harris says she would not trust Trump alone on a coronavirus vaccine

No, I'm saying I'd take the CDC's and the FDA's word on it though, and that's who it would be coming from. Harris is being totally disingenuous here and undermining confidence in government agencies.

It's not as if she's the only Democrat stoking these fears, either.

North Carolina Democratic Senate candidate Cal Cunningham said Monday during a debate that he would be "hesitant" to take a vaccine for COVID-19 approved by Election Day, leading Republicans nationwide to characterize him and Democrats as "anti-vaxxers."

This is intensely dangerous rhetoric in a time when the anti-vaxx movement could easily undermine the work towards herd immunity.

To Biden's credit, he came out and said he would take the vaccine, but this type of garbage needs to be condemned for what it is.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm not sure I get your point. They shouldn't be expected to perform one of the most fundamental aspects of campaigning during a campaign?

Do you honestly think that the 77,000 people in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania didn't understand the difference between Trump and Clinton after months of national campaigning both in traditional and online media? Or do you think they voted the way they did for different reasons? If Clinton had to campaign harder for Bernie votes by knocking on their door, my guess is that it wouldn't have made a difference. Again, using your sales analogy, in today's market does a company sell its encyclopedia by going door-to-door or do they use another, more effective method? Even so, I suspect that had Clinton had more local ads in those states and a bit more 'ground game' she may have found some more votes but I'm not sure it would have been enough votes. Many people in the rust belt, in particular, are suffering from what amounts to an existential crisis. Trump lied to them and played to their fears to get their votes. Clinton was more honest and less pandering. I suppose she could have lied more but then a whole other segment of left puritans would have brought the knives out.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Again, the vast majority of Bernie supporters voted for Hillary, so not sure where this "half" nonsense comes from.

Rube you are on here constantly complaining about how #### the DNC is, what a #### choice Biden is, and every Bernie supporter I know does the same thing, that undermines anything Biden and the DNC does to gain support, its not just about who you vote for if your sides complaining puts off twice as many moderates from voting